YODICE ASSOCIATES
  • About The Firm
    • Meet The Team
    • Practice Areas
  • Resources
    • Industry Articles & Updates
    • Attorney Resources
    • Events & Links
  • Contact
  • About The Firm
    • Meet The Team
    • Practice Areas
  • Resources
    • Industry Articles & Updates
    • Attorney Resources
    • Events & Links
  • Contact
A selection of John Yodice's

Pilot-Counsel Columns

  Select a title below or scroll down to view all 

​                                    Special VFR  ~  Logging Flight Time  ~  Buyer Beware  ~  Watch that Altitude!    
​                           Private Vs. Commercial Flying  ~  Pilots And Privacy  ~  Your Insurance & Logged Flight Time   
                                     Instructor Liability Still a Concern ~  Low Flight: A Case Study ~ Obscure FAR 61.15
                                                  Defying ATC Instructions  ~  The $5,000 Fine  ~  An Airport Wins One
​                                                                                                Reasonable Reliance

All

PILOT-Counsel:                   Logging Flight Time

10/29/2020

2 Comments

 
January 2019 editorial comment and update: ​This article first appeared in the January 2001 AOPA PILOT magazine. It addresses how incorrect logging of flight time can lead to an FAA claim of falsification.  The cited falsification regulation, FAR 61.59, is still very much in effect and falsification remains a troublesome issue today, although it’s more frequently linked to a mistake or misstatement on an application for an FAA medical certificate than to pilot logbook entries.
 
Let’s pivot to another issue touched on in John Yodice’s article relating to the logging of second-in-command flight time.  FAR 61.51(f) specifies, in short, that SIC time may only be logged by a qualified pilot in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by type certificate, or when more than one pilot is required by regulation (think safety pilot SIC in this latter instance). It sounds simple enough, but over the years we’ve heard from pilots and operators who have incorrectly believed that pilots can log SIC time when performing flight duties while occupying the co-pilot seat of single pilot aircraft. And some of these pilots have used this flight time in calculating the aeronautical experience hours required for eligibility to obtain an ATP and which has potential falsification implications. I think most of us will agree that right seat time can be valuable experience—it has just never been log-able, that is, until recently.
 
In 2018 the FAA amended a regulation and issued an Advisory Circular that details a pathway for pilots, under certain conditions, to log SIC flight time during operations that do not require a second pilot (see FAR 135.99 and AC 135-43). It’s called the Second-in-Command Professional Development Program. In essence, this program permits Part 135 charter operators to use qualified pilots to serve as SICs in multiengine or single-engine, turbine-powered airplanes that do not require a second pilot and in turn, the SIC pilots may log the time and use it to meet certain aeronautical experience requirements.  This is especially useful to both pilots and operators, as it expands opportunities for logging pilot time and provides increased safety inherent in multi-crew operations.    
 
The charter operator/carrier and the SIC pilot must adhere to the specific requirements prescribed in 135.99.
The logging of flight time can sometimes create real legal problems for pilots.  This is especially true, as a recent case tells us, if the FAA believes that a pilot is intentionally padding his or her time to meet some FAA requirement.  Pilots are not generally aware that then, a pilot will be facing fraud or intentional falsification charges.  According to the FAA, these are serious charges that go to the heart of the pilot’s qualifications.  The FAA will always seek the revocation of all of the pilot’s FAA certificates based on fraud or intentional falsification with respect to FAA records or applications.  Even unintentional mistakes, which we all make, can create legal problems for pilots in trying to explain them away to a skeptical FAA. 
 
The case that we are reporting involves a hapless pilot who had been planning his entire life for a career in aviation, following his father who is a retired airline pilot.  The son was a commercial pilot and flight instructor, supporting himself and his young child (he had custody) by giving flight instruction.  At the same time, in order to advance his career, he was working as a part-time pilot for a company that provided both on-demand charter service and aircraft management.  The company had four aircraft: two single-engine Beech Bonanzas, a twin-engine Beech Baron, and a twin-engine Beech King Air.  The pilot was flying as captain on the Bonanzas.  He was also receiving training from the company to upgrade to captain on the Baron.  And also at the same time, with the help of the company, he was working on getting his Airline Transport Pilot certificate.
 
