Logging IFR PIC before PPL

flyingron said:
Right, and 61.51 allows student pilots to log PIC if they are the sole occupant of the aircraft and 61.47 says examiners don't count as an extra body.
Click to expand...
Sooo. I go to a party wearing a red shirt. The party is for blue shirts only, but I have something that says, "Midlifeflyer is "not subject to the requirements or limitations" of this sign." That means:
  1. I'm allowed in with a red shirt (my answer)
  2. My shirt is no longer red. It's blue (your answer)
I have no issue with the logging. But this is exactly what I mean by "mental gymnastics." Not that there's anything wrong with it ;)
 
I hate to bring the Chief Counsel into this one, but:

In your example, the pilot taking a practical test does not meet any of the circumstances for logging PIC time in section 61.51(e). The pilot is neither the sole occupant of the aircraft nor acting as PIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required. That pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls but is not rated and does have privileges for the aircraft. Under the section 1.1 definition, a pilot must be rated in the aircraft to act as PIC. An exception to this rating requirement has existed since the FAA issued section 61.47 (then as 14 C.F.R. § 61.26) on July 3, 1965. 30 FR 8515. In that final rule, the FAA explained that an unrated pilot is qualified to act as PIC during a practical test because that pilot possesses the appropriate experience prior to the practical test for the particular certificate or rating. Though there have been multiple changes to Part 61 in the intervening years, this exception never has been withdrawn. No similar exception has been made with respect to logging PIC time under section 61.51(e). It is inconsistent that a pilot is permitted to act as PIC but not log PIC time when both sections 1.1 and 61.51 require that the pilot be rated for the aircraft, and the pilot must possess the appropriate experience prior to the practical test. Therefore, a pilot may log PIC time for the practical test. With respect to the student flight referenced in your letter, the student pilot may log PIC flight time for the practical test for the same reason even though the student pilot does not meet any of the section 61.51(e)(4) circumstances.
– 2009 Murphy Interpretation (one of a number of questions in the letter)​

So, yes, a student pilot may log PIC during the practical test (I never even suggested they could not) but if you don't think this is mental gymnastics using an analysis akin to the infamous Beane letter (an unverified Chief Counsel interpretation allowing the only rated pilot on board to log PIC despite not fitting into 61.51), I guess we just have to disagree on the definition of "mental gymnastics."
 
midlifeflyer said:
I hate to bring the Chief Counsel into this one, but:

In your example, the pilot taking a practical test does not meet any of the circumstances for logging PIC time in section 61.51(e). The pilot is neither the sole occupant of the aircraft nor acting as PIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required. That pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls but is not rated and does have privileges for the aircraft. Under the section 1.1 definition, a pilot must be rated in the aircraft to act as PIC. An exception to this rating requirement has existed since the FAA issued section 61.47 (then as 14 C.F.R. § 61.26) on July 3, 1965. 30 FR 8515. In that final rule, the FAA explained that an unrated pilot is qualified to act as PIC during a practical test because that pilot possesses the appropriate experience prior to the practical test for the particular certificate or rating. Though there have been multiple changes to Part 61 in the intervening years, this exception never has been withdrawn. No similar exception has been made with respect to logging PIC time under section 61.51(e). It is inconsistent that a pilot is permitted to act as PIC but not log PIC time when both sections 1.1 and 61.51 require that the pilot be rated for the aircraft, and the pilot must possess the appropriate experience prior to the practical test. Therefore, a pilot may log PIC time for the practical test. With respect to the student flight referenced in your letter, the student pilot may log PIC flight time for the practical test for the same reason even though the student pilot does not meet any of the section 61.51(e)(4) circumstances.
– 2009 Murphy Interpretation (one of a number of questions in the letter)​

So, yes, a student pilot may log PIC during the practical test (I never even suggested they could not) but if you don't think this is mental gymnastics using an analysis akin to the infamous Beane letter (an unverified Chief Counsel interpretation allowing the only rated pilot on board to log PIC despite not fitting into 61.51), I guess we just have to disagree on the definition of "mental gymnastics."
Click to expand...
That's my favorite type of legal opinion: some true but irrelevant information, followed by the correct conclusion. Ipse dixit at its finest.
 
Lindberg said:
That's my favorite type of legal opinion: some true but irrelevant information, followed by the correct conclusion. Ipse dixit at its finest.
Click to expand...
Sure. It comes down to, "we know the regs don't say so but it's silly not to. Otherwise, no one can log PIC for the flight." Basically, Greg had the correct back handspring with
Greg Bockelman said:
If the examiner can’t log it, who can?
Click to expand...
 
In other words, "The regulations are inconsistent therefore we can interpret them however we feel like."
 
dmspilot said:
In other words, "The regulations are inconsistent therefore we can interpret them however we feel like."
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if "inconsistent" but yeah, there are a number of logging things like that. Most of them, like private applicants logging PIC, are so well ingrained, we think they are written into the FAR when they are really policy decisions, often with a supporting interpretation that doesn't quite follow the regulatory language. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. I can probably come up with a half dozen but two which come to mind quickly are from the safety pilot world:
  • a safety pilot who is acting as PIC is authorized to log PIC .
  • a safety pilot cant log cross country time.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm not sure if "inconsistent" but yeah, there are a number of logging things like that. Most of them, like private applicants logging PIC, are so well ingrained, we think they are written into the FAR when they are really policy decisions, often with a supporting interpretation that doesn't quite follow the regulatory language. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. I can probably come up with a half dozen but two which come to mind quickly are from the safety pilot world:
  • a safety pilot who is acting as PIC is authorized to log PIC .
  • a safety pilot cant log cross country time.
Click to expand...

The FAA called their own regulations "inconsistent", as quoted by you. Not me.

How does the safety pilot logging PIC (your first example) not fit the regulatory language? I thought it was pretty clearly allowed under 61.51(e)(1)(iii) and 91.109(c).
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
The FAA called their own regulations "inconsistent", as quoted by you. Not me.

How does the safety pilot logging PIC (your first example) not fit the regulatory language? I thought it was pretty clearly allowed under 61.51(e)(1)(iii) and 91.109(c).
Click to expand...
When safety pilots act as PIC, do they really "acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required"? Under the reg, both pilots must be required.

Is the person under the hood required? Do they even need to be a pilot? What rule or regulation requires a pilot under a hood? If your friend is grounded medically, can you fly with him and let him fly with a hood to keep proficient? If you take a non-pilot up, can you let them fly with a hood? I think the answer to those are "yes." But required crew must meet both pilot and medical certification requirements.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
When safety pilots act as PIC, do they really "acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required"?
Click to expand...

Yes, more than one pilot is required during simulated instrument flight by 91.109(c), which fulfills "more than one pilot is required under...the regulations under which the flight is conducted". Not seeing the relevance of the rest of your post.
 
dmspilot said:
Yes, more than one pilot is required during simulated instrument flight by 91.109(c), which fulfills "more than one pilot is required under...the regulations under which the flight is conducted". Not seeing the relevance of the rest of your post.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying I can’t put a non-pilot under the hood and act as safety pilot/PIC?

91.109(c) only says a second pilot is required if the person under the hood is acting as a crew member.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you’re saying I can’t put a non-pilot under the hood and act as safety pilot/PIC?

91.109(c) only says a second pilot is required if the person under the hood is acting as a crew member.
Click to expand...

Where does 91.109(c) say that?
 

Person under the hood is not required to be a pilot. If they aren't, no one can log the time, just like when a passenger flies the plane regardless of whether it's simulated instrument or not.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Exactly…and if the person under the hood isn’t a pilot, the flight is still legal without two pilots.
Click to expand...

So safety pilots can't log PIC time and the Chief Counsel is wrong? :confused2:
 
dmspilot said:
So safety pilots can't log PIC time and the Chief Counsel is wrong? :confused2:
Click to expand...
No. They can. That's been the rule for a long, long time. All I said is that sometimes the Chief Counsel has interpreted the regulations in a way which accomplishes a policy goal rather than in a way which which strictly follows the regulatory language. We saw one with private applicants logging PIC on the checkride. I tossed in this one as just another example.

To be exact...
midlifeflyer said:
there are a number of logging things like that. Most of them, like private applicants logging PIC, are so well ingrained, we think they are written into the FAR when they are really policy decisions, often with a supporting interpretation that doesn't quite follow the regulatory language
Click to expand...
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, simulated instrument flying doesn’t require two pilots, and your post #51 is wrong.
Click to expand...

If you assert it doesn't require more than one pilot, then you would have to conclude the safety pilot can't log PIC.
 
dmspilot said:
If you assert it doesn't require more than one pilot, then you would have to conclude the safety pilot can't log PIC.
Click to expand...
I’m not asserting anything about logging. I’m asserting what I said I was asserting.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’m not asserting anything about logging. I’m asserting what I said I was asserting.
Click to expand...

The thread is about logging time. Why post if you don't have an opinion on the topic?
 
dmspilot said:
The thread is about logging time. Why post if you don't have an opinion on the topic?
Click to expand...
I figure if you can make a post that has nothing to do with logging time, I can respond to it with a post that has nothing to do with logging time.
 
dmspilot said:
I didn't do that.
Click to expand...
Where does this one refer to logging?
dmspilot said:
Yes, more than one pilot is required during simulated instrument flight by 91.109(c), which fulfills "more than one pilot is required under...the regulations under which the flight is conducted". Not seeing the relevance of the rest of your post.
Click to expand...
 
dmspilot said:
It was part of my explanation of why safety pilots are allowed to log time. The part I quoted is from 61.51, pilot logbooks.
Click to expand...
But what you quoted had nothing to do with safety pilots logging time, and you indicated the rest of the post was irrelevant. Kind of a stretch, IMO.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But what you quoted had nothing to do with safety pilots logging time
Click to expand...

Yes it did, I referenced 91.109(c), and I referenced and quoted 61.51(e)(1)(iii), which are the regulations allowing safety pilots to log PIC.
 
I do believe the OP was asking about what he can do while waiting for his checkride.
1) Continue to do practice flights that simulate the checkride. Just do them over and over. Basic training like never goes to waste.
2) Continue to practice your mock oral exams - get to know that AIM back and forth.
3) IF you're really bored, start reading up / do the Sportys ground schoolwork for the written test
4) You're going to find the instrument is as much if not more work than the PPL. You could focus on getting the PPL done first. Take a breather from training by getting the required X Country hours, and then hit IFR training fresh.

BTW - I do believe a Student / Non-PPL must fly with either an instructor or solo with the instructor's endorsement. He cannot fly with anyone else besides an instructor, which includes a non-instructor Safety Pilot.
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
BTW - I do believe a Student / Non-PPL must fly with either an instructor or solo with the instructor's endorsement. He cannot fly with anyone else besides an instructor, which includes a non-instructor Safety Pilot.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that if you take a student pilot (or a non-pilot) for a ride, you can't let them fly the airplane for a while (with you in command)?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Are you saying that if you take a student pilot (or a non-pilot) for a ride, you can't let them fly the airplane for a while (with you in command)?
Click to expand...

I don't think the FAA is going to put you in jail if you let your neighbor, aunt Martha, or a student - who while sitting in the right seat - take the yoke and move it here and there. But no, a student pilot can't fly and do student pilot things with a safety pilot as he/she would with an instructor.
 
WDD said:
I don't think the FAA is going to put you in jail if you let your neighbor, aunt Martha, or a student - who while sitting in the right seat - take the yoke and move it here and there. But no, a student pilot can't fly and do student pilot things with a safety pilot as he/she would with an instructor.
Click to expand...
I'll disagree with you. No jail. The FAA won't even yell at you if they find out. You won't find anything in the FAR that prohibits it. Actually fairly common, especially with parents and relatives flying with familial students. The student just can't log it for anything except scrapbook value.
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
I don't think the FAA is going to put you in jail if you let your neighbor, aunt Martha, or a student - who while sitting in the right seat - take the yoke and move it here and there. But no, a student pilot can't fly and do student pilot things with a safety pilot as he/she would with an instructor.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that which control seat the student occupies makes no difference to the FAA.
 
Pardon my nit-picking!
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm pretty sure that which control seat the student occupies makes no difference to the FAA.
Click to expand...
..unless you are in one of those types which require the PIC to sit in the left seat. I don't recall any of them offhand but I have seen POH limitations to that effect. I think it typically has something to do with where certain controls are located.
 
midlifeflyer said:
..unless you are in one of those types which require the PIC to sit in the left seat. I don't recall any of them offhand but I have seen POH limitations to that effect. I think it typically has something to do with where certain controls are located.
Click to expand...
Yea… don’t some aircraft models only have brakes on the left side?
Perhaps I am remembering incorrectly.
 
Kritchlow said:
Yea… don’t some aircraft models only have brakes on the left side?
Perhaps I am remembering incorrectly.
Click to expand...
Yes. But that's often not a limitation issue. For example, the Piper handbrake is effective in the absence of toe brakes. I used to fly a Comanche with no toe brakes at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top