Mooney Down - KCHD

[chriscalandro]

if This was a training flight, or a checkout, according to the FARs - 

“Any time an instructor accompanies a student pilot, even if the student pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls, the instructor is the Pilot in Command.”

Now the problem is defining student pilot. Is it a pilot on student status or a pilot undergoing training. If you’re getting your instrument or commercial ticket, those are all student activities. As is getting an additional endorsement. 

Like many of them the regulation is cloudy and if they feel like it the FAA can and will grill anyone they can in the airplane. 

I know of a flight that happened where airspace was accidentally busted. The Pilot was PP only and the passenger was ATP, instructor, but was not PIC. Guess who got in just as much trouble?  

[jaylw314]

17 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

if This was a training flight, or a checkout, according to the FARs - 

“Any time an instructor accompanies a student pilot, even if the student pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls, the instructor is the Pilot in Command.”

Now the problem is defining student pilot. Is it a pilot on student status or a pilot undergoing training. If you’re getting your instrument or commercial ticket, those are all student activities. As is getting an additional endorsement. 

Like many of them the regulation is cloudy and if they feel like it the FAA can and will grill anyone they can in the airplane. 

I know of a flight that happened where airspace was accidentally busted. The Pilot was PP only and the passenger was ATP, instructor, but was not PIC. Guess who got in just as much trouble?  

The FAA interprets "student pilot" and "instructor" as when both are required "crew" for flight.  So a dual training flight with a student who does not have a certificate, or a dual IFR training flight for the purpose of meeting one of the dual requirements; these both would have the instructor be PIC.

AFAIK, any other dual flight, including incidental training, IPC's, checkrides, BFR's, the instructor is not considered a required crew, so the student in question is actually the PIC. 

[chriscalandro]

But an endorsement like complex or hp is not an incidental training. A biannual flight review if you are within the 2 years is, a biannual flight review anytime after the 2 year window is not. 

 

in this case it depends on if the student was HP and complex rated. 

 

So...

YES

And even in other scenarios as well. I know a few ATP pilots that won’t fly with other ga pilots for this reason. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by chriscalandro

[chriscalandro]

54 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

NO,,,please post where it says that in the regs or past cases?

If I fly with a friend who owns his own plane and he is PIC and low time and I am just going to breakfast with the guy and he does something stupid how am I responsible?  If that were the case high time pilots would not fly with low time pilots in the left seat ever again.....

There are times when at my company an FO can have twice the time as the captain....is the FO responsible for his actions?  it's not reflected in the paycheck that way....

It’s not based on time, it’s based on ratings. As it was explained to me, it’s expected that the higher rated pilot, and this is a quote, “should know better”

[Jim Peace]

4 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

It’s not based on time, it’s based on ratings. As it was explained to me, it’s expected that the higher rated pilot, and this is a quote, “should know better”

These are not crew concept airplanes, even if it were there is only one PIC....if it is not an instructional flight I say no way am I as an ATP/CFI responsible for the sole private pilot PIC who makes a bad crosswind landing correction at the last second....

Maybe I did not know of anything...I was sleeping....

Still want to see where this is in writing.....

[chriscalandro]

11 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

These are not crew concept airplanes, even if it were there is only one PIC....if it is not an instructional flight I say no way am I as an ATP/CFI responsible for the sole private pilot PIC who makes a bad crosswind landing correction at the last second....

Maybe I did not know of anything...I was sleeping....

Still want to see where this is in writing.....

I can look it up later, but it’s more about pilot deviation or incursions than bad landings. This example, as mentioned above, comes down to if the pilot was legally able to fly the airplane on his own. That’s why I originally said when it comes to the FAA and trouble.

 

It was my DPE who wanted to make sure I understood these rules. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by chriscalandro

[jaylw314]

23 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

But an endorsement like complex or hp is not an incidental training. A biannual flight review if you are within the 2 years is, a biannual flight review anytime after the 2 year window is not. 

 

in this case it depends on if the student was HP and complex rated. 

 

So...

YES

And even in other scenarios as well. I know a few ATP pilots that won’t fly with other ga pilots for this reason. 