The pilot got paid for all of the flying he did with the company.  Not only did he get paid to captain the Bonanzas on revenue flights, the company paid him to fly in the company’s Beech King Air and Beech Baron.  On the twins, his job was to observe company operations on Part 135 flights, to prepare him to upgrade.  On those trips, he would fly with the person who was the company’s training captain and check airman.  He would be a right-seat observer on the Part 135 legs, and he would receive flight instruction on the non-Part 135 legs when there were no passengers.  Even on the Part 135 legs, he would help out by operating the radios, helping with the charts, giving passenger briefings, and the like. 
 
How he logged this time is what got him in trouble with the FAA.  His practice was to record all the paid time he flew for the company on his kneeboard.  He would later periodically record the time in his logbook.  He believed ​he was allowed to log all of the time for which he was paid for flying with the company. He couldn’t see anywhere in the regulations where he couldn’t list it toward total flight time, so long as he didn't claim any of the time as 
pilot in command unless he actually was.  He did originally claim some time as second in command because the company listed him as second in command on the company manifests for the flights.  In two entries, amounting to less than 8 hours, he logged this second-in-command time with explanatory notes such as “charter crew concept.”  But then he was told by the POI that the flight could not be logged as second in command because he was technically not a required flight crewmember on the Part 135 flights and the company was not approved to train second in command.  So, he crossed out the two second-in-command entries but still listed the total time.  After that, while he did not log the time as second in command, in the remarks section he recorded that he was “acting” second in command.  He felt that since he was an observer, performing functions, and being paid by the company, it was proper.  He saw nothing in the regulations that prevented it.  The company knew how he was logging the time.
 
Here is how his logged flight time was called into question.  He was ready to upgrade to captain on the Baron.  He was scheduled with the company’s FAA Principal Operations Inspector to take a check ride in the Baron for the addition of multiengine privileges under Part 135.  The company, as a favor to him, asked the FAA inspector to give him the practical test for an airline transport pilot certificate at the same time using the company Baron.  He presented himself to the FAA inspector with his application and logbook to take the certification test.  On his application (FAA Form 8710-1, Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application), he claimed 1926 hours of total pilot time, 1846 hours of pilot-in-command time, and 598 hours of cross country pilot-in-command time.  These times came right out of his logbook, and included the time he flew for the company.
 
The inspector, in reviewing the logbooks to confirm the flight time, noticed that some of the entries showed time in multiengine aircraft, some in fairly sophisticated multiengine aircraft (the King Air), and some indicated that the time was flown under Part 135 or annotated with the word “charter.”  The inspector knew that the pilot had not yet been qualified to fly multiengine under Part 135.  The inspector questioned the entries.
 
After some discussion with the inspector, including a review of Part 61, the pilot became convinced that he had been mistaken in how he recorded some of the time.  So, he made changes to the entries in his logbook to comport with what the inspector told him he could log under Part 61.  Even though none of the disputed time was necessary for the ATP or Part 135 multiengine check, that didn’t solve his problem.  The check ride was suspended.  The FAA ultimately charged him with a violation of FAR 61.59.  The FAA, on an emergency basis (an immediate grounding), revoked all of his FAA certificates, including his commercial pilot and flight instructor certificates.  The FAA charges focused on ten entries in his logbook, amounting to some 23 hours of pilot time, all paid time, flying for the company.
 
Was the pilot padding his time, or more importantly, was he guilty of fraud and intentional falsification in violation of FAR 61.59?  The FAA believed so, and so did the NTSB.  The pilot appealed the case to the NTSB.  The NTSB sustained the FAA charges as well as the revocation of all of his certificates.  Whether we agree or disagree with the outcome of this case, it is a dramatic illustration of what can happen to a pilot who, innocently or otherwise, pads his or her flight time.  Pilots need to know about it. 
 
Let’s take a look at the regulation in question.  FAR 61.59(a) provides that: “No person may make or cause to be made:
(1)Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application for a certificate, rating, authorization, or duplicate thereof, issued under this part [Part 61, which deals with the certification of pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors];
(2)Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or exercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part [the same Part 61].”
 
Recognizing how strict the FAA and NTSB can be, it is also a good idea to review FAR 61.51 which covers pilot logbooks, and tells in detail what needs to be logged, and how.  FAR 61.51 always generates a lot of questions from pilots.  It is too long to deal with in this column.  We will address it in future columns.
 
