Logging Dual Received?

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
I'm going over my logbook while I'm transferring the numbers to electronic format. It's interesting what you learn about your flying habits when you do this.

One flight was a Demo flight with our local Cirrus rep. He showed me a New (then) SR-22 G3. When the flight was concluded, I didn't ask him to sign my logbook. I already had some strange feelings at the end of the flight and thought it would be too much.

When I logged the flight, I entered the time that I was sole manipulator of the controls. I happen to know that the Cirrus rep is also a Flight Instructor, but I didn't log the time as dual received.

Is there any value in contacting him for a signature 4 years later? Would you add the time as Dual Received in your electronic record? It's non-official anyway.
 
Doesn't sound like a dual situation to me.

He was PIC probably legally, you were sole manipulator. He wasn't giving you flight instruction in it was he? Just demoing the plane and letting you fly it for a bit?

Did you remember to log your time as PIC while up there?
 
I'm assuming you didn't paying anything for this demo flight (not that it would make a difference under 61.51)

Probably something you should have discussed before hand. It's not flight instruction unless the instructor logs it as such. And no, I would go back and try to get the salesman to sign your logbook for dual.

As a matter of policy though, I suspect they don't log the demo flights as dual to discourage folks from hitting them up for free flight time.
 
Caramon13 said:
Doesn't sound like a dual situation to me.

He was PIC probably legally, you were sole manipulator. He wasn't giving you flight instruction in it was he? Just demoing the plane and letting you fly it for a bit?

Did you remember to log your time as PIC while up there?
Click to expand...

It was either me flying or "George" flying. I did abdicate both touchdowns though to him. What is the practical difference between demoing a TAA vs Flight Instruction?
 
Brad Z said:
I'm assuming you didn't paying anything for this demo flight (not that it would make a difference under 61.51)

Probably something you should have discussed before hand. It's not flight instruction unless the instructor logs it as such. And no, I would go back and try to get the salesman to sign your logbook for dual.

As a matter of policy though, I suspect they don't log the demo flights as dual to discourage folks from hitting them up for free flight time.
Click to expand...

I didn't pay anything for the flight directly. I lost a lot of sleep afterward and worked a lot of what-if's to see how to buy the airplane. It was during the bonus tax depreciation time, no way could I have afforded it otherwise and wouldn't have even considered it at that time.

I doubt anyone would hit a sales rep for "free flight time". Any salesman worth his salt would quickly figure if he has any shot at a sale and would find an excuse to not fly. In some cases, I also suspect that some sales were word of mouth to someone that could buy.
 
Jaybird180 said:
It was either me flying or "George" flying. I did abdicate both touchdowns though to him. What is the practical difference between demoing a TAA vs Flight Instruction?
Click to expand...

How it's logged. I think we know the answer.

From a practicality standpoint, if you were expecting to receive flight instruction, the reasonable expectation would be that you'd be paying for the aircraft and the instructor's time. Since you didn't, it was a demo and no instruction was given.

If you really want to get down to it, the difference between the two is liability. When someone provides instruction, they could be held liable for the instruction they provided.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I didn't pay anything for the flight directly. I lost a lot of sleep afterward and worked a lot of what-if's to see how to buy the airplane. It was during the bonus tax depreciation time, no way could I have afforded it otherwise and wouldn't have even considered it at that time.

I doubt anyone would hit a sales rep for "free flight time". Any salesman worth his salt would quickly figure if he has any shot at a sale and would find an excuse to not fly. In some cases, I also suspect that some sales were word of mouth to someone that could buy.
Click to expand...

Talk to an aircraft broker and I suspect they'll beg to differ. There are lots of tire kickers out there. I was not suggesting you are one of them, but there are plenty of folks who shop for planes, with the goal of looking at planes, talking about planes, flying some planes....but definitely not buying planes.
 
Brad Z said:
How it's logged. I think we know the answer.

From a practicality standpoint, if you were expecting to receive flight instruction, the reasonable expectation would be that you'd be paying for the aircraft and the instructor's time. Since you didn't, it was a demo and no instruction was given.

If you really want to get down to it, the difference between the two is liability. When someone provides instruction, they could be held liable for the instruction they provided.
Click to expand...

I don't think that money changing hands is any indication of whether or not it was flight instruction. But I think the OP should have clarified this with the demo pilot either before (best case) or immediately after, not 4 years later. If the demo pilot didn't sign your logbook, or some other piece of paper or electronic logbook, it's not flight instruction.
 
Okay, the question of whether or not to ask him if I run into him later is off the table. I still would like an answer to the question of:

What is the practical difference between demoing a TAA vs Flight Instruction?
Click to expand...
I'd say, there is no difference. And I'd also venture to say that the FAA regs would support that conclusion that demonstration of a TAA like a G3 Perspective Cirrus is flight instruction by definition.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Okay, the question of whether or not to ask him if I run into him later is off the table. I still would like an answer to the question of:


I'd say, there is no difference. And I'd also venture to say that the FAA regs would support that conclusion that demonstration of a TAA like a G3 Perspective Cirrus is flight instruction by definition.
Click to expand...
I would say there is a difference because you don't need to be a current CFI to be a demo pilot. It would be like if you (assuming you are not a CFI) were showing off your airplane to someone else who had never flown one before. You can let them fly it without being a CFI.
 
