Logging PIC in a Complex Airplane

Erice

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
202
Location
Hamburg, PA
Display Name

Display name:
Erice
I took my first flight (dual) in a 172RG today. In the flight school office, when we were filling out the logbooks, the CFI told me I couldn't log our flight as PIC today, since I was not yet signed off for the complex endorsement as per FAR 91.31(e). It didn't seem right to me, and when I questioned it, the 2 or 3 other CFIs agreed that it was not loggable until I have the endorsement.

But in doing some research, I think that I can log it. I am a private pilot, rated in the proper category and class (airplane, single-engine land). It probably goes to the difference between ACTING as PIC and LOGGING PIC, in much the same way that a safety pilot can act as PIC while the under-the-hood pilot can log PIC as sole manipulator of the controls. If I were yet a student pilot (pre-private), then I wouldn't be rated, and hence couldn't log it.

So, who was right?
________
Ducati Multistrada 1000s DS
 
Last edited:
Your CFI is an idiot and should turn in his certificates, along with his moron buddies.

See the flowchart in the link of my sigline. Print it out, roll it up and beat your CFI with it. Then tell him he is fired.

Find a new CFI.
 
Your CFI is an idiot and should turn in his certificates, along with his moron buddies.

See the flowchart in the link of my sigline. Print it out, roll it up and beat your CFI with it. Then tell him he is fired.

Find a new CFI.


And this is not harsh at all. CFIs are supposed to have the answers, and if they don't know them, they should look them up, not half ass an answer.

Your CFI is a moron. Ask him about slipping with flaps in a 172. If he says the predictible answer, get the hell away, he's going to kill you some day.
 
And this is not harsh at all. CFIs are supposed to have the answers, and if they don't know them, they should look them up, not half ass an answer.

Your CFI is a moron. Ask him about slipping with flaps in a 172. If he says the predictible answer, get the hell away, he's going to kill you some day.

BTW, my flowchart is being used by the new regional NAFI insructor/DPE.
 
Your CFI is an idiot and should turn in his certificates, along with his moron buddies.

See the flowchart in the link of my sigline. Print it out, roll it up and beat your CFI with it. Then tell him he is fired.

Find a new CFI.

They are all young CFIs, but I don't think they are idiots! I'm not going to fire him for that, but I do believe that your flowchart agrees with what I found.

I will say that I did a quick search of the POA archives, and didn't find any similar questions about this until I submitted this new thread. Then, as I reread my post, there are similar links suggested at the bottom of this page, and one of those seems to cover the topic, too.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1556
________
GT750
 
Last edited:
They are all young CFIs, but I don't think they are idiots! I'm not going to fire him for that, but I do believe that your flowchart agrees with what I found.

I will say that I did a quick search of the POA archives, and didn't find any similar questions about this until I submitted this new thread. Then, as I reread my post, there are similar links suggested at the bottom of this page, and one of those seems to cover the topic, too.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1556

I may be a bit harsh, but 61.51 is where I am super anal, and expect all CFIs young or not to know it down cold. No excuses. This and ATITAPA are my peeves.
 
I may be a bit harsh, but 61.51 is where I am super anal, and expect all CFIs young or not to know it down cold. No excuses. This and ATITAPA are my peeves.

So, what does "or has privileges" in 61.51 mean?

65.51(e)(1)(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges
________
Honda CBR600SJR
 
Last edited:
FAR 61.31(e) specifically states that the pilot must have the complex endorsement before PIC can be logged in complex airplanes. The OP stated his CFI had not provided this endorsement yet.

Yes, but I think that part of the flowchart is for acting as safety pilot. I was the sole manipulator of the controls.
________
Honda CL160
 
Last edited:
FAR 61.31(e) specifically states that the pilot must have the complex endorsement before PIC can be logged in complex airplanes. The OP stated his CFI had not provided this endorsement yet.

No, it says the pilot must have the endorsement to act as pilot in command. It doesn't say anything about logging.

61.51 discusses logging

--david
 
So, what does "or has privileges" in 61.51 mean?

