Another logging question non-PIC non-Dual

Ron Levy said:
OK. But how does that change anything I wrote? The Student Pilot certainly does not qualify under any subparagraph of 14 CFR 61.51(e) to log PIC time in this situation, since a solo endorsement does not constitute being "rated". Remember that the Chief Counsel has repeatedly made clear that an "endorsement" is not a "rating". And as for the practical test issue, despite the fact that it is a universally-accepted tradition that pilots log as PIC time their initial rating practical tests, the fact that the applicant who is a Student Pilot is the PIC doesn't by itself qualify the applicant to log PIC time under any subparagraph of 61.51(e). The same would be true of a PP-ASEL taking an AMEL additional class rating ride, or a fixed-wing pilot taking an additional Rotorcraft category rating ride, or a pilot taking an initial or additional type rating ride -- even though it's not strictly kosher, everyone always logs it as PIC time, and nobody's ever worried about it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it did. My point was that the student-CFI situation is different and not applicable, since in that case the student is clearly not PIC, whereas on a checkride the student logically must be PIC, given that the DPE is officially defined as "passenger".
 
RotorDude said:
Well, I had in mind my relatively recent heli PP checkride, which did not include hood work.
Would have been hard to do it even if the DPE wanted, since like most primary training helis, the one we were in had no gyros. :)
Click to expand...
Heck, that would have made it extra fun! :D
 
mtuomi said:
This would be the ultimate d*****bag DPE move... Do the oral, fly the practical test, and then DPE gives you a bust for filling your logbook as PIC...
Click to expand...
Probably tongue-in-cheek but just in case...
Most DPEs who make the flight entry in your logbook will enter it as PIC time. They also typically don't do the entry until after announcing you've passed. And if they don't, just do it when you get home if you care.
 
Kritchlow said:
I get all this leagalize stuff about logging (well, not really. I just follow Ed's flow chart).

That said, anyone else wish they (FAA) would make life simple and marry up acting PIC with logging PIC?
Click to expand...
Don't care. It really is simple enough even without Ed's flow chart. Once you accept that acting and logging are not married up, the rules in 61.51 are pretty straightforward.

Is
==============================
A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
==============================

really that difficult from a reading comprehension standpoint, especially if you limit it to what certificates and ratings you have, i.e. for a private pilot

==============================
A private pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated
==============================

All of the PIC logging "boxes" in 61.51 can be read just as simply as that.
 
image.jpg
 
htqpsBz.jpg


To me the 'acting/logging' notion is really crazy, but it is what it is.

Maybe I'm crazy, but if I were anyone who lived on planet earth, instead of planet FAR, and I was hiring a pilot, the ONLY PIC time I'd want to see is 'real' PIC time, as defined in FAR 1.

Sole manipulator time is nonsense, but if you are going to log it, create a separate column in your logbook for this kind of time. Label it 'fake PIC'.

Only put REAL PIC ('person who signed for the airplane, FAR 1) in the PIC column of your logbook.

I consider it fraud to log sole manipulator time as PIC without identifing it as fake PIC . :nono:

When I have time I'll draw a flowchart for you.
 
Hmmm...funny story. I've never, in my life, "signed for the airplane", so I guess my PIC column is, carry the 1, Zero, then, eh?

The FAA has been incredibly clear as to what can be logged as PIC time. Personally, I think the "sole manipulator" is more entitled to PIC time than a "Captain" who sits there and never touches the controls. The sole manipulator is actually flying the plane. So, my alternative proposal would be to eliminate all PIC time except when you're actually flying the plane.
 
JimNtexas said:
To me the 'acting/logging' notion is really crazy, but it is what it is.

Maybe I'm crazy, but if I were anyone who lived on planet earth, instead of planet FAR, and I was hiring a pilot, the ONLY PIC time I'd want to see is 'real' PIC time, as defined in FAR 1.

Sole manipulator time is nonsense, but if you are going to log it, create a separate column in your logbook for this kind of time. Label it 'fake PIC'.

Only put REAL PIC ('person who signed for the airplane, FAR 1) in the PIC column of your logbook.

