I inadvertently violated 61.195a (CFI duty limitations)

U

Unregistered

Guest
I've been a CFI for about 3 years now. In that time, I have never once had to consider the possibility of violating the rule of "no more than 8 hours of instruction in a 24-hour period" contained in 61.195a. That's not a hard rule to follow if you're flying 1.0-1.5 hour lessons, and even a long day is only 4 or 5 hours of actual flight instruction.

Well, last weekend I flew on a long training flight with an individual who was trying to build time, knock out some XC requirements, fly a few approaches for IFR currency stuff, etc. We ended up flying all day (with multiple stops for lunch and fuel and such), putting over 9 hours on the Hobbs.

It didn't occur to me until today when I was looking in 61.195 for something else that I had violated this rule. It's one of those things that I learned about when training to become a CFI but since it had never been a concern, didn't stand out in the front of my mind.

Well, it's already in the logbook. I suppose I have no choice but to "go forth and sin no more", but if anyone were to look through my logbook (for example when I go for my ATP here fairly soon), a single entry of dual given of over 9 hours sure can stand out, and is black-and-white (green?) evidence of a clear violation.

I suppose if it comes up, I just admit that I made a mistake and now it's fresh in my mind to not let that happen again. Anything else I can or should do? It will be a few pages back by the time anybody should have to look at my logbook.
 
NASA report, don't do it again.

I highly doubt anyone is going to notice, shy of it being the last entry in your log before your ATP or something.

It'll be buried by your other flights and will probably never be looked at. If a DPE really analyzed every hour and every flight making up 1500hrs he'd be head down in your log(s) all day.
 
Like you said -- "Go forth, and sin no more." And if the FAA ever notices, let the first words out of your mouth be, "Yes, sir, I screwed up, and I'm making sure it never happens again." I don't think I've ever met an FAA Inspector who'd make a major issue of this after that for someone with an otherwise clean record.
 
Chances are, no one will ever see it. If for some reason it ever comes up, explain it just like you did here, it'll be fine. As you said, it's already in the log. The absolute worst thing you could do is alter the log.
 
Agree with Ron on this one.

Also, for future reference although I know it was not the case this time, remember that it's 8 hours in a 24-hour period. This can get confusing if it happens between two days.

For example, if you start instructing at 3 pm on Monday and give 4 hours of flight instruction then go home to sleep, you can only give 4 more hours of flight instruction before 3 pm on Tuesday.
 
Everskyward said:
Agree with Ron on this one.

Also, for future reference although I know it was not the case this time, remember that it's 8 hours in a 24-hour period. This can get confusing if it happens between two days.

For example, if you start instructing at 3 pm on Monday and give 4 hours of flight instruction then go home to sleep, you can only give 4 more hours of flight instruction before 3 pm on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

I never log the start and stop times of my flights. Also don't forget to use the zulu offset to your advantage documentation wise ;)
 
Unregistered said:
... violating the rule of "no more than 8 hours of instruction in a 24-hour period" contained in 61.195a. ... over 9 hours on the Hobbs.
Click to expand...

Actually, the FAR says "In any 24-consecutive-hour period, a flight instructor may not conduct more than 8 hours of flight training."

Start-up, taxi, run-up, all those things use time on the Hobbs. Should they actually count against you for "flight" training? If not, is there anything to be concerned about here, considering that nine hours on the hobbs is probably less than 8 hours of flight?
 
Ron Levy said:
Like you said -- "Go forth, and sin no more." And if the FAA ever notices, let the first words out of your mouth be, "Yes, sir, I screwed up, and I'm making sure it never happens again." I don't think I've ever met an FAA Inspector who'd make a major issue of this after that for someone with an otherwise clean record.
Click to expand...

+ a NASA Report
 
EdFred said:
Also don't forget to use the zulu offset to your advantage documentation wise ;)
Click to expand...
How can "the zulu offset" make a difference on this issue? It says "24-consecutive-hour period", not calendar day.
ec. 61.195

Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.

A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the following limitations:
(a) Hours of training. In any 24-consecutive-hour period, a flight instructor may not conduct more than 8 hours of flight training.
Click to expand...
 
NoHeat said:
Actually, the FAR says "In any 24-consecutive-hour period, a flight instructor may not conduct more than 8 hours of flight training."

Start-up, taxi, run-up, all those things use time on the Hobbs. Should they actually count against you for "flight" training? If not, is there anything to be concerned about here, considering that nine hours on the hobbs is probably less than 8 hours of flight?
Click to expand...
What you log for flight training is flight time. Flight time "commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing", so taxi and run-up time count. You could certainly log less "flight training" time than the Hobbs time by not starting your "flight time" clock until you pull out of the chocks and stopping it when you pull into the parking space, but then you couldn't log that extra time even though you paid for it.
 