That was added basically for the Sport Pilot crowd. But the word to focus on here is the little word "or". Rated OR had privileges. One OR the other. And for what it is worth, a high performance or complex is an ENDORSEMENT, not a rating. If you have a PPL, SEL, you are rated and are entitled to log PIC as sole manipulator as stipulated in 61.51(e)
 
FAR 61.31(e) specifically states that the pilot must have the complex endorsement before PIC can be logged in complex airplanes. The OP stated his CFI had not provided this endorsement yet.

No, Mark. You have it wrong. 61.31 deals with being able to ACT as PIC, NOT for logging. That is the sole content of 61.51. And complex is an ENDORSEMENT, not a rating.
 
FAR 61.31 is not limited to just safety pilots. The No on Ed's Flow Chart is in the 2nd panel (top from left), where you find that you do not have the privileges (as per FAR 61.31(e)) yet to log it as PIC time.

But he is RATED. Do not over look the OR. Rated OR has privileges. One OR the other. PPL, SEL is the rated part. Good to log per 61.51(e). Been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum here and on other boards.
 
And for what it is worth, I think Ed and Nick are being a TAD bit harsh. I didn't really have a good grasp on this until a few years ago when these debates first started coming up.

Or at least that was when I started paying attention.
 
My interpretation of 61.31(e) is it may not be logged as PIC... UNTIL an endorsement has been received after the requisite training.
 
My interpretation of 61.31(e) is it may not be logged as PIC... UNTIL an endorsement has been received after the requisite training.

61.31 is ACTING as PIC....not LOGGING.

Maybe you should try reading the FARs on a treadmill.
 
Last edited:
Drop the attitude. It's not needed here.

What is not needed here is the next generation of pilots getting confused by CFIs who don't know their stuff, and even though 50 other CFIs, the Chief Counsel, NAFI, AOPA, and every other alphabet of acronyms disagree with the CFIs erroneous position, they absolutely refuse to yield their incorrect position for months, or even years.

Sorry Kenny, you are a CFI now. So am I. We are held to a higher standard of knowledge. As we should be. When we are wrong, we have to admit it, accept it, and teach the correct things. Do I know everything? Nope. Which is why you will not see me chiming with authoritative "facts" on on subjects I do not absolutely know the answer to.
 
What is not needed here is the next generation of pilots getting confused by CFIs who don't know their stuff, and even though 50 other CFIs, the Chief Counsel, NAFI, AOPA, and every other alphabet of acronyms disagree with the CFIs erroneous position, they absolutely refuse to yield their incorrect position for months, or even years.

Sorry Kenny, you are a CFI now. So am I. We are held to a higher standard of knowledge. As we should be. When we are wrong, we have to admit it, accept it, and teach the correct things. Do I know everything? Nope. Which is why you will not see me chiming with authoritative "facts" on on subjects I do not absolutely know the answer to.
No argument. So, I spend the time attempting to determine a chain of WHY an answer is the way it is. Just saying, "Read" this or that won't cut it. I don't accept short answers. I never have. I may accept one's word IF they can back it up with clear facts and further interpretation.

Thus far, I see an answer based on the absence of something in a particular FAR. If there is a specific answer to this backed up by the FAA or NTSB's own interpretation or case law from an ALJ, that's what I'd like to hear about.

I read PJ's post way back. No offense to PJ but it got boring pretty fast. Tonight, I went to the specific sub-paragraphs in each FAR and short of further interpretation from higher up, I still have my questions.

If that cannot be conveyed to me or any other board member without an insult, I don't want their answer. Their credibility has gone out the window.

As far as the remarks about the treadmill, if no one ever caught on I was being sarcastic, there were far too many not paying much attention. I got tired of everyone talking down to me because I took the devil's advocate stand. I wanted a realistic, scientific effort in demonstration. Even that was wrong of me by some accounts. To bring such nonsense up again as a form of cutting someone down... well, I'll leave it to others to interpret.

I've said enough on the issue. If someone does have a link to case law or something that re-enforces the old FAQ's answer, I'd appreciate that information.
 
