What do you think?

[EdFred]

CFI, not current to carry passengers as a pilot (outside 90 days) gives a flight review to someone who is outside the 24 calendar month window (expired 61.56 currency).

Legal?

 

[tonycondon]

no, not in my opinion.

yes there is that FAA opinion about night flying and the CFI doesnt have to be current, but i think it was pretty specific to night flying.

 

[dmccormack]

CFI, not current to carry passengers as a pilot (outside 90 days) gives a flight review to someone who is outside the 24 calendar month window (expired 61.56 currency).

Legal?

More pointed question -- Who is PIC?

If it's not clearly "legal," it's probably not.

 

[EdFred]

no, not in my opinion.

yes there is that FAA opinion about night flying and the CFI doesnt have to be current, but i think it was pretty specific to night flying.

I don't want opinions!

 

[dmccormack]

I don't want opinions!

Then why not call the local FSDO and ask?

 

[EdFred]

Then why not call the local FSDO and ask?

Because FSDOs rarely have the right answer. Like whem Memphis said GPS couldn't be used in lieu of and ADF, and when Charlotte or Raleigh said you couldn't log PIC time when getting a complex or HP endorsement (or something similar to that)

 

[midlifeflyer]

CFI, not current to carry passengers as a pilot (outside 90 days) gives a flight review to someone who is outside the 24 calendar month window (expired 61.56 currency).

Legal?

I think it is. FAA Legal has spoken on the issue (and it's been discussed here)

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...tations/data/interps/2006/Kortokraxinterp.doc

The essence is that

==============================
We agree that, for purposes of section 61.57(b), an authorized instructor providing instruction in an aircraft is not considered a passenger with respect to the person receiving instruction, even where the person receiving the instruction is acting as PIC. (The instructor must be current, qualified to instruct, and hold a category, class and type rating in the aircraft, if a class and type rating is required.) The instructor is not a passenger because he is present specifically to train the person receiving instruction. Neither is the person receiving instruction a passenger with respect to the instructor. This training may take place, even though neither pilot has met the 61.57(b) requirements.
==============================

IOW, when there is a CFI and a pilot together in a training situation, neither is considered a passenger with respect to the other.

I was a little surprised by this opinion. But not as surprised as I was when FAA Legal went even a step further and applied it to a CFI and a =student= pilot (even though an earlier FAA Legal opinion said that a student pilot =is= a passenger with respect to the instructor):

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2007/Olshock%20inter1.pdf

I'm still having trouble with this one, but between the two.

One could argue that both opinions deal with night currency only, but between the two, the analysis appears to center on the CFI-pilot relationship and not whether the currency is day or night.

 

[dmccormack]

Because FSDOs rarely have the right answer. Like whem Memphis said GPS couldn't be used in lieu of and ADF, and when Charlotte or Raleigh said you couldn't log PIC time when getting a complex or HP endorsement (or something similar to that)

You can't use a handheld GPS in lieu of any IFR fix. An IFR approved GPS can be used in lieu of certain fixes, but not all.

And you can't log PIC time if you are not qualified....

 

[EdFred]

You can't use a handheld GPS in lieu of any IFR fix. An IFR approved GPS can be used in lieu of certain fixes, but not all.

And you can't log PIC time if you are not qualified....

It was an IFR approved GPS, and yes, you can PIC log time while getting an ENDORSEMENT post private.

 

[ScottM]

And you can't log PIC time if you are not qualified....

You better go look up how to log PIC time and how HP and complex do not affect it.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.html

Rated, by FAA interpretation, means that the pilot has the appropriate category, class, and type (if required) privileges on his/her pilot certificate for the aircraft being operated.

Complex and HP do not fit into any of those categories. If you are single engine pilot you can log PIC while receiving instruction to get your complex or HP endorsement.

To act as PIC you need the endorsements.

 

[TMetzinger]

CFI, not current to carry passengers as a pilot (outside 90 days) gives a flight review to someone who is outside the 24 calendar month window (expired 61.56 currency).

Legal?

Yes, the "student" is not considered a passenger in the case of flight instruction (see FAA opinion referenced earlier). So the CFI is acting as PIC (assuming he's got the medical, flight review, appropriately rated/endorsed for the airplane), and the "student" (assuming he's rated in cat and class and type) gets to LOG the time he manipulates the controls as PIC and DUAL, even though he isn't ACTING as PIC.

Now if the CFI isn't current to ACT as PIC, and the student isn't current to ACT as PIC, then the flight's a no-go.

