• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Logging T-34 time

jacob180

New Member
pilot
Yeah, I agree, forgot about that one. Ask around the squadron, guarantee one of the students has a current CFI and would just sign it off for you.

Technically though, that CFI would have had to have flown with you in a high-performance aircraft to give the endorsement. Doesn't everyone just love getting into the nitty gritty of FARs?:icon_wink
 

invertedflyer

500 ft. from said obstacle
This is why I'm going Marine Air... I'm sure theres an FAR dictating amount of coffee consumption per/unit volume allowed before a flight in accordance with adequate crew rest and proper writing utencil storage...I'd lose my mind...
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
Considering how much time I've spent in the hot-pits, I'd be logging some serious time.
But here is the kicker....it's block out of the chocks for the purpose of flight. When you left the chocks at the line, you left for the purpose of refueling. When you leave the chocks at the pits, you are now leaving for the purpose of flight.

Now sitting at the end of the runway for 30 minutes while waiting for an IFR release - that's logable in the civilian world.....and more $$$$ in the airline world.....
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
This is why I'm going Marine Air... I'm sure theres an FAR dictating amount of coffee consumption per/unit volume allowed before a flight in accordance with adequate crew rest and proper writing utencil storage...I'd lose my mind...

Just you wait...there's not a FAR, but there's an OPNAV and a whole NATOPS library waiting for you in your future.
 

Fly Navy

...Great Job!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
But here is the kicker....it's block out of the chocks for the purpose of flight. When you left the chocks at the line, you left for the purpose of refueling. When you leave the chocks at the pits, you are now leaving for the purpose of flight.

Now sitting at the end of the runway for 30 minutes while waiting for an IFR release - that's logable in the civilian world.....and more $$$$ in the airline world.....

We pit after landing, haven't even returned to the line yet.
 

squirt

Registered User
I think you would also run into other technicalities...

One being that only one pilot is supposed to be the PIC. If you are doing this for airline time, they arent stupid. They can look in your logbook and see that you were in training and had never flown a T-34 before. They know someone else signed for the plane, and I dont think you would get very far. Even worse, it could make you look like you are not being honest in your record keeping. Keep in mind, I dont think it would ever get this far...but unlike many civilian planes, there is a written record of each flight in the form of A sheets and yellowsheets (eflirs).

Squirt
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
One being that only one pilot is supposed to be the PIC. If you are doing this for airline time, they arent stupid. They can look in your logbook and see that you were in training and had never flown a T-34 before. They know someone else signed for the plane, and I dont think you would get very far. Even worse, it could make you look like you are not being honest in your record keeping.
I agree that if he was trying to pass this off as PIC as defined FAR Part 1 (sign for the plane) then eye brows would be raised and questions asked during an airline interview. However if he already had a PPL and was logging it as FAR Part 61 PIC (sole manipulator) then he would be perfectly legal, especially if he also logged the time as dual received. After getting their license, many civilian pilots have logbook entries that contain both dual received and PIC. It can cause confusion. When completing an airline application, I subtract out any PIC time that also has duel receive time associated with it. This way, I know only my part 1 defined PIC is listed while the part 61 PIC just falls under total time and it removes any confusion that may be caused by logging part 61 sole manipulator PIC.

The dual received column documents time spent in training. Nothing says dual received has to be training from a civilian CFI. To be used to meet FAA licensing requirements, a CFI must sign the logbook entry that contains the dual received being used to meet those specific requirements. With or without a civilian license, logging his T-34 time as dual received & total time (no entries in the PIC or SIC columns) with a comment in the remarks stating it was a Navy primary flight with LT. XXX as the instructor is perfectly acceptable. All airlines would except it as legitimate part of his total time.

I have many dual received logbook entries to document both simulator and flight training conducted at airlines or at type rating courses where the instructors were not CFIs. If the training was in the simulator, I have entries in the simulator and dual received columns. If the training was in the aircraft, I have entries in the dual received and total time columns. There are corresponding remarks stating what the training was, where it was conducted and who the instructor was. There is no instructor signature for these entries.
 

squirt

Registered User
I agree that if he was trying to pass this off as PIC as defined FAR Part 1 (sign for the plane) then eye brows would be raised and questions asked during an airline interview. However if he already had a PPL and was logging it as FAR Part 61 PIC (sole manipulator) then he would be perfectly legal, especially if he also logged the time as dual received. After getting their license, many civilian pilots have logbook entries that contain both dual received and PIC. It can cause confusion. When completing an airline application, I subtract out any PIC time that also has duel receive time associated with it. This way, I know only my part 1 defined PIC is listed while the part 61 PIC just falls under total time and it removes any confusion that may be caused by logging part 61 sole manipulator PIC.

The dual received column documents time spent in training. Nothing says dual received has to be training from a civilian CFI. To be used to meet FAA licensing requirements, a CFI must sign the logbook entry that contains the dual received being used to meet those specific requirements. With or without a civilian license, logging his T-34 time as dual received & total time (no entries in the PIC or SIC columns) with a comment in the remarks stating it was a Navy primary flight with LT. XXX as the instructor is perfectly acceptable. All airlines would except it as legitimate part of his total time.

I have many dual received logbook entries to document both simulator and flight training conducted at airlines or at type rating courses where the instructors were not CFIs. If the training was in the simulator, I have entries in the simulator and dual received columns. If the training was in the aircraft, I have entries in the dual received and total time columns. There are corresponding remarks stating what the training was, where it was conducted and who the instructor was. There is no instructor signature for these entries.

I still disagree with a couple points you made....
1) I would go as far as to disagree about logging it as true dual time. Afterall, how many IPs in the pits are FAA certified CFIs? If it didnt matter, IPs would be given a CFI rating from the get go without the need to take the exam.

