Consequences of Logging Pilot in Command?

Captain said:
Because the flight DID happen. If I have a logbook where I log all my flights...each and every blessed one of them and then I don't log a flight to satisfy some external thing then that is a lie. It's a lie by omission.
Click to expand...
Please cite the FAA regulation which says you must log everything you do which would qualify to be logged. Note that the line you sign at the bottom of each page says something like "All the entries above are true and correct," and nothing more. There is nothing there about them being a complete record of all your flying activities.
 
I haven't seen an answer to my question in this scenario - if the PP does want to log it, and needs to pay his pro-rata share to do so, who does he pay? The owner has allowed the CP to fly the plane at no cost, so is the "pro-rata cost of the flight" = $0 to the CP? Or does the PP, who had no arrangement with the owner, need to pay the owner? Basically, the CP is subletting out the flight.
 
I'm still a little bit hung up over acting PIC vs. logging it. It's impossible for the PP to ACT as PIC because he can't legally perform the flight own his own. He isn't SIC because he isn't a required crewmember.

How did the CP log the flight? He would have HAD to log PIC or the flight itself would have been illegal. Right?
 
I'm still not seeing any need for the PP to pay anything to anyone to log the time.

He's not acting as PIC. And 61.113 only prohibits compensation for acting as PIC.

Logging time under the "sole manipulator" rule does not mean one is acting as PIC, and as such, 61.113 is wholly inapplicable
 
Sac Arrow said:
How did the CP log the flight? He would have HAD to log PIC or the flight itself would have been illegal. Right?
Click to expand...

Technically he couldn't log anything.

And no, that is wrong. Just because you are acting as PIC does not mean you can log it. The flight is legal because the PIC was legal. The PP wasn't legal to act as PIC because of currency. But he COULD log it as PIC under the provisions of 61.51(e).
 
Sac Arrow said:
How did the CP log the flight? He would have HAD to log PIC or the flight itself would have been illegal. Right?
Click to expand...

No, the CP would have had to act as PIC, a completely different issue from logging PIC.

The CP could only log PIC if he was the manipulator of the controls, or he was a required crewmember (ie. PP under the hood). Otherwise, he logs bupkis.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I'm still a little bit hung up over acting PIC vs. logging it. It's impossible for the PP to ACT as PIC because he can't legally perform the flight own his own. He isn't SIC because he isn't a required crewmember.

How did the CP log the flight? He would have HAD to log PIC or the flight itself would have been illegal. Right?
Click to expand...
You don't have to log PIC time to be the PIC, and there are many circumstances (including Greg's original scenario) in which the PIC cannot legally log the time at all. In this situation, the fact that the controls are being manipulated by someone else who is a pilot rated for the aircraft prevents the CP involved from logging the time (there being no other clause of 61.51(e) under which s/he can log it).

In any event, Greg's scenario is not like any logging or compensation interpretation I've seen, and I would not want to make a guess what the FAA Chief Counsel would say about it. My only advice to the PP involved on how to be absolutely sure s/he is not going to get hosed for breaking the rules would be to decline to touch the controls, or at least make no record of having done so.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You don't have to log PIC time to be the PIC, and there are many circumstances (including Greg's original scenario) in which the PIC cannot legally log the time at all. In this situation, the fact that the controls are being manipulated by someone else who is a pilot rated for the aircraft prevents the CP involved from logging the time (there being no other clause of 61.51(e) under which s/he can log it).
Click to expand...

Okay.
 
Ron Levy said:
You don't have to log PIC time to be the PIC, and there are many circumstances (including Greg's original scenario) in which the PIC cannot legally log the time at all. In this situation, the fact that the controls are being manipulated by someone else who is a pilot rated for the aircraft prevents the CP involved from logging the time (there being no other clause of 61.51(e) under which s/he can log it).

In any event, Greg's scenario is not like any logging or compensation interpretation I've seen, and I would not want to make a guess what the FAA Chief Counsel would say about it. My only advice to the PP involved on how to be absolutely sure s/he is not going to get hosed for breaking the rules would be to decline to touch the controls, or at least make no record of having done so.
Click to expand...

Ergo my extreme frustration. That can't be right. Everyone here knows its not right. Near as I can tell folks just shrug their shoulders and accept it...well I don't.
 
If you're still worried about the "lie" thing, all the pilot would have to do is change the wording of the statement that he/she signs to make it clear that the logbook is not necessarily a complete record.
 
Logging is compensation. Chief sez so.

PP can't act for compensation. 61.113

Logging is different than acting.

PP manipulates and logs but does not act. It's compensation, but not a violation of 61.113

Where did I go wrong?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Logging is compensation. Chief sez so.

PP can't act for compensation. 61.113

Logging is different than acting.

PP manipulates and logs but does not act. Its compensation, but not a violation of 61.113

Where did I go wrong?
Click to expand...

Your reading matches mine precisely.
 
JeffDG said:
Your reading matches mine precisely.
Click to expand...

But the insane thing of the whole thing is that in my scenario, if the acting PIC was a Private Pilot instead of a Commercial pilot, technically the flight would be illegal. He can't do his friend a favor by flying the airplane from A to B unless he has a reason to go himself.

I think the Chief Counsel went off the reservation on this one.

Having said that, I am pretty sure I know what most people would do in this case.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
But the insane thing of the whole thing is that in my scenario, if the acting PIC was a Private Pilot instead of a Commercial pilot, technically the flight would be illegal.
Click to expand...

That would be my read. But in your scenario where the actor is a commercial pilot - is there an issue?

