Consequences of Logging Pilot in Command?

[Greg Bockelman]

So here’s the scenario. An individual wants to move his Cessna 172 from point A to point B. But for whatever reason he cannot do it himself so he calls his friend up, who has a CPL, and asks if he can do it. He can’t pay anything, but since the powers that be have determined that free flight time is compensation, the friend has to be commercially rated to legally do that flight. (I find this to be totally absurd. But wait, it gets better.)

Ok, so far. The commercially certificated pilot can legally do the flight. However, the Commercial Pilot has a Private Pilot friend who wants to go along. That friend is Single Engine Land rated but is not current in any form. No landing currency, no flight review, nothing. The Commercial Pilot is more than comfortable with letting the non current Private Pilot do the whole flight. Therefore the Private Pilot is able to log PIC time in accordance with 61.51(e) as sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated.

Now, as I understand the Chief Counsel’s interpretation of the regulations, since free flight time is considered a form of compensation, this flight just became illegal because the person logging the time has no commercial certificate. Never mind the other person onboard is the legal PIC. I find that to be way off the charts absurd.

I am not really sure what the point to this post is other than to point out again that if you cannot tolerate the answer you may get from a Chief Counsel inquiry, don’t bother asking the question.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Does Private Pilot "B" have an independent reason to fly to the destination? (for sake of argument let's just say he does.)

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Does Private Pilot "B" have an independent reason to fly to the destination? (for sake of argument let's just say he does.)

The commercial pilot, or the private pilot? I don't see the relevance. Take it as it is written.

 

[Sac Arrow]

The commercial pilot, or the private pilot? I don't see the relevance. Take it as it is written.

Where I'm going with this is that the commercial pilot is performing a service for the owner in transporting the plane, not the private pilot. The private pilot is along for the ride and not benefiting the owner.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Where I'm going with this is that the commercial pilot is performing a service for the owner in transporting the plane, not the private pilot. The private pilot is along for the ride and not benefiting the owner.

But the Private Pilot is receiving free flight time for the flight, therefore he is receiving compensation for the flight.

 

[JeffDG]

But the Private Pilot is receiving free flight time for the flight, therefore he is receiving compensation for the flight.

But he's not acting as Pilot in Command

There's no prohibition on receiving compensation for being a "Carbon-based Autopilot"

 

[MAKG1]

Isn't this the difference from acting vs. logging PIC?

The CPL is the acting PIC. He must be; the PPL is not current and has no flight review.

The PPL is allowed to log PIC under the sole manipulator clause, as long as he is rated ASEL.

Here is 14 CFR 61.113(a):

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

Nothing about logging PIC there.

There is no regulation that says the person logging PIC time must be current or have a flight review or have any limitations on compensation. The person acting as PIC has all those.

Oh, and if the CPL also happens to be CFI, they can both log PIC as long as instruction is taking place, which shouldn't be too hard.

 

[TommyG]

So here’s the scenario. An individual wants to move his Cessna 172 from point A to point B. But for whatever reason he cannot do it himself so he calls his friend up, who has a CPL, and asks if he can do it. He can’t pay anything, but since the powers that be have determined that free flight time is compensation, the friend has to be commercially rated to legally do that flight. (I find this to be totally absurd. But wait, it gets better.)

Ok, so far. The commercially certificated pilot can legally do the flight. However, the Commercial Pilot has a Private Pilot friend who wants to go along. That friend is Single Engine Land rated but is not current in any form. No landing currency, no flight review, nothing. The Commercial Pilot is more than comfortable with letting the non current Private Pilot do the whole flight. Therefore the Private Pilot is able to log PIC time in accordance with 61.51(e) as sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated.

Now, as I understand the Chief Counsel’s interpretation of the regulations, since free flight time is considered a form of compensation, this flight just became illegal because the person logging the time has no commercial certificate. Never mind the other person onboard is the legal PIC. I find that to be way off the charts absurd.

I am not really sure what the point to this post is other than to point out again that if you cannot tolerate the answer you may get from a Chief Counsel inquiry, don’t bother asking the question.

