Single guys that we are, my CFI recently asked me to set him up on a blind date with the friend of a lady I see. I made the arrangements, and we planned to take the ladies out to dinner at a well-known airport restaurant with a night return. This was a win-win deal since I would get dual time, night instruction, and a first-ever-at-the-controls dip under Class B airspace. I also agreed to pay for the aircraft and my CFI's dinner.
My rental and service charges arrived later in the month, and I was stunned to see that my instructor had charged me the full instructor's rate for the entire evening! I had paid for the Hobbs time on the aircraft, introduced him to a very attractive lady, and paid for his dinner. Yeah, I'm irked.
When I asked him (more politely than I felt) about it, he said, "Well, you got full loggable instruction time, both at night and in Class B procedures training as well as an IFR-rated copilot. I was there in a professional capacity."
Regretfully, he is almost the only game in town at a very small airfield, so I've held back in view of my checkride pending in weeks. On the other hand, maybe this is a fairly common practice and I'm looking at it the wrong way. What would be Machado's Guideline?
Thanks for the ongoing help!
David
Dear David:
Imagine if any instructor said the following to you or any other person in your position as a student: OK, here's the plan. I want you to set me up with a very attractive lady who I would not ordinarily get a chance to meet, pay for an airplane in which four of us can fly to dinner, pay for my dinner, and pay me as well, since I'll be demonstrating my teaching skills in front of this lady in hopes of gaining points.
Would you go for a deal like that beforehand? I doubt that any reasonable person would consider this fair. I think you got the shorter end of the dipstick here. You may have even gotten the (crank)shaft, too. Nevertheless, no great matter of principle is involved. This is simply a conflict between different ideas about what's fair. The experience, however, does ante up an important lesson.
Much of life requires that we know when to speak up and when to lock our lips. You demonstrated wisdom with your silence. After all, you have more to lose than to gain by demanding a credit for the instructor's fee. So take your checkride, be happy, and remember this: Before you fly with others, try your best to determine what they expect of you and what you expect of them. In the long run, you'll experience fewer disappointments.
This approach also pays great dividends, especially when flying with passengers. If you know that your passengers expect you to fly in weather beyond your comfort level, you can put them on a night freighter and be done with this frustration. Either way, all parties involved are better off when each knows what to expect of the other.
Finally, if a copy of this article happens to end up on the desk of the very attractive blind-date lady, this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The earlier she knows about your instructor's idea of fairness and propriety, the better off she'll be. After all, if they get hitched and he teaches her to fly, there's a good chance that she'll receive a bill for flight instruction every month.
Dear Rod,
Hi, I have a quick question. What is the correct phraseology for air traffic control when I want the option to have my student do a touch-and-go or full-stop landing (depending on how nice the landing is) at a towered airport?
Bruce
Greetings Bruce:
Use the phrase, "I'd like the option." If approved, the tower will clear you for the option, which means you can make either a touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full-stop landing. In other words, the tower will expect you to do any one of the above. Hopefully your student won't try to do all of them at the same time (see "Aviation Speak," June 2001 AOPA Flight Training).
Dear Mr. Machado:
Could you help clear up the confusion regarding the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time by a pilot acting as a safety pilot? Several of our local flight instructors are having a difficult time making heads or tails out of the regulations about logging time.
Thanks,
Jim
Greetings Jim:
There are only three conditions in which a private or commercial pilot can log PIC time.
You may log pilot-in-command flight time when:
You are the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated (If you are flying a Cessna 172 and you have an airplane, single engine land rating, then you can log this time as PIC;
You are the sole occupant of the aircraft (If you are the only one in the airplane then there's a very good chance that you're the only one flying it, so log the time as PIC. How do you log this if you have a split personality? I suppose you'll have to get a multiengine rating.); or
You are acting as PIC on an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification or the regulations under which the flight is conducted (this one needs a bit of explanation).
To understand that final point, you must understand the difference between logging PIC and acting as the PIC. Keep in mind that FAR 91. 109(b)1 wisely requires that a safety pilot be on board if the person flying is operating under simulated instrument conditions. Yes, I think this is a good rule, too. The regulations also require that one person on board the aircraft always act as PIC. This will be the person who is legally responsible for the operation of that aircraft. The person acting as the pilot in command can obviously log this time as PIC. On the other hand, the regulations also allow an additional person to log PIC if that person does something that generates experience of sufficient value. Here's an example.
Suppose you and a friend both have private pilot certificates with airplane, single engine land ratings. Let's also say that each of you is legally qualified to act as the legal PIC (meaning that you are both current, have current medicals, etc.). Both of you hop into a Cessna 172 for a flight. Your friend wears a view-limiting device and is the sole manipulator of the flight controls while you act as the safety pilot.
In this instance, if your friend elects to act as the legal PIC as well as be the sole manipulator of the flight controls, then he alone logs the flight time as PIC while you log the time as second in command (SIC).
On the other hand, you may elect to act as the safety pilot as well as the legal PIC while your friend is the sole manipulator of the controls. If so, then you can log the time as PIC, and your friend can also log the time as PIC. Do you see why this is? Being the safety pilot doesn't mean you can automatically log the time as PIC. You must be willing to act as the legal PIC (as well as the safety pilot) to log this time as PIC. Since your friend is the sole manipulator of the controls, he gets to log PIC time as well. If anything goes wrong in this scenario, you're the one whose ticket will be on the line.
Yes, I realize that some folks suggest it's possible for both pilots to simultaneously log all the flight time as PIC here, but the FAA doesn't seem to think so (and they are the folks whose opinion counts in this instance). The only condition in which these two pilots can log PIC is when one pilot is operating under simulated conditions as stated above. Under this condition the regulations require that two pilots be on board the airplane. There's no type certificate (or any condition, for that matter) which requires that two private or commercial pilots be on board a Cessna 172.
If you have additional questions on this matter, then please check all this out for yourself on the Internet (http: //afs600.faa.gov). Once there, look under the column of Designee Standardization (640). Then look at the subcategory of Other Designee Information. Click FAQ 14 CFR, Part 61 and 141. Finally, click on the URL titled FAQ 14 CFR Part 61 [in Microsoft (.doc) format]. If you download this document, begin reading on pages 51 and 56.
Related Articles