I consider it fraud to log sole manipulator time as PIC without identifing it as fake PIC . :nono:

When I have time I'll draw a flowchart for you.
Click to expand...
Actually, what a lot of people with career aspirations do is pretty much that - separate column labeled "Part 1 PIC" for potential airline applications.

But at the same time, in a reprise of the "stealing PIC time" concept, interesting that you consider time logged according to the FAA's regulations, logged primarily to meet FAA requirements, "fraud" and time logged contrary to regulation "real." Just a hunch but I'm pretty sure the FAA thinks of it in exactly the opposite way.

Fortunately, the differences probably tend to me pretty small in the typical logbook, so the numbers of low-time CFIs offered a Part 135 job at the local FBO but have to decline because they doesn't want to use time labelled "fake" to meet FAA minimums is not that great (besides, who is shuttling checks these days?). OTOH, kind of a shame about all those instrument students spending the cash to re-fly all those extra hours of cross country that could have been incorporated their instrument training.
 
Last edited:
JimNtexas said:
htqpsBz.jpg


To me the 'acting/logging' notion is really crazy, but it is what it is.

Maybe I'm crazy, but if I were anyone who lived on planet earth, instead of planet FAR, and I was hiring a pilot, the ONLY PIC time I'd want to see is 'real' PIC time, as defined in FAR 1.

Sole manipulator time is nonsense, but if you are going to log it, create a separate column in your logbook for this kind of time. Label it 'fake PIC'.

Only put REAL PIC ('person who signed for the airplane, FAR 1) in the PIC column of your logbook.

I consider it fraud to log sole manipulator time as PIC without identifing it as fake PIC . :nono:

When I have time I'll draw a flowchart for you.
Click to expand...
Yup.. And that's exactly how my logbook is done.

Also it's what any aviation employer cares about. I do not recommend going to an interview and claiming PIC time for anything other than signing for the airplane.
 
I don't sign for my airplane. How do I log my time in fantasyland?
 
JeffDG said:
Hmmm...funny story. I've never, in my life, "signed for the airplane", so I guess my PIC column is, carry the 1, Zero, then, eh?

The FAA has been incredibly clear as to what can be logged as PIC time. Personally, I think the "sole manipulator" is more entitled to PIC time than a "Captain" who sits there and never touches the controls. The sole manipulator is actually flying the plane. So, my alternative proposal would be to eliminate all PIC time except when you're actually flying the plane.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. After a certain point it's not so much about physically flying the machine. Autopilots generally do a better job at that! I can have my wife "steer" the plane under my supervision, but I don't think she should be able to claim PIC time.
Now, after a certain point in a pilots experience level I find the responsibility and decision making to be the key factors for acting as, and logging PIC.

Of course I understand that may not always be the standard set by the FAA.
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
Also it's what any aviation employer cares about. I do not recommend going to an interview and claiming PIC time for anything other than signing for the airplane.
Click to expand...

That does NOT mean you should not log PIC time in which you are legally entitled to.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That does NOT mean you should not log PIC time in which you are legally entitled to.
Click to expand...
I won't argue that point, Greg. I'm just pointing out that I wouldn't go for an interview and claim to be PIC if I wasn't dispatched as such. I have a friend who was blackballed at Southwest for doing just that. They called him out on it in the logbook check during his interview.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Fortunately, the differences probably tend to me pretty small in the typical logbook,
Click to expand...
The big exception to this would be SICs in two-pilot airplanes who are PIC typed if one is required.
 
Kritchlow said:
I won't argue that point, Greg. I'm just pointing out that I wouldn't go for an interview and claim to be PIC if I wasn't dispatched as such. I have a friend who was blackballed at Southwest for doing just that. They called him out on it in the logbook check during his interview.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to give them what they ask for.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, you have to give them what they ask for.
Click to expand...


If they ask for logged PIC time, then they really shouldn't ***** if you log according to the FARs. If they want something else, they need to ask for it.

Personally, were I hiring, I'd rather have a pilot who knew the regs and followed them than one who disregarded those he just didn't agree with.
 
JeffDG said:
If they ask for logged PIC time, then they really shouldn't ***** if you log according to the FARs. If they want something else, they need to ask for it.

