A new logging question!

Everskyward said:
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?
Click to expand...

Especially since they may not be typed in the airplane, therefore not able to log PIC per 61.51.
 
EdFred said:
airline pilot reading the newspaper after he retracts the gear...
Click to expand...

Given that most airline SIC's are NOT typed in the airplane they fly, do you suggest that NO one be able to log PIC if the SIC is flying?
 
midlifeflyer said:
So you =do= want to make training more expensive!
Click to expand...
No, it shouldn't. The biggest change I'm suggesting is the Captain (senior pilot) in charge of the flight should always be allowed to log PIC. The First Officer can log PIC when actually flying and SIC his remaining time at the controls.

Currently, you can log training in a complex as PIC without an endorsement. Without that, the PIC time shouldn't matter by more than maybe ten hours on average.

The real biggie I'm thinking about is eliminating the amount of safety pilot time that counts toward a certificate, rating or type.
 
KennyFlys said:
No, it shouldn't. The biggest change I'm suggesting is the Captain (senior pilot) in charge of the flight should always be allowed to log PIC. The First Officer can log PIC when actually flying and SIC his remaining time at the controls.
Click to expand...

That's how it is now, assuming the airplane or the regs require two pilots.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
What WOULD you allow the PIC to log if the SIC was flying?
Click to expand...

Like I said before. If you aren't sole manipulator - nothing. Now, granted I realize in a 777 or 340 that you do need 2 pilots to make sure everything goes right on takeoff and landing, so it is a bit hard to log sole manipulator time since it takes 4 hands to make things work.

I really don't think that reading the paper that was picked up off the floor of the hotel in the morning while climbing through 5,000 really constitutes anything remotely close to being a pilot. So, if the captain has his face buried in the sports section, he probably shouldn't be logging anything, whether he's the only one typed or not. Of course if the co pilot is doing the same thing, he probably shouldn't be logging anything either.

But keep in mind, I don't think that a CFI sitting on his butt should be logging any PIC time either. And I say that as a CFI who sat on his butt doing nothing, so I'm not just coming down on the multi-crew guys who turn it over to someone else.
 
EdFred said:
But keep in mind, I don't think that a CFI sitting on his butt should be logging any PIC time either. And I say that as a CFI who sat on his butt doing nothing, so I'm not just coming down on the multi-crew guys who turn it over to someone else.
Click to expand...

I think "sitting on one's butt" is a requirement....

Unless there an airplane you can instruct in that does not require being seated?

Facetiousness aside, the idea that one must be actively "doing" in order to gain experience is nonsense. Monitoring, thinking, communicating, planning, adjusting, correcting -- all appear to be passive, but in fact impact each and every flight.

Read Hanna Arendt's Life of the Mind for more...
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Given that most airline SIC's are NOT typed in the airplane they fly, do you suggest that NO one be able to log PIC if the SIC is flying?
Click to expand...

Actually, most SICs are typed these days. This is a requierment in most other countries so any flag operations mandate this for the FO and relief pilots. The FAA has not made this a requierment yet for domestic operations but from what I have been hearing, I bet they will . Most airlines are already typing domestic narrowbody FOs.
FB
 
Last edited:
F.Baum said:
Actually, most SICs are typed these days. This is a requierment in most other countries so any flag operations mandate this for the FO and relief pilots. The FAA has not made this a requierment yet for domestic operations but from what I have been hearing, I bet they will . Most airlines are already typing domestic narrowbody FOs.
FB
Click to expand...

OK, they are not typed for PIC. How's that?
 
F.Baum said:
Ron, thanks for posting this. What the Whitlow letter ruling did was to completely overhaul the way the FAA enforced reserve duty time for airlines.
Click to expand...
That is indeed how the ATA and ALPA saw it, but the FAA said that wasn't exactly true, and the Court agreed with the FAA.
Mebe a little outside the scope of this thread but just an indication of how the rules (Or their enforcement ) changes over time.
Click to expand...
No question that the rules change (look at Part 61 over the last 35 years), but the interpretation of the rules doesn't seem to change materially between rule changes. The logging rules have changed very little (if at all) over the last few decades, and the interpretation of them by the FAA Counsel has been very consistent. It is only hip-shooting FSDO inspectors who have muddied the waters.
 
midlifeflyer said:
So you =do= want to make training more expensive!
Click to expand...
Yep, I do.

No, I am not intending that training should be more expensive, but that it should be more intensive.

I still am of the 'old school' way of thinking that PIC time means "time you spent acting as a PIC".

I believe that the reason for PIC and solo requirements is to demonstrate a certain level of experience in making PIC decisions.

You make the case that 'logging' is someting you do at a table with a beer in hand, as if it had noting to do with actual flight experience.