Hicks letter 1993 written by

Philip Pompilio
Staff Attorney
FAA Regional Office
Office of the Chief Counsel

reinforces the acting vs logging, and says:

Prior to providing a specific response to your inquiry, it is appropriate to note here the distinction between serving as PIC and logging PIC time. PIC, as defined in FAR 1.1, means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time. FAR 61.51 pertains to the logging of PIC flight time, and it provides that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
 
Ken, I agree that Ed is a bit abrasive and he really ought to try a different approach here. Having said that let me give it another shot.

No argument. So, I spend the time attempting to determine a chain of WHY an answer is the way it is. Just saying, "Read" this or that won't cut it. I don't accept short answers. I never have. I may accept one's word IF they can back it up with clear facts and further interpretation.

Nothing wrong with that. It does tend to make one a better pilot and a better instructor.

Thus far, I see an answer based on the absence of something in a particular FAR. If there is a specific answer to this backed up by the FAA or NTSB's own interpretation or case law from an ALJ, that's what I'd like to hear about.

I believe Ed did finally provide that. See post # 22 in this thread.

I read PJ's post way back. No offense to PJ but it got boring pretty fast. Tonight, I went to the specific sub-paragraphs in each FAR and short of further interpretation from higher up, I still have my questions.

Before I continue we need to come to an agreement. If we CANNOT agree that there is a difference between acting as PIC and logging of PIC, we might as well not go on. That is the whole crux of this discussion.

So, if we agree that there IS a difference, I will continue.

If that cannot be conveyed to me or any other board member without an insult, I don't want their answer. Their credibility has gone out the window.

Well, I don't believe that I have insulted you. If I have, I apologize.

I've said enough on the issue. If someone does have a link to case law or something that re-enforces the old FAQ's answer, I'd appreciate that information.

See Ed's quote.

But let me try this. Go back and read 61.31 again. Do you notice a theme? In each and every one of those sub parts, ((a), (b), (c), etcetera ) it talks about acting or serving as PIC. That is ALL 61.31 is about. It does not say anything about logging of PIC. Logging of time is left up to 61.51.

Let me say this also. Have you noticed in your reading of the FARs where a particular FAR references another FAR? It happens all the time. "This situation is contingent on meeting that scenario" sort of thing? In that case, the FAR's are specific that certain conditions must be met for the FAR to apply.

In the case of 61.31 and 61.51 there is no such conditions. One does not rely on the other in order to be true. If it was intended as such, 61.31 would have referenced 61.51 and vica versa. Having said that, one must come to the conclusion that logging of PIC (61.51) is not dependent on being able to act as PIC (61.31).

If you need more than that, sorry, Ken. I can't provide it.
 
Your CFI is an idiot and should turn in his certificates, along with his moron buddies.

See the flowchart in the link of my sigline. Print it out, roll it up and beat your CFI with it. Then tell him he is fired.

Find a new CFI.
Right on Ed.

Where do they get these CFIs???
 
And this is not harsh at all.
I think it might be harsh. Did the CFI do a good job of teaching proper techniques for operating and staying ahead of a complex airplane or was his knowledge of that as deficient as his knowledge of the rules about how to log it?
 
Thus far, I see an answer based on the absence of something in a particular FAR. If there is a specific answer to this backed up by the FAA or NTSB's own interpretation or case law from an ALJ, that's what I'd like to hear about.
Here you go, Ken...

==============================
OCT. 28, 1980

WINSTON SCOTT JONES

Dear Mr. Jones:

This is in response to your letter in which you request an interpretation of Section 61.51(2)(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, regarding logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) flight time.

Specifically, you ask what time may be logged as PIC time when the pilot in the right seat is a certificated flight instructor (CFI) along for the purpose of instruction and is not a required crewmember, and the pilot in the left seat holds either a private or commercial certificate in an aircraft for which he is rated.

Section 61.51 is a flight-time logging regulation, under which PIC time may be logged by one who is not actually the pilot in command (i.e., not "ultimately" responsible for the aircraft) during that time. This is consistent with the purpose of Section 61.51, which as stated in 61.51(a) is to record aeronautical training and experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent flight experience requirements of Section 61.

