MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
"I know it's not legal, Your Honor, but I figured since that's the way everybody's done it for so long, the regs didn't apply."
Question about CFI responsibilities
- Thread starter \__[Ô]__/
- Start date
So you checked the logbooks of every airplane you have flown? Do you actually check the registration and airworthiness certificate of every plane you fly?
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
My answer to that doesn't change the regs or the answer to the OP's question, so it's pretty much irrelevant.
Harold Rutila
Pre-takeoff checklist
Usually customers like this are going to get upset with the CFI no matter what. They'll distract us to no end when we ask for the logbooks before a flight, and if that doesn't happen, and they figure out something wasn't done right, they'll criticize us for not asking for the logbooks before a flight. I've been there.
To the extent that a logbook review can be done, it won't always reflect truthful information. In a somewhat recent case, I had a customer whose avionics shop signed off on an IFR avionics installation. In the sign-off, the installer said the unit's installation was compliant with an STC. Something was fishy, so we reviewed the STC, which refers readers to the avionics' installation manual. In reviewing the installation manual, it was revealed that the installation was not done in accordance with the STC, and the avionics shop was wrong.
To the extent that a logbook review can be done, it won't always reflect truthful information. In a somewhat recent case, I had a customer whose avionics shop signed off on an IFR avionics installation. In the sign-off, the installer said the unit's installation was compliant with an STC. Something was fishy, so we reviewed the STC, which refers readers to the avionics' installation manual. In reviewing the installation manual, it was revealed that the installation was not done in accordance with the STC, and the avionics shop was wrong.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
I've been around this globe and haven't noticed that, seems to me the only people who take issue with Americans tend to be upper middle class left leaning Americans who have that apologist mindset.
Or the owner didn't ask him to do the work or pay for it, take your car into the shop and ask for a oil change.... Then go start crying because the shop didn't diagnose your transmission, perform a compression check, and check your alignment and headlight angles.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Please point out where I was wrong then
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
I accept your acknowledgment of defeat, change of frequency approved, squawk VFR.
paflyer
Final Approach
So where is the shop on all this? Why did they release an aircraft that is technically unairworthy? Seems to me they need to send a guy that can finish the job at the owner's location..,
P.S., the owner sounds like a Richard.
P.S., the owner sounds like a Richard.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
No, more like hiring someone to fly from point A to point B without explicitly telling him to deal with any inflight emergencies that may arise.
ACTING as PIC (as opposed to logging PIC) involves certain responsibilities, whether someone in a specific instance tells you or not.
Whether or not he was paid to spend the time making sure the airplane was legal and airworthy is something the instructor should have dealt with, but it has no bearing on his responsibilities as PIC.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Digging into the STCs and other paperwork to that level and doing a shakedown flight is not a reasonable expectation of a instructor giving dual to get a owner back home, making sure it's in annual and transponder (if needed) and ELT (if needed), ARROW, etc, sure.
But I agree to a certain point, if the owner just said I need your help to bring my plane home, I'll pay you for dual, and I arrived and the plane had just gotten out of a major avionics or other large shop work event and I was going to be the first guy at the helm, that wasn't what we agreed to, that's not what you're paying me for and that's not what scheduled time for, I'd just tell the guy "see ya" and go back to base.
Time wise there is a large difference between flying a plane from A to B with a student, and a out of major MX first flight, if his CFI is putting food on his table he might now have to reschedule other good customers, causing issues in their schedules, basically this owner doesn't care anyone's time or money other than his own.
Ether way it's between the shop and the owner, trying to drag the CFI into it is just acting like a petulant child throwing a fit, it's also really a great way to win those hearts and minds in your aviation community
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I would disagree...an airplane coming out of maintenance needs logbook entries. Whether they're 100% correct or not is beyond the scope of most pilots, but there's no interpretation involved in "hey, there's no logbook entries here."
Agreed, but I've seen no indications in any of the OP's posts that this was a factor.