2) I realize that many times people log PIC while receiving dual instruction, but in that case...the CFI should not be logging PIC time. At least that is the way I had it explained to me.

3) I havent looked it up, but I have a hard time believing that instruction does not have to come from a CFI. That would mean one could take instruction from a person with 100 hours total time, then do one flight with a CFI to get the endorsement and then take a checkride. If what you are saying is correct, why do so many people waste their money with hiring a CFI the whole time?

4) I do agree with you though that if you are going to log it as dual time, it would look better if you list your IP and were up front about it rather than look like you are hiding something.
 

Jay

Registered User
Squirt, hate to sink your ship, but the only reason anyone gets a CFI rating is so he can tell you once, "don't forget to raise the gear", and I was giving instruction, hence I can log it as PIC. Whether YOU think it's right or not is irrelevant, the FAA says it's perfectly fine. Arguing about this shiat is pointless, after some recommendations, I'm logging it starting today in my civilian logbook, whatever everyone else does I could care less.
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
Squirt,

It's your logbook and you can log anything in it you want any way you want. The only things the FAA requires a pilot to log are currency requirements and training that goes toward a FAA certificate. I know many airline pilot with single line entires covering their entire months flying. They take the report their airline gives them, fill in total time, either PIC or SIC, and number of landings. In the remarks they write "XXX Airlines, October 2006". Perfectly legal under the FARs. The only thing not shown is instrument currency but by virtue of the proficiency checks, they are always current.

Most part 121, 135, 125, 91K and 142 training is conducted by non-CFIs. How else do you document this training if you don't put it in your log?

No one at any airline interview or in the FAA is ever going to question logging the way I described it. I know many that do it the same way as I do. I've had my logbooks reviewed by airline interviews and the FAA numerous times.
 

Tom

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Dear god

I still disagree with a couple points you made....
1) I would go as far as to disagree about logging it as true dual time. Afterall, how many IPs in the pits are FAA certified CFIs? If it didnt matter, IPs would be given a CFI rating from the get go without the need to take the exam.

14 CFR 61.41:
(a) A person may credit flight training toward the requirements of a pilot certificate or rating issued under this part, if that person received the training from:
(1)A flight instructor of an Armed Force in a program for training military pilots of...
(i) The United States

This means you can log military flight time for a commercial, instrument, type rating, etc. Also, IPs are not "given a CFI rating (it's a certificate, not a rating) from the get go without the need to take the exam". This is because a military pilot would have no clue as to the process of endorsement, required actions, etc. that the FAA specifically requires. If all IPs did get CFIs immediately, there definitely would be a lot of violations.

2) I realize that many times people log PIC while receiving dual instruction, but in that case...the CFI should not be logging PIC time. At least that is the way I had it explained to me.

14 CFR 61.51
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.
(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.
14 CFR 61.1
(b)(2) Authorized instructor means-
(ii) A person who holds a current flight instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chaper when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate...

This means that CFI's can log PIC. If CFI's could not log PIC while doing instruction I would have had a really hard time finding a CFI in the first place. Heck, who enjoys working 6am-10pm 7 days a week making less than $24,000 a year? It is all about working to the airlines.

3) I havent looked it up, but I have a hard time believing that instruction does not have to come from a CFI. That would mean one could take instruction from a person with 100 hours total time, then do one flight with a CFI to get the endorsement and then take a checkride. If what you are saying is correct, why do so many people waste their money with hiring a CFI the whole time?

As I stated above, authorized instruction has to come from a CFI. Sure, your buddy can take you up and "teach" you to fly, but you can not log dual time. If any FAA inspector got a hold of your logbook during a checkride and saw dual time with either a private pilot or no one at all, you are in trouble. I would say certificate actions and heavy fining could take place. Plus, the buddy who gave "instruction" would also be in trouble. Spend some time reading part 61 and you will start to understand the ramifications of messing with flight time can be.

4) I do agree with you though that if you are going to log it as dual time, it would look better if you list your IP and were up front about it rather than look like you are hiding something.

I would say you would be if you were not.

Relating back to a CFI in a squadron handing out a complex endorsement, that would come back to get the pilot and the CFI.
14 CFR 61.31
(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes.
(1) ...no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller) unless the person has-
(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane...
(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.

This could cause problems if the above happened. As a CFI I know of the liability assumed with instruction and endorsements. If some guy were to go off and kill himself and/or damage something as a result of flying a high endorsement plane I can be held liable for damages and huge fines. This has happened in the past with a private pilot killing himself and some passengers in a crash. The CFI responsible for the student pilot training was held responsible for the damages.

Overall, do not go messing around with aviation records. Always, always, always talk to a CFI first.
 

TurnandBurn55

Drinking, flying, or looking busy!!
None
:D You're jealous. What's it feel like to be bingo all the time?

It's actually quite terrifying. There you are, at the western edge of the area after an LFE egress... minding your own business trying to get a clearance home... and then every Charlie in the whole excersize starts trying to run you over to get back to Oceana because they're running on fumes.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Relating back to a CFI in a squadron handing out a complex endorsement, that would come back to get the pilot and the CFI.
14 CFR 61.31
(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes.
(1) ...no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller) unless the person has-
(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane...
(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.

This could cause problems if the above happened. As a CFI I know of the liability assumed with instruction and endorsements. If some guy were to go off and kill himself and/or damage something as a result of flying a high endorsement plane I can be held liable for damages and huge fines. This has happened in the past with a private pilot killing himself and some passengers in a crash. The CFI responsible for the student pilot training was held responsible for the damages.

Hmm...I can't remember if we ever get complex endorsements. If I remember, I'll check my military logbook #1 and see if it says anything. I kind of doubt it does. I know I didn't get anything in my personal logbook when I got my new tickets after flight school.
 
Top