Section 61.51(c)(2)(i) provides that a private or commercial pilot may log as pilot-in-command time only that flight time during which the pilot--

1. Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated; or

2. Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or

3. Acts as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

Under Section 61.51(c)(2)(iii) a certificated flight instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time during which he or she acts as a flight instructor. Sections 61.51(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) provide for logging of flight instruction and instrument flight instruction received.

Accordingly, two or more pilots may each log PIC time for the same flight time. For example, a pilot who is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he or she is rated may log that time as PIC time under 61.51(c)(2)(i) while receiving instruction, and the instructor may log that same time as PIC time under 61.51(c)(2)(iii).

There is no provision in the FAR's for logging of "dual" flight time; however, we assume that you are referring to logging time as instruction received. Section 61.51(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) allow flight instruction and instrument instruction received time to be recorded. There is nothing in the FAR's which prevents a pilot from logging the same time as both instruction received and PIC time, as long as each requirement is met. The pilot may also log the same time as instrument instruction. Note, though, that one hour of flight logged both as one hour of PIC and one hour of instruction received still adds up to only one hour total flight time.

You request interpretations of these regulations for situations in which:

1. The purpose of the flight is instruction in advanced maneuvers.

2. The purpose of the flight is simulated instrument instruction in actual VFR conditions.

3. The purpose of the flight is instrument instruction actual IFR conditions.

4. The pilot in the left seat is not current in the aircraft or in the conditions of flight.

5. The purpose of the flight is transition from tricycle to conventional landing gear.

6. The purpose of the flight is obtaining logbook endorsement authorizing operation of a high performance aircraft, as required by FAR 61.31(e).

7. The purpose of the flight is transition to a different type aircraft of the same category and class for which the left seat pilot is rated and a type rating is not required.

In each situation, the CFI may log PIC time for all flight time during which she or he acts as flight instructor. The pilot receiving instruction may also log PIC time in each of these situations, as the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which she or he is rated. Specifically, neither the currency requirements of situation 4 nor the log book endorsement of situation 6 are ratings within the meaning of Section 61.51. "Rating" as used in that section refers to the rating in categories, classes, and types, as listed in Section 61.5, which are placed on pilot certificates.

We trust that this discussion answers your questions.

Sincerely,

EDWARD P. FABERMAN
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
==============================

Bottom line is that the FAA has consistently interpreted (for at least 28 years now) 61.51 to (a) stand on its own unless 61.51 directs you somewhere else and (b) use the word "only" to mean both necesssary and sufficient.
 
Last edited:
I think it might be harsh. Did the CFI do a good job of teaching proper techniques for operating and staying ahead of a complex airplane or was his knowledge of that as deficient as his knowledge of the rules about how to log it?
Actually I do not think it is that harsh. I have found that when I have run into CFIs who think like this I then start to find other problems with their understanding of the FARs and sometimes flying knowledge as in "do not slip a 172 with the flaps extended".


The last CFI I had that gave thee 'you cannot log pic in complex without endorsement' I also had him tell me that I could not use a ground reference of a VOR for instrument check unless there was a VOT on the field or a special spot to park on the field to check the VOR. I asked him to show me that in the FARs. Of course he could not.

Later that day when we were flying he did the 'slips of death' speach as I did a slip. Upon landing I told him I did not have the time to teach him any longer, I was paying to get his knowledge which I had deemed deficiant. I spoke with the chief CFI about what had been transpiring and was told I was not the first to note these problems. That CFI became unemployed a week later. He returned to the pilot mill where he had been poorly trained and was training other CFI candidate to be as illinformed as he. As Dr. Bruce would say, the enemy is us.
 
Actually I do not think it is that harsh. I have found that when I have run into CFIs who think like this I then start to find other problems with their understanding of the FARs and sometimes flying knowledge as in "do not slip a 172 with the flaps extended".
I don't know. I was at a live FIRC some years back and the #1 regulatory problem the CFIs had trouble getting their hands aroung was the FAA's use of the the term PIC to mean two completely different things depending on whether we are talking about logging or acting.