I don't think that is the intention of the FAA or insurance companys or employment interviews, or just plain folks asking about your qualifications.

The term PIC carrys more weight in pilot performance than dual training with an instructor.

I do agree that PIC time can be logged when receiving training, IF the training is with that specific intent, as in the new multi-engine allowance that the multi PIC can be with an instructor while you are performing the duties of a PIC. That is what is intended by the term 'sole manipulator'.

If the pilot is actually acting as a PIC, performing all functions of the flight, not just wiggling the stick, then it is a fair assesment of his experience.

Sorry if that makes the PIC time harder to get, but the training and experience intent trumps the paper-interpretation of logging PIC only when you hold the yoke of an airplane you cannot be in command of.

It ain't right.

Yeah, yeah, I know what the ruling is, but your comment about cost of training got to me. One of the big factors of the constantly decreasing pilot proficiency is the fact of trying to learn to fly cheap.

How many of the GA accidents occur when new private pilots get lost on x/c's because of a lack of experience doing x/c's because they got a Private pilot's certificate and never got more than 75-100 miles away from home?

How about a commercial pilot you are paying to take you somewhere, and he has only made a couple 'local' solo x/c flights for his private, and only one solo x/c 250 miles away on a good day.

It ain't right. The general public would turn white with fright if they only knew...
 
...and by the way, to the OP, this ain't a new logging question....

It's the same old s***
 
nosehair said:
I do agree that PIC time can be logged when receiving training, IF the training is with that specific intent, as in the new multi-engine allowance that the multi PIC can be with an instructor while you are performing the duties of a PIC. That is what is intended by the term 'sole manipulator'.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you choose an example where one can not log PIC.

But the disagreement I have with you about cost is this: I have no problem with increasing the amount of training given. If a CFI and his or her student sit down an determine that training beyond requirements is a good idea they do it. Frankly, my primary and instrument students do quite a bit of extra hours of training - mostly because my students' bad schedules make it a very good idea.

But your "Rules be damned! I'm the CFI so I get to decide what's right and what you are allowed to log" philosophy leaves the student out of the equation and is, to my way of thinking, far beyond your authority as a CFI and wrong in so many ways.
 
Last edited:
nosehair said:
...as in the new multi-engine allowance that the multi PIC can be with an instructor while you are performing the duties of a PIC.
Click to expand...


Can someone quote the reg - I thought that this covered the requirement for SOLO time and was reflective of the fact that a student getting his private in a multi wouldn't be covered by insurance. So they came up with the "supervised solo" workaround.

I am still not aware of a reg that lets a pilot not yet rated in the airplane log PIC unless he is the sole occupant.
 
Tim is correct -- the time logged with an instructor aboard to meet the solo requirements for MEL in 61.129 is not logged as PIC time under 61.51. It requires careful documentation to see that it meets both rules.
 
ok, maybe i should start a new thread.... but can we throw in a little something extra?

2 people take a flight in an airplane w/ throw over control yoke. therefore only 1 person can be FLYING at a time and it seems obvious who is acting as PIC at that moment to me... (whoever has the yoke in their lap!)
So lets say its a 2 hr flight and 1 hr into it they pass the yoke back over... both pilots are equally rated in the aircraft etc... can both log the TT as 2 hrs, w 1 hr PIC each? or can they ONLY log the 1hr PIC?

2nd - what if the non-flying pilot was acting as safety pilot w/ the other under the hood? can the non-flying pilot log PIC? or only SIC?

ideas?
 
Throw over control makes no difference at all. You can be the ACTING PIC without a yoke in front - you can still if needed control the airplane by reaching over.
 
ntbjounin said:
2 people take a flight in an airplane w/ throw over control yoke. therefore only 1 person can be FLYING at a time and it seems obvious who is acting as PIC at that moment to me... (whoever has the yoke in their lap!)
Click to expand...
While there are some hints about this in Part 91, there is no regulatory requirement that the PIC occupy a control station. However, if one acts as PIC without controls, one is betting one's ticket (and probably one's life and assets, too) that the person flying doesn't screw it up. In addition, some aircraft have a requirement in the Limitations section of the POH requiring the PIC to occupy the left seat unless the PIC is a qualified instructor giving instruction, and that has the force of a regulation (91.9(a), to be exact). Some insurance policies say the same, but those aren't regulatory and the FAA doesn't care -- it's only your money at stake, not your ticket.
So lets say its a 2 hr flight and 1 hr into it they pass the yoke back over... both pilots are equally rated in the aircraft etc... can both log the TT as 2 hrs, w 1 hr PIC each? or can they ONLY log the 1hr PIC?
Click to expand...
There's nothing for the nonflying pilot to log -- no second pilot required, and no other clause in 61.51 under which to log the time. Thus, regardless of who's PIC, only the pilot flying can log the time.
2nd - what if the non-flying pilot was acting as safety pilot w/ the other under the hood? can the non-flying pilot log PIC? or only SIC?
Click to expand...
First, simulated instrument flight in a throwover yoke plane has strict limits -- see 91.109(b)(3). That said, if the nonflying pilot agrees to act as safety pilot in such a case, the pilot flying logs PIC time, while the safety pilot logs PIC or SIC time, depending on whether or not the safety pilot is also acting as PIC. Again, acting as PIC without controls requires great faith in the ability and judgement of the pilot flying.
 
