Multi time

tmason90 said:
Hey everyone,

I'm not sure if this is the correct sub forum, but I am in the Houston area and am looking for someone to split some multi time with. I have access to a Piper Aztec for $100/hr wet. Thanks
Click to expand...

If that aircraft tail number is N4030P, and based out of La Porte, I'd run, not walk, away from it. And the owner.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I would like to know how they are operating an Aztec for that cheap, seeing as I can't do it running LOP economy cruise and flying the plane 900 hours in the past 3 years. Doubly so if they are renting it out and thus paying for rental insurance.
Click to expand...

Using auto gas. Owner with A&P doing own maintenance. Probably not insured or insured as a rental plane.

Did you know that if you "document" the hours of OJT then take/pass the A&P tests you get an A&P certificate? Never mind that you are flying full time for an airline and running a part 61 school on the side during that time.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
That takes care of start-up to takeoff. There's also takeoff to hood-on, hood-off to landing, and touchdown to stopping in the chocks. Your .3 may work most of the time, but I've seen plenty of days where the real hood time is 0.5 or more below Hobbs time, so YMMV. I just don't like "canned solutions" in cases like that -- it invites questions.
Click to expand...

I never said i use that as a canned solution. Just an average. My instructor always uses actual times.

Hood goes around 500 agl and comes off at minimums.

Thats operating a c152 or pa28 out of an uncontrolled field.

Edit: From my flight this morning, an e-mail from my instructor :)

Today's details:
Running time 1.4 hours
Hood time 1.2 hours
Total paid time near 1.9, which I rounded out to $52.00. Sound right?
Gene
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Henning, please read what the OP wrote, what I wrote, and what that case says very carefully, and then compare that to the regs and various interpretations on point. If you're "splitting time" for $100/hr each, either you're doing it illegally (the OP does not seem to be an ME instructor) or somebody is paying for time they can't log, and then we run into "common purpose" and expense-sharing issues. Unless they are both CFI-AME's, and I don't think they are, they cannot legally "split" the time and the costs.
Click to expand...
I know it's not exactly what was written in the OP but if the pilot flying the airplane pays $200/hr for the leg he's on the controls and the other pilot pays $200/hr for his time at the wheel, as long as the two legs are nearly equal timewise they would effectively "split" the $200/hr cost and I can't see how this could be anything but legal even when the PNF is acting as PIC and both are logging PIC time.

And even if a common purpose was required (I don't see how it could be in my example) why wouldn't a flight for mutual instrument currency be an acceptable "common purpose"?
 
gismo said:
I know it's not exactly what was written in the OP but if the pilot flying the airplane pays $200/hr for the leg he's on the controls and the other pilot pays $200/hr for his time at the wheel, as long as the two legs are nearly equal timewise they would effectively "split" the $200/hr cost and I can't see how this could be anything but legal even when the PNF is acting as PIC and both are logging PIC time.
Click to expand...
As long as the PF is under the hood, the PNF can log it. But then the PNF only logs part, not all, of the time flown by the PF. So, it's not quite an equal split.

And even if a common purpose was required
Click to expand...
It isn't when one is acting as safety pilot. Just make sure it's properly logged, including who was acting as safety pilot for the PF's entry, and that the PNF's entry notes that s/he was acting as PIC/safety pilot and the total time logged on that leg is less than the PF's time for that leg (since the PF will not be hooded during taxi, takeoff, and landing), and that the PNF's time for the leg is no more than the PF's simulated instrument time for that leg.
 
Ron Levy said:
As long as the PF is under the hood, the PNF can log it. But then the PNF only logs part, not all, of the time flown by the PF. So, it's not quite an equal split.
Click to expand...
But it would be an "equal split" if each flew one leg and both legs involved the same flight time with and without the hood.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I would like to know how they are operating an Aztec for that cheap, seeing as I can't do it running LOP economy cruise and flying the plane 900 hours in the past 3 years. Doubly so if they are renting it out and thus paying for rental insurance.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure either, but it's a sweet deal. I think it may be a deal where he knows it's on it's last annual and he's trying to get the last dollar out before he scraps it.
 