The PPL will most likely do what most pilots do anyway, log it as PIC. The chance of it ever coming back to him are minimal. These discussions always end up the same place, post after post of debate. The reality of it is, in the people are logging what they want. I knew guys years back, 2 of them would fly somewhere, both would log it PIC. They both have jobs in the airlines. Everyone loves to quote the regs, but the logbook is an honor system with little to no enforcement. If the PPL feels he can log it, log it and move on. If he feels he shouldn't log it, don't log it and move on.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I understand all that. But the PP is receiving compensation in the form of flight time for the flight, which the Chief Counsel is on record as saying it is a No No.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The PPL will most likely do what most pilots do anyway, log it as PIC. The chance of it ever coming back to him are minimal. These discussions always end up the same place, post after post of debate. The reality of it is, in the people are logging what they want. I knew guys years back, 2 of them would fly somewhere, both would log it PIC. They both have jobs in the airlines. Everyone loves to quote the regs, but the logbook is an honor system with little to no enforcement. If the PPL feels he can log it, log it and move on. If he feels he shouldn't log it, don't log it and move on.

I agree with all that. But that isn't really the point of the exercise.

 

[Sac Arrow]

But the Private Pilot is receiving free flight time for the flight, therefore he is receiving compensation for the flight.

Yes, but I can, for example, loan my plane out for free to another private pilot for a trip they planned, and as long I'm not a beneficiary in some form, there is no compensation issue.

My argument is that in your cited case, the private pilot is not benefiting the owner.

Also, could this be a logging vs. acting issue? The private pilot certainly can't ACT as PIC in this case because of currency even though by a technicality he can log it.

 

[MAKG1]

I understand all that. But the PP is receiving compensation in the form of flight time for the flight, which the Chief Counsel is on record as saying it is a No No.

And almost all of us have logged PIC in aircraft for which we were not permitted to act as PIC. Such as during transition to a complex aircraft, prior to the endorsement. It's perfectly legal.

 

[poadeleted20]

I am not really sure what the point to this post is other than to point out again that if you cannot tolerate the answer you may get from a Chief Counsel inquiry, don’t bother asking the question.

Concur 100%.

I really hate the following conversation:
Q: "Is this legal?"
A: "No. See this reg/interpretation."
Q: "But nobody's getting hurt so it should be legal."
A: "Can't help what you think should be legal."
Q: "What will happen if I do it anyway?"
A: "Probably nothing unless you crash or otherwise attract the FAA's attention, in which case it could be anything from a mild ticking off to revocation depending on what you did and your history with the FAA."
Q: "But what are the chances of getting caught? And isn't this like going 56 in a 55 zone?"
A: "You asked the question, you got the answer. If you don't like it, petition the FAA to change the regulation."
Q: "That's too hard."
A:

 

[RJM62]

Just for giggles...

What if the non-current PP had a need to go to the destination, borrowed the airplane to do so, and brought the current CP along belong of his own lack of currency? Could the PP log the time in that case, with the CP acting as PIC?

-Rich

 

[Jaybird180]

Here's an analogy that says the PP can log the time legally:

(This is a true story, the names have been changed to protect the innocent that someone will want to make look guilty)

John is refueling his airplane to go flying. Tom shows up to sit in the grassy area and judge landings on a nice weather Saturday. John offers Tom the right seat and say's "wanna come along, I'm just going over yonder and burning some Avgas". Tom folds his chair and hops in.

Shortly after takeoff, John says "You have the controls." Tom says, "I have the controls".

After they get back, Tom legally logs PIC. They shake and talk about how much fun they had. No money changes hands.

 

[alfadog]

Don't these always seem to revolve around logging time as opposed to just flying the airplane? The PPL should just fly the airplane, have some fun, and screw logging it.

That is what I would do in the PPL's place. There are very few folks I trust enough to trust with my license by doing something shady in their company.

 

[Matthew]

To Greg's original post:

Suppose the PP understands the regs the way the Chief Counsel has interpreted them and doesn't want to accept free flight time as compensation.

Who would he pay for the prorated expense of the flight? The CP? or the owner? ARE there any prorated expenses, since the flight was offered free to the CP (somebody is paying for gas)?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Don't these always seem to revolve around logging time as opposed to just flying the airplane? The PPL should just fly the airplane, have some fun, and screw logging it.