Personally, were I hiring, I'd rather have a pilot who knew the regs and followed them than one who disregarded those he just didn't agree with.
Click to expand...
It's more about how you present it. If you are presenting it as "decision making time", then they look at your book and find a reason to question it is the issue.
 
Kritchlow said:
It's more about how you present it. If you are presenting it as "decision making time", then they look at your book and find a reason to question it is the issue.
Click to expand...


But that's not what I said.

If they ask for PIC time, then you are 100% justified to give them everything you can log.

Again, as an employer, I would prefer someone who applies the regulations rather than making up their own, as you advocate.
 
JeffDG said:
But that's not what I said.

If they ask for PIC time, then you are 100% justified to give them everything you can log.

Again, as an employer, I would prefer someone who applies the regulations rather than making up their own, as you advocate.
Click to expand...
What did I say?
 
Dear God, this dumbed down quicker than most anything I've read. Well, except the last time a similar question was aksed ;)
 
Kritchlow said:
It's more about how you present it. If you are presenting it as "decision making time", then they look at your book and find a reason to question it is the issue.
Click to expand...
If they want you to separate out the two types of PIC they should ask you to. I thought airlines did this on applications.
 
Everskyward said:
If they want you to separate out the two types of PIC they should ask you to. I thought airlines did this on applications.
Click to expand...
You know, I'm betting they're not even aware of the logging rules to the extent people here are. In my whole life I've never heard of anyone in tune as you are here.
I'm betting it's just expected that one logs pic when they are pic. Of course I'm guessing, as I'm not an airline recruiter...
 
Kritchlow said:
You know, I'm betting they're not even aware of the logging rules to the extent people here are. In my whole life I've never heard of anyone in tune as you are here.
I'm betting it's just expected that one logs pic when they are pic. Of course I'm guessing, as I'm not an airline recruiter...
Click to expand...

It would be kind of shocking to learn that airline hiring personnel are that ignorant of the regulations.

Since they're using the term differently than it's used in the logging regulations, airline applications should have a specific description of what they're looking for beyond just "PIC time." :dunno:
 
Palmpilot said:
It would be kind of shocking to learn that airline hiring personnel are that ignorant of the regulations.

Since they're using the term differently than it's used in the logging regulations, airline applications should have a specific description of what they're looking for beyond just "PIC time." :dunno:
Click to expand...
No kidding.
 
Kritchlow said:
Yup.. And that's exactly how my logbook is done.

Also it's what any aviation employer cares about. I do not recommend going to an interview and claiming PIC time for anything other than signing for the airplane.
Click to expand...

What's this signing for an airplane? Over 2K hours and don't recall ever doing that. Appear to have a pretty narrow mind.
 
ejensen said:
What's this signing for an airplane? Over 2K hours and don't recall ever doing that. Appear to have a pretty narrow mind.
Click to expand...
For general aviation it's more just an expression meaning you are the responsible party for the airplane.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, you have to give them what they ask for.
Click to expand...
That's the part I never quite understand from the no-logging group. People in all sorts of careers present their history data in a form that is requested by a potential employer or job application or simply because of the nature of the job. But in aviation, there seems to be a strain of thought that pilots, for all their skills, don't have the ability to do this.

There's nothing I am aware of in a logbook kept according to FAA regulations that prevents a pilot from only identifying Part 1 PIC time to an employer.

Otoh, if the aviation employer simply doesn't like the fact an applicant keeps his records in accordance with the regulations, I would have to wonder what other regulations the employer doesn't like its pilots to follow.
 
JeffDG said:
The FAA has been incredibly clear as to what can be logged as PIC time.
Click to expand...

Incredibly clear? The CFRs never say explicitly whether being PIC is a sufficient condition for logging PIC time, and the FAA's reputed position contradicts either answer to that question.

CFR 61.51(e) enumerates several conditions for logging PIC time. Actually being PIC is not among those enumerated conditions. But 61.51(e) does not assert that the enumerated conditions are exhaustive. It says a pilot "may log PIC time for flights (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)"; the way to designate an exclusive list would instead be "only for flights (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)".

In the absence of any explicit rule to the contrary (and there is none), we are implicitly entitled to log PIC time for time when we are actually PIC, because we are simply logging something that is true, which we may always do if no rule says otherwise. Then the conditions enumerated in 61.51(e) would be in addition to that implicit condition.