I never botherd to get my tailwheel but, if I ever do, I hope l'll be looking for the best experienced tailwheel instructor I can find regardless of what he thinks about logging.
 
I never botherd to get my tailwheel but, if I ever do, I hope l'll be looking for the best experienced tailwheel instructor I can find regardless of what he thinks about logging.
Can you call that person the "best" if they are knowledge deficient?

I would think not. The best would be good at both knowledge and flying. Being knowledge deficient should be a red flag that perhaps the person may be deficient elsewhere as well.
 
Can you call that person the "best" if they are knowledge deficient?

I would think not. The best would be good at both knowledge and flying. Being knowledge deficient should be a red flag that perhaps the person may be deficient elsewhere as well.
Your experience and tolerance level is obviously different than mine in this respect.
 
My interpretation of 61.31(e) is it may not be logged as PIC... UNTIL an endorsement has been received after the requisite training.
The FAA Chief Counsel says your interpretation is incorrect, and has said so for many years, so if you value your CFI ticket, don't tell an examiner or inspector your interpretation on a practical test or teach it to your students.
 
I think it might be harsh. Did the CFI do a good job of teaching proper techniques for operating and staying ahead of a complex airplane or was his knowledge of that as deficient as his knowledge of the rules about how to log it?

I have no complaints about the instructor's teaching of complex airplane operations. He was very patient with me, and I think he gave me a great first complex lesson. I was just trying to get used to the additional steps in the traffic pattern (positive rate/no-more=usable runway/gear up, GUMPS, and figuring out the V speeds in a new airplane, etc.).

The only thing that raised my eyebrow was the logging PIC part. I consider myself a good student, and I will continue to study and ask questions, especially if something doesn't sound right!

My reason for going to this CFI was to get checked out in the 172RG (their insurance requirement is 10 hours of dual before soloing in it). I can get the complex endorsement sooner, but can't solo in it or carry passengers until the 10 hours of dual is met. I still have a different CFI who I can learn the commercial maneuvers with, but I need a complex airplane to take the practical test, and I might as well learn as much as I can during these 10 hours for the insurance release.

Thanks to everyone who contributed.

By the way, where do you search for the letters of interpretation? faa.gov? aopa.org? I never knew where to find those.
________
BMW R80
 
Last edited:
And for what it is worth, I think Ed and Nick are being a TAD bit harsh. I didn't really have a good grasp on this until a few years ago when these debates first started coming up.

Or at least that was when I started paying attention.

I think it might be harsh. Did the CFI do a good job of teaching proper techniques for operating and staying ahead of a complex airplane or was his knowledge of that as deficient as his knowledge of the rules about how to log it?

How can you say it is harsh? I'm not expecting every CFI to know everything. I am expecting every CFI to find answers they do not know, and not bull**** an answer. I had a CFI that used to do that, and it drove me insane to the point where I stopped asking him questions before I eventually fired him.

This is one of the reasons I say to never trust a CFI (or anyone for that matter), without looking up your answers first. You've got the first post about a CFI being wrong, and group around him agreeing. You've got PROOF posted in this thread that shows why its wrong, but you've still got 2 CFIs posting here that are trying to destroy another group of pilots.

Please, if you honestly believe that this can't be logged, and you're a CFI, stop giving your opinion, because you're what's wrong with aviation today. You are the reason we've got pilots that don't research answers and believe things like "slipping with flaps" is bad, or that flying the step works, or other things.

I thought the treadmill discussion was bad, but this is obvious Kenny, and it doesn't even require much thought.
 
Bottom line is that the FAA has consistently interpreted (for at least 28 years now) 61.51 to (a) stand on its own unless 61.51 directs you somewhere else and (b) use the word "only" to mean both necesssary and sufficient.

The FAA Chief Counsel says your interpretation is incorrect, and has said so for many years, so if you value your CFI ticket, don't tell an examiner or inspector your interpretation on a practical test or teach it to your students.