Ron Levy said:
How can "the zulu offset" make a difference on this issue? It says "24-consecutive-hour period", not calendar day.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't show up in the log book as such, so the documentation couldn't be used against you.

Say you did 5 hours of flight training in the pacific time zone during daylight hours starting around 11am. 1800z - 2300z. You debrief, and your next student shows up to do the the long IFR XC and that's going to take at least 4 hours. You depart at 6pm local. 0100z. Put it in the log book as the zulu date rather than the local date.

You don't happen to have any flights scheduled for the next day, so if someone is going through your logbook they won't discover the 9 hours of flight training in one day.

Metars/tafs/efc's are all zulu, why not the log books?
 
Yes, I'm sure your average ASI has time to worry about a CFI going over an 8 hour limit and especially wanting to take the time to do an EIR on him.......:rolleyes2:

messy-office_zpsqfeimkda.jpg
 
A different angle to the question. Said student presents his/her log book for the check ride and the DPE see this training entry in the book signed by said CFI, now what?
 
EppyGA said:
A different angle to the question. Said student presents his/her log book for the check ride and the DPE see this training entry in the book signed by said CFI, now what?
Click to expand...


Well, I'd imagine nothing for the student, presuming the DPE even catches it, which ain't likely.

It would also be counter productive for the DPE to report it to the FSDO, as it would be very unlikely any CFI or flight school would use that DPE again.
 
EdFred said:
It wouldn't show up in the log book as such, so the documentation couldn't be used against you.

Say you did 5 hours of flight training in the pacific time zone during daylight hours starting around 11am. 1800z - 2300z. You debrief, and your next student shows up to do the the long IFR XC and that's going to take at least 4 hours. You depart at 6pm local. 0100z. Put it in the log book as the zulu date rather than the local date.

You don't happen to have any flights scheduled for the next day, so if someone is going through your logbook they won't discover the 9 hours of flight training in one day.

Metars/tafs/efc's are all zulu, why not the log books?
Click to expand...

So you're advocating lying in your log book? I think I must have misunderstood what you're saying.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Yes, I'm sure your average ASI has time to worry about a CFI going over an 8 hour limit and especially wanting to take the time to do an EIR on him.......:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Too bad we don't have a "Like" button. Love the photo. I've seen desks just like that. Might use the photo for one of my presentations if it's OK with you.

We tend to think the FAA is out there solely to look for transgressions. I'm sure some folks here would be astounded at the number of times reported transgressions result in no action or administrative alternatives to enforcement, even on things where I'm sure a bunch here would say, "the pilot is soooo screwed!"

I guess the CFI duty limits might become an issue if there were, for example, a reported incident in which fatigue was a factor but, like others, I just don't see the FAA getting all excited about a one-time error with no consequences.
 
Another lesson: Not everything needs to be logged as "instruction" either. Going up with someone and flying some approaches etc. doesn't need to be "instruction", it can just be safety pilot.
 
Did you instruct for multie hours on the prior or post days? If not who says when the 24 hour shot clock starts?
 
Unregistered said:
I've been a CFI for about 3 years now. In that time, I have never once had to consider the possibility of violating the rule of "no more than 8 hours of instruction in a 24-hour period" contained in 61.195a. That's not a hard rule to follow if you're flying 1.0-1.5 hour lessons, and even a long day is only 4 or 5 hours of actual flight instruction.

Well, last weekend I flew on a long training flight with an individual who was trying to build time, knock out some XC requirements, fly a few approaches for IFR currency stuff, etc. We ended up flying all day (with multiple stops for lunch and fuel and such), putting over 9 hours on the Hobbs.

It didn't occur to me until today when I was looking in 61.195 for something else that I had violated this rule. It's one of those things that I learned about when training to become a CFI but since it had never been a concern, didn't stand out in the front of my mind.

Well, it's already in the logbook. I suppose I have no choice but to "go forth and sin no more", but if anyone were to look through my logbook (for example when I go for my ATP here fairly soon), a single entry of dual given of over 9 hours sure can stand out, and is black-and-white (green?) evidence of a clear violation.

I suppose if it comes up, I just admit that I made a mistake and now it's fresh in my mind to not let that happen again. Anything else I can or should do? It will be a few pages back by the time anybody should have to look at my logbook.
Click to expand...

Serious question and not trying to bend the regs, but... couldn't 61.195a be read to mean "At 8 hours the dual instruction stops. Anything beyond that cannot be logged as dual"? I mean, that sucks for your student but... is it really a busted reg on your part or just that you ended up taking your student out for an hour+ longer than you can legally log as dual for them?
 
bflynn said:
So you're advocating lying in your log book? I think I must have misunderstood what you're saying.
Click to expand...

How is it lying?

Do the regs say log the date as local or zulu?

