Becoming current vis 61.57...

BellyUpFish

BellyUpFish

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
1,157
Display Name
Display name:
Backtothesand
Curious to see what POA thinks about the following hypothetical situation with regards to 61.57..

Let's assume:

-2 pilots
-Both private pilot certificate holders
-Pilot A is night current
-Pilot B is not night current

If Pilot A and Pilot B fly together during the accepted definition of night time, with Pilot A assuming PIC responsibilities at all times, if Pilot B solely manipulates the controls to 3 full stop landings, is Pilot B now night current with regards to 61.57?
 
BellyUpFish said:
Curious to see what POA thinks about the following hypothetical situation with regards to 61.57..

Let's assume:

-2 pilots
-Both private pilot certificate holders
-Pilot A is night current
-Pilot B is not night current

If Pilot A and Pilot B fly together during the accepted definition of night time, with Pilot A assuming PIC responsibilities at all times, if Pilot B solely manipulates the controls to 3 full stop landings, is Pilot B now night current with regards to 61.57?
Click to expand...
Of course he is. What in the language of 61.57 even suggests he wouldn't be? :confused:
 
midlifeflyer said:
Of course he is. What in the language of 61.57 even suggests he wouldn't be? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, there are those who believe that when a non-current pilot manipulates the controls, he becomes PIC and this, the current pilot is now "merely a passenger..."

I agree with you, my local FSDO agrees with you, another FSDO I called isn't sure and didn't want to commit to answer the question yet.
 
BellyUpFish said:
Well, there are those who believe that when a non-current pilot manipulates the controls, he becomes PIC and this, the current pilot is now "merely a passenger..."
Click to expand...
"Beliefs" don't necessary (and quite often don't) have anything to do with "reality."

They are welcome to "believe" the captain of a 747 stops being the captain when the first officer flies a leg.
 
midlifeflyer said:
"Beliefs" don't necessary (and quite often don't) have anything to do with "reality."

They are welcome to "believe" the captain of a 747 stops being the captain when the first officer flies a leg.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. 110%. It's amazing what people will preach as "law."

Same guy also believes you have to log all flight time.
 
Lachlan said:
But did Pilot A log it?
Click to expand...
Actually, this does matter - as only one of them can legally log the time.

If the acting PIC (the one who IS night current) logs the time, then the one who is sole manipulator of the controls CANNOT log it, which means he didn't get his currency back.

Only time two pilots can log PIC for the same flight (for most SEL) is when one of the bus acting as safety pilot. I.e. Required crew member.
 
Logging versus acting again.

Tflhndn said:
If the acting PIC (the one who IS night current) logs the time, then the one who is sole manipulator of the controls CANNOT log it, which means he didn't get his currency back.
Click to expand...

It is pretty clear in the FARs that if you are the sole manipulator you can log it as PIC. What the other pilot logs is up to him. So the non-current pilot does become current.
 
Tflhndn said:
Actually, this does matter - as only one of them can legally log the time.

If the acting PIC (the one who IS night current) logs the time, then the one who is sole manipulator of the controls CANNOT log it, which means he didn't get his currency back.
Click to expand...

The rule isn't "only one of them can log the time," it's "only the sole manipulator can log the time" assuming the setup posed in the OP. So it's not "if Pilot A logs it, Pilot B can't." It's "if Pilot B is flying, Pilot A can't log it, even if she's acting PIC."

A lot of people seem to have this "if I'm paying for the plane / if I'm acting PIC / if I banged my head on the wing during pre-flight and am in a grumpy mood, you're damn right I'm logging the flight as PIC!" mentality. That's fine, but it doesn't agree with the regs, and whether you're logging something illegally doesn't have any bearing on whether the sole manipulator can log something legally.

And this isn't to say that people don't make tacit agreements to break this rule, probably the most common being when you let your 5 y/o niece fly the plane for a little while. Of course you're going to log that, and nobody cares.
 
