Is this PIC time or no?

cheap weenie said:
As for my statement, consider this: Let's say I know a CFI who's well known for good short field technique. So I ask him to come fly in my plane with me, and demonstrate his famous technique. We do a few laps around the pattern, and he does every bit of the flying. I never touch the controls. I would STILL legitimately log PIC. Doing that flight in my aircraft, the fact that he was doing all the flying wouldn't cause me to give up my responsibility over and control of the flight. He's flying, but it's my show.
Click to expand...
Under what section of 14 CFR 61.51 would such PIC time be logged?
 
cheap weenie said:
See my above post.
Click to expand...
My point was that these questions can usually be answered by asking yourself under which section of 14 CFR 61.51 would the time be logged. That gets rid of the incorrect assumptions regarding what is, or is not, loggable.
 
You know what I think would be an awesome feature for the forum here at POA? I think there should be an "answered" tool for the thread...when the original poster finds that his question has been answered he can click the answered button which closes the thread. I have seen this on a lot of other technical forums for computers, etc...it would be a great idea I think.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
That would be the end of POA though. :eek:
Click to expand...
Plus a very bad idea.

When I go to a technical forum, I'm looking for a specific answer to a specific question. Telling me how VBA code works in general doesn't help me much if I'm looking for and error in a discrete line of code. OTOH, I can't even begin to tell you how much I learn from the give and take that goes beyond the individual answer to a discrete question.
 
Palmpilot said:
Is it my imagination, or does his final paragraph incorrectly summarize his article?

"In summary, the person who is pilot-in-
command may log PIC, others may also
log PIC depending in the circumstances."
​
Click to expand...

It's consistent with this paragraph:

"However, if the two pilots agree that the safety pilot is designated pilot-in-command, the safety pilot/pilot-in-command may log PIC since he is the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft. The pilot flying is "sole manipulator of the controls for which the pilot is rated"" and may also log PIC. Therefore, two private pilots may log PIC under these conditions."
 
cheap weenie said:
It's consistent with this paragraph:

"However, if the two pilots agree that the safety pilot is designated pilot-in-command, the safety pilot/pilot-in-command may log PIC since he is the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft. The pilot flying is "sole manipulator of the controls for which the pilot is rated"" and may also log PIC. Therefore, two private pilots may log PIC under these conditions."
Click to expand...
Yeah, it was an unfortunate turn of phrase when it first appeared back in 1992. It was limited to flight in which more than one pilot is required [61.51(e)(1)(iii) under the current numbering] but sounds like "being PIC always allows one to log PIC"
 
cheap weenie said:
It's consistent with this paragraph:

"However, if the two pilots agree that the safety pilot is designated pilot-in-command, the safety pilot/pilot-in-command may log PIC since he is the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft. The pilot flying is "sole manipulator of the controls for which the pilot is rated"" and may also log PIC. Therefore, two private pilots may log PIC under these conditions."
Click to expand...
It's inconsistent with this paragraph, because it leaves out he part I put in boldface:

A private or commercial pilot may log PIC
time when "acting as pilot-in-command of
an aircraft on which more than one pilot is
required under the - - - - regulations under
which the flight is conducted". [61.51
(e)(1)(ii)]​

Since it's a summary of the article, it needs to be consistent with the whole article, not just one paragraph.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Plus a very bad idea.

When I go to a technical forum, I'm looking for a specific answer to a specific question. Telling me how VBA code works in general doesn't help me much if I'm looking for and error in a discrete line of code. OTOH, I can't even begin to tell you how much I learn from the give and take that goes beyond the individual answer to a discrete question.
Click to expand...

Lol...
 
midlifeflyer said:
Plus a very bad idea.

When I go to a technical forum, I'm looking for a specific answer to a specific question. Telling me how VBA code works in general doesn't help me much if I'm looking for and error in a discrete line of code. OTOH, I can't even begin to tell you how much I learn from the give and take that goes beyond the individual answer to a discrete question.
Click to expand...
Also, unlike this question, many asked here do not have 'correct' answers.
 
Your right it was a stupid idea...what was a I thinking guys :rolleyes:
 
midlifeflyer said:
Plus a very bad idea.