He can't do his friend a favor by flying the airplane from A to B unless he has a reason to go himself.
Click to expand...
Or, if said acting PP paid for his/her pro-rata share of the direct operating costs his/herself???
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
That would be my read. But in your scenario where the actor is a commercial pilot - is there an issue?
Click to expand...

No. The commercial pilot is legal to do so.

Or, if said acting PP paid for his/her pro-rata share of the direct operating costs his/herself???
Click to expand...

That is legal, too, but not part of either of my scenarios.
 
The FAA has created a cesspool of regulations that they can't even interpret, but they still do and we never like the answers.

Was free flight time compensation when the fuel was lass than a dollar a gallon?

Tim, can I borrow your motorcycle to ride around the block, sure Joe no problem (non compensation)

Hey Tim, can I borrow your truck to drive around the block, sure Joe no problem (non compensation)

Hey Tim can I borrow your Arrow to fly around the pattern, Well no Joe that could be construed as compensation to you because I don't make you pay for the aircraft costs, but I am afraid to have you pay for the aircraft costs because that could be construed as a commercial operation. On the other hand I could fly you around the pattern myself but since I don't really have a reason to fly around the pattern I could be seen as operating a commercial operation, so I am just going to hangar my aircraft and not fly it anymore because there doesn't seem to be a way to fly it without breaking some little nitnoy regulation when I do so. That will at least make the people at the FAA happy, and we know it is all about them!!!

I know this scenario is not in and of itself 100% correct, but it is the jist of what I hear and read on a daily basis, so rather than typing another 20 pages of posts debating the merits of what I have typed just read it and move on. This is all I will have to say about it. Yeah I am having a bad day. I will deal with it.

And before you get all mad at me this is not directed at anyone, just my POed thoughts for the day
 
tmyers said:
...Hey Tim can I borrow your Arrow to fly around the pattern, Well no Joe that could be construed as compensation to you because I don't make you pay for the aircraft costs...
Click to expand...

I don't think the FAA has said that you can't borrow someone's airplane without paying for the costs, as long as you are not doing it to fulfill some kind of request from the owner/operator.

...but I am afraid to have you pay for the aircraft costs because that could be construed as a commercial operation....
Click to expand...

I think the FAA considers that to be rental, and does not consider rental to be flying for hire.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
But the insane thing of the whole thing is that in my scenario, if the acting PIC was a Private Pilot instead of a Commercial pilot, technically the flight would be illegal. He can't do his friend a favor by flying the airplane from A to B unless he has a reason to go himself.

I think the Chief Counsel went off the reservation on this one.

Having said that, I am pretty sure I know what most people would do in this case.
Click to expand...

I think most pilots would agree that the FAA often goes overboard on things.
 
tmyers said:
The FAA has created a cesspool of regulations that they can't even interpret, but they still do and we never like the answers.

Was free flight time compensation when the fuel was lass than a dollar a gallon?

Tim, can I borrow your motorcycle to ride around the block, sure Joe no problem (non compensation)

Hey Tim, can I borrow your truck to drive around the block, sure Joe no problem (non compensation)

Hey Tim can I borrow your Arrow to fly around the pattern, Well no Joe that could be construed as compensation to you because I don't make you pay for the aircraft costs, but I am afraid to have you pay for the aircraft costs because that could be construed as a commercial operation. On the other hand I could fly you around the pattern myself but since I don't really have a reason to fly around the pattern I could be seen as operating a commercial operation, so I am just going to hangar my aircraft and not fly it anymore because there doesn't seem to be a way to fly it without breaking some little nitnoy regulation when I do so. That will at least make the people at the FAA happy, and we know it is all about them!!!

I know this scenario is not in and of itself 100% correct, but it is the jist of what I hear and read on a daily basis, so rather than typing another 20 pages of posts debating the merits of what I have typed just read it and move on. This is all I will have to say about it. Yeah I am having a bad day. I will deal with it.

And before you get all mad at me this is not directed at anyone, just my POed thoughts for the day
Click to expand...

The friend can reimburse the costs of fuel and oil. Everyone is happy.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
But the insane thing of the whole thing is that in my scenario, if the acting PIC was a Private Pilot instead of a Commercial pilot, technically the flight would be illegal. He can't do his friend a favor by flying the airplane from A to B unless he has a reason to go himself.

I think the Chief Counsel went off the reservation on this one.

Having said that, I am pretty sure I know what most people would do in this case.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, I was once asked to do something similar to the OP:
1. Ferry an aircraft for $0 rental time. We didn't discuss costs of fuel or transportation home.
2. Fly right seat on a ferry flight with a CFII where actual IFR was likely also for $0 (maybe pay for instructor time). We didn't discuss costs of fuel or transportation home.

While I was thinking of a way where I could possibly do the flight and keep my integrity, the requestor posted the scenarios, written similarly, but a bit obscured to the DCPilots web board where it was discussed and debated. It was determined that the flights could be conducted by a PP until a competing flight school owner chimed in and let everyone know that the requestor was by definition a commercial operator with commercial insurance and therefore a PP could not do it. At that point, I :popcorn: and :rofl: and :mad2: as I knew what was next.

Game, set, match.

That operator went out of business after 13 years and the owner has been in hiding since (no one has heard from him).

I do know that the C-182P he had on leaseback sat idle as recently as a month ago.

I didn't do either flight.
 
tmyers said:
Hey Tim can I borrow your Arrow to fly around the pattern, Well no Joe that could be construed as compensation to you because I don't make you pay for the aircraft costs, but I am afraid to have you pay for the aircraft costs because that could be construed as a commercial operation.
Click to expand...
Except that isn't true because there is no quid pro quo to you. Your generosity by allowing your friend to fly your plane on a flight which has no demonstrable monetary value to you is entirely legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top