Training for, say, complex or hp endorsement, does not qualify and the student is still the PIC because there is no regulatory dual training requirement specified.

Granted, this is all only regarding the question of who is PIC with student and instructor in the plane.  It doesn't say anything about who the FAA, insurance and courtrooms flagellate with 9 foot belts (with hooks on them)...

[Jim Peace]

45 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

It’s not based on time, it’s based on ratings. As it was explained to me, it’s expected that the higher rated pilot, and this is a quote, “should know better”

does that mean a higher rated pilot can log the time as PIC being that he will get in trouble just the same?

not that I need the time

[gsxrpilot]

@Jim Peace for the win. As expected.

[chriscalandro]

How exactly is it a win? 

A pilot without a complex or HP rating cannot legally fly a hp or complex airplane without instruction and thus cannot act as pilot in command of an airplane they are not legally allowed to fly. 

Again, I’ll post the regulations when I have more tools other than my phone. 

 

The above comment about “a win” makes no sense. 

[ArtVandelay]

How exactly is it a win? 
A pilot without a complex or HP rating cannot legally fly a hp or complex airplane without instruction and thus cannot act as pilot in command of an airplane they are not legally allowed to fly. 
Again, I’ll post the regulations when I have more tools other than my phone. 
 
The above comment about “a win” makes no sense. 

This is a fuzzy area, when you solo as a student pilot, you are PIC. When with an instructor, you’re not. I believe my CFI had me PIC when getting my complex endorsement.


Tom

[ExpressJetter]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

Training for, say, complex or hp endorsement, does not qualify and the student is still the PIC because there is no regulatory dual training requirement specified.

 

If you don't have the endorsement, you cant PIC.  And those require endorsements. 

[ExpressJetter]

9 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

This is a fuzzy area, when you solo as a student pilot, you are PIC. When with an instructor, you’re not. I believe my CFI had me PIC when getting my complex endorsement.


Tom

Because you have an endorsement in your logbook to fly solo.  You're not solo when your with an instructor...........   and I think ur instructor used this loophole below in ur logging.  You were "acting" as PIC but the instructor was the legal PIC

 

Under U.S. FAA FAR 14 CFR 61.51,^[6] logging flight time as a PIC is different and distinct from acting as the legal PIC for a flight. In general, the PIC of a given flight may always log his or her flying time as such, while other crew members may or may not be authorized to log their time on that flight as PIC time, depending on the specific circumstances and the controlling jurisdiction.

Edited September 17, 2019 by ExpressJetter

[jaylw314]

2 minutes ago, ExpressJetter said:

If you don't have the endorsement, you cant PIC.  And those require endorsements. 

I stand corrected, I was conflating acting and logging.  

In case people were wondering, I found an article of accidents with a pilot and instructor with two opposite outcomes.  In both cases, the NTSB adjudicated the certificate action.  They also suggested the FAA had made a statement in 1979 that there is no regulation specifying who is acting PIC (but they gave no reference).

https://www.rotorandwing.com/2016/05/01/who-is-the-pic-during-flight-training/

[chriscalandro]

1 hour ago, Jim Peace said:

does that mean a higher rated pilot can log the time as PIC being that he will get in trouble just the same?

not that I need the time

If the higher rated pilot is an instructor and is performing instruction he can in fact log as pic. 

If not then no. 

[steingar]

What was the CFI there for, exactly?  If it was to give instruction, I'd say he or see bolluxed the job, seeing as the airplane wound up a wreck.

[mike_elliott]

26 minutes ago, steingar said:

What was the CFI there for, exactly?  If it was to give instruction, I'd say he or see bolluxed the job, seeing as the airplane wound up a wreck.

following your logic, every accident is the fault of the CFI as he should have "taught them not to do that' whether he is present or not. In fact, CFI's have been sued years after instruction because of, well, somebody's got to pay, and it is the job of the slip and fall industry to make sure someone does. 

This mentality tends to limit primary instructors to be young,  ignorant, and assetless. And it makes me re-think my daily rate...just sayin... 

