Logging XC according to Orlando FSDO
 

How do you guys log cross-country time? Let’s assume that the total hobbs time is 3.0 and you made 2 full stop landings during your XC. Orlando FSDO make us deduct 0.2 from the XC time for each landing for what they call "Airport operation" which involves taxi, run-up, etc. So the "correct" way according to the FSDO to log this flight is 3.0 total time and only 2.6 XC time.
I tried to research this issue and couldn't find anything specific. Part 1.1 defines flight time as : "(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing".
While part 61.1 defines XC time as...
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this section, time acquired during flight"
The FSDO interprets the time acquired during flight as the time that is acquired from takeoff to landing. My personal opinion is that the FSDO got it wrong as time acquired during flight is flight time... But I might be wrong. What are your thoughts? How do you log cross-country time? Do you consider time acquired during flight the same thing as flight time?

Part 1.1 defines it as:
And part 61 says:

61.51 says:
Time acquired during a flight vs. flight time?

You should ask the FSDO if they think this would hold up in court? (it wouldn't). They'd have to argue that "time acquired during a flight" is not "flight time". It's a loophole that they left open, and while the FSDO is free to interpret it the way they have and make people present their logbooks in a "manner that is acceptable to the administrator", if this went up the pole to an NTSB judge, it would likely get knocked back down in favor of whomever wanted to record the "total" time, because the FAA wording isn't very clear and any decent lawyer would be able to argue that "time acquired during a flight" is synonymous with "flight time" when applying reasonable rules of the English language.

2 outta 3 are fairly clear that it's the total hobbs time essentially, and the case that doesn't fit doesn't fit just because they used the term backwards? Yeah...

The FSDO level does not have authority to interpret regulation. That is left to the Regional and Chief Legal Counsel, who interpret regulation (and issue letters of interpretation) on behalf of the Administrator.

Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation and legal opinions are defensible in the appeal process. The word of an inspector at the FSDO level, or even that word in writing, is not.

An FSDO inspector has authority to initiate the enforcement process, but not to interpret the regulation.

Central FL is very picky about student logging, and prone to random acts of management due to all the shenanigans at the puppy mills over the years.

If you don't feel like fighting city hall on this, just do touch and goes until you can get the hell out of the swamp.

True, but I left out the part of the regs that does say "in a manner acceptable to the administrator", that gives the FSDO a wide berth, although it could be knocked down by a legal ruling. I'm talking about before it goes to legal.

That's true. The conundrum for the average citizen-pilot who is subject to the FSDO is that one will never get the opportunity to use the legal interpretations until the appeal process in enforcement action, so it's a two-way sword.

One must get past the FSDO in the first place.

I'm a retired Airline Guy with all the CFI tickets.
Recently trained a good friends son, in their family C-172, in the Ocala, FL area (under Orlando FSDO's jurisdiction).
Got the kid 90% complete, and the engine went out of limits on Annual!
Sent him to a good local Flight School for finish up, and they recalculated his X-C hours, using the .2 adjustment mentioned, because all the Designated Examiners in this area, are following this guideline we were told.
Family said fine, more training never hurts.
Kid didn't mind either.
I'd never seen this "adjustment" technique in 42 years as a CFI, but what it is, is what it is, I guess!!!
Just saying.

Extra training is fine, but when you try to get your commercial especially on a multi-engine airplane it can get very pricey for no good reason... Just saying

I think most of us will agree this is fairly ridiculous. Personally I'd do some mathematical rounding to lessen the pain.

Hey Squak87,

I agree with what you are saying.
In our scenario, it made no sense to "Fight City Hall".
Nothing in this business is cheap, as I'm sure you have already found out!
I'm sure like others have already said, there is little to nothing to support Orlando's thinking on this one.
Good luck on your training.
I left an opening at Big Brown for you, if your timing is right!

Jabr800

Training is never over, I work toward my ATP XC at the moment and I don't deduct any time for ground ops. However, my students who are working toward their CPL forced to deduct this 0.2 for each landing and as I mentioned before I completely disagree with that fact. The other day I spoke to an aviation attorney and he promised to check the issue for me... We'll see

A FSDO is not "the administrator." They have no authority for a wide berth. Making up their own regs is a misuse of power, not an act of authority. Big difference between the two.

They most certainly are The Administrator. The safety inspectors are "The Administrator". Everything that says "The Administrator" has been legally interpreted to mean The Administrator or his representative. Just about anyone working for the FAA in an official capacity is. :) If you have a court case, god forbid, it will be labeled John Smith vs. The Administrator. I'm not trying to scare here, it's just the truth, and it's good for all of us to know. This is how they are able to get air carriers and others to make safety changes when it's difficult to tell if they are really in compliance with a rule or best safety practice, avoiding pencil-whipping, etc. As you see above, it's not grounds for some sort of action against a pilot, but it could be grounds for "not accepting" an 8710 application, etc.

FAA inspectors acting under the authority of the Administrator carry that authority in their duties. Bear in mind that the duty issued the Administrator is under an Act of Congress (as amended). Each representative carries the full extent of the authority delegated under the Administrator.

Don't expect the FAA Administrator to show up on your ramp, and inspect you. Or correspond with you. That's why FSDO's are set up throughout the country with inspectors and personnel to represent the Administrator.

An Inspector does not carry all the duties and responsibilities of the Administrator, but he or she does carry the full authority of the Administrator insofar as the duties delegated and assigned.

