Illegal charter vs Student instruction

[flyingron]

Disclaimer: I never checked to make sure my dad was a US citizen or marked in his logbook, since I knew where my dad was born, and his parents, and his grand parents...

Hey TSA, gfy.

As long as you don't call it instruction (particularly in YOUR log book), you don't have to touch his.

As long as you're not training him for an initial certificate or to add a rating, you don't need to concern yourself with the TSA.

Profanity (even obscured) doesn't improve things.

 

[MauleSkinner]

As long as you don't call it instruction (particularly in YOUR log book), you don't have to touch his.

I disagree with the parenthetical portion of this...the TSA requirements refer to giving flight instruction, not logging flight instructor time.

 

[Stets656]

There’s no requirement that legitimate instruction be toward a certificate or rating. The FAA actually encourages proficiency training.

I’d say it’s more like babysitting.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I’d say it’s more like babysitting.

Depends on the trainee.

 

[flyingron]

I disagree with the parenthetical portion of this...the TSA requirements refer to giving flight instruction, not logging flight instructor time.

Correct. But if the student doesn't actually have a log book, where's the FAA gonna look?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Correct. But if the student doesn't actually have a log book, where's the FAA gonna look?

As always, documentation is the only thing the FAA or TSA can look at, and if it isn’t documented, they (generally) consider it not to have happened. But documentation (or lack thereof) is either truthful or deceitful, and what you (Or I) do when no one is looking does matter, IMO.

 

[Lindberg]

How about a Private pilot who wants to bring a CFI for additional safety, maybe he’s flying night, IMC, difficult airspace, or has family members on board. Would you think is CFI ok to log that as dual or does that need to be towards a rating/license?

If the private pilot can legally act as PIC and does so, the CFI can just be a passenger.

 

[smv]

No. That's on Maui. This one on Kauai.

You did say Kauai, didn't you?

 

[Stets656]

If the private pilot can legally act as PIC and does so, the CFI can just be a passenger.

The PPL can say they’re PIC all they want, they can even be sole manipulator but we all know who’s actually PIC.

 

[Lindberg]

The PPL can say they’re PIC all they want, they can even be sole manipulator but we all know who’s actually PIC.

We do?

 

[Geosync]

As other have mentioned, it's like driving buzzed. No one will know until you careen into a ditch, get ratted out, get pulled over, or hit somebody. If and when that point comes, you got trouble. If NTSB gets involved, FAA will have to punish you.

If you injure a paying passenger when you shouldn't have been carrying passengers, your insurance coverge is declined and you'll be giving up your personal property to settle lawsuits. Some people get away with illegal ops for a long time, others not so much.

 

[flyingron]

We do?

For the purposes of enforcement actions. The FAA has a policy of going after whomever they can harm the most. Usually, that's the working pilot (the instructor). It might be different if someone like an airline pilot was in the left seat.

 

[Doc Holliday]

For the purposes of enforcement actions. The FAA has a policy of going after whomever they can harm the most. Usually, that's the working pilot (the instructor). It might be different if someone like an airline pilot was in the left seat.

Can you please cite where that "policy" is written?

 

[flyingron]

Can you please cite where that "policy" is written?

Just my observation over the years. Where do you see a policy that the CFI will be considered the pilot in command other than history.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Just my observation over the years.

Your observation does not constitute a policy of a government agency.

Where do you see a policy that the CFI will be considered the pilot in command other than history.

Not germane to the question I asked.

 

[flyingron]

Substitute "history" for "policy" if you like, then.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just my observation over the years. Where do you see a policy that the CFI will be considered the pilot in command other than history.

The policy of holding a CFI giving instruction to PIC-level responsibility is explicitly stated in NTSB decisions, including one where they did not hold the CFI responsible.

OTOH, "policy" doesn't have to be written down to be policy.

 

[Sluggo63]

For the purposes of enforcement actions. The FAA has a policy of going after whomever they can harm the most. Usually, that's the working pilot (the instructor). It might be different if someone like an airline pilot was in the left seat.

Instrument checkride and the student busts an altitude and causes a loss of separation. ATC wants to file a violation. Who are they coming after?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Substitute "history" for "policy" if you like, then.

With even that, I seriously doubt you know the full history.

Substitute history with "jaded opinion".

 

[kath]

Instrument checkride and the student busts an altitude and causes a loss of separation. ATC wants to file a violation. Who are they coming after?