Alexb2000 said:
If a twin rental is $300 an hour and someone wants 500 hours of multi-PIC, that's $150,000. OR someone could just buy a $20-30K twin with a fresh pencil whipped annual, put no insurance on it. Run the Hobbs and Tach ~500 hours on the ground, put some owner oil changes in the log book. Fly around a few hours during the year moving it from one local very sleepy, airport to another. Sell it at the end of the year for scrap, maybe have an out of pocket cost of $5K.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons why there are soooo many cheap twins for sale and a big reason to be vary suspicious of a 'good deal' if you are trying to buy.
 
Are you required to hand over log books after an incident?

I have always logged PIC time as a safety pilot but usually for a couple tenths less than the other pilot because of taxi/runup/landing.
 
gismo said:
But it would be an "equal split" if each flew one leg and both legs involved the same flight time with and without the hood.
Click to expand...
I suppose you can look at it that way, but they'll both end up paying more than $100/hr for the time they log.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
If requested, yes.
Click to expand...
Beyond that, you are required to hand them over any time the FAA tells you, with or without a reason. As a matter of practice, they pretty much never do that without a reason, but under the law, they don't need one. The only thing they have to give you is reasonable time and location to hand them over.
 
Tom-D said:
if you can find out who's holding them.
Click to expand...
That's not the FAA's concern. The pilot is responsible for providing his/her own records "upon reasonable request" to that pilot -- the FAA does not have to locate them, only to communicate the request. If the pilot can't produce them, that's the pilot's problem, not the FAA's.
 
Tom-D said:
if you can find out who's holding them.
Click to expand...

The person I answered was referring to personal logbooks, so in that instance it would be the individual.

If we were talking about aircraft maintenance records, then the request is made to the owner since he's responsible for them. If he doesn't have them in possession then it is up to the owner to acquire them and present them to the Inspector.

Playing "hide and seek" with any kind of logbooks is a good way to make a situation go from "not a big deal" to something that will be a "bad deal".
 
Ron Levy said:
That's not the FAA's concern. The pilot is responsible for providing his/her own records "upon reasonable request" to that pilot -- the FAA does not have to locate them, only to communicate the request. If the pilot can't produce them, that's the pilot's problem, not the FAA's.
Click to expand...

That is true Ron, but have we heard that many owners leave their logs with their maintainers? so, who could convey that info to the FAA when the pilot owner can't?

I jumped the gun, and now see you were talking about the pilots flight logs not the aircraft's maintenance records.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
That is true Ron, but have we heard that many owners leave their logs with their maintainers? so, who could convey that info to the FAA when the pilot owner can't?
Click to expand...
As regards the maintenance records rather than the pilot's logbook, it remains the aircraft owner's responsibility to produce them on FAA demand even if the owner delegates custody of those records to another party. Failure to produce them "upon reasonable request" would fall on the owner, not the custodian, so think carefully before you leave the aircraft records with someone else. Of course, if the question is whether a pilot flew someone else's plane when it was not airworthy, the pilot would be responsible for obtaining the records from the owner to show the pilot fulfilled his/her legal responsibilities, although if the owner refused the pilot, I suppose the FAA could demand the records from the owner.

There are other pitfalls to leaving your aircraft's maintenance records with a third party, including having them locked up if the custodian goes belly up and the sheriff padlocks the place (at least until the bankruptcy court sorts out what in the shop belongs to others), the possibilities of theft or accidental damage or destruction, having them held hostage in a business dispute between the aircraft and shop owners, etc. For those reasons alone, I personally recommend against the practice except when the aircraft is in the shop for maintenance when the records are necessary.

I know some folks who don't let the shop keep the records even when the plane is in for maintenance -- they bring in the plane, let the maintainer examine the records, take the records home with them until the plane is ready, and bring them back for the entries when the work is done. I think that's overkill, but there are a few folks who are that concerned about the issues mentioned.

I jumped the gun, and now see you were talking about the pilots flight logs not the aircraft's maintenance records.
Click to expand...
No problem. It provides folks the opportunity to learn about them, too.
 
Ron Levy said:
As regards the maintenance records............ course, if the question is whether a pilot flew someone else's plane when it was not airworthy, the pilot would be responsible for obtaining the records from the owner to show the pilot fulfilled his/her legal responsibilities, although if the owner refused the pilot, I suppose the FAA could demand the records from the owner.
Click to expand...

