Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Aviation Law
Time logged improperly >

Time logged improperly

Search

Notices
Aviation Law Legal issues, FARs, and questions

Time logged improperly

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-07-2010 | 04:17 PM
  #11  
cptslewis's Avatar
On Reserve
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: 757/767 First Officer
Default

I had an argument about this with an FAA inspector once. I was at the time flying with a guy who had a twin on a 135 certificate. He frequently had charters which meant empty legs. While inspecting my logbook for my 135 pic checkout for the same company the FAA examiner, who was also the 135 POI , saw that I had logged around 9 months of PIC time in the aircraft. He berated me for padding my logbook and doing it illegally. His argument was that I was not checked out for the 135 and that passengers pay for the empty legs. My argument was that the airplane is not operated under the 135 certificate but was being operated part 91 and I was appropriately trained and rated to fly those flights and the passengers did not know or pay for whether the airplane was being relocated 1o0 miles back to the aircrafts base or 1000 miles anywhere else.

This was the one and only time in my 13 years in aviation that I won an argument with the FAA.
Reply
Old 03-09-2010 | 07:10 AM
  #12  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,870
Likes: 666
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Yes the pax pay indirectly for empty legs, but that doesn't stop you from operating them under 91. 135 is only required if the pax or cargo are onboard.

Amazing that these local guys have so much latitude to make up their own rules. I suspect he was former military with no GA experience at all.
Reply
Old 03-09-2010 | 10:33 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
Yes the pax pay indirectly for empty legs, but that doesn't stop you from operating them under 91. 135 is only required if the pax or cargo are onboard.

Amazing that these local guys have so much latitude to make up their own rules. I suspect he was former military with no GA experience at all.
And sometimes inspectors are just wrong.

I was once in a conference we requested in response to a Letter of Investigation. At first I thought the two Inspectors were playing "good cop-bad cop" until it dawned on me that they really disagreed with each other on the substance of whether certain conduct was a violation. It was an interesting dynamic to watch and we ultimately left when I decided that we weren't getting anywhere and were better off letting them sort it out without us.

Don't be surprised at the latitude. Ultimately interpretation is for the FAA attorneys, the NTSB and the Courts. But the guys on the front line, whether it be FAA or your local police officer, interpret the rules every day. While some of these guys may be into power and abuse their authority, most are just trying to do their jobs the best they can.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wmuflyboy
Flight Schools and Training
30
03-26-2023 06:18 PM
captain_drew
Flight Schools and Training
39
12-05-2012 08:29 AM
Sniper
Aviation Law
13
11-15-2009 08:16 PM
HectorD
Flight Schools and Training
27
06-03-2009 03:45 PM
Chrisw
Flight Schools and Training
13
05-25-2009 11:28 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices