A new logging question!

[dbman5]

OK. After reading and rereading and rereading the regs and these posts, I'm slowly coming over. It sounds like the minimum requirements for a private pilot to log PIC time are:

1. You have to be the sole manipulator of the controls.
2. You have to be rated or have privileges in that kind of plane. (i.e., my non-pilot friend can't log flight time even if he's very capable and I let him be the sole manipulator of the controls for an hour or so on a long cross country.)

The part that convinced me was #2 combined with the fact that once you have acquired the privileges or the type rating there's nothing to take away those privileges or ratings - unless your license is revoked.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Edit: I was writing this as you were posting your response. You are correct. You are finally starting to get the picture. I am leaving this post for the content.

My issue is with finding something that says a pilot without a medical is still a pilot in the FAA's viewpoint and can therefore log PIC time.

You won't find it because it isn't there.

I would hate to be put in the situation of saying, "Because they didn't address it, it's OK."

On the other hand, THEY would have a hard time making an issue out of it because it ISN'T there. How can something be illegal if it isn't addressed?

Upon further investigation I found this in 61.23:
... a person (3) must hold at least a third class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a private pilot certificate;

That is generally considered ACTING as PIC.

It would seem to me that logging time would be one of the privileges of a private pilot certificate. IF that's true, then you can't legitimately log time without a valid medical. Section 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: PIC is mostly directed at limitations so it's not really clear here either. It still sounds to me like there is a big hole in there that could cause problems for someone without a medical.

I don't have an argument to this that you would accept, so I won't try.

If someone's medical has expired or been denied, is he considered to have a "valid pilot license"? Section 61.23 seems to say "no"

I don't understand where you make that connection because 61.23 deals only with medical issues. As far as I can tell, it does not even mention the pilot's certificate.

Maybe I'm missing another paragraph somewhere that says it's OK for someone without a valid pilot license to log flight time.

Like I said, you won't find it because it isn't there.

Or, maybe I'm missing the part that says your license is valid without a medical certificate. (I know it doesn't expire but is it 'valid' without a medical?)

Let me ask you this. If you let your medical lapse, it is yours forever. Unless the administrator takes it from you for a certificate action of some sort.

The FARs are definitely complicated.

Yeah but people tend to make them harder than they need to be.

So, if you can't legally act as a crew member, how can you legally fly the plane or log the time?

Say what you will, it is the same way a student pilot logs time with a CFI before he has his PP.

Wouldn't that be viewed the same as "I took my non-pilot friend up and let him fly the plane - so he logged it as PIC time so that when he got his PPL he'd have enough hours to meet that part of the experience requirements for starting his CPL."

No because he is not rated in the airplane and that is a requirement specified in 61.51 to log PIC as sole manipulator.

Let me reiterate my position. I have no problem at all with the fact that someone with a valid pilot license and a valid medical can log PIC time without actually acting as PIC. My only issue is when the medical is no longer valid.

Well, my only OTHER answer to that is that the medical is not a requirement that is specified in 61.51(e).

 

[kevin47881]

Kevin,

Why does it matter? A medical had no bearing on whether or not he can log PIC.

You are correct, I was thinking "act".

 

[midlifeflyer]

OK. After reading and rereading and rereading the regs and these posts, I'm slowly coming over. It sounds like the minimum requirements for a private pilot to log PIC time are:

1. You have to be the sole manipulator of the controls.
2. You have to be rated or have privileges in that kind of plane. (i.e., my non-pilot friend can't log flight time even if he's very capable and I let him be the sole manipulator of the controls for an hour or so on a long cross country.)

The part that convinced me was #2 combined with the fact that once you have acquired the privileges or the type rating there's nothing to take away those privileges or ratings - unless your license is revoked.

The thing to watch out for is that "minimum requirements" part. 61.51 provides us with a number of cubbyholes for logging PIC time. Being "sole manipulator" is one of them, but there are others - at least one that we come across as private pilots which allows logging PIC without ever touching the controls.

But that's another thread....

 

[tlglenn]

This is reminding me of some of the aviation forums on MySpace albeit with better spelling and grammar.

 

[Easterner]

Does some of the confusion here come from the 135 situation where the "acting" PIC logs PIC time, even if he does not manipulate the controls? This might tend to blur the distinction between "acting" and "loggin" that is so clear in 91 ops. Or am I confused, too?

 

[Everskyward]

Does some of the confusion here come from the 135 situation where the "acting" PIC logs PIC time, even if he does not manipulate the controls? This might tend to blur the distinction between "acting" and "loggin" that is so clear in 91 ops. Or am I confused, too?

It's not a difference between 135 and 91. The difference comes when the airplane requires two pilots either by certification or regulation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Does some of the confusion here come from the 135 situation where the "acting" PIC logs PIC time, even if he does not manipulate the controls? This might tend to blur the distinction between "acting" and "loggin" that is so clear in 91 ops. Or am I confused, too?

No (and it depends on the 135 situation).

One of the other 61.51 logging PIC cubbyholes is 61.51(e)(1)(iii)

==============================
...acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
==============================

Some 135 flight take place in aircraft that require more than one pilot. Other part 135 flights, even if they take place in a single-pilot aircraft fall under some other regulation that requires a 2-pilot crew (passenger flights under IFR is an example). But, in the absence of one of those, the non-flying pilot in a 135 op has not more logging rights than the non-flying pilot in a at C-172 containing 2 buddies out for lunch.

Notice that this is an example of a time when 61.51 specifically tells you to find out who is acting as PIC.

IMO, most of the confusion come in because of (1) the FAA's decision to use the term PIC to mean two different things, (2) the FAA's historical interpretation of 61.51 and (3) a failure to read the regulation.

 

[TMetzinger]

Maybe someone can chime in - if your 135 operators approved ops specs calls for two pilots, even though the airplane is certified for single pilot and you're flying an operation where the FAR doesn't require two pilots (like cargo)... Those ops specs are signed by a designee of the Administrator, and are therefore regulations, and thus I THINK that you can have an ACTING PIC logging time even when not flying.

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe someone can chime in - if your 135 operators approved ops specs calls for two pilots, even though the airplane is certified for single pilot and you're flying an operation where the FAR doesn't require two pilots (like cargo)... Those ops specs are signed by a designee of the Administrator, and are therefore regulations, and thus I THINK that you can have an ACTING PIC logging time even when not flying.

Close. The fact that the ops specs are signed by a designee doesn't make them a "regulation," but 14 CFR 119.5(l) says you must comply with your ops specs: that makes the second pilot required by a regulation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Close. The fact that the ops specs are signed by a designee doesn't make them a "regulation," but 14 CFR 119.5(l) says you must comply with your ops specs: that makes the second pilot required by a regulation.

...and the answer would also depend on whether the second pilot is truly "required" under the OpSpecs.

IOW, if the flight in the absence of the second pilot would violate the OpSpecs, then "more than one pilot is required under the ... regulations under which the flight is conducted"

 

[TMetzinger]

Thanks! That makes it clear.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

If the FAA had called "act as PIC" "serve as captain" and "log PIC" "log flight time", there would be no confusion among any of us. I think the fact that both phrases use the acronym "PIC" trips some people up--they think of them as one and the same, when they are not.

 

[jesse]

Personally, I think they should just change it so that acting as pic = logging pic. If you don't act as PIC you don't log PIC.

 

[KennyFlys]

Personally, I think they should just change it so that acting as pic = logging pic. If you don't act as PIC you don't log PIC.

That would make more sense with the only exception of a CFI, particularly since a primary student would not be appropriately rated.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Personally, I think they should just change it so that acting as pic = logging pic. If you don't act as PIC you don't log PIC.

Might make it simpler for some purposes but remember that the purpose of logging PIC is to meet FAA requirements for certificates and ratings.

So, for example, that 50 hours cross country PIC needed for the instrument rating? A lot of pilots get it during instrument instruction - dual cross country flights (including the required dual) where experience at new airports does double-duty with en route IR training (arguably the part of IR training that get the least practical attention).

So your proposal might have the effect of significantly increasing the cost of training or will require a re-write of the requirements for every post-private rating.

Of course, if that's what you want...

Me, I don't have too much trouble with "acting as PIC" being about authority and responsibility and "logging PIC" being something you do while sitting at a desk with a beer in your hand.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

That would make more sense with the only exception of a CFI, particularly since a primary student would not be appropriately rated.

Jesse's suggestion, with this mod to address the concern that both Kenny and Mark suggested, is a good one. I'd also include the captain (ATP) in part 121 ops in the waiver, when he's occupying a crew position in the cockpit.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Jesse's suggestion, with this mod to address the concern that both Kenny and Mark suggested, is a good one. I'd also include the captain (ATP) in part 121 ops in the waiver, when he's occupying a crew position in the cockpit.

I'm not sure how a mod allowing a CFI to log PIC helps with my concern.

But wait. Now you're getting into mods of the new simple act-log rule so that you can meet some idea of what people should be able to log toward certificates and ratings?

Watch out! It's beginning to sound like the cure is going to be worse than the disease. Pretty soon you'll end up with a new, improved, far more complicated 61.51(e).

 

[Everskyward]

Jesse's suggestion, with this mod to address the concern that both Kenny and Mark suggested, is a good one. I'd also include the captain (ATP) in part 121 ops in the waiver, when he's occupying a crew position in the cockpit.

I don't think Jesse's suggestion would need any modification either in your scenario or Kenny's. A CFI with a primary student *is* the acting PIC, as is the captain on a 121 flight.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't think Jesse's suggestion would need any modification either in your scenario or Kenny's. A CFI with a primary student *is* the acting PIC, as is the captain on a 121 flight.

Which I guess just goes to show how complicated the "simple" system would be - even the proponents don't quite understand it!

 

[poadeleted20]

Ive meet alot of pilots both profesionally and casually who, out of profesional pride, do it this way.

There's nothing that says you have to log it as PIC -- that's your decision. The regulation only says you're permitted to log it that way. Within that scope, do what you feel is right.

I can understand what the FAA is trying to acomplish but the way the current rule is, there is still alot of grey. The reason I bring this up is because on a similar forum awhile back myself and another poster produced letters from the FAA that had conflcting interpritations about logging PIC (To the FAAs defense, these letters where dated a few years apart and came from different districts).

Since there is now and never has been anyone at the district level authorized to issue an interpretation of the meaning of an FAR, those letters are meaningless.

So even though the basic rule hasnt changed, it is clear that certain definitions and interpritations have.

When you examine the interpretations issued by those who are authorized to do so, they are uniform and consistent for more than 20 years.

 

[KennyFlys]

I don't think Jesse's suggestion would need any modification either in your scenario or Kenny's. A CFI with a primary student *is* the acting PIC, as is the captain on a 121 flight.

Which I guess just goes to show how complicated the "simple" system would be - even the proponents don't quite understand it!

It would seem the simplest solution would be to allow logging PIC only as the sole manipulator of the controls. For simplicity, this would be any time the pilot is appropriately rated for that aircraft and has initiated the departure and completion of the flight. The CFI's assistance in those actions would not negate the student's role as sole manipulator.

As for CFIs, they would always be allowed to log PIC in any role as a CFI be it instruction to a primary student, commercial student or even completing a flight review. The reason being is there is little part of any role of a CFI he or she would not be held responsible for their actions.

If a CFI can be held responsible during a casual flight shared with a friend, that CFI should definitely benefit while actually exercising privileges of the CFI certificate.

 

[Everskyward]

It would seem the simplest solution would be to allow logging PIC only as the sole manipulator of the controls. For simplicity, this would be any time the pilot is appropriately rated for that aircraft and has initiated the departure and completion of the flight. The CFI's assistance in those actions would not negate the student's role as sole manipulator.

I think Jesse's suggestion makes a lot more sense than this one. How are you going to account for crews in two-pilot airplanes? Should only the flying SIC be allowed to log PIC time?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Let me clarify, My question was answered at the national level and forwarded to me through the office where I submited it. Inspectors at the local level are task with implimenting, enforcing, and interprating regs all the time. To sugest their rulings are meaningless is a bit of a stretch .

Well, not "meaningless." People who enforce regulations are always interpreting them. For example, police officers sometimes arrest people for non-crimes based on their own interpretation. And FSDO inspectors will foist their own interpretation of people who they have power over.

Actually, they change all the time, especially when challenged in court. Take a look at the Whitlow ruling.

Citations help when telling people to look at something. There does not appear to be a Whitlow decision in the NTSB cases available since 1992 and none of the 20 US Court of Appeals Whitlow decisions appear to involve the FAA.

Besides, that regulatory interpretations get challenged all the time and sometimes get reversed does not negate that (a) all Federal agencies are entitled to deference fro the courts in their interpretations, (b) in the case of the FAA vs the NTSB, the "deference" has been upped a notch to statutory mandate (49 U.S.C. § 44709(d)(3)), (c) 90+% logging questions have indeed been answered by >20 years of consistent FAA Legal interpretations, and (d) the ability of an enforcement agent to exert power over someone does not constitute a rules change.

 

[KennyFlys]

I think Jesse's suggestion makes a lot more sense than this one. How are you going to account for crews in two-pilot airplanes? Should only the flying SIC be allowed to log PIC time?

I hadn't thought of required air crews of two or more. I'm not sure what birds require a FE these days but even so, that shouldn't be loggable flight time other than experience in the role of an FE. As for the FO flying and captain's role, he's the first one to be held responsible for the flight no differently than the CFI. So, a similar role should apply and he be allowed to log PIC for all phases of flight.

Another aspect are multi-crew flights. The captain who assumes command such as en route relief is automatically PIC for that phase of flight he or she commands.

This and the previous post should cover all possible scenarios.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This and the previous post should cover all possible scenarios.

I haven't figured out what your new rule is. Can't tell whether it covers "all scenarios" or not. So far, it sounds like =only= the sole manipulator can log PIC , except for exceptions for CFIs and the real PIC in a multi-pilot crew. Is that about it?

 

[EdFred]

I actually take the opposite side of Jesse. If you aren't the one at the controls, then you shouldn't be logging PIC. CFIs, safety pilots, airline pilot reading the newspaper after he retracts the gear...

 

[midlifeflyer]

It's beginning to sound fortunate that the FAA decides what kind of flight time can be used toward FAA certificates and ratings and not us!!

 

[KennyFlys]

I haven't figured out what your new rule is. Can't tell whether it covers "all scenarios" or not. So far, it sounds like =only= the sole manipulator can log PIC , except for exceptions for CFIs and the real PIC in a multi-pilot crew. Is that about it?

Let's see if I can word this in a bit more simple fashion...



The following may log PIC at all times if the pilot is appropriately certificated and rated for such aircraft:

1. A single pilot as the sole manipulator of controls of any aircraft;
2. any pilot at the control of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member (This would include the First Officer as sole manipulator);
3. a pilot designated by their employer as the supervising crew member of a flight, whether or not the sole manipulator of controls (Crew member routinely in the left seat);
4. a certified flight instructor exercising privileges of their CFI certificate, whether or not the sole manipulator of controls;
5. a crew member assuming command in a multi-crew flight such as en route relief, whether or not the sole manipulator of controls.

The caveats would be:

1. The First Officer acting as SIC may only log SIC time when not the sole manipulator of controls;
2. a student pilot may log PIC time only when flying solo and is appropriately endorsed for such flight;
3. a Certified Flight Instructor may not log PIC when not exercising privileges of their CFI certificate (There must be an existing or prior instructional relationship for the CFI to be assumed as exercising their privilege);
4. a pilot acting as safety pilot may log PIC by prior arrangement with the pilot flying;
5. a pilot acting as safety pilot and not the agreed PIC by prior arrangement may log SIC;
6. when a pilot is acting as safety pilot, both pilot's log books shall reflect any arrangement as a matter of permanent record;
7. not more than ten hours as a safety pilot in any aircraft shall be attributed to the requirements of any certificate, rating or type.

Does that clean it up a bit? I'm sure there's something still missing but I'm not sure what at the moment. I threw in #7 at the end for those at a certain school that send candidates to regionals with upward of a hundred hours or more determined to be as safety pilots, often logged as mult-engine time.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think 61.51 as it stands now is simpler....

...and already has most of what you are proposing, although why the FAA should apply time toward FAA certificates and ratings based on what some employer decides is convenient is beyond me.

 

[poadeleted20]

Let me clarify, My question was answered at the national level and forwarded to me through the office where I submited it. Inspectors at the local level are task with implimenting, enforcing, and interprating regs all the time.

Enforcing and implementing, yes, but Inspectors are not authorized, and forbidden, to "interpret" regulations. All they are permitted to do in that regard is pass on the interpretations of the FAA Counsels.

To sugest their rulings are meaningless is a bit of a stretch .

As a matter of law, Inspectors' "rulings" on the meanings of FARs are meaningless to the legal system.

Actually, they change all the time, especially when challenged in court. Take a look at the Whitlow ruling.

I've never seen an FAA interpretation of an FAR changed by the US Court of Appeals. In fact, it was that court which said the FAA's interpretation of its own rules is definitive unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law" (see FAA v. Merrell and NTSB ). Further, in the Whitlow letter case, the court held that the letter was not a change from previous interpretations and upheld it.

No prior FAA interpretation of FAR 121.471 approaches the definitive interpretation that mandated notice-and- comment rulemaking in Alaska Hunters. No prior interpretation reflects an "administrative common law" that FAR 121.471 prohibits recalculation of past rest periods based on "actual expected flight time." Alaska Hunters, 177 F.3d at 1035; see also Hudson v. FAA, 192 F.3d 1031, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (FAA interpretation did not require notice and comment because it was simply "application of the regulation to a changed situation which calls for a different policy"). Accordingly, the Whitlow Letter does not alter a definitive prior FAA interpretation of FAR 121.471.[emphasis added]

And, for Mark, he can find the case at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=DC&navby=case&no=011027A.

 

[nosehair]

1. a pilot designated by their employer as the supervising crew member of a flight, whether or not the sole manipulator of controls (Crew member routinely in the left seat)

Standing alone, that statement is mis-leading.

If you are refering to a company designated Captain of a 2 pilot required crew, that is correct.

But a company can't just 'designate' a PIC of 2 on a flight that does not require 2 pilots, by FAA regs, not insurance or private company regs.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's interesting watching you folks try to do here what the FAA rules team takes eight years to accomplish. But good luck, and if you can hammer it out, check FAR Part 11 for how to submit your recommended changes to the FAA.

 

[Everskyward]

1. a pilot designated by their employer as the supervising crew member of a flight, whether or not the sole manipulator of controls (Crew member routinely in the left seat)

1. The seat someone is sitting in doesn't have any bearing on whether they are the "supervising crew member" or not. I have plenty of time as the acting PIC from the right seat (I'm not counting CFI time either).

Does that clean it up a bit?

I thought our goal was simplicity and what you wrote seems more complicated than the way it is now. I'm still voting for Jesse's one-sentence suggestion.

It's interesting watching you folks try to do here what the FAA rules team takes eight years to accomplish.

But we are having fun. LOL.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kenny,

It sounds like you've pretty much described the existing regulations!

The following may log PIC at all times if the pilot is appropriately certificated and rated for such aircraft:

1. A single pilot as the sole manipulator of controls of any aircraft;

1. 
   
   61.51(e)(1)(i)
   
   

   [*]any pilot at the control of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member (This would include the First Officer as sole manipulator);

   
   61.51(e)(1)(i)
   
   

   [*]a pilot designated by their employer as the supervising crew member of a flight, whether or not the sole manipulator of controls (Crew member routinely in the left seat);

   
   61.51(e)(1)(iii) or 61.51(e)(2)
   
   

   [*]a certified flight instructor exercising privileges of their CFI certificate, whether or not the sole manipulator of controls;

   
   61.51(e)(3)
   
   

   [*]a crew member assuming command in a multi-crew flight such as en route relief, whether or not the sole manipulator of controls.