If the case is a pilot flying someone else's airplane and there is a question of airworthiness, the owner of the aircraft will get an LOI (Letter of Investigation) to produce the maintenance records. The pilot will get his own (LOI) concerning what the alleged violation.

It would not be left to the pilot to produce the records.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
If the case is a pilot flying someone else's airplane and there is a question of airworthiness, the owner of the aircraft will get an LOI (Letter of Investigation) to produce the maintenance records. The pilot will get his own (LOI) concerning what the alleged violation.

It would not be left to the pilot to produce the records.
Click to expand...
IOW, you compel the owner to produce the evidence to be used against the pilot. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
So what happens to the pilot when the owner announces the records have been eaten by mice?
Click to expand...

Produce said mice for micro-stomach pumping and fecal analysis?

I suspect a job often given to the FAA interns.

:dunno:
 
Ron Levy said:
So what happens to the pilot when the owner announces the records have been eaten by mice?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the owner lie to a Inspector? :nono:

If indeed his records are missing, the owner is gonna have a hard time proving the aircraft is/was airworthy. This still won't get said pilot off the hook.

As for the owner's "lost records", the FAA will make it a point to see if that aircraft ever flies again it will have the proper records and inspections performed by the proper individuals and recorded, and to have those records and aircraft available for FAA inspection there after.

I've had people try to hide logbooks before. Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Chapter 447, 44709 usually get's their attention. :rolleyes:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I've had people try to hide logbooks before. Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Chapter 447, 44709 usually get's their attention. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Interesting. The "709 re-examination" is not a for-cause event. Any pilot at any time can be reexamined.

As well as aircraft, operators, etc.

Thanks. Learned something new.
 
Doggtyred said:
Interesting. The "709 re-examination" is not a for-cause event. Any pilot at any time can be reexamined.

As well as aircraft, operators, etc.

Thanks. Learned something new.
Click to expand...
Please expand on this. How is it that I who meets the minimums for 135.243(c) and without a violation, or incident, or accident could be "called" for a "709" ride.

Do you mean that 'any' FAA 'here to help' dude could sanction me for reveiw and at anytime?

I am ready to go ballistic. Your reply cannot come soon enough.
 
Last edited:
Rotor&Wing said:
Are you suggesting the owner lie to a Inspector? :nono:

If indeed his records are missing, the owner is gonna have a hard time proving the aircraft is/was airworthy. This still won't get said pilot off the hook.

As for the owner's "lost records", the FAA will make it a point to see if that aircraft ever flies again it will have the proper records and inspections performed by the proper individuals and recorded, and to have those records and aircraft available for FAA inspection there after.

I've had people try to hide logbooks before. Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Chapter 447, 44709 usually get's their attention. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hey Mr FAA Hard Ass...the maintaince records of my aircraft have been eaten by mice. Current the last annual inspection said aircraft was found IAW all pertinent ADs, SBs, and regulation. What say you when I taxi out for purpose of flight?

FYI: I have been told by those more knowledgeable than me that you purposely must maintain some anomimity. I have no truck with that. But if you and your ilk are out to 'bust' me I must decidely take a stance opposed to you. I have complied by all the rules, I have commited the FAR/AIM to heart, yet it seems you still have a hard on for pilot such as me. What gives? (further description deleted)
 
We're motha fukin pilots...without us they aint any of you. So what you got? Don't hide. Teach it, preach it, but don't try to trap us. That is BS. F U.

Spill what you know and try to do it in the kindest way you know cuz so far all I have seen is you have the attitude that you will roll over anyone as you please. IOW, you don't need no tact cuz you da law. Well, that's no way to make friends.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not that they should, only that you and I both know there are those who would. One hopes we can weed them from our midst, but as you apparently realize, they do, regrettably, exist.
Click to expand...
Ron, you are one of my pilot heros. I say that without jest. You have been where I dare to be, you have taught what I hope to know, you have done that which I am inspired to do. Absolutely there is no sarcasm in that.

However, I must say, perhaps you are too beholden to rule. Perhaps you, like I, am too willing to attribute good cause to others, that under the rule of law thos others will comply. In this we are both ignorant.

My take is that the FAA is an enforcement agency first. They will bust your hiney ass on mere specualtion. My experience is the FAA is looking to aks names first then let the chips fall as they may. Make no mistake, the chips will fall against the pilot.