Hicks letter 1993 written by

Philip Pompilio
Staff Attorney
FAA Regional Office
Office of the Chief Counsel

reinforces the acting vs logging, and says:

If you need more than that, sorry, Ken. I can't provide it.
Okay, I'm sold. Thank you for the effort.

Ed and Mark, If you by chance have those letters in PDF format, I'd appreciate a copy posted on the thread. I like to keep a file of print outs of such letters that are provided and have done so on a couple Ron has received and posted.

I see the link. But, I had some doubts because of how these regulations and other laws are sometimes interpreted. There's a difference between an implied allowance by the law versus a specifically stated allowance by the law. In this particular case, the ability to log as PIC is implied by simply holding a given level of certificate or privileges. There's nothing to state you can still log as PIC when you are not legally entitled to operate as PIC. Hence, the absence of forbidding this act implies it is legal.

Laws usually barely state what one cannot do but do a lousy job of stating what one CAN do. This isn't just in FARs, it's in statutes across the board, sometimes including horribly written case law.

My apologies if I responded harshly. I hope it's understood why I won't simply take some answers at face value, particularly when so much can ride on it.
 
Let me point out that I encountered the same situation. I was not allowed to log PIC (since logging = acting as stated earlier) in the complex airplane until after the logbook endorsement.

This is what my endorsement says:

PIC - Complex Airplane: 61.31(e)

I certify that I have given ground and flight training in a complex airplane to [First name, MI, Last name] holder of pilot certificate# [certificate number] and find him/her procicient in the operation and systems of a complex airplane.

Signed Dated
CFI # Expiration

Now this could go one of two ways; either extremely obvious that you can only LOG pic once you're Endorsed for PIC complex aircraft, or incredibly vague and something should be worded or explained in a different manner.
 
Okay, I'm sold. Thank you for the effort.

Ed and Mark, If you by chance have those letters in PDF format, I'd appreciate a copy posted on the thread. I like to keep a file of print outs of such letters that are provided and have done so on a couple Ron has received and posted.

I see the link. But, I had some doubts because of how these regulations and other laws are sometimes interpreted. There's a difference between an implied allowance by the law versus a specifically stated allowance by the law. In this particular case, the ability to log as PIC is implied by simply holding a given level of certificate or privileges. There's nothing to state you can still log as PIC when you are not legally entitled to operate as PIC. Hence, the absence of forbidding this act implies it is legal.

Laws usually barely state what one cannot do but do a lousy job of stating what one CAN do. This isn't just in FARs, it's in statutes across the board, sometimes including horribly written case law.

My apologies if I responded harshly. I hope it's understood why I won't simply take some answers at face value, particularly when so much can ride on it.

Kenny, I don't know if you're one of those CFIs that will only take advice from other CFIs, but I'll give you the biggest piece of advice you'll ever need as a CFI interpreting regs:

If it is not SPECIFICALLY illegal, its legal.

Ever since I grasped that, the FARs became a lot easier to interpret.
 
Kenny, I don't know if you're one of those CFIs that will only take advice from other CFIs, but I'll give you the biggest piece of advice you'll ever need as a CFI interpreting regs:

If it is not SPECIFICALLY illegal, its legal.

Ever since I grasped that, the FARs became a lot easier to interpret.
The good piece of advice is to learn the difference between should and shall. Because if you should learn what shall means, then you shall be able to interpret what a regulation should say. ;)
 
Kenny, I don't know if you're one of those CFIs that will only take advice from other CFIs, but I'll give you the biggest piece of advice you'll ever need as a CFI interpreting regs:

If it is not SPECIFICALLY illegal, its legal.

Ever since I grasped that, the FARs became a lot easier to interpret.
On the surface, I do agree with that. Unfortunately, we're also subject to the actions of those in the black robes whose interpretation makes a much bigger impact.

That's where legal interpretation by the agency enforcing the laws (FAA) goes a long way toward insuring you don't run into a maverick interpretation by the black robe. The upside is this is possible with the FAA. Good luck with that on most other statutes.
 
Back
Top