 
                                      Copyright © Yodice Associates 2000.  All rights reserved.
       
    
John Yodice is the Senior Partner of the Law Offices of Yodice Associates, a law firm experienced in aviation legal matters involving DOT, FAA and TSA certification and compliance, corporate governance, aircraft transactions and more. www.yodice.com
​
2 Comments

PILOT-COUNSEL:                Special VFR

10/29/2020

0 Comments

 
December 2019 editorial comment and update:​  This article first appeared in the July 2000 AOPA PILOT magazine. Since then the noted FAR 91.157 has not changed and therefore, the analysis offered in the article remains valid today.  In a notable 2012 Chief Counsel Opinion, the FAA maintains that on approach for landing at an airport with AWOS, the AWOS reported visibility will supersede a pilot’s report of airborne flight conditions.  In other words, ATC may not grant special VFR clearance to land at an airport with AWOS when the AWOS reported visibility is less than 1 statute mile, despite a contention by the pilot that flight visibility is greater than 1 statute mile. 
​
Do you know the technical difference between ground visibility and flight visibility?  It could be important.  Suppose you are sitting in your aircraft on the ground at a satellite airport (an airport that is in the same airspace area as the primary airport on which the airspace designation is based).  The primary airport is reporting less than one-mile ground visibility.  The satellite airport does not have weather reporting, but you can see a mile or more in all directions.  You see that the haze layer is not very thick.  You would like to be able to depart special VFR, get on top of the haze, and proceed VFR to a destination that is reporting good VFR conditions.  Can you legally obtain a “special VFR” clearance?  There has been confusion about the answer to that question, which has led to a regulatory change we will explain.  

​In this situation, the technical difference between ground and flight visibility becomes important.
That’s because, in order to get a special VFR clearance from the ATC facility controlling the airspace, ground visibility at the departure airport must be at least one statute mile.  If ground visibility is not reported at the airport, as in this situation, then flight visibility must be at least one statute mile. 
 
This has been the problem.  Except for the regulatory change, technically, a pilot on the ground cannot determine flight visibility.  Flight visibility is by definition determined by a pilot from the cockpit.  The FAA interprets this definition to mean that flight visibility can only be determined when an aircraft is airborne. 
 
Ground visibility, on the other hand, is an officially reported condition, not a pilot observed condition.  Ground visibility is defined to be “the prevailing horizontal visibility near the earth’s surface as reported by the United States Weather Service or an accredited observer.”  A pilot, unless he/she also happens to be an accredited weather observer, cannot report ground visibility.
 
Unless there happens to be a pilot in flight who reports back the flight visibility conditions (who doesn’t have to be an accredited observer), our pilot on the ground is stuck.  ATC has been reluctant to issue a special VFR clearance when the weather at the main airport was reported to be visibility less than a mile.  A regulatory change solves this situation, and in explaining it, gives us an opportunity to review the “special VFR” regulation.
 
Let’s start with the basics (forgive the pun) of FAR 91.155 that all pilots know but like to be refreshed about from time to time.  (There are additional requirements for student and recreational pilots).  Let’s look particularly at the “basic” (as distinguished from “special”) VFR weather minimums that apply to VFR operations at an airport within controlled airspace.  By that I mean an airport that has controlled airspace that begins at the surface of the airport.  That’s any airport within Class B, C, and D airspace.  That’s also any airport within Class E airspace that begins at the surface of the airport (not an airport that has Class G airspace at its surface with Class E airspace above).  The basic VFR visibility minimums that apply in this airspace are: at least three statute miles ground visibility, and at least three statute miles flight visibility.  In other words, a pilot may not operate an aircraft to or from such an airport under VFR with less than three miles visibility, both ground and flight. 
 
Also as part of the basic VFR requirements, if the ceiling being reported at the airport is less than 1,000 feet, an aircraft may not be operated VFR beneath the ceiling.          
 