61.51(e)(2)

The caveats would be:

1. The First Officer acting as SIC may only log SIC time when not the sole manipulator of controls;

1. 
   
   Already true - Doesn't meet the requirements of 61.51(e) but does meet the requirements of 61.51(f).
   
   

   [*]a student pilot may log PIC time only when flying solo and is appropriately endorsed for such flight;

   
   61.51(e)(1)(ii)
   
   

   [*]a Certified Flight Instructor may not log PIC when not exercising privileges of their CFI certificate (There must be an existing or prior instructional relationship for the CFI to be assumed as exercising their privilege);

   
   Careful - What if the CFI is flying themself or any other non-instructional situation? Are they not allowed to log PIC when not instructing any more? I'll assume that's not what you meant, and in that case what you're saying here is already true by virtue of 61.51(e)(3) not being met, making the CFI subject to the same regs as the rest of us.
   
   

   [*]a pilot acting as safety pilot may log PIC by prior arrangement with the pilot flying;

   
   61.51(e)(1)(iii)
   
   

   [*]a pilot acting as safety pilot and not the agreed PIC by prior arrangement may log SIC;

   
   61.51(f)(2)
   
   

   [*]when a pilot is acting as safety pilot, both pilot's log books shall reflect any arrangement as a matter of permanent record;

   
   61.51(b)(1)(v) applies to the pilot under the hood. Since there is no regulation that requires a pilot to log anything at all, the safety pilot doesn't have to log anything including the name of the under-the-hood pilot. It is a good idea though, so I do it anyway.
   
   

   [*]not more than ten hours as a safety pilot in any aircraft shall be attributed to the requirements of any certificate, rating or type.

   
   This is the only thing so far that the regs don't even come close to saying...
   

Does that clean it up a bit? I'm sure there's something still missing but I'm not sure what at the moment. I threw in #7 at the end for those at a certain school that send candidates to regionals with upward of a hundred hours or more determined to be as safety pilots, often logged as mult-engine time.

...and that's up to the potential employer to decide, not the FAA.

So what needs to be changed again?

 

[KennyFlys]

Standing alone, that statement is mis-leading.

If you are refering to a company designated Captain of a 2 pilot required crew, that is correct.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Generally, the captain sits in the left seat and is considered the highest authority on that particular flight.

 

[KennyFlys]

So what needs to be changed again?

The part I left out is... in order to log PIC, the pilot shall hold a valid medical certificate required for the privileges exercised under their certificate. That would knock out quite a bit from early on in these discussions.

 

[KennyFlys]

It's interesting watching you folks try to do here what the FAA rules team takes eight years to accomplish. But good luck, and if you can hammer it out, check FAR Part 11 for how to submit your recommended changes to the FAA.

They are a government entity. I think it's unlawful for them to do anything fast.

But, thinking through the regs makes for interesting discussion and helps to better understand what is meant even if not why they were written that particular way.

 

[KennyFlys]

The seat someone is sitting in doesn't have any bearing on whether they are the "supervising crew member" or not. I have plenty of time as the acting PIC from the right seat (I'm not counting CFI time either).

I wasn't clear in my wording but addressed it in the reply to Nosehair

I thought our goal was simplicity and what you wrote seems more complicated than the way it is now. I'm still voting for Jesse's one-sentence suggestion.

I agree with his idea... if you're not acting as PIC, you can't log PIC time.

Another caveat I forgot to add is just that. If you're not the legal PIC per the described circumstances, you can't log it. The closest exception wouild be SIC as a first officer or safety pilot.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I wasn't clear in my wording but addressed it in the reply to Nosehair

I agree with his idea... if you're not acting as PIC, you can't log PIC time.

Another caveat I forgot to add is just that. If you're not the legal PIC per the described circumstances, you can't log it. The closest exception wouild be SIC as a first officer or safety pilot.

So you =do= want to make training more expensive!