1. That isn't the point of this thread
2. The flight time is still compensation even if it isn't logged, therefore illegal, which is my point.

 

[alfadog]

1. That isn't the point of this thread
2. The flight time is still compensation even if it isn't logged, therefore illegal, which is my point.

1. Meh.
2. I disagree. If it is not logged, it did not happen. The CPL was PIC and pilot for all intents and purposes provided that was discussed up front. The PPL was a pax.

 

[Everskyward]

2. The flight time is still compensation even if it isn't logged, therefore illegal, which is my point.

How can the flight time be compensation if it isn't logged?

I agree with the poster above me in that if it isn't logged the PP is a passenger. It would be as if the CP let a non-pilot who has no intention of becoming a pilot and no logbook manipulate the controls.

 

[marcoseddi]

The ruling is......
the person hiring the CPL now MUST FLY THE PLANE TO POINT B can no longer use anyone but himself to fly. FACT

 

[Palmpilot]

How can the flight time be compensation if it isn't logged?

I agree with the poster above me in that if it isn't logged the PP is a passenger. It would be as if the CP let a non-pilot who has no intention of becoming a pilot and no logbook manipulate the controls.

The Chief Counsel's office is on record in the Harrington letter as saying that one can avoid having flight time considered as compensation by not logging it. Some people apparently feel that the Bobertz letter, which was written twelve years later, superseded that, but the Bobertz letter actually cited the Harrington letter, and if they intended to reverse anything in it, they didn't specifically say so.

 

[Everskyward]

The Chief Counsel's office is on record in the Harrington letter as saying that one can avoid having flight time considered as compensation by not logging it. Some people apparently feel that the Bobertz letter, which was written twelve years later, superseded that, but the Bobertz letter actually cited the Harrington letter, and if they intended to reverse anything in it, they didn't specifically say so.

The only section of the Bobertz letter which addresses flight time as compensation is this.

With respect to conducting the flights for compensation, your request notes that the pilot, who holds an ATP certificate, argues that any time logged on these flights should not count as compensation because building general aviation flying time in a Cessna 172 does not advance his career. Generally, accrual of flight time is compensation and the FAA does not enter into a case- by-case analysis to determine whether the logging of flight time is of value to a particular pilot. Legal Interpretation to John W. Harrington, from Donald Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel (Oct. 23, 1997) [1997-23]. Moreover, this argument does not alter the fact that, as discussed above, the pilot received compensation for the flights from the canoe club members by accepting their pro rata share of the cost of the flights.

The pilot logged the time even though it was basically worthless to him. I don't see how this applies to a PP passenger flying an airplane but not logging the time.

 

[Captain]

Don't these always seem to revolve around logging time as opposed to just flying the airplane? The PPL should just fly the airplane, have some fun, and screw logging it.

That is what I would do in the PPL's place. There are very few folks I trust enough to trust with my license by doing something shady in their company.

Not logging the flight is just lying. And if you're willing to use lying in your approach to the FAA and it's regulations then a whole bunch of other opportunities open up.

 

[Everskyward]

Not logging the flight is just lying. And if you're willing to use lying in your approach to the FAA and it's regulations then a whole bunch of other opportunities open up.

There nothing that says you are required to log all the time you spend manipulating the controls of an airplane. In fact there's no reg that says you must log all the time you act as PIC.

The stumbling block in the question above seems to be flight time as compensation. If it's not logged it isn't worth anything. I don't believe the FAA considers whatever enjoyment someone might get out of it as compensation. At least not yet.

 

[Captain]

There nothing that says you are required to log all the time you spend manipulating the controls of an airplane. In fact there's no reg that says you must log all the time you act as PIC.

The stumbling block in the question above seems to be flight time as compensation. If it's not logged it isn't worth anything. I don't believe the FAA considers whatever enjoyment someone might get out of it as compensation. At least not yet.

Never said there was. There a massive difference between 'you MUST log your flight time' and 'you CAN'T log your flight time'.

 

[Everskyward]

Never said there was. There a massive difference between 'you MUST log your flight time' and 'you CAN'T log your flight time'.

You wrote...

Not logging the flight is just lying. And if you're willing to use lying in your approach to the FAA and it's regulations then a whole bunch of other opportunities open up.