I have run into something similar with the local Warplane museum. We have a program where you can fly some of the planes there. I am not tailwheel current on landings right now. The museum says if I fly a museum plane during a checkout ride I am responsible, makes sense. Checkout pilots are either specifically listed CFIs or very experienced pilots listed by the museum. The problem becomes short of a CFI if I am responsible and PIC then the checkout pilot is a passenger which I can not carry because I don't have 3 landings in the last 90 days. The CFIs are harder to get a hold of than the check out pilots.

I may see if I can get with the local TW CFI get three take offs and landing (at least) in with him and then go do the annual check out at the museum.
 
mcmanigle said:
The rule isn't "only one of them can log the time," it's "only the sole manipulator can log the time" assuming the setup posed in the OP. So it's not "if Pilot A logs it, Pilot B can't." It's "if Pilot B is flying, Pilot A can't log it, even if she's acting PIC."
Click to expand...
..or to be even more technical, the rule is, "each pilot is responsible for logging his or her own time in accordance with the rules."
Tflhndn said:
If the acting PIC (the one who IS night current) logs the time, then the one who is sole manipulator of the controls CANNOT log it, which means he didn't get his currency back.
Click to expand...
... IOW, if the pilot who is acting as PIC but not flying the airplane logs the time improperly, that doesn't effect the flying pilot who is logging it properly.
 
Well I'm thinking he can't take a passenger (B pilot in your example) until he is night current. That help? :)
 
OK. So lets say there are two pilots. Tom, who owns the airplane and is PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight. Tom is night current but is not an instructor. Now Dave, who is a pilot, rated in that type airplane, flies with Tom and is NOT night current. Tom lets Dave make three landings so Dave can become night current.

Tom certainly can log the flight as PIC because he is in charge of the flight. I thought the only way Dave can log the flight is if he is a required crew member and manipulating the controls. And I dont see that he is.

Now, if the situation is reversed and Tom, who owns the airplane and is PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight but is NOT night current. But how can he be in charge of the flight if he is not night current? If he can be PIC in spite of that lack of currency, and he takes Dave, who is now a required crew member because he IS night current and Tom isn't. So Tom has to be the manipulator of the controls so he can get night current. Dave isnt the PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight OR manipulating the controls. So that doesn't work either.

I dunno, it doesnt add up in those above two scenarios. But like I say I don't know.

The only way I see it working is if Tom appoints Dave to be PIC in Tom's airplane by virtue of being in charge of the flight. But that one is iffy, since Tom owns the airplane and can't really abdicate PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight. I mean if its Toms airplane, and hes in it, hes in charge and can't escape that.

I dunno, I can tell you this, it isn't happening in my airplane. If Im not night current, Im PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight and the other pilot isn't a required crewmember because I can fly without him and get current on my own. I can't abdicate being in charge of the flight if I'm in my airplane. Now with an airline where some company owns the airplane and the pilots can shuffle it around any way they want, that is different. There is no ownership there. But they are all instructors anyway. But it applies to rentals also, because if I rent it, Im responsible for it.

Thats the way I see it. I really dont know for sure and dont think anyone does. You probably could log it and get away with it, I mean how is anyone going to know the details and do the mind boggling. If it came up on your airline interview the guy would probably accept it unless hes going to 3rd degree you and find out the details. If not accepted he's probably just not accept it and not care if its a little wrong, go on to the next one. Unless hes just looking for something to ding you on. But why log something that is iffy. If in doubt don't log it. I mean what are you in desperate need of another hour or something? Just go out and fly some more. Yeah money.

And no, there is no requirement to log every flight, just have to log enough for currency. That one is for sure.
 
Lachlan said:
I must. I feel compelled. Here's another question: must you fly all logged time?
Click to expand...

Years ago trying to get picked up by the airlines talking with a retired United 747 pilot. Had around 450 hours or so of multi and he says, "just put some P51 time in there". I says, "I've never flown a Mustang". He says, "no dummy Parker 51 (the pen)". I cracked up and said, "I can't do that". And I didn't.
 
People act like they can just assign PIC to any pilot they want without regard to who owns the airplane, or who rented it, or who borrowed it from a family member or friend. I don't see it that way. If I own it, or I rented it, Im PIC and CAN'T abdicate it anymore than I can abdicate being in charge of my house because I own IT.