 

[dmccormack]

You better go look up how to log PIC time and how HP and complex do not affect it.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.html

Complex and HP do not fit into any of those categories. If you are single engine pilot you can log PIC while receiving instruction to get your complex or HP endorsement.

To act as PIC you need the endorsements.

Hunh? "To act as PIC you need the endorsements" contradicts the link.

Anyay, I read it a while ago while preparing for the Comm, printed it out, showed to CFI and DE.

So by now I have about 3 layers of white out in my logbook until I called the FSDO.

Answer -- "Cannot log PIC in an a/c until qualified in that a/c, and qualified implies all endorsements."

While the AOPA reasoning appears sound, practically speaking you're at the mercy of the DPE or local FSDO for a practical. I choose not to show up with questionable/interpretable logged time and it was one less concern.

Nevertheless, this is one of these overly ambiguous CFRs that needs to be clarified by a re-write of the section (or even a "plain language" section as found in the Sport Pilot CFI question/answers).

 

[EdFred]

Answer -- "Cannot log PIC in an a/c until qualified in that a/c, and qualified implies all endorsements."

Your CFI/DE/FSDO needs remedial re-training of 61.51
They are idiots - this is why you don't ask the FSDO questions.

 

[EdFred]

Yes, the "student" is not considered a passenger in the case of flight instruction (see FAA opinion referenced earlier). So the CFI is acting as PIC (assuming he's got the medical, flight review, appropriately rated/endorsed for the airplane), and the "student" (assuming he's rated in cat and class and type) gets to LOG the time he manipulates the controls as PIC and DUAL, even though he isn't ACTING as PIC.

Now if the CFI isn't current to ACT as PIC, and the student isn't current to ACT as PIC, then the flight's a no-go.

CFI is legal to act as long as there are no "passengers" on board.

 

[dmccormack]

Your CFI/DE/FSDO needs remedial re-training of 61.51
They are idiots - this is why you don't ask the FSDO questions.

Well, when the "idiot" is holding your certificate, you do what the idiot says until you have possession and move on.

There's being right, and there's being smart. I'd rather be somewhat cautious and conservative and avoid the battle -- the FAA has much more resources and patience.

Besides, what is the hold up for getting qualified in the a/c if you're going to log PIC in it?

 

[EdFred]

Then the idiot needs to be reported to the higher ups.

 

[ScottM]

Hunh? "To act as PIC you need the endorsements" contradicts the link.

You can LOG PIC when you are getting the training. Jsut as you LOG pic when you are getting instrument training in IMC but are not yet instrument rated. In the complex/HOP case just like in the instrument case you cannot ACT as PIC until you have the endorsement or rating.

If your CFI made you white out PIC entries or even if that was the FSDO then they need remedial training. They are wrong and the FAA in Washington can tell them that.

 

[dmccormack]

You can LOG PIC when you are getting the training. Jsut as you LOG pic when you are getting instrument training in IMC but are not yet instrument rated. In the complex/HOP case just like in the instrument case you cannot ACT as PIC until you have the endorsement or rating.

If your CFI made you white out PIC entries or even if that was the FSDO then they need remedial training. They are wrong and the FAA in Washington can tell them that.

OK, now I see the problem --I mis-read the post. My apologies.

I agree that you can log PIC while TRAINING for the endorsement. But you cannot log PIC acting as safety pilot for a qualified pilot flying simulated IFR, or any otehr time until you are qualified for that particular a/c.

I had to white out some entries where the dual was not listed as "High Performance Dual" -- it was listed only as "IFR" and in a few other cases "Commercial." But the entries should have included "High performance Dual."

 

[TMetzinger]

CFI is legal to act as long as there are no "passengers" on board.

A CFI can ACT as PIC if he's not qualified (medically, cat/class/type, etc)?

I don't think so.

 

[EdFred]

A CFI can ACT as PIC if he's not qualified (medically, cat/class/type, etc)?

I don't think so.

I meant in my scenario. I am fully current except for the 90day pax rule.

 

[poadeleted20]

Don't white-out logbook entries -- line through them (so they remain legible), put the correct entry above them, and initial the change. White-out creates legal questions you don't ever want asked, starting with, "So what were you trying to hide?"

As for FSDO inspectors who don't know the regs, ask them to show you the documentation supporting their position. Then pull out the FAA Chief Counsel interpretation that says the inspector is wrong, and ask how to resolve the difference. If the inspector doesn't politely back off his/her original position, ask that this be discussed in front of the FSDO Manager, and play it from there. IOW, "Be nice -- until it's time not to be nice."*

BTW, while the FAA may be OK with this scenario, your insurer may not. Check before you try it.