How is it lying if you are not required to log the time?

 

[RJM62]

There nothing that says you are required to log all the time you spend manipulating the controls of an airplane. In fact there's no reg that says you must log all the time you act as PIC.

The stumbling block in the question above seems to be flight time as compensation. If it's not logged it isn't worth anything. I don't believe the FAA considers whatever enjoyment someone might get out of it as compensation. At least not yet.

Damn it, Mari, don't give them any ideas!

Sheesh...

-Rich

 

[Captain]

You wrote...
How is it lying if you are not required to log the time?

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.

That's different than if you choose not to log any flight except those required for currency, or only log some flights...whatever. Read my post again and focus on the part where I differentiated can't and must.

I hope you can see my meaning. I think you can if you try.

 

[Everskyward]

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.

That's different than if you choose not to log any flight except those required for currency, or only log some flights...whatever. Read my post again and focus on the part where I differentiated can't and must.

I hope you can see my meaning. I think you can if you try.

I see your meaning but I don't agree with you. You are assuming something not specified in the hypothetical scenario. No one said the hypothetical private pilot has logged all their previous flights they spent manipulating the controls. Even if this is the hypothetical first time, there is nothing that says they must log it. I have been for flights in other peoples airplanes which they have let me fly for a few minutes. But I don't log the time unless I am performing some specific function like safety pilot, or I spend a substantial amount of time flying including takeoff and landing.

 

[Everskyward]

Damn it, Mari, don't give them any ideas!

Sheesh...

-Rich

Yeah I thought about that as I typed the reply...

 

[JimNtexas]

1. That isn't the point of this thread
2. The flight time is still compensation even if it isn't logged, therefore illegal, which is my point.

I seem to recall that the High and Mighty Chief Counsel hisself has said that it logging that make the flight time valuable, so unlogged time isn't an issue.

I could be mis-remembering, but I dont think so.

 

[Palmpilot]

The only section of the Bobertz letter which addresses flight time as compensation is this.


The pilot logged the time even though it was basically worthless to him. I don't see how this applies to a PP passenger flying an airplane but not logging the time.

Me neither, but that was the letter that was used to support the claim not too long ago, either here or on the red board.

 

[bqmassey]

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 wouldn't be a lie unless you, or some regulation, establishes that all of your flights are logged in that logbook.

There is no regulation to that effect, so really, the only way for it to be a lie is if you attest that "every flight I've ever done is in here".

Don't make that claim, and you're not lying.

---------

On the original post, as others have said, this sounds like a logging vs. acting argument. The commercial pilot is or could be compensated for the flight and would have to be the acting PIC.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

As far as I can tell, nothing says the commercial pilot has to log it, and nothing says the private pilot can't. The regulation is only concerned about who is acting PIC, which would be the commercial pilot, regardless of who is flying.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Palmpilot]

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.

That's different than if you choose not to log any flight except those required for currency, or only log some flights...whatever. Read my post again and focus on the part where I differentiated can't and must.

I hope you can see my meaning. I think you can if you try.

If it offends your sense of right and wrong to leave certain flights out of your log book (which was a practice SUGGESTED by the Chief Counsel, by the way), then by all means don't leave anything out. That's different from it being a LEGAL issue.

 

[Captain]

No, it's a lie because it's omitting what DID happen. In this case it's a guy goofing around on the controls of another's flight. Truth be told I wouldn't log that either.

But, my point is to all those that say just don't log a flight and you're fine. To that mentality I say BS. A log book is a book where a pilot logs their flights. To not log a flight to make the flight legal is crazy. If you turn that around it's the same as saying its illegal to log the flight.


So...I perform an act. The act itself is legal. But....if I use my ink in my pen to write on my paper in a book that I own, what legal activity I just did well now it becomes illegal.

I don't buy that. I know you all have your interpretations and whatever but I will die on my sword before I bow to that line of thought. My world is better than that and if it costs me my ticket then screw it, I don't need to fly that bad.

And to suggest I don't log what I did because that makes it legal I tell you to pee up a rope. My morals, ethics, sense of right and wrong, and just being a human dictate to me that is not an option. My logbook is a record of what was, in real life. I'm not playing games with it for anyone including the FAA or chief counsel.

