poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Just ran into this today -- my instrument trainee completed his long IFR XC with a local CFI-IA before he hired PIC. When I checked his log today (48 hours prior to the practical test -- should have done this on Day 1), the only things in the remarks for the flight are ""40N-RDG-MIV-ESN-40N, 2 GPS, 1 ILS, 1 VOR" and the instructor's signature. The point-to-point round-robin distance for that route adds up to only 226nm, although if you use the airways that DUATS gives you with the Low Altitude Auto-router, you get 257nm. How many miles did they really fly? Nobody knows for sure, there's no way to tell based on the log entry (which doesn't even meet 14 CFR 61.51 standards since it doesn't tell which approach was done where), and the instructor failed to refer to the regulation for which this flight is flown (14 CFR 61.51(d)(2)(iii)) when he signed the log entry (and of course he is out of town and unreachable).
I'm not enthustiastic about reflying the long XC (that would essentially waste a training day, cost the trainee about $1000 for a day of my time/expenses and 3+ hours of flying, and put off the practical test another 24 hours), but absent an appropriate log entry or demonstrable distance of over 250nm between the airports, how do we prove the flight covered "A distance of at least 250 nautical miles along airways or ATC-directed routing "? Will the DPE accept the applicant's word that his flight went the extra 24nm? Gonna find out...
...and just spoke to the examiner. I asked how he measures the mileage, and he asked why. I said, "Well, if you go on DUATS and check the round-robin mileage for the airports logged using the IFR auto-router, it comes to 257nm, but..." and he interrupted me and said, "STOP. I'll see you and your trainee on Monday." WHEW!
In any event, since the regs do not specifically address this issue, it's never been addressed by the FAA Counsels, and there's no hint of AFS-800's thinking on paper anywhere, my suggestion to all IR trainees and instructors is either to make sure the straight line distances between the airports visited adds up to 250nm, or for the instructor to specifically say in the remarks line that the flight meets the requirements of 14 CFR 61.51(d)(2)(iii) (I do that regardless). If you do neither, the examiner may refuse to accept the flight as meeting those requirements (and thus the applicant fails to meet the aeronautical experience requirements for the rating), and that could end the practical test before it starts.
And before anyone says, "Well, the pilot's signature is certification of the accuracy of what's in the logbook," it ain't always so. An examiner told me how he rejected an application for an IR since the instrument training flights all had the same total time and simulated instrument time and there was only 40.0 hours of instrument time total. Were they taxiing around, taking off, and landing with the hood on? I don't think so, and the examiner said he suggested the trainee revise the log before the FAA saw it. Another time a trainee submitted a log for an ATP with 1600 hours total time and 1500 hours of actual instrument time all flown in the fair-weather Caribbean and logged as "day" time -- "But it was all flown under IFR!" Not.
I'm not enthustiastic about reflying the long XC (that would essentially waste a training day, cost the trainee about $1000 for a day of my time/expenses and 3+ hours of flying, and put off the practical test another 24 hours), but absent an appropriate log entry or demonstrable distance of over 250nm between the airports, how do we prove the flight covered "A distance of at least 250 nautical miles along airways or ATC-directed routing "? Will the DPE accept the applicant's word that his flight went the extra 24nm? Gonna find out...
...and just spoke to the examiner. I asked how he measures the mileage, and he asked why. I said, "Well, if you go on DUATS and check the round-robin mileage for the airports logged using the IFR auto-router, it comes to 257nm, but..." and he interrupted me and said, "STOP. I'll see you and your trainee on Monday." WHEW!
In any event, since the regs do not specifically address this issue, it's never been addressed by the FAA Counsels, and there's no hint of AFS-800's thinking on paper anywhere, my suggestion to all IR trainees and instructors is either to make sure the straight line distances between the airports visited adds up to 250nm, or for the instructor to specifically say in the remarks line that the flight meets the requirements of 14 CFR 61.51(d)(2)(iii) (I do that regardless). If you do neither, the examiner may refuse to accept the flight as meeting those requirements (and thus the applicant fails to meet the aeronautical experience requirements for the rating), and that could end the practical test before it starts.
And before anyone says, "Well, the pilot's signature is certification of the accuracy of what's in the logbook," it ain't always so. An examiner told me how he rejected an application for an IR since the instrument training flights all had the same total time and simulated instrument time and there was only 40.0 hours of instrument time total. Were they taxiing around, taking off, and landing with the hood on? I don't think so, and the examiner said he suggested the trainee revise the log before the FAA saw it. Another time a trainee submitted a log for an ATP with 1600 hours total time and 1500 hours of actual instrument time all flown in the fair-weather Caribbean and logged as "day" time -- "But it was all flown under IFR!" Not.
