Blackhawk

I will see if I can find it. Basically the issue was NOT that they were both logging PIC/MEI time, but not filling out the other person's logbook. If they had their ducks in a row with the logbooks it wouldn't have been an issue.

Blackhawk

1. The amount of hours logged by the owner is irrelevant. I have over 10,000 hours and often receive dual from pilots with less time than me. It's perfectly legal. As a matter of fact I tell them at the beginning to treat me like any other student who is out there trying to kill them.
2. Make sure that you log the CFI time in your logbook and it is also logged and signed in his logbook. If he's wearing a hood and doing some approaches, make sure this is logged in both logbooks. If he pulls his 'chute, so what? Again, see bullet #1. In every enforcement case on record the issue was not that the person was logging dual, the issue was that the logbooks did not properly reflect this dual given.
3. If the owner wants to pay the pilot, who has a commercial certificate and is otherwise current, to fly his personal airplane that is perfectly legal. It's done all the time. Legally.

Blackhawk

Link doesn't work.
Google FAA vs. Crow and Pearson.

JohnBurke

Apples and oranges. The original poster wants to log time; the thread and the question of the thread is NOT about providing instruction.

Yes, a 5,000 or 10,000 hour pilot can receive instruction. We all do, to say nothing of line checks, recurrent, etc. In your case, you sought and obtained instruction. Not really relevant.

The original poster is seeking to log time by calling it instruction; he's seeking ways to justify riding around with the owner of the aircraft.

There is no question, no debate, regarding whether one can give instruction and log it. This has never been in question.

The issue of attempting to call a flight "instruction" and log it, when instruction is not provided, strictly for the sake of attempting to justify parker penning time in the logbook, carries with it a number of legal and ethical pitfalls.

A Squared

Apologies for the bad link. Yep. Crow and Pearson is the one.

Let's try this link thingy again

A Squared

Well, yes and no. Let's be frank here. This wasn't simply a case of them making some innocent mistake with not quite logging the instruction the correct way. They were both logging PIC (PIC only, not PIC/Dual Received and PIC/DUal Given) for the same time flown. The purpose was for each to take full credit for all the time flown. Let's be honest here, 200 hours of ME PIC time is a lot more desirable than 100 hours of dual received, and 100 hours of dual given. Especially if the dual received and dual given alternates between the same pilots on every leg. So, clearly their intent was to misrepresent the time flown as something it wasn't, which is falsification.

But yes, you are correct in that if, when the FAA first requested their logbooks, they had been filled out so that every entry for the Aztec time was properly logged as dual given and dual received in both of their logbooks, then the FAA probably couldn't have touched them.

Blackhawk

Ethical, yes depending on what they are doing. Legal, as long as the logbooks jibe, not at all unless you can show me a case where this happened. If instruction is provided, instruction time can be logged. In the one case in the NTSB legal database the instructors' logbooks did not jibe with what the other person logged. As long as both logbooks match the FAA can't touch you. The amount of time either pilot has is irrelevant to the logging of flight time.

JohnBurke

This has never been in question, nor was it the question posed by the original poster. READ.

It is also irrelevant.

The original poster wasn't providing instruction. He was riding as a passenger and hoping to log the time by calling it instruction. This is not providing instruction. To call it instruction is fraudulent, and to log this fraud is falsification, which very much illegal.

Simply because one memorializes an illegal act does not make it legal, nor moral, nor ethical if you wish to trip down that path.

Memorializing an illegal act does ensure, however that self-incriminating evidence is created in a legal format to not only record one's act, but at the same time attempt to cover it up. In some circles, that's called "checkmate."

Blackhawk

I am reading. The original post-
“Can I Flight Instruct a 5000 hour pilot?
I met this guy who owns a cirrus and takes me up quite frequently can I log this a dual given as long as I teach him something in flight? He has thousands of hours and just likes someone to go up with him.”
Again, if instruction takes place instruction can be logged.

Blackhawk

Perfectly legal. It’s a part 91 operation. The owner of an airplane can pretty much pay any properly certified pilot to fly him around as long as he maintains operational control of the aircraft.
There are some exceptions. For example, in this case th owner wants the pilot to fly him and six friends from ABC to XYZ. Well, this airplane in question only has 3 open seats. The first flight up is legal. If the pilot returns to ABC and picks up the other 3 pax that could be interpreted as an illegal charter without a 135 certificate.