Agreed again, but it doesn't absolve the CFI of his PIC responsibilities.Ether way it's between the shop and the owner, trying to drag the CFI into it is just acting like a petulant child throwing a fit, it's also really a great way to win those hearts and minds in your aviation community
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Look up what is the responsibility of the owner and what is the responsibility of the PIC.
If verifying all the 337s and STCs was part of what a PIC is expected to do before flying a new plane, you could violate 99% of 121/135/91/61 working pilots, 99% of renters and 99% of students.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I did look it up...posted the relevant regs here, in fact. Everything I posted was either the PIC's responsibility or the operator's, and the definition of "operate" (also posted) does not exclude the PIC.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Even if "us[ing] an aircraft....with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise)" did exclude the PIC, the regs that specifically state what the PIC is responsible for still apply.
I think a review of violations would find enough where the PIC was violated for not checking logbooks that it'd be fairly clear what the FAA thinks he's responsible for.
Just because your GOM states that you have people at work who are responsible for a lot of that doesn't mean it applies to everyone who flies.
Last edited:
This is my take (for what it is worth)
The PIC is responsible for the flight. The owner/operator is responsible for the condition of the aircraft. They coincide, to some degree, but only for the FLIGHT. Once landed, its back in the hands of the owner/operator. FAA regs don't say the pilot is responsible for repairs affecting airworthyness and pilot identifiable not done properly or logbooks not completed ONCE THE FLIGHT IS OVER. Only for the time DURING THE FLIGHT!
As for logbooks not being correct. You scrutinize a set of logbooks long and hard enough, I can practically GUARANTEE you can find something at least arguably wrong (wont ever really know if its REALLY wrong sometimes).
There is no automatic implied contract between a ferry pilot and an owner that if the ferry pilot accepts the plane to fly than means everything on that plane has been done correct and the plane has all correct paperwork. The PIC is responsible for inspecting the plane according to the POH and the FARS only. That doesnt include everything.
Look, the ferry pilot (who happened to be a CFI) got the plane back in one piece for you didn't he? WELCOME TO AIRPLANE OWNERSHIP. Sorry about your mechanical and paperwork problems. You now have to get those fixed.
The PIC is responsible for the flight. The owner/operator is responsible for the condition of the aircraft. They coincide, to some degree, but only for the FLIGHT. Once landed, its back in the hands of the owner/operator. FAA regs don't say the pilot is responsible for repairs affecting airworthyness and pilot identifiable not done properly or logbooks not completed ONCE THE FLIGHT IS OVER. Only for the time DURING THE FLIGHT!
As for logbooks not being correct. You scrutinize a set of logbooks long and hard enough, I can practically GUARANTEE you can find something at least arguably wrong (wont ever really know if its REALLY wrong sometimes).
There is no automatic implied contract between a ferry pilot and an owner that if the ferry pilot accepts the plane to fly than means everything on that plane has been done correct and the plane has all correct paperwork. The PIC is responsible for inspecting the plane according to the POH and the FARS only. That doesnt include everything.
Look, the ferry pilot (who happened to be a CFI) got the plane back in one piece for you didn't he? WELCOME TO AIRPLANE OWNERSHIP. Sorry about your mechanical and paperwork problems. You now have to get those fixed.
Last edited:
unsafervguy
En-Route
no they do not. a 337 is required for a major repair or alteration. pulling a radio tray out and putting in a new one and wiring it up is not a major. IF an stc is required, like for a IFR GPS then a 337 needs to be done. but a simple radio change that does not require change to structure does not require a 337. most radio shops do it as a CYA measure. the 337 is probably the most misunderstood form in the FAA world, by mechanics and the FAA alike.
bob
That still doesn't necessarily require a 337. Like Bob said, many mechanics seem to do them as a prophylactic measure even when not required which adds to the confusion for people on when they are and when they aren't necessary.