When I go to a technical forum, I'm looking for a specific answer to a specific question. Telling me how VBA code works in general doesn't help me much if I'm looking for and error in a discrete line of code. OTOH, I can't even begin to tell you how much I learn from the give and take that goes beyond the individual answer to a discrete question.
Click to expand...

VBA code is easy - you shouldn't need any help! :cool: (kidding)
 
Last edited:
Log it however you want - the regs aren't relevant unless you use the time to support currency or a rating. I know a guy who flys most days, but doesn't log anything except what he needs for currency.

In general, if it's dark, I log night. If I'm doing the flying, it's PIC. No visible horizon, it's IMC.
 
Sundancer said:
Log it however you want - the regs aren't relevant unless you use the time to support currency or a rating. I know a guy who flys most days, but doesn't log anything except what he needs for currency.
Click to expand...
There is a significant difference between (1) not logging something at all and (2) logging something improperly.

My favorite example is the pilot who was going for an ATP type rating. He needed 25 hours in type for the rating and had 87 legit hours. But for some reason he logged 210 hours in type. At the hearing for the emergency revocation of all his pilot and instructor certificates, he claimed it didn't matter since he had plenty of legit time. Didn't work out too well. FAA v. Gonzalez
 
midlifeflyer said:
There is a significant difference between (1) not logging something at all and (2) logging something improperly.

My favorite example is the pilot who was going for an ATP type rating. He needed 25 hours in type for the rating and had 87 legit hours. But for some reason he logged 210 hours in type. At the hearing for the emergency revocation of all his pilot and instructor certificates, he claimed it didn't matter since he had plenty of legit time. Didn't work out too well. FAA v. Gonzalez
Click to expand...

Good point, but a slight technicality in your summary of that case. As I read it, the 25 hours (and hence 87 hours) would not have sufficed in his particular case, so the defendant actually had a logical motive to lie. :)
 
RotorDude said:
Good point, but a slight technicality in your summary of that case. As I read it, the 25 hours (and hence 87 hours) would not have sufficed in his particular case, so the defendant actually had a logical motive to lie. :)
Click to expand...
The technicality is that it wasn't an add-on rating; it was the ATP certificate ride itself. So he might have needed the extra hours; he might not have needed the extra hours; the extra hours might have made no difference to the overall totals. They didn't know - "it is far from clear on this record whether he would have had the 1500 hours total flight time needed to qualify for an ATP certificate check-ride unless the 123 falsified hours (210 minus 87) were counted." That's the kind of technicality where the tribunal itself speculates a bit and manages to over-complicate things also.

For me, the takeaways of the case has always been:
"...more importantly, even if respondent had only needed 25 hours in the Westwind, the false statements as to his flight time would still be material..."​

The reasoning, "...there was no way for the examiner to tell from the records tendered how many genuine hours he actually had..." is also a takeaway because it tells me how important it is to log things that you want to log for the memory but not count (like the half hour you were sole manipulator your friend's multi when you are only ASEL) to log it in a way that makes clear it is not being counted.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The technicality is that it wasn't an add-on rating; it was the ATP certificate ride itself. So he might have needed the extra hours; he might not have needed the extra hours; the extra hours might have made no difference to the overall totals. They didn't know - "it is far from clear on this record whether he would have had the 1500 hours total flight time needed to qualify for an ATP certificate check-ride unless the 123 falsified hours (210 minus 87) were counted." That's the kind of technicality where the tribunal itself speculates a bit and manages to over-complicate things also.

For me, the takeaways of the case has always been:
"...more importantly, even if respondent had only needed 25 hours in the Westwind, the false statements as to his flight time would still be material..."​

The reasoning, "...there was no way for the examiner to tell from the records tendered how many genuine hours he actually had..." is also a takeaway because it tells me how important it is to log things that you want to log for the memory but not count (like the half hour you were sole manipulator your friend's multi when you are only ASEL) to log it in a way that makes clear it is not being counted.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with your general point. Just wanted to clarify that minor one, which seemed to suggest the defendant was plain stupid as well as crooked. I think it was just the latter (unless you argue that the former always follows from the latter :)).
 
midlifeflyer said:
There is a significant difference between (1) not logging something at all and (2) logging something improperly.

My favorite example is the pilot who was going for an ATP type rating. He needed 25 hours in type for the rating and had 87 legit hours. But for some reason he logged 210 hours in type. At the hearing for the emergency revocation of all his pilot and instructor certificates, he claimed it didn't matter since he had plenty of legit time. Didn't work out too well. FAA v. Gonzalez
Click to expand...
Am I correct in thinking that there probably aren't any cases where someone was sanctioned for not logging something at all?
 
RotorDude said:
I absolutely agree with your general point. Just wanted to clarify that minor one, which seemed to suggest the defendant was plain stupid as well as crooked. I think it was just the latter (unless you argue that the former always follows from the latter :)).
Click to expand...
I figured that. Just expanded it for the general public ;)
 
CC268 said:
You know what I think would be an awesome feature for the forum here at POA? I think there should be an "answered" tool for the thread...when the original poster finds that his question has been answered he can click the answered button which closes the thread. I have seen this on a lot of other technical forums for computers, etc...it would be a great idea I think.
Click to expand...
Don't worry CC. You'll get used to the bickering. I've had heated exchanges with people around here where we're sniping at each other for 3 pages... then one post later we're liking each other's posts and cracking jokes.

The bickering most times is constructive, even when it seems like it isn't. The management council is usually pretty good at deciphering the difference.
 
Palmpilot said:
Am I correct in thinking that there probably aren't any cases where someone was sanctioned for not logging something at all?
Click to expand...
Interesting question.

There are a few cases in which it was tried. The main one, FAA v. Alvarez, involved entries in a maintenance log. It's from 1987 so it pre-dates the public NTSB database. But it was cited in a case that is available in the public database, FAA v. Tarascio. This is also a maintenance-related case under FAR 43.12 rather than 61.59, but if you look at the language of the two regs they are pretty much identical.

Trascio can be a little difficult to read since it deals with some other issues as well. But, interestingly, after the case against Trascio was dismissed he recovers over $20,000 in legal fees and costs against the FAA for bringing action that was not "substantially justified" against him because of the Alvarez precedent.
 
midlifeflyer said:
There is a significant difference between (1) not logging something at all and (2) logging something improperly.

My favorite example is the pilot who was going for an ATP type rating. He needed 25 hours in type for the rating and had 87 legit hours. But for some reason he logged 210 hours in type. At the hearing for the emergency revocation of all his pilot and instructor certificates, he claimed it didn't matter since he had plenty of legit time. Didn't work out too well. FAA v. Gonzalez
Click to expand...
I hear you, but not quite to my point - you can have two logbboks, or three, or one; maybe you highlight in yellow the entries you use to support currency or other FAA requirements, whatever. . .anything else you want to enter, by whatever criteria strikes you as legit, is up to you.

Maybe I log my three night landings for currency, acomplished during the FAA definition of night. And log another 25 based on it being dark enough by my standards. If challanged by a Fed drone, I claim the three that meet their criteria. Basically, one (honest) accounting to the FAA that meets thier standards, and a practical accounting for your own.
 
Meeting the FAA definition of night does not guarantee meeting the FAA standard for night takeoff and landing currency.

The former is based on the end of evening civil twilight to the beginning of morning civil twilight. The latter is based on one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise.
 
Geez, OK, the FAA definition of a night landing currency. Not that anyone would know or care. It's a POA exercise, nobody is watching the clock, checking if you touched down 59 minutes after sunset. . .Dark? Log night. . .
 
Sorry for being pedantic; I have to pay attention to the definition of night because I haven't had night privileges since I started exercising sport pilot privileges. :redface:
 
Sundancer said:
I hear you, but not quite to my point - you can have two logbboks, or three, or one; maybe you highlight in yellow the entries you use to support currency or other FAA requirements, whatever. . .anything else you want to enter, by whatever criteria strikes you as legit, is up to you.