 

[bqmassey]

It's not an omission if (1) it didn't have to be there, or (2) you haven't claimed that it would be.

A lot of people don't log every flight. I know some guys that have so many hours they only log the bare minimum required for whatever currency they're worried about. They're not lying, they're perfectly legal and ethical.

You're making up your own little ethical code that has no foundation so you have a place to build your moral high ground.

 

[RJM62]

No, it's a lie because it's omitting what DID happen. In this case it's a guy goofing around on the controls of another's flight. Truth be told I wouldn't log that either.

But, my point is to all those that say just don't log a flight and you're fine. To that mentality I say BS. A log book is a book where a pilot logs their flights. To not log a flight to make the flight legal is crazy. If you turn that around it's the same as saying its illegal to log the flight.


So...I perform an act. The act itself is legal. But....if I use my ink in my pen to write on my paper in a book that I own, what legal activity I just did well now it becomes illegal.

I don't buy that. I know you all have your interpretations and whatever but I will die on my sword before I bow to that line of thought. My world is better than that and if it costs me my ticket then screw it, I don't need to fly that bad.

And to suggest I don't log what I did because that makes it legal I tell you to pee up a rope. My morals, ethics, sense of right and wrong, and just being a human dictate to me that is not an option. My logbook is a record of what was, in real life. I'm not playing games with it for anyone including the FAA or chief counsel.

Except that according to the FAA's convoluted logic, it is in fact the logging that's illegal, not the flying. So it's not a matter of not logging the flight in order to cover up the illegality. It's the logging itself, not the flying, that's the violation. The Chief Counsel believes that being able to log the free PIC time is "compensation." Therefore no logging = no compensation = no violation.

In other words, it's not a matter of choosing not to log the flight in order to cover up the violation. It's a matter of the logging itself being the violation.

Even the fact that the PP wasn't current is irrelevant. There's no regulation that forbids the CP, as PIC, from allowing a passenger to manipulate the controls; and if the PP wasn't logging the time, then he was just a passenger. It wasn't until he logged the time that he was "compensated" and thus ran afoul of the Chief Counsel's edict. The flying was perfectly legal. The logging was the violation.

Does it make sense? No, not in my opinion. But neither do a lot of other crazy rulings that come down from government agencies.

-Rich

 

[Captain]

It's not an omission if (1) it didn't have to be there, or (2) you haven't claimed that it would be.

A lot of people don't log every flight. I know some guys that have so many hours they only log the bare minimum required for whatever currency they're worried about. They're not lying, they're perfectly legal and ethical.

You're making up your own little ethical code that has no foundation so you have a place to build your moral high ground.

I'm quite aware many pilots choose not to log their flights and covered it in my posts above.

Except that according to the FAA's convoluted logic, it is in fact the logging that's illegal, not the flying. So it's not a matter of not logging the flight in order to cover up the illegality. It's the logging itself, not the flying, that's the violation. The Chief Counsel believes that being able to log the free PIC time is "compensation." Therefore no logging = no compensation = no violation.

In other words, it's not a matter of choosing not to log the flight in order to cover up the violation. It's a matter of the logging itself being the violation.

Even the fact that the PP wasn't current is irrelevant. There's no regulation that forbids the CP, as PIC, from allowing a passenger to manipulate the controls; and if the PP wasn't logging the time, then he was just a passenger. It wasn't until he logged the time that he was "compensated" and thus ran afoul of the Chief Counsel's edict. The flying was perfectly legal. The logging was the violation.

Does it make sense? No, not in my opinion. But neither do a lot of other crazy rulings that come down from government agencies.

-Rich

We agree. I just agree to the point where I say 'screw that rule' and will not comply. It's so stupid it rises to the level where I'm willing to take them on, if need be.

Judges and chief counsels are people who are prone to make mistakes. This is such a case IMO. In their interpretations of rules they bend and flex to get their way they have created a situation that has no logic...ie, it's illegal to write down an event that really happened. I choose to stand on this side of the line and say 'no', I will not yield. My government is better than that and I demand better.

 

[alfadog]

Not logging the flight is just lying. And if you're willing to use lying in your approach to the FAA and it's regulations then a whole bunch of other opportunities open up.

Strongly disagree.