Among the duties not assigned is interpretation of regulation; that's assigned through the Regional and Chief legal counsel's offices. That said, the Inspector carries a lot of latitude in initiating enforcement action and application of the regulation. Until their word is challenged under an ALJ, the word is the law. That is to say, much like enforcement action, the FAA inspector sets the rule at the local level, and if one doesn't like it one can kick it up the chain...but it's always a matter of guilty until proven innocent, and it's up to you to do the proving by appealing and then making the case. If the FAA is simply administering and not taking enforcement action, there's no particular appeal process, although you can go to region to seek assistance.

Use some care in the politics of how the matter is handled, as you still need to deal with the local FSDO.

AOPA?
 

This sounds like a good case to get AOPA cracking on. Anyone affected by this a member?

Exactly. FSDO inspectors are not "the Administrator" any more than the police office walking the beat is "the Mayor." FAA Inspectors are agents and representatives of the Administrator with limited duties and authority (but with the power to make your life miserable).

Of course, Inspector = Administrator is a fun visualization, especially when you've watched "the Administrator" argue with "himself" during an enforcement investigation.

That is getting off track and straying somewhat from what is correct. There are those excerpts in the regulations that say "in a manner acceptable to the administrator" to give the inspector the latitude necessary to carry out the role of "the administrator". If someone were to bring in a logbook that doesn't make sense or in some other way doesn't pass the "reasonable test", this gives the inspector the latitude to reject the application, as an example. Now if that constitutes a breach of authority or something that you feel SHOULD pass the reasonable test, then you can appeal to region or regional counsel. Carrying out official duties means they are acting as "the administrator".

"A person authorized by the administrator" (this is referring to inspectors authorizing DPEs, instructors, etc)

"documentation acceptable to the administrator" (gov. ID, there is further guidance for "the administrator" beyond just what is in the regs)

" Each person who holds an airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license required by this part must present it and their photo identification as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for inspection upon a request from:

(1) The Administrator; (this is referring to the inspector)
(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;
(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration."

etc.

I agree it's a "strange" way to write rules and view them, but this is how it's written and interpreted. I say this to try and help, as the legal context is the most important part to think about. Part 61 doesn't even mention inspectors until later on in the ATP section.

I know this is a zombie thread but I've had lively discussions with two Orlando FSDO inspectors claiming this and I took them to the cleaners with the FAR-AIM.
On my phone right now so can't look it up but FAA council has also ruled on this.
Hobbs time is an FAA accepted way of logging flight time.
So when the Hobbs runs you are authorized to log it.
They also tried to tell me you couldn't do maneuvers during a cross country.
Eg...a 100 mile XC and you slow boat it at 90kts instead of 120 and you do ground ref maneuvers on the way.
Ends up being a two hour flight instead of .9
That's all XC buddy, and legally so.
The Orlando FSDO suffers from a severe case of "tribal law".

It's already gone legal.

Acceptable to the Administrator is determined by the FAA Chief and Regional Legal counsel, not at the FSDO level. Inspectors at the FSDO level have authority to administer the program in accordance with the regulation, but zero authority to interpret the regulation. Where they attempt to do so incorrectly, there are sources to which one can turn.

In the case of the question posed by the original poster, ample legal interpretations already exist, such that there is no grey area here. That an inspector at the Orlando FSDO states otherwise is irrelevant and easily dismissed, given the preponderance of standing legal opinions already available to the public straight from the office of the FAA Chief Legal Counsel.

The inspector at the FSDO level has NO authority to attempt to administer the program contrary to the will and interpretation of the Administrator, which is delegated to the Chief and Regional Legal Counsels.

If I recall correctly from a previous discussion with a DPE I know, this stemmed from issues where the math just didn't add up. There were several cases where the cross country flights just couldn't have been accomplished according to simple time/speed/distance calculations. Add the lengthy time spent on the ground at many of the airports from which the name brand schools are located and it became quite apparent that something was fishy.

One can depart, fly 2 miles from the field, hold for six hours, and continue on one's way, to a point 50 miles away and land. Cross country complete. Perhaps 6.5 or 7.0 hours of logged time, 50 mile distance. It's cross country time and meets the regulatory definition.

The hours don't have to add up.

I've had flights that were over four hours and the total distance was about fifteen ground miles. Between the very long taxi departing JFK, the vector quite some distance away to get into the congo line to get into Newark, the approach, landing, and taxi in, it took four hours to knock out a few miles of trip. I don't log cross country, but while not 50 miles away, it would have been cross country for certain purposes, with a landing at a point other than the point of departure, as well as a flight to a point at least 50 miles away. It would not have been cross country for the purposes of a private or commercial pilot.

The definition of cross country changes with the application, and there is no requirement that one fly straight point to point. The flight time, in accordance with the regulation (and numerous Chief Legal Counsel interpretations thereof) commences when the aircraft moves with the intention of flight and ends when it comes to rest after the flight. There is no definition provided by the FAA or the regulation itself which suggests that the cross country time doesn't include the taxi at the beginning and end of the flight as well. It's a cross country flight, and insofar as the calculation of the flight itself goes for logging cross country time, the standard definition is the correct one. The flight time for the cross country flight has a beginning at taxi and and end after landing with taxi, which may be included as part of that cross country logged time.

They do have to add up when it's the other way around, i.e. flying a Skyhawk that cruises at 180kts both ways in still air. The examiners started applying the 0.2 as a sniff test of sorts. Which seems to have been taken to somewhat of an extreme over the years, perhaps due to new instructors and examiners not understanding why this methodology was implemented to begin with.

I used to help my students out by incorporating slow flight, s-turns, chandelles, lazy eights, etc enroute (if they weren't having any issues navigating). I would turn a 50 nm flight into a 2-hour adventure. Considering that they would have to determine their position again after each maneuvering event, I am pretty sure they deserved to log all of that time as cross country.

Well, they paid for it, so they sure as hell deserved to log it ;)