![\__[Ô]__/](/community/data/avatars/m/12/12009.jpg?1457665956){kind=avatar}
\__[Ô]__/
Pre-takeoff checklist
I'm not sure how the exact airports and locations involved would impact the discussion beyond possibly identifying the shop in question. This isn't my plane and it isn't my problem so I don't feel it's appropriate for me to provide details that could identify the people involved. If you choose not to believe me as a result, so be it.
Again, not my plane so I'm not going to go into specifics beyond saying that some work was avionics but there was also airframe and powerplant work involved.
\__[Ô]__/
Pre-takeoff checklist
I appreciate the discussion. I've found it very informative.
It's worth clarifying that I asked if it was appropriate for the owner to be angry at the CFI. I never said the owner actually is blaming the CFI. I have no idea if he is. I explained the situation to a couple people locally and someone asked if he was mad at the CFI. I said, "I don't know. Should he be?" And that's the question I posed here.
I wasn't really sure how I felt on the issue when I asked. Still not completely sure.
On the one hand, I understand the owner is responsible for the plane. If he wants everything to work properly, it's his job to make sure that happens. As people have noted, hiring a random CFI to go with him to retrieve his plane was not the best way of doing that. "Live and learn", as they say.
On the other hand, a CFI making the "not my job"* argument sounds like a cop-out.
I would expect a CFI to know enough to realize it might be a good idea to make sure all the paperwork is there and do a basic test of the new equipment. It seems like a mark of professionalism to look out for the client's interests by at least suggesting they do that (if the owner is unwilling to pay for the time that takes to do, that's on him).
* making sure the plane was airworthy before flight was the CFI's job as PIC, but that's not the only issue here.
It's worth clarifying that I asked if it was appropriate for the owner to be angry at the CFI. I never said the owner actually is blaming the CFI. I have no idea if he is. I explained the situation to a couple people locally and someone asked if he was mad at the CFI. I said, "I don't know. Should he be?" And that's the question I posed here.
I wasn't really sure how I felt on the issue when I asked. Still not completely sure.
On the one hand, I understand the owner is responsible for the plane. If he wants everything to work properly, it's his job to make sure that happens. As people have noted, hiring a random CFI to go with him to retrieve his plane was not the best way of doing that. "Live and learn", as they say.
On the other hand, a CFI making the "not my job"* argument sounds like a cop-out.
I would expect a CFI to know enough to realize it might be a good idea to make sure all the paperwork is there and do a basic test of the new equipment. It seems like a mark of professionalism to look out for the client's interests by at least suggesting they do that (if the owner is unwilling to pay for the time that takes to do, that's on him).
* making sure the plane was airworthy before flight was the CFI's job as PIC, but that's not the only issue here.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Should he be "mad"? Anger is an emotion that clouds judgment, so probably no from a CRM standpoint.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Should he be mad, at himself yes, the shop yes, the CFI he tried to take advantage of not so much.
Again I'd refer you to the difference between PIC and the operator.
If the CFI made sure he had his ARROW, annual, transponder, pitot static, ELT etc all in date, that's about all that's expected if he was hired to just move a plane with the rookie owner.
And it's not a "cop out" you hired him to move the plane, not check that the shop did their job, if the owner wanted that he should have communicated it and found someone willing to do it.
He paid to have a airplane moved, that's what he got.
This also sounds like a student to avoid, life's too short to deal with people like that, and if he's talking all over the airport about this CFI I'd imagine he's going to find far fewer CFIs willing to work with him, doubt many non time builders would subject themselves to this adolescent behavior.
\__[Ô]__/
Pre-takeoff checklist
My apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying. To answer your questions: The shop is 2 hours away by air. I believe a friend of the owner flew the owner and CFI over and then the CFI and owner flew back in the plane. I assume the CFI was paid for the whole time they were gone. I know the owner and have flown his plane in the past and may in the future (that's how I found out about the issues). I don't know the shop. I don't think I know the CFI.
I appreciate your input. The consensus seems to be that the CFI on this scenario has no responsibility beyond normal PIC responsibilities for the flight.