Now if you are partners in ownership, thats different. You can assign PIC by virtue of being in charge back and forth by agreement, yes. LIke John and Martha King do.
 
Pilot B flies 0.5 with a CFI, problem solved.
 
coloradobluesky said:
OK. So lets say there are two pilots. Tom, who owns the airplane and is PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight. Tom is night current but is not an instructor. Now Dave, who is a pilot, rated in that type airplane, flies with Tom and is NOT night current. Tom lets Dave make three landings so Dave can become night current.

Tom certainly can log the flight as PIC because he is in charge of the flight. I thought the only way Dave can log the flight is if he is a required crew member and manipulating the controls. And I dont see that he is.

Now, if the situation is reversed and Tom, who owns the airplane and is PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight but is NOT night current. But how can he be in charge of the flight if he is not night current? If he can be PIC in spite of that lack of currency, and he takes Dave, who is now a required crew member because he IS night current and Tom isn't. So Tom has to be the manipulator of the controls so he can get night current. Dave isnt the PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight OR manipulating the controls. So that doesn't work either.

I dunno, it doesnt add up in those above two scenarios. But like I say I don't know.

The only way I see it working is if Tom appoints Dave to be PIC in Tom's airplane by virtue of being in charge of the flight. But that one is iffy, since Tom owns the airplane and can't really abdicate PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight. I mean if its Toms airplane, and hes in it, hes in charge and can't escape that.

I dunno, I can tell you this, it isn't happening in my airplane. If Im not night current, Im PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight and the other pilot isn't a required crewmember because I can fly without him and get current on my own. I can't abdicate being in charge of the flight if I'm in my airplane. Now with an airline where some company owns the airplane and the pilots can shuffle it around any way they want, that is different. There is no ownership there. But they are all instructors anyway. But it applies to rentals also, because if I rent it, Im responsible for it.

Thats the way I see it. I really dont know for sure and dont think anyone does. You probably could log it and get away with it, I mean how is anyone going to know the details and do the mind boggling. If it came up on your airline interview the guy would probably accept it unless hes going to 3rd degree you and find out the details. If not accepted he's probably just not accept it and not care if its a little wrong, go on to the next one. Unless hes just looking for something to ding you on. But why log something that is iffy. If in doubt don't log it. I mean what are you in desperate need of another hour or something? Just go out and fly some more. Yeah money.

And no, there is no requirement to log every flight, just have to log enough for currency. That one is for sure.
Click to expand...

It may be the way you see it, but it's wrong and the regs plainly make that clear. Simply acting as PIC in an aircraft (or in an operation) that does not require more than one pilot does NOT permit you to log any time. Period. Full stop. No ambiguity. If you're acting as PIC, but not manipulating the controls, and only 1 pilot is required, you do not get to log time.

Ownership, operational control, etc. of the airplane has no bearing on who is PIC, or who can act as PIC.
 
coloradobluesky said:
People act like they can just assign PIC to any pilot they want without regard to who owns the airplane, or who rented it, or who borrowed it from a family member or friend. I don't see it that way. If I own it, or I rented it, Im PIC and CAN'T abdicate it anymore than I can abdicate being in charge of my house because I own IT.

Now if you are partners in ownership, thats different. You can assign PIC by virtue of being in charge back and forth by agreement, yes. LIke John and Martha King do.
Click to expand...

You absolutely can assign the role of PIC to any qualified pilot, regardless of who owns, rents, operates, etc. the airplane. Sure, the owner or insurance company may ultimately have a problem with it, but that doesn't make the designation of PIC any less valid in the eyes of the FAA. You conflating concepts. As an owner, renter, or operator, you've got potential legal LIABILITY that you can't get out of by designating someone else as PIC (think in terms of who gets sued in a crash), but the FAA doesn't care much about that.
 
And if I have LEGAL liability, do you think I am going to put someone else as phony "in charge"? What if he wants to do something wrong and we get in to an argument and he says "Well, Im captain, so my way wins". The hell with that.

I DON'T DO THAT! And I have good reasons.
 
coloradobluesky said:
And if I have LEGAL liability, do you think I am going to put someone else as phony "in charge"? What if he wants to do something wrong and we get in to an argument and he says "Well, Im captain, so my way wins". The hell with that.