Everskyward said:
I would say there is a difference because you don't need to be a current CFI to be a demo pilot. It would be like if you (assuming you are not a CFI) were showing off your airplane to someone else who had never flown one before. You can let them fly it without being a CFI.
Click to expand...

I understand your example. Thank you.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Okay, the question of whether or not to ask him if I run into him later is off the table. I still would like an answer to the question of:


I'd say, there is no difference. And I'd also venture to say that the FAA regs would support that conclusion that demonstration of a TAA like a G3 Perspective Cirrus is flight instruction by definition.
Click to expand...

James, can you cite a chief council interpretation where demonstration is considered flight instruction? You won't, because demonstration is not the same as instruction. As a matter of fact, 14 CFR 61.113(f) explicitly allows a private pilot who is a salesman to demonstrate an aircraft for compensation from his or her employer. Clearly the FAA considers demonstration not the same thing as instruction.

At the end of the day, whether or not it's instruction comes down to whether or not the CFI is exercising his flight instructor priviledges. In order for instruction to take place, the details of the training must be documented. See 61.51(h). It seems as if the salesman exercised his private pilot priviledges to conduct the demo.

In your scenario, the question is more like "what's the difference between taking a college class for credit, or merely auditing the course?"
 
To give another example, someone who is not a CFI can teach you how to fly, in the practical sense, they just can't sign you off for solo, your checkride, or anything else.
 
I think it's about time for me to get my IR Brad. Last 2 entries in my logbook were as Safety Pilot. I'd like to do it in my own airplane, but....(sigh). How's the work schedule?
 
Just log the sole manipulator time and forget the rest, seems like a lot of work just to get some dual.
 
There's also the questions of whether the aircraft had a current 100 hour inspection and whether it was insured for flight instruction.
 
Witmo said:
There's also the questions of whether the aircraft had a current 100 hour inspection and whether it was insured for flight instruction.
Click to expand...

What does insurance have to do with anything, also as a new plane I highly doubt it flys over 100hrs between annuals.

I'd wager a beer he's solid logging sole manipulator and just forget the rest.
 
I wouldn't worry about it. It happened 4 years ago. No big deal if you lose out on an hour of dual received.
 
James331 said:
What does insurance have to do with anything, also as a new plane I highly doubt it flys over 100hrs between annuals.

I'd wager a beer he's solid logging sole manipulator and just forget the rest.
Click to expand...

I never said he wasn't solid logging PIC time. My comment addresses why a demo pilot who is a CFI might not want to automatically sign logbooks indicating he provided instruction while giving a demo flight. I don't believe aircraft used for demo purposes to prospective buyers require 100 hour inspections. If a CFI were to demo an aircraft more than 100 hours after the annual, he could get into trouble with the FAA for signing he gave dual instruction. Some popular models get lots of hours going from airshow to airshow and giving lots of demos so its not unrealistic to think it could be over 100 hours past annual at some point of the year. If a demo aircraft were to get into an accident while the demo pilot were providing dual instruction, you don't think the insurance company might balk at covering the loss if coverage for accidents during the course of instruction wasn't purchased? Just my thoughts on why a demo pilot might not want to sign a logbook certifying dual instruction was given on a demo flight.
 
Been in a similar situation. If he didn't ask for my logbook so he could sign it, it is going in as PIC(assuming I am rated, current, etc.) and I am not gonna ask him to sign it off. To me, PIC > dual. Had a pilot for a company come show me the ropes when I did aerial survey for a bit. He wanted to sign my logbook as dual so we could both log PIC. I'm fine with that(he didn't charge me anything) since he is trying to go to the airlines and every little bit helps him out and I could still log it as PIC.
 
Last edited:
If an instructor won't sign your logbook as instruction given, it's not dual received.

PIC time has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's also logged as dual instruction.

As for Gucci: The FAA strung up a couple of CFIs a while back for cross logging dual/pic time like that when it was pretty much determined to be the same sham you're perpetrating (logging time but no real instruction given).
There's been a couple of other cases where the FAA has had issues with instructors "not giving instruction" as well so it's not isolated.
 
flyingron said:
If an instructor won't sign your logbook as instruction given, it's not dual received.

PIC time has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's also logged as dual instruction.

As for Gucci: The FAA strung up a couple of CFIs a while back for cross logging dual/pic time like that when it was pretty much determined to be the same sham you're perpetrating (logging time but no real instruction given).
Click to expand...
That was over an extended period of time in which the two pilots were apparently doing nothing other than giving each other dual. An extreme case with an extreme result.

There's been a couple of other cases where the FAA has had issues with instructors "not giving instruction" as well so it's not isolated.
Click to expand...
No doubt most of those also involved extended "fake" dual, like the two CFIs, pencil whipping student qualifications, where "instruction" is a sham and it's really transportation or similar extremes, not Gucci's "Had a pilot for a company come show me the ropes when I did aerial survey" which, offhand, sounds like instruction in aerial survey procedures to me.

As with 61.113 shared expense issues, it's possible to read the FAA interpretations and the NTSB cases and get unnecessarily paranoid about things.
 
Also, doesn't signing off on flight instruction incur some level of liability, even if it is very small?
 
Sac Arrow said:
Also, doesn't signing off on flight instruction incur some level of liability, even if it is very small?
Click to expand...
Sure. Very small. Chances are the folks who actively avoid being instructors at all due to liability concerns are among the very few who would even worry about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top