If being PIC does suffice to log PIC time, then you can log PIC time while your sole-manipulator properly-rated pilot passenger does so too. But the FAA has reputedly said that cannot be done.

If being PIC cannot suffice to log PIC time, then you cannot log PIC time while your non-pilot passenger is the sole manipulator of the controls (because none of 61.51(e)'s enumerated conditions apply). But the FAA has reputedly said you can.

So the FAA's position is not consistent with either of those interpretations of the CFRs.

So much for clarity.
 
Last edited:
acrophile said:
Incredibly clear? The CFRs never say explicitly whether being PIC is a sufficient condition for logging PIC time,
Click to expand...
Sure they do. Do you want every 61.51 box that doesn;t say "acting as PIC" to say "even if not acting as PIC"? So then yo can complain about the FAR being 3 tomes a long as it is?

Compare the box for logging PIC as sole manipulator with the box for logging PIC in a multi-pilot situation, where one may log PIC when one "acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required."

There is one and exactly one logging PIC situation I'm aware of (the "only pilot on board" and checkride situations excepted) where there is an internal contradiction.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Sure they do. Do you want every 64.51 box that doesn;t say "acting as PIC" to say "even if not acting as PIC"?
Click to expand...

Huh? You're addressing whether acting as PIC is a necessary condition. Of course there's no ambiguity about that. I was (very clearly) talking about whether it's a sufficient condition.
 
Kritchlow said:
You know, I'm betting they're not even aware of the logging rules to the extent people here are. In my whole life I've never heard of anyone in tune as you are here.
I'm betting it's just expected that one logs pic when they are pic. Of course I'm guessing, as I'm not an airline recruiter...
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that because airline recruiters don't know the regs, you should make up your own definition of PIC time?
 
acrophile said:
Incredibly clear? The CFRs never say explicitly whether being PIC is a sufficient condition for logging PIC time, and the FAA's reputed position contradicts either answer to that question.

CFR 61.51(e) enumerates several conditions for logging PIC time. Actually being PIC is not among those enumerated conditions. But 61.51(e) does not assert that the enumerated conditions are exhaustive. It says a pilot "may log PIC time for flights (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)"; the way to designate an exclusive list would instead be "only for flights (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)".

So much for clarity.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's quite clear.

61.51 is clear. People keep trying to read other things into it.

You're right. Being PIC does not permit logging PIC. No mystery there.

In terms of an exhaustive list, if you can find another regulation that permits logging, then you can add it. "May log" is different than "shall" or "must" in that the pilot is not mandated to log, but may choose to not log the time.
 
JeffDG said:
You're right. Being PIC does not permit logging PIC. No mystery there.
Click to expand...

You say I'm right, but what you say I'm right about is practically the opposite of what I actually said.

Also, when you quoted me, you edited the quote in a misleading way. You omitted a big section before the concluding sentence without indicating that you had done so. You thereby made it look as though the concluding sentence referred to the immediately prior paragraph in your edited quote, when it did not.

It's fine for you to disagree with my position. But please don't misrepresent what my position is.

In terms of an exhaustive list, if you can find another regulation that permits logging, then you can add it.
Click to expand...

But I already explained (1) why 61.53(e) is not exclusive, (2) why, in the absence of an explicit exclusion, being PIC is implicitly a sufficient condition for logging PIC time, and (3) that in fact the FAA sometimes (but not always) treats being PIC as a sufficient condition for logging PIC time even when the 61.53(e) conditions are not met.

You have not addressed (2) or (3).

"May log" is different than "shall" or "must" in that the pilot is not mandated to log, but may choose to not log the time.
Click to expand...

The difference between "may" and "must" is clear, and has nothing to do with whether being PIC is a sufficient condition for being allowed to log PIC time.
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
For general aviation it's more just an expression meaning you are the responsible party for the airplane.
Click to expand...
I don't think very many people in general aviation uses that expression which is why you are getting these comments. I have flown 135 for many years and have never "signed" for an airplane either, if that means putting my signature somewhere. I have never even heard that expression at work. We are "assigned" to be PIC or SIC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top