I DON'T DO THAT! And I have good reasons.
Click to expand...

One of the FSDO guys I spoke with yesterday raised this very point.

Almost in a manner that insurance ALMOST over-rode the FAR's....
 
BellyUpFish said:
One of the FSDO guys I spoke with yesterday raised this very point.

Almost in a manner that insurance ALMOST over-rode the FAR's....
Click to expand...

Insurance and fears of legal liability (legitimate or not) frequently, from a practical perspective, do essentially overrule the FARs. The FAA says that a 100hr PPL with a high performance endorsement, complex endorsement, and high-altitude endorsement can legally hop in a PC12, solo, with no training, and go. Is any insurance company going to allow that?
 
cyclepro said:
I don't believe so, I think in that situation if it's instruction both pilots are considered required Crew members.
Click to expand...

Correct, both are considered crew so there are no "passengers" on board. There's a chief counsel opinion on this.
 
coloradobluesky said:
OK. So lets say there are two pilots. Tom, who owns the airplane and is PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight. Tom is night current but is not an instructor. Now Dave, who is a pilot, rated in that type airplane, flies with Tom and is NOT night current. Tom lets Dave make three landings so Dave can become night current.

Tom certainly can log the flight as PIC because he is in charge of the flight. I thought the only way Dave can log the flight is if he is a required crew member and manipulating the controls. And I don't see that he is.
Click to expand...
@bradg33 is absolutely correct. Yes, no question Tom is acting as PIC. But that doesn't prevent him from permitting his non-current friend from flying the airplane, any more than, as I said above, the captain of a 747 stops being captain because the FO is flying a leg.

But there is not one part of the Universal Rule of Logging Flight Time (61.51) that permits a pilot to log PIC time solely because he is in charge (acting as PIC) of the flight. Look hard and try to find it. All the "boxes" that mention "when acting as pilot in command" have conditions like being an ATP when the flight requires an ATP or acting as PIC in an operation in which the regulations require more than one pilot.

OTOH, there is not one rule that requires a pilot who has at least a recreational pilot certificate and is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft he is rated for from logging that time as PIC, whether or not he is acting as PIC or even qualified to act as PIC.

It's the basic "acting as PIC" and "logging PIC" flight time involve separate rules, separate policies and only have anything to do with one another when FAR 61.51 specifically says so.
 
coloradobluesky said:
OK. So lets say there are two pilots. Tom, who owns the airplane and is PIC by virtue of being in charge of the flight. Tom is night current but is not an instructor. Now Dave, who is a pilot, rated in that type airplane, flies with Tom and is NOT night current. Tom lets Dave make three landings so Dave can become night current.

Tom certainly can log the flight as PIC because he is in charge of the flight.
Click to expand...
Under what rule?
Tom certainly can not log the flight as PIC due to a lack of manipulation.
 
coloradobluesky said:
And if I have LEGAL liability, do you think I am going to put someone else as phony "in charge"? What if he wants to do something wrong and we get in to an argument and he says "Well, Im captain, so my way wins". The hell with that.

I DON'T DO THAT! And I have good reasons.
Click to expand...
Fine. If you are acting as PIC, then you are acting as PIC. How does having someone else log PIC as sole manipulator change who is acting PIC? How does the question of who is in charge come into play when it comes to logging?
 
coloradobluesky said:
And if I have LEGAL liability, do you think I am going to put someone else as phony "in charge"? What if he wants to do something wrong and we get in to an argument and he says "Well, Im captain, so my way wins". The hell with that.

I DON'T DO THAT! And I have good reasons.
Click to expand...
You do. I don't think anyone is arguing with your decision. Only with your rules analysis.
  • Letting someone fly the airplane does not put him "in charge." You still are. A 9 year old non-pilot who you allow to fly the airplane does not become the "captain". You still are. Same is true for a fully-certificated pilot you permit to land.
  • But, if you are the captain, then you are ultimately responsible for what happens on the airplane. An exception to that is the 9 year old or pilot who refuses to give up the controls on your command. That person is committing a criminal offense that may break the chain of your responsibility. If I had any inkling the other person in the airplane was psychotic, I wound't let him or her on board to begin with!
Logging is irrelevant. "Acting" as PIC is about authority duty and responsibility. "Logging PIC time" is about writing down numbers after a flight with a beer in your hand. If you don't confuse the two, you have it all straight.