But to answer your question, yes he was there to give instruction. Was he there as a guarantee against preventing the Pic from having an accident? Here is where your perception of an instructors' role is skewed. More accidents have been prevented for sure by instructors, but instruction does not come with a guarantee we can prevent you from doing something that might get us both killed. Most of the time we can and do, but this isnt an ironclad guarantee.

[Yetti]

38 minutes ago, steingar said:

What was the CFI there for, exactly?  If it was to give instruction, I'd say he or see bolluxed the job, seeing as the airplane wound up a wreck.

If it was a pitch up because of application of power and trim not being set properly.....   you have to be really really fast to catch that one.

[gsxrpilot]

On 9/14/2019 at 6:11 PM, chriscalandro said:

When it comes to the FAA and trouble, whoever has the most experience is the one on the hook.  Not necessarily the PIC.

That's what you said. @Jim Peace pointed out that is an over generalization and therefore not correct in all situations. You've been back peddling and qualifying the statement since, as you should. So Jim was correct. 

[Duane Baker]

On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 3:13 PM, chriscalandro said:

How do you log that in the flight review section?

Incomplete

[gsxrpilot]

Let's assume I'm properly rated and current in my airplane. I'll need a flight review, but not for another couple of months. I go for a flight with someone who is a CFI. 

If at the end of the flight, the CFI is happy to sign me off as having successfully completed a flight review, then it goes in my log book. 

If at the end of the flight, the CFI is not ready to sign me off for a flight review, regardless of the reason which could be anything from, "you need to learn to fly", to "we spent too much time over lunch and didn't get to do some of the skills"... it doesn't have to go in my log book. In fact the flight doesn't even have to be logged.

And if the flight ended with me bending metal on the landing, it might just as well get logged as a $100 hamburger run. And the CFI was along for the ride.

[Ron McBride]

And with all of these valid points:  we have the FAA rules and regulations, the insurance Company and their Attorneys and of course the possible legal actions from the Owner/pilot, passengers and CFI.  Protect your butt, He/she with the most to loose may loose, even if right.

[chriscalandro]

57 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

That's what you said. @Jim Peace pointed out that is an over generalization and therefore not correct in all situations. You've been back peddling and qualifying the statement since, as you should. So Jim was correct. 

I still stand by this. I'm not back pedaling anything. As for your follow-up question, if a CFI is performing any type of instruction he or she is responsible for the safety of the flight and can be the only PIC. 

Even if there is no instruction, the CFI will often still be considered pic. 

In an airplane with dual controls anyone that can be considered capable of being PIC can be held accountable independent of who was actually PIC. 

In your specific the CFI was doing more than just going along for a ride and was acting as PIC. Why don't you try it though. Let me know how it works out. 

Again, I haven't back pedaled anything. There's a lot of information backing this up on the internet. Perhaps you should look it up yourself instead of asking me to do it. (which I have, and others have also PMed me useful articles as well) 

Edited September 17, 2019 by chriscalandro

[Jim Peace]

23 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

I still stand by this. I'm not back pedaling anything. As for your follow-up question, if a CFI is performing any type of instruction he or she is responsible for the safety of the flight and can be the only PIC.  I would say this is true,,maybe not the PIC all the time but certainly take a part in responsibility.

Even if there is no instruction, the CFI will often still be considered pic. NO WAY JOSE

In an airplane with dual controls anyone that can be considered capable of being PIC can be held accountable independent of who was actually PIC. PROVE IT

Perhaps you should look it up yourself instead of asking me to do it. (which I have, and others have also PMed me useful articles as well) ATTACH THE LINKS

see above

[gsxrpilot]

18 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

I'm not back pedaling anything.

It's all in this thread for everyone to read.

Here's an example for you... my friend Ken goes flying with me to go get lunch. I botch the landing and wreck the plane.

Both of us are Private Pilots with Instrument ratings, neither of us are Commercial pilots or CFI's. Ken has a Multi-engine rating, I do not. Both of us have just over 1000 hours PIC in various airplanes, but Ken has about 50 hours more than I do. It's my airplane, I'm in the left seat, and I'm PIC for the flight. 

Do you maintain that the FAA will say Ken is responsible for the accident?