midlifeflyer said:
But your "Rules be damned! I'm the CFI so I get to decide what's right and what you are allowed to log" philosophy leaves the student out of the equation and is, to my way of thinking, far beyond your authority as a CFI and wrong in so many ways.
Click to expand...
Is that how I sound?:eek:

Not at all how I mean it. I mean that we, as a community of flight instructors, have an obligation to ensure proper training, and the recording of that training. Each of us is responsible for the record that you create with a student.

That makes each training lesson the responsibility of the person signing the training record, which is the CFI.

Even though the training record is owned by the student in the form of his personal logbook, that does not make it ok to put whatever he wants around our signature.

...and I am not talking about the normal routine of pilots logging PIC for all of the dual flights he makes with his instructor after he gets his private and continues to work on his instrument/commercial/etc.

I am talking about the guy who 'rides' along in a HP/Complex beyond his control for 50 hours to get insurance coverage rates, or qualify for a job that requires HP/compex experience, or even to meet the x/c PIC requirements that is meant to require some actual experience.

I do not mean 'rules be damned', I mean don't let rules make you do anything that you, Mr. CFI, consider to be unsafe. Above all, that is our responsibility.
 
nosehair said:
I am talking about the guy who 'rides' along in a HP/Complex beyond his control for 50 hours to get insurance coverage rates, or qualify for a job that requires HP/compex experience, or even to meet the x/c PIC requirements that is meant to require some actual experience.

I do not mean 'rules be damned', I mean don't let rules make you do anything that you, Mr. CFI, consider to be unsafe. Above all, that is our responsibility.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think your responsibility is to TEACH the guy how to SAFELY fly that HP/complex airplane HIMSELF, not fly around while he's "riding along." And that time should be counted as PIC for him. You are there to make sure he doesn't screw up, and to impart knowledge, not to be in command of the airplane.
 
If a Student Pilot shows up for a PPL practical test with a lot of bizarre entries in his/her logbook along with some CFI's endorsement to take that test, how long do you think it will be before someone calls that person's CFI to ask if that's what s/he taught that student? And why s/he signed that student off despite an apparent lack of understanding of the rules governing logbooks?
 
ntbjounin said:
2 people take a flight in an airplane w/ throw over control yoke. therefore only 1 person can be FLYING at a time and it seems obvious who is acting as PIC at that moment to me... (whoever has the yoke in their lap!)
Click to expand...
Think of it this way: acting as PIC is about responsibility for and authority to have flight commands obeyed.

Consider the captain of a passenger airliner. He may be hands-off. He may be in the bathroom. On a 3-crew transatlantic flight he may even be asleep on a rest break. But he is still the captain with authority to command the crew.

2 people take a flight in an airplane w/ throw over control yoke. It's Bonanza. One pilot owns the airplane and has HP and complex endorsements, passenger carrying currency and a current medical and FR. The other, while he has a pilot certificate, has none of the other qualifications to act as PIC on this flight. It seems obvious to me who is acting as PIC at any moment during the flight and it has nothing to do with who has the yoke in his lap.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Actually, I think your responsibility is to TEACH the guy how to SAFELY fly that HP/complex airplane HIMSELF, not fly around while he's "riding along." And that time should be counted as PIC for him. You are there to make sure he doesn't screw up, and to impart knowledge, not to be in command of the airplane.
Click to expand...
I don't think Nosehair is talking about an instructional situation. He is talking about a situation where, for example, Pilot A flies some sort of complex, high performance airplane and allows Pilot B to come along and fly the airplane to some extent. However, Pilot A, who may not be and instructor, does not provide much, if any guidance. Pilot B gets to log PIC time using the sole manipulator clause. Then Pilot B goes out and applies for insurance or a job based on having X amount of PIC time in that type airplane. Just by looking at the number of PIC hours there isn't any way to determine whether these were hours where Pilot B was acting as a voice-activated autopilot without knowing much about the airplane or whether Pilot B was acting as PIC, in command of the airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top