We'll, if an instrument checkride is going to take place under IFR, then the examiner must file (candidate is not rated yet) and therefore must be acting PIC for the flight.

A private checkride (with the candidate as PIC) would make for a juicier debate. Proceed!

 

[smv]

We'll, if an instrument checkride is going to take place under IFR, then the examiner must file (candidate is not rated yet) and therefore must be acting PIC for the flight.

A private checkride (with the candidate as PIC) would make for a juicier debate. Proceed!

How about during a pop-up clearance for an actual approach during an IPC?

ETA: Keeping in mind that one does not need to be non-current to be getting an IPC. Could be an employment, rental, or club checkout.

 

[Sluggo63]

We'll, if an instrument checkride is going to take place under IFR, then the examiner must file (candidate is not rated yet) and therefore must be acting PIC for the flight.

A private checkride (with the candidate as PIC) would make for a juicier debate. Proceed!

I don't know. The FAA is pretty clear that a DPE is not the PIC during a practical test.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I don't know. The FAA is pretty clear that a DPE should not be the PIC during a practical test.

View attachment 87246

FIFY

 

[Sluggo63]

FIFY

The first sentence I highlighted literally says "The designee is not PIC of the aircraft during a practical test ... "

 

[EdFred]

As long as you don't call it instruction (particularly in YOUR log book), you don't have to touch his.

As long as you're not training him for an initial certificate or to add a rating, you don't need to concern yourself with the TSA.

Profanity (even obscured) doesn't improve things.

Start to finish. 0 time to private. TSA can stiil go **** itself for not using common sense.

 

[kath]

I don't know. The FAA is pretty clear that a DPE is not the PIC during a practical test.

Right, most of the time:
61.47(b) The examiner is not the pilot in command of the aircraft during the practical test unless the examiner agrees to act in that capacity for the flight or for a portion of the flight by prior arrangement...

But my point was that the most common time the examiner would make this "arrangement" with a candidate, is if he or she wants to do an instrument practical test *under IFR*, in which case the candidate can't file the IFR flight plan and the examiner is the one who has to do it.
Pretty much every *other* time than this, the candidate is the PIC.

Regretting bringing up minutiae. Carry on.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The first sentence I highlighted literally says "The designee is not PIC of the aircraft during a practical test ... "

FIFY


.
An examiner who agrees to do an instrument checkride under IFR is agreeing to be PIC for that flight.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There's an interesting fallacy underlying a lot of the "who will they go after..." questions. The fallacy is that the FAA can only go after one of them. In a multi-pilot crew with a deviation or incident, there usually enough to go around. Personally, I really haven't seen much in the way of, "let's get the guy with the highest ratings." I have definitely seen, "let see what happened here and who was in a position to prevent it." It might be one. It might be more than one.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The first sentence I highlighted literally says "The designee is not PIC of the aircraft during a practical test ... "

And literally continues “...unless...“, which literally means he can act as PIC during the practical test.

literally.

 

[Sluggo63]

Right, most of the time:
61.47(b) The examiner is not the pilot in command of the aircraft during the practical test unless the examiner agrees to act in that capacity for the flight or for a portion of the flight by prior arrangement...

But my point was that the most common time the examiner would make this "arrangement" with a candidate, is if he or she wants to do an instrument practical test *under IFR*, in which case the candidate can't file the IFR flight plan and the examiner is the one who has to do it.
Pretty much every *other* time than this, the candidate is the PIC.

Regretting bringing up minutiae. Carry on.

FIFY

View attachment 87248
.
An examiner who agrees to do an instrument checkride under IFR is agreeing to be PIC for that flight.

And literally continues “...unless...“, which literally means he can act as PIC during the practical test.

literally.

Point taken, everyone. I see what you're saying. I should have used a Commerical checkride.

Regretting bringing up minutiae.

Me too...

 

[flyingron]

The FAA discourages examiners from being PIC, but it isn't forbidden. The DPE is given special dispensation from being counted as a passenger during the private checkride. The student is acting on his student pilot authority as endorsed by the instructor (usually).

 

[PPC1052]

since I knew where my dad was born, and his parents, and his grand parents...

Objection. Hearsay. Lack of foundation.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Start to finish. 0 time to private. TSA can stiil go **** itself for not using common sense.

Nothing about the TSA or its regulations de jour make any real sense.

 

[EdFred]

Nothing about the TSA or its regulations de jour make any real sense.

Which is why I choose to ignore a number of them.