Anecdotally I add, I consulted an aviator I knew personally. But in his capacity as ASI at the local FSDO he asked some pointed questions...."who told you that?...Who told you it was okay to do that?. From his behavior I discerned he was head hunting and it was better that I not say another thing. And this from a man I called a friend.

Later, at a monthly meeting of my local club, an FAA brat from the the SJ Western Region...the topic was the Edwards R-airspace. This man had the gaul to make a presentation (well recieved) then ask a show of hands for who had penetrated the R- space without clearance. He asked those pilots to stay after the meeting. I lingered. He formerly asked their names and N numbers and dates of intrusions. As some of these excusrsions had occured months before there was some confusion among those assembled. Later meetings revealed that ALL of these pilots had received letters via USPS of investigation by FAA.

So...from my own experience and that of pilots I have known, I don't trust the FAA. Perhaps you as USAF (ret) will do better. I do know that my former airplane partner (USAF-Ret) was "violated' for landing a KA-350 on an nontowered airfield "after hours". (I saw the certified letter, name and place upon request)
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
Please expand on this. How is it that I who meets the minimums for 135.243(c) and without a violation, or incident, or accident could be "called" for a "709" ride.

Do you mean that 'any' FAA 'here to help' dude could sanction me for reveiw and at anytime?

I am ready to go ballistic. Your reply cannot come soon enough.
Click to expand...

I pointed out "44709" and the language therein.

A point to remember is the FAA is conducted under "Administrative Law" so there are many differences. Someone else here is probably more articulate in pointing out the differences between Administrative Law and Civil Law.

Under the law (Title 49) the FAA is charged with among other things, Aviation Safety and issuing certificates (Airman, Aircraft,Engine, Propeller,etc).

44709 (a) Reinspection and Reexamination.— The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title. (b) Actions of the Administrator.— The Administrator may issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking— (1) any part of a certificate issued under this chapter if— (A) the Administrator decides after conducting a reinspection, reexamination, or other investigation that safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public interest require that action

This has been around for sometime, it's not anything new, however it's rarely found in any pilot or mechanic training.

In the instance that Mr. Levy asked me about an owner "hiding" aircraft records, under the above law it gives the Administrator the right to demand those records. If the individual refuses then it also gives the Administrator the right to revoke the operating certificate of that aircraft. If that certificate is indeed revoked or suspended the owner has recourse, not via the Civil courts but through the NTSB and a Administrative Law Judge.


As another point to remember, when you see the word "Administrator" in Title 49 or 14 CFR it refers to the FAA Administrator or anyone working under his authority, i.e. "Inspector" to take action. In the future rewrite of the CFR's Administrator will be replaced with "Administration".

Hope this answers your question.
 
Richard said:
Hey Mr FAA Hard Ass... I have complied by all the rules, I have commited the FAR/AIM to heart, yet it seems you still have a hard on for pilot such as me. What gives? (further description deleted)
Click to expand...

Huh? :dunno: Please show me in a post where I have challenged you? Please show where I have been a "hard ass" as you put it. I was asked a question on a hypothetical situation and answered what the procedures were. The answer was not pointed at any individual.

Richard said:
Hey Mr FAA Hard Ass...the maintaince records of my aircraft have been eaten by mice. Current the last annual inspection said aircraft was found IAW all pertinent ADs, SBs, and regulation. What say you when I taxi out for purpose of flight?
Click to expand...

As you are aware, the owner must maintain the records of his aircraft. If indeed you have had everything up to date and complied with, but then the records are destroyed you as the owner must reconstruct those records to show compliance before operating the aircraft. It's in the CFR's and if I had some additional time I would point those out.

Richard said:
FYI: But if you and your ilk are out to 'bust' me I must decidely take a stance opposed to you.
Click to expand...

Sir, first of all I don't even know you, what you do or what you fly, and really don't care. Where you are getting this is beyond me. :dunno:
Can you please point out the post or postings where I supposedly insinuated this?

Richard said:
My take is that the FAA is an enforcement agency first. They will bust your hiney ass on mere specualtion. My experience is the FAA is looking to aks names first then let the chips fall as they may. Make no mistake, the chips will fall against the pilot.
Click to expand...