Maybe I log my three night landings for currency, acomplished during the FAA definition of night. And log another 25 based on it being dark enough by my standards. If challanged by a Fed drone, I claim the three that meet their criteria. Basically, one (honest) accounting to the FAA that meets thier standards, and a practical accounting for your own.
Click to expand...
I think the point is the logbook needs to stand on its own. If you log it as a landing at night, the FAA has the absolute right to treat it as a nigh currency landing unless you set it off in some way that shows it is not. If you always log those landings that count and don't log the pretend ones and can establish that as you SOP, It might fly. But highlighting them or saying, "oh, I'm counting this one but not that one" after the fact, during an investigation in which you are already suspected of having an issue, is not going to cut it. That's almost always the context in which a logbook is checked by the FAA for accuracy

I think Bruce Chien in some post talked about the loss of perceived credibility one has once one is suspected of doing something wrong. Anything you do or say is interpreted as being your attempt to get away with something.
 
Hence "highlight" or "whatever". Not after the fact. With some exceptions, mostly for controllers and some other productive tyoes, "credibility" and "FAA" probably don't go together in the same sentence. I'm confident I can establish the legitimacy of my entries, since they are, in fact, legitimate. Whether or not a fed has doubts or another "interpretation" - I do not give a single. . .
 
Palmpilot said:
Am I correct in thinking that there probably aren't any cases where someone was sanctioned for not logging something at all?
Click to expand...
Duty time limits come to mind. I don't know if there have been actual cases, but logbook omissions would be relevant to that.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think the point is the logbook needs to stand on its own. If you log it as a landing at night, the FAA has the absolute right to treat it as a nigh currency landing unless you set it off in some way that shows it is not. If you always log those landings that count and don't log the pretend ones and can establish that as you SOP, It might fly. But highlighting them or saying, "oh, I'm counting this one but not that one" after the fact, during an investigation in which you are already suspected of having an issue, is not going to cut it. That's almost always the context in which a logbook is checked by the FAA for accuracy

I think Bruce Chien in some post talked about the loss of perceived credibility one has once one is suspected of doing something wrong. Anything you do or say is interpreted as being your attempt to get away with something.
Click to expand...
The point of the logbook is to prove currency and eligibility for ratings. Therefore it doesn't make sense to use different definitions than those. It's why I don't log approaches in VMC unless I'm wearing foggles, even though I do them fairly frequently these days. Though I did log the ILS at Salinas yesterday. No clouds, but I estimated flight visibility at barely over one mile due to all the smoke (I could barely make out the ground directly below at 5500, and that was it), and definitely needed my instruments to stay upright.
 
MAKG1 said:
Duty time limits come to mind. I don't know if there have been actual cases, but logbook omissions would be relevant to that.
Click to expand...
That would make sense, although I failed to mention that I was thinking in terms of time that is not required to meet some specific requirement.
 
MAKG1 said:
Duty time limits come to mind. I don't know if there have been actual cases, but logbook omissions would be relevant to that.
Click to expand...
That's a very good point. There are definitely cases like that. It's even mentioned in Alvarez, where the NTSB points out that the FAA could have legitimately charged a failure to make required maintenance entries. But in those situations, the violation is a failure to record something that the FAR says must be recorded, not falsification of an entry.

MAKG1 said:
The point of the logbook is to prove currency and eligibility for ratings. Therefore it doesn't make sense to use different definitions than those.
Click to expand...
I'm a little less pedantic about it. I personally agree with you about 80%. I'm personally not a fan of "scrapbook" type logbooks and I cringe when I see CFIs logging student landings as if they were their own. But I also don't see a regulatory problem, even the pilot who logs non-countable IAPs flown, so long as the pilot takes steps to differentiate those entries from those that count toward certificates, ratings and currency.

The other 20%? Many pilots log a number of things that don't count toward FAA certificates, ratings, or currency (except 10 hours of complex time): High performance, tailwheel and complex time logging is very common, primarily for insurance purposes. Pilots with career aspirations log "Part 1 PIC" because most employment applications ask for it. CFIs regularly log the content of student lessons in their own logbooks for tracking purposes (actually, unless you want a to be a DPE, no regulatory need to log dual given at all). Some CFIs log instrument instruction separate from other instruction. Come to think of it, if you really want to be technical, every IAPs flown by an instrument student after "checking the box" that the task has been covered during training, has no regulatory purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top