*Henry and Henkin, Road House, 1989.

 

[dmccormack]

Don't white-out logbook entries -- line through them (so they remain legible), put the correct entry above them, and initial the change. White-out creates legal questions you don't ever want asked, starting with, "So what were you trying to hide?"

Good advice..

I now keep an electronic logbook as well as the paper type. The spreadsheet doesn't make any math errors, is easily corrected, and can be verified with the original logbook. I can also enter lots more descriptive data than I can writing in those tiny boxes.

I set up the spreadsheet to automatically calculate 8710 data. There's a page in ASA and another in Jepp format. I still use the written logbooks as Official versions since all my endorsements are written in the paper version, but I find the electronic version is handy for providing hours for insurance, CAP flights, etc.

If interested feel free to download a copy here (scroll down to Downloads)

 

[poadeleted20]

I now keep an electronic logbook as well as the paper type.

Remember that unless you have some sophisticated anti-tampering and e-signature routines, an e-log isn't going to be accepted as "official" by the FAA (or, probably, for any other legal matter) until you print it and sign it -- in ink.

 

[dmccormack]

Remember that unless you have some sophisticated anti-tampering and e-signature routines, an e-log isn't going to be accepted as "official" by the FAA (or, probably, for any other legal matter) until you print it and sign it -- in ink.

Absolutely!

I always include printed copies along with the 8710 -- signed in black ink!

(The Air Force had a rule that all forms were to be signed in "Blue or Blue-Black ink." The Army ONLY accepted Black ink. Woe be the lieutenant with a blue "inkpen" in his BDUs!)

 

[TMetzinger]

Actually, there was an electronic signature law passed a few years back, that didn't require sophisticated digital signature techniques (though those of us on the DoJ PKI working group wanted it to). Essentially, an electronic representation of your signature (microsoft digital ink, a capture, a fax/scan) and such is acceptable. This is why you can "sign" your e-file tax return and do other sorts of electronic commerce, and there's a TON of health care information signed electronically but not digitally. So that law sets the general standard for the government.

The FAR, however, does specify in several places that a record "acceptable to the Administrator" is required, and I don't believe they've formally set a standard yet, though things like IACRA, and the new FAA Wings program do electronic transactions that used to require a signature, so there has been a precedent established.

Certainly a scanned image of an endorsement is acceptable, particularly if you then attest to it's accuracy by printing and signing it.

I asked for the next version of Logbook Pro to support digital ink so I could have my CFI sign my electronic log - we'll see.

 

[lawingr]

Ok, I may have missed something, but didn't the post earlier with reference to the FAA statement include the following:

(The instructor must be current, qualified to instruct, and hold a category, class and type rating in the aircraft, if a class and type rating is required.)

Wouldn't that mean that Ed would have to be current to do what he is asking about? Out of 90 days would be out of currency, right?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ok, I may have missed something, but didn't the post earlier with reference to the FAA statement include the following:

(The instructor must be current, qualified to instruct, and hold a category, class and type rating in the aircraft, if a class and type rating is required.)

Wouldn't that mean that Ed would have to be current to do what he is asking about? Out of 90 days would be out of currency, right?

I thought that part of the wording was a bit weird and made that part of the opinion hard to read. But it's very obvious that the currency that is being referred to is something other than passenger-carrying currency. After all, the whole point of the opinion is that there are no "passengers" on the flight so neither student nor CFI require passenger-carrying currency.

 

[lawingr]

I thought that part of the wording was a bit weird and made that part of the opinion hard to read. But it's very obvious that the currency that is being referred to is something other than passenger-carrying currency. After all, the whole point of the opinion is that there are no "passengers" on the flight so neither student nor CFI require passenger-carrying currency.

I can accept that. As an attorney I always get a little squeemish when I have to give an opinion on an opinion and they put something like that in their opinion and DON'T define what they mean by currency. It has so many meanings, it would help a lot of people out (not the least of which is us discussing it) if they would say what they mean and not take short cuts by using terms with several definitions

 

[midlifeflyer]

I can accept that. As an attorney I always get a little squeemish when I have to give an opinion on an opinion and they put something like that in their opinion and DON'T define what they mean by currency. It has so many meanings, it would help a lot of people out (not the least of which is us discussing it) if they would say what they mean and not take short cuts by using terms with several definitions

Reading the opinion itself helps, as does reading the follow-up opinion which refers back to the first one and even expands the "not a passenger" concept to CFIs with student pilots (which surprised me - much earlier opinions appeared contrary and I haven't yet gotten my brain around the about-face).

harry — are you around? I guess CFIs =do= have super powers!