What would be the difference in the logbook between what I suggested if I gave flight training from 1300 local until 1700 local, and then gave flight training from 0800 local the next day until 1300 local.

It would show as 4 hours worked one day, and 5 hours the next. Still a 8 in 24 violation, and that's not "lying" in your logbook, either.
 
mjburian said:
Serious question and not trying to bend the regs, but... couldn't 61.195a be read to mean "At 8 hours the dual instruction stops. Anything beyond that cannot be logged as dual"? I mean, that sucks for your student but... is it really a busted reg on your part or just that you ended up taking your student out for an hour+ longer than you can legally log as dual for them?
Click to expand...
Answering it seriously, I don't think so. At least not fairly. Two reasons.

61.195 is similar in its wording to a bunch of Part 135 and 121 regulations that deal with duty time limitations. And the fact that it is in 61.195 and not 61.51 indicates it is an limitation on what instructors are permitted to do (an activity reg) and not a logging reg.
 
EdFred said:
How is it lying?

Do the regs say log the date as local or zulu?

What would be the difference in the logbook between what I suggested if I gave flight training from 1300 local until 1700 local, and then gave flight training from 0800 local the next day until 1300 local.

It would show as 4 hours worked one day, and 5 hours the next. Still a 8 in 24 violation, and that's not "lying" in your logbook, either.
Click to expand...
Oh. So you're doing this just to make it harder to discover. No one's going to discover an 8 in 24 violation spread over two days anyway. I just mentioned it to the OP because it's something that's easy for the CFI to overlook. This comes up occasionally for us, only for us it's 10 in 24. If you do most of your flying toward the end of your duty period then have a short rest period you can exceed it the next "day". Our times are logged by the company even if we don't log them in our own logbook, and they do it in Mountain Time (the time zone no one thinks about), no matter where we are.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
Oh. So you're doing this just to make it harder to discover. No one's going to discover an 8 in 24 violation spread over two days anyway. I just mentioned it to the OP because it's something that easy for the CFI to overlook. This comes up occasionally for us, only for us it's 10 in 24. If you do most of your flying toward the end of your duty period then have a short rest period you can exceed it the next "day". Our times are logged by the company even if we don't log them in our own logbook, and they do it in Mountain Time (the time zone no one thinks about), no matter where we are.
Click to expand...

Yes. Though it does raise of the question of what date should we use in our logbook.
 
EdFred said:
How is it lying?

Do the regs say log the date as local or zulu?

What would be the difference in the logbook between what I suggested if I gave flight training from 1300 local until 1700 local, and then gave flight training from 0800 local the next day until 1300 local.

It would show as 4 hours worked one day, and 5 hours the next. Still a 8 in 24 violation, and that's not "lying" in your logbook, either.
Click to expand...

As I said, I must have misunderstood you. Since always logging in zulu would have no impact on - because you'd get up the next morning and continue your instruction on the same day - I was thinking you were suggesting that it would be clever to switch back and forth between local time and zulu time so someone could hide a violation.

Tell me - if you got a call from the FSDO about this post, would you be at all nervous about how that would play out?
 
EdFred said:
Yes. Though it does raise of the question of what date should we use in our logbook.
Click to expand...

I think Zulu or local is fine, but it should be consistent. A change from local to Z, or vice versa, for two days in the middle would be masking the issue.
 
If he didn't flight instruct(much) the day before or after he is fine.
 
Unregistered said:
I've been a CFI for about 3 years now. In that time, I have never once had to consider the possibility of violating the rule of "no more than 8 hours of instruction in a 24-hour period" contained in 61.195a. That's not a hard rule to follow if you're flying 1.0-1.5 hour lessons, and even a long day is only 4 or 5 hours of actual flight instruction.

Well, last weekend I flew on a long training flight with an individual who was trying to build time, knock out some XC requirements, fly a few approaches for IFR currency stuff, etc. We ended up flying all day (with multiple stops for lunch and fuel and such), putting over 9 hours on the Hobbs.

It didn't occur to me until today when I was looking in 61.195 for something else that I had violated this rule. It's one of those things that I learned about when training to become a CFI but since it had never been a concern, didn't stand out in the front of my mind.

Well, it's already in the logbook. I suppose I have no choice but to "go forth and sin no more", but if anyone were to look through my logbook (for example when I go for my ATP here fairly soon), a single entry of dual given of over 9 hours sure can stand out, and is black-and-white (green?) evidence of a clear violation.

I suppose if it comes up, I just admit that I made a mistake and now it's fresh in my mind to not let that happen again. Anything else I can or should do? It will be a few pages back by the time anybody should have to look at my logbook.
Click to expand...

So as I understand it you just logged it incorrectly. By regulation you stopped instructing at 8 Hours and were simply acting as a Safety Pilot after that.

