Your daily, "Can I log that?" question.

Ron Levy said:
You've pointed out a regulation you say the Student Pilot is violating (61.59), but not how that violation is being regulated by that Student Pilot who is not an employee of the operator, i.e., how that entry constitutes falsification, since it appears to be compliant with 61.51 regarding pilot logbooks. That's the part I'm not following.
Click to expand...

Don't know what to tell you Ron, it's pretty obvious.
 
If a pilot is not able to legally touch the controls or the situation prevents the instructor from legally providing instruction, how then can the pilot legally take credit for the instruction and then apply that toward a future rating?

To me it sounds like the Feds would have a case for fraudulent application if the pilot did utilize improper flight time on an application.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If a pilot is not able to legally touch the controls or the situation prevents the instructor from legally providing instruction, how then can the pilot legally take credit for the instruction and then apply that toward a future rating?
Click to expand...
The law is a funny thing. In 1929, the Secretary of the Interior was convicted of taking a bribe that an oil company executive was acquitted of having paid. And IIRC, in New York some 20+ years ago, two people were tried separately and both convicted of being the one shooter in a murder where they were both involved. Or in another example, perhaps more on point, if someone sells me something stolen, but I have no idea or reason to believe it's stolen (i.e., we're not talking about buying a Ferrari 575 in a dark alley for $1500), the seller is guilty of selling stolen goods, but I'm not guilty of receiving them.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Those section of Part 135 may apply to the PIC giving the training, but do they apply to the recipient of the training? I see nothing in Part 61 which either the instructor or the recipient would be violating. IOW, if a 135 pilot lets a passenger fly the plane, would an enforcement action be initiated against the passenger? I kind of doubt it.
Click to expand...

The reg specifically states "nor may any person manipulate the controls during such flight unless that person is--", which clearly indicates that the reg applies to the "passenger", not just the pilot.

I'd bet heavily against action being taken against an "ignorant passenger", too. On the other hand, when you start dealing with pilots at the Commercial/CFI level, they should have enough idea of what a duck sounds like to investigate further when somebody offers a deal too good to be true.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The reg specifically states "nor may any person manipulate the controls during such flight unless that person is--", which clearly indicates that the reg applies to the "passenger", not just the pilot.
Click to expand...
Thank you for pointing out what I clearly missed. In that situation, the fact that the trainee was "any person" makes it illegal for them to touch the controls as well as for the PIC to allow it. However, I still question whether that invalidates under Part 61 the training received in violation of a Part 135 rule.

I'd bet heavily against action being taken against an "ignorant passenger", too. On the other hand, when you start dealing with pilots at the Commercial/CFI level, they should have enough idea of what a duck sounds like to investigate further when somebody offers a deal too good to be true.
Click to expand...
I'm with you there, but Henning said he was a 12-hour Student Pilot when this happened, and I'm thinking that even on the basis of "Ignorantia juris non excusat", no ALJ will find that a 12-hour Student Pilot (or even a 50-hour PP applicant) can be held responsible for knowing what 14 CFR 135.115 says. As such, I can see the time being discounted at the time of the practical test, but no further action being taken against the applicant. Further, based on the stale complaint rule (that chuckling DPE having been an agent of the FAA when s/he examined Henning's logbook a couple of decades ago), I don't see any action being taken today against Henning unless the FAA can show lack of current competency.
 
RotorAndWing said:
You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

On a 14 CFR Part 135 flight in a single pilot aircraft, the PIC cannot allow someone to sit in the right seat and manipulate the controls. Furthermore, if that individual does sit in the right seat and manipulate the controls, and logs this time in furtherance of a certificate (cross country time, night, etc) and this comes to light to the FAA, then the Agency can use this for revocation of the airman's certificate since he had violated regulations (135) to obtain this flight time.
Click to expand...

Ahh ...ok, that I understand.
 
mcmanigle said:
Yeah, I don't see the 61.59 violation if he truly was receiving instruction.

Also, (though surely this isn't what happened), if the 135 prohibition is against manipulation of controls, there's nothing preventing legitimate dual given (he wouldn't have been able to log PIC anyway) for flight instruction that just happens to consist entirely of demonstrating maneuvers and talking through procedures while the CFI does all the flying, is there?
Click to expand...
That type of "flight instruction" would almost certainly be cause for a 709 ride for the instructor.
 
Ron Levy said:
. Further, based on the stale complaint rule (that chuckling DPE having been an agent of the FAA when s/he examined Henning's logbook a couple of decades ago), I don't see any action being taken today against Henning unless the FAA can show lack of current competency.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet on it.

From FAA Order 2150.3B
a. Exceptions to Stale Complaint Rule.
(1) The first exception involves cases in which the FAA’s complaint alleges the
certificate holder lacks qualifications to hold the certificate (for example, revocation cases). In
these cases, the 6-month rule does not apply. The FAA does not use revocation as a means to
avoid dismissal of charges under the stale complaint rule. Although the 6-month stale complaint rule does not apply to qualifications cases, the FAA expedites such cases because they generally
involve significant safety issues.
(2) The second exception to the 6-month stale complaint rule involves cases in which
the FAA can show that it had good cause for not meeting the 6-month deadline. The most
common good cause circumstance is found in late-discovery cases, in which the FAA discovers
the violation after the date of violation. In these cases, however, the FAA does not have an extra
six months from the date of late discovery to issue its notice. Rather, the FAA must put its
investigation of these cases on a fast track, and must document priority handling at all stages of
the investigation and review. Contemporaneously created documents and notes tracking what
the investigating office did during the investigation are persuasive in showing that the FAA gave
a case priority handling.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top