My job is Aviation Safety. I work and encourage every to operate safely and to follow the regulations. The next step is Compliance, if someone is out of compliance I encourage and help them get into compliance. If the individual refuses compliance then the last step is Enforcement to gain compliance. Fortunately the majority of Aviators I encounter have a very compliant attitude and a little education and counseling usually solves most situations.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
We're motha fukin pilots...without us they aint any of you. So what you got? Don't hide. Teach it, preach it, but don't try to trap us. That is BS. F U.

Spill what you know and try to do it in the kindest way you know cuz so far all I have seen is you have the attitude that you will roll over anyone as you please. IOW, you don't need no tact cuz you da law. Well, that's no way to make friends.
Click to expand...

Have you tried the decaffeinated brands? Seriously, they are just as tasty as the regular stuff. :rofl:

Don't know what you are referring to about attitude, anytime I'm asked a question I answer the best I can and try to bring a side to the discussion most never get an opportunity to see or hear. I'm pointed and straight forward, if that offends you then my apologies. Fortunately I don't stoop to using vulgar language and insinuations such as you have exhibited.

I have replied to people when I see mistruths being posted and backed it up with facts. If someone wants to come into a thread and openly lie or deceive about something that can easily be proven to be a lie then I as an individual can dispute such a lie or mistruth with facts. You're welcome to disagree, present your own facts and show me where you think I'm wrong.

Richard said:
Later, at a monthly meeting of my local club, an FAA brat from the the SJ Western Region...the topic was the Edwards R-airspace. This man had the gaul to make a presentation (well recieved) then ask a show of hands for who had penetrated the R- space without clearance. He asked those pilots to stay after the meeting. I lingered. He formerly asked their names and N numbers and dates of intrusions. As some of these excusrsions had occured months before there was some confusion among those assembled. Later meetings revealed that ALL of these pilots had received letters via USPS of investigation by FAA.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't believe this ever took place. If the FAA had knowledge of an Inspector using a Safety Meeting to entrap people his head would roll as it clearly defeats the purpose of the FAASTeam.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
We're motha fukin pilots...without us they aint any of you. So what you got? Don't hide. Teach it, preach it, but don't try to trap us. That is BS. F U.

Spill what you know and try to do it in the kindest way you know cuz so far all I have seen is you have the attitude that you will roll over anyone as you please. IOW, you don't need no tact cuz you da law. Well, that's no way to make friends.
Click to expand...

Wow... Have you been communing with the Red Solo Cup?
 
Richard said:
Later, at a monthly meeting of my local club, an FAA brat from the the SJ Western Region...the topic was the Edwards R-airspace. This man had the gaul to make a presentation (well recieved) then ask a show of hands for who had penetrated the R- space without clearance. He asked those pilots to stay after the meeting. I lingered. He formerly asked their names and N numbers and dates of intrusions. As some of these excusrsions had occured months before there was some confusion among those assembled. Later meetings revealed that ALL of these pilots had received letters via USPS of investigation by FAA.
Click to expand...
:bs:

I find that impossible to believe - it's completely contrary to the purpose of the FAA Safety Team. As far as I know, the ASI's who are assigned to the FAASTeam are not involved in enforcement matters at all, by policy.
 
Richard said:
Please expand on this. How is it that I who meets the minimums for 135.243(c) and without a violation, or incident, or accident could be "called" for a "709" ride.

Do you mean that 'any' FAA 'here to help' dude could sanction me for reveiw and at anytime?

I am ready to go ballistic. Your reply cannot come soon enough.
Click to expand...

Go ballistic if you want.

Google: Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Chapter 447, 44709

Read it. And let me know if you see the words that indicate reinspections or re-examinations in there.

If there's chapter and verse that says otherwise please share with me. I just read it for the first time right before my post in the matter.

That being said, USC is the federal law written by your congress critter, not the CFR written by DOT/FAA.
 
Richard said:
Later, at a monthly meeting of my local club, an FAA brat from the the SJ Western Region...the topic was the Edwards R-airspace. This man had the gaul to make a presentation (well recieved) then ask a show of hands for who had penetrated the R- space without clearance. He asked those pilots to stay after the meeting. I lingered. He formerly asked their names and N numbers and dates of intrusions. As some of these excusrsions had occured months before there was some confusion among those assembled. Later meetings revealed that ALL of these pilots had received letters via USPS of investigation by FAA.
Click to expand...

That fella would meet my definition of douchebag. Way uncool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top