Bottom line: It's your airplane and you get to choose who to let in it as a passenger, let alone fly it. If you are the pilot in command, it is up to you to decide how much risk there is in letting someone else fly or land it. If the risk is not acceptable, you don't do it. Your command, your airplane, your choice.
 
BellyUpFish said:
Under what rule does the requirement to "manipulate the controls" to qualify for PIC fall?
Click to expand...

Look at 61.51(e)(1). You get to log PIC time in the following situations:

(1) sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft for which you are rated;
(2) sole occupant
(3) when acting as PIC in an aircraft for which more than 1 pilot is required by TC or reg
(4) when performing duties of PIC while under supervision of a qualified PIC (basically applicable only to air carrier training)
(5) when you're an ATP, when acting as PIC in an operation where an ATP is required (air carriers)
(6) CFI giving instruction
(7) student pilot in certain situations.
 
bradg33 said:
Look at 61.51(e)(1). You get to log PIC time in the following situations:

(1) sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft for which you are rated;
(2) sole occupant
(3) when acting as PIC in an aircraft for which more than 1 pilot is required by TC or reg
(4) when performing duties of PIC while under supervision of a qualified PIC (basically applicable only to air carrier training)
(5) when you're an ATP, when acting as PIC in an operation where an ATP is required (air carriers)
(6) CFI giving instruction
(7) student pilot in certain situations.
Click to expand...


That works, thanks. (3) and (5) were specifically what I was thinking about when asking.
 
BellyUpFish said:
Under what rule does the requirement to "manipulate the controls" to qualify for PIC fall?
Click to expand...
If you are talking about acting as PIC, there is no such rule.

If you are talking about logging PIC flight time, it's the Universal Rule of Logging Flight Time, 61.51.

If you don't understand and accept the distinction, the rules of logging are a mystery.
 
midlifeflyer said:
If you are talking about acting as PIC, there is no such rule.

If you are talking about logging PIC flight time, it's the Universal Rule of Logging Flight Time, 61.51.

If you don't understand and accept the distinction, the rules of logging are a mystery.
Click to expand...

I was thinking acting as PIC, but he was specifically speaking to logging which I didn't make the distinction while posting.
 
coloradobluesky said:
People act like they can just assign PIC to any pilot they want without regard to who owns the airplane, or who rented it, or who borrowed it from a family member or friend. I don't see it that way. If I own it, or I rented it, Im PIC and CAN'T abdicate it anymore than I can abdicate being in charge of my house because I own IT.
Click to expand...
Not true.
 
paflyer said:
Not true.
Click to expand...
It is true to some degree. The FAR is not the only thing that affects our decisions.

If I rent an airplane from an FBO, the agreement is typically that I cannot let someone else, at least not a pilot who also rents from them, act as PIC while I have custody. Private flying clubs and even small co-owner groups may have similar agreements. If I own an airplane, I make a promise to my insurer that I will not allow someone who doesn't meet the "open pilot" warranty nor is an approved pilot act as PIC.

Even without agreements in place, I am usually going to be legally responsible for what happens to an owned or borrowed or rented airplane when it is in my custody.

IOW...oh. It's in my signature block.
 
The FSDO seemed to agree with this..

"When someone goes wrong, who is the PIC?"
 
There are definitely situations where you cannot legally have the right seat act as PIC to solve this problem.

I recently had to explain to my safety pilot why he couldn't log PIC in a CAP 182.

1. He didn't have a high performance endorsement, which prohibits acting as PIC (not logging it, though, but I'd question the wisdom of that).
2. He was not permitted to act as PIC by CAP without a Form 5 checkride (though acting as non-PIC safety pilot is allowed as long as he wears a uniform).

#2 is more serious than people seem to think here. Acting as PIC when not authorized is stealing an airplane. And it's nearly universal that flying clubs, FBOs, etc. specify who is allowed to be PIC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top