Brian
 
brcase said:
So as I understand it you just logged it incorrectly. By regulation you stopped instructing at 8 Hours and were simply acting as a Safety Pilot after that.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was thinking. Though, midlifeflyer makes a good point against it:

midlifeflyer said:
Answering it seriously, I don't think so. At least not fairly. Two reasons.

61.195 is similar in its wording to a bunch of Part 135 and 121 regulations that deal with duty time limitations. And the fact that it is in 61.195 and not 61.51 indicates it is an limitation on what instructors are permitted to do (an activity reg) and not a logging reg.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the insight as that's not how I read/understood that regulation. Luckily(?), I'm not yet to the point of having that particular reg apply to me. Yet. :wink2:
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm not sure this sort of violation qualifies for waiver of sanction via an ASRS report, but it can't hurt.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be? If it's filed in a timely manner, isn't criminal, no booze or drugs involved, and he clearly states it was an inadvertent mistake.
 
brcase said:
So as I understand it you just logged it incorrectly. By regulation you stopped instructing at 8 Hours and were simply acting as a Safety Pilot after that.
Brian
Click to expand...
If we are going to be paranoid about it, violation of duty time limitations is one of the areas where the general rule we talk about often, "if it wasn't logged, it didn't happen" doesn't necessarily apply. My guess is, if a situation arose in which the FAA gave a crap about an instructor exceeding time limits, the "oh, I was only a safety pilot after 8 hours" might not get too far OTOH, it might; one never knows."

When I was in my first year of law school, one of the guys in my class came up with what he referred to as the "Bull*** Doctrine." "You can make all the arguments and cite all the law and cases you want, but at some point the judge will raise his had and say, 'Bull***! You lose."

He flunked out - unfortunately the doctrine was the only thing he knew :D) but the doctrine lived on and I saw it in action many times.
 
Kritchlow said:
Why wouldn't it be? If it's filed in a timely manner, isn't criminal, no booze or drugs involved, and he clearly states it was an inadvertent mistake.
Click to expand...

From AC 00-46E

==============================
This advisory circular (AC) describes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Reporting Program (ASRP) which utilizes the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a third party to receive and process Aviation Safety Reports. This cooperative safety reporting program invites pilots, controllers, Flight Attendants (F/A), maintenance personnel, dispatchers, and other users of the National Airspace System (NAS), or any other person, to report to NASA actual or potential discrepancies and deficiencies involving the safety of aviation operations. The operations covered by the program include departure, en route, approach, and landing operations and procedures; air traffic control (ATC) procedures and equipment; crew and ATC communications; aircraft cabin operations; aircraft movement on the airport; near midair collisions (NMAC); aircraft maintenance and recordkeeping; and airport conditions or services.
==============================

I think Ron is saying that this is not an operational issue. Maybe. Maybe not. :dunno: I do know that the ASRS database does contain duty time violation reports; whether there are any cases in which its usability as a defense to suspension was discusseed, is something I have never looked it. But I don;t really see why not, duty time violations being, after all, a safety of flight issue.
 
EdFred said:
It wouldn't show up in the log book as such, so the documentation couldn't be used against you.

Say you did 5 hours of flight training in the pacific time zone during daylight hours starting around 11am. 1800z - 2300z. You debrief, and your next student shows up to do the the long IFR XC and that's going to take at least 4 hours. You depart at 6pm local. 0100z. Put it in the log book as the zulu date rather than the local date.

You don't happen to have any flights scheduled for the next day, so if someone is going through your logbook they won't discover the 9 hours of flight training in one day.

Metars/tafs/efc's are all zulu, why not the log books?
Click to expand...
If you're going to mix Zulu and local to try to pull the wool over the FAA's eyes, you're on your own. That's certainly not something I'd be recommending to anyone.
 
EdFred said:
How is it lying?

Do the regs say log the date as local or zulu?

What would be the difference in the logbook between what I suggested if I gave flight training from 1300 local until 1700 local, and then gave flight training from 0800 local the next day until 1300 local.
Click to expand...
The reg says "any 24-consecutive-hour period", not "any day" or "one day". As such, your idea is pointless -- it will all be converted to a single standard time frame for that analysis.
 
midlifeflyer said:
When I was in my first year of law school, one of the guys in my class came up with what he referred to as the "Bull*** Doctrine." "You can make all the arguments and cite all the law and cases you want, but at some point the judge will raise his had and say, 'Bull***! You lose."
Click to expand...
Actually, I think what the judge will say is, "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection, Mr. Gambini. Overruled." :rofl:
 
Ron Levy said:
The reg says "any 24-consecutive-hour period", not "any day" or "one day". As such, your idea is pointless -- it will all be converted to a single standard time frame for that analysis.
Click to expand...

And by looking at my logbook how would anyone know I violated the 8/24? There are no times written down.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top