For completeness we must mention that within this airspace the “basic” cloud clearance minimums also apply.  Here they are.  A pilot may not operate an aircraft at a distance from clouds that is less than 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, and 2,000 feet horizontally.  (Not relevant here, but remember that there are stricter minimums in controlled airspace above 10,000 feet MSL.)  There is one interesting exception to these cloud clearance requirements.  In Class B airspace, which presumably has the highest density of traffic, an aircraft may be operated closer to clouds than these minimums.  The minimum is “clear of clouds,” the same minimum we see in some Class G, uncontrolled airspace, and in special VFR operations.  It makes sense, if you think about it.  All aircraft in Class B airspace are being provided separation service by ATC.  And it would cause problems for the controllers if pilots refused radar vectors or routings because following them would cause less than the required cloud clearances. 
 
Which brings us to the “special VFR” rules of FAR 91.157.  We can get a break from the “basic” minimums if we first obtain a special VFR clearance from the ATC facility that has jurisdiction of the airspace.  Then the “special” and not the “basic” VFR minimums apply.  The special VFR weather minimums are one-mile flight visibility and clear of clouds.  Under the special VFR rules, in addition to the flight visibility minimum, there is also a ground visibility minimum.  An aircraft may not takeoff or land under special VFR unless ground visibility is at least one mile.  If ground visibility is not reported, then flight visibility must be at least one statute mile.
 
Back to our pilot on the ground at the satellite airport.  He can’t take off because ground visibility is not reported at the satellite airport, and he can’t make a flight visibility determination because he is not in flight.  This is a dilemma that has now been resolved.
 
Since May 23, 2000, FAR 91.157 has been amended to expand the term “flight visibility” to include the visibility from the cockpit of an aircraft in takeoff position at a satellite airport that does not have weather reporting capabilities.  This allows a pilot at such an airport to determine whether the visibility minimums exist for a special VFR departure.  If the pilot on the ground determines that the visibility is one mile or more, special VFR is permissible. 
 
The amendment makes clear that a pilot’s determination of flight visibility from the cockpit of an aircraft on the ground is only for the purpose of the special VFR rule.  All other flight visibility determinations must be made in flight.  Similarly, it makes clear that this visibility determination is not an official ground visibility report, since the pilot is not an official weather observer.  The amendment also makes clear that this relaxation applies only to flights conducted under Part 91.
 
The rest of the rules governing special VFR operations still apply. 
 
For special VFR at night, the pilot must be rated and current for instrument flight, and the aircraft must be equipped for instrument flight.  For this rule (it's different for other rules) night is considered to be the time between sunset and sunrise.  (In Alaska, the "instrument" requirement applies when the sun is less than 6 degrees above the horizon.)
 
Helicopter operators get some additional benefits.  A helicopter may be operated special VFR without the one-mile visibility minimum.  And for special VFR at night, a helicopter pilot does not have to be instrument rated, and the helicopter does not have to be equipped for IFR.
 
While a special VFR clearance may be obtained at most airports within controlled airspace, it is not permitted for fixed-wing aircraft at some 33 specifically identified airports; they are indicated on visual charts and in aeronautical publications.  As you would guess, they are the airports with the highest traffic density.
 
Our explanation of the technical difference between ground and flight visibility is important to pilots beyond this rule change.  Where an airport in controlled airspace officially reports the weather, a pilot operating an aircraft at that airport (taking off, landing, or entering the traffic pattern) is bound by the reported ground visibility.  Otherwise, and most often, the visibility minimum is flight visibility as observed by the pilot from the cockpit.  For example, an aircraft transiting the controlled airspace, but not operating at the airport, must maintain flight visibility of at least three miles but is not bound by the officially reported ground visibility.
 
                                        Copyright © Yodice Associates 2000.  All rights reserved.
       
    
John Yodice is the Senior Partner of the Law Offices of Yodice Associates, a law firm experienced in aviation legal matters involving DOT, FAA and TSA certification and compliance, corporate governance, aircraft transactions and more. www.yodice.com

0 Comments

    Author

    Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.

    Archives

    June 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    October 2020

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Our Team | Practice Areas | Contact

Law Offices Of Yodice Associates
Phone:  202.810.6800 
Fax:  202.810.6805 
12505 Park Potomac Avenue, Suite 600
Potomac, Maryland 20854 
​The information on this website is provided as a courtesy and is not intended to be legal advice or to establish an attorney-client relationship. 

Site powered by RyTech, LLC