Logging PIC time

saracelica

saracelica

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
1,819
Display Name
Display name:
saracelica
Posted in another posting that my husband and I are going to split the trip so we both can get experience with PIC. My CFI is tagging along and will be right seat the whole way. So we're going KTDZ - KCRG (679nm) WAY too far for me to want to do in one sitting. So say at KAGS we get out and stretch and I say "I can't fly more "Steve" can you fly the rest? The rest is 183nm...I did the first 500. So we get to Jacksonville. We both can't log PIC time? I got a PM that "I should check out these rulings from the Office of the General Counsel." But no link was attached so I look to you wise folks to enlighten me!

My husband and I went to dinner and he flew there. Decided to have some alcohol beverages and I flew home. I logged those hours coming home because I was PIC. Was that wrong?
 
I only intend to log PIC as when I'm at the controls. The 4 hours for the 500nm is MORE then enough I wouldn't log the whole 6 hours. I'd be in the back sleeping or reading.
 
Posted in another posting that my husband and I are going to split the trip so we both can get experience with PIC. My CFI is tagging along and will be right seat the whole way. So we're going KTDZ - KCRG (679nm) WAY too far for me to want to do in one sitting. So say at KAGS we get out and stretch and I say "I can't fly more "Steve" can you fly the rest? The rest is 183nm...I did the first 500. So we get to Jacksonville. We both can't log PIC time? I got a PM that "I should check out these rulings from the Office of the General Counsel." But no link was attached so I look to you wise folks to enlighten me!

You log 500 worth of PIC, he logs 183 worth of PIC.

My husband and I went to dinner and he flew there. Decided to have some alcohol beverages and I flew home. I logged those hours coming home because I was PIC. Was that wrong?

He logs PIC for the flight there because he flew. You log PIC for the flight back because you flew back. He better not log PIC if he had been drinking.
 
He wouldn't it was my example. The PM I got confused me so I just wanted to make sure. Thanks Sac!
 
I think maybe sara's confusion is that PIC time (and night, dual instruction, and instrument) is logged on a time basis, not a flight basis. You and another pilot can both log PIC on the same flight leg, just not concurrently. You would obviously have to both be capable of acting as PIC (and act as PIC) during those times.
 
Sac Arrow said:
You and another pilot can both log PIC on the same flight leg, just not concurrently.
Click to expand...

One exception I know of - if you are flying the plane under the hood in VFR conditions, your buddy in the right seat (safety pilot) may log PIC concurrently.
 
saracelica said:
Posted in another posting that my husband and I are going to split the trip so we both can get experience with PIC. My CFI is tagging along and will be right seat the whole way. So we're going KTDZ - KCRG (679nm) WAY too far for me to want to do in one sitting. So say at KAGS we get out and stretch and I say "I can't fly more "Steve" can you fly the rest? The rest is 183nm...I did the first 500. So we get to Jacksonville. We both can't log PIC time? I got a PM that "I should check out these rulings from the Office of the General Counsel." But no link was attached so I look to you wise folks to enlighten me!

My husband and I went to dinner and he flew there. Decided to have some alcohol beverages and I flew home. I logged those hours coming home because I was PIC. Was that wrong?
Click to expand...

If the ratings on your pilot certificate match the aircraft, then you can log as PIC all of the time during which you were sole manipulator of the controls. If the regulations require an endorsement that you don't have (such as high performance, complex, or tailwheel, for example), then you can still log PIC time for the time you were sole manipulator of the controls, because an endorsement is not a rating, but there has to be another pilot who has the appropriate endorsement to "act" as PIC, which means being the person who has the authority and responsibility for the conduct of the flight.
 
dell30rb said:
One exception I know of - if you are flying the plane under the hood in VFR conditions, your buddy in the right seat (safety pilot) may log PIC concurrently.
Click to expand...

...if the safety pilot is qualified to act as PIC, and both pilots agree that the safety pilot will be the person having authority and responsibility for the flight.

Whether it's VFR or IFR conditions doesn't matter if the pilot flying is wearing a hood. Of course if it's IFR conditions, then whoever is acting as PIC has to be instrument rated and current, the plane has to be legal for IFR, and they have to be on an IFR flight plan if it's in controlled airspace.

The safety pilot has to be instrument rated if the flight is conducted under instrument flight rules, but does not have to be instrument current if he/she is acting as SIC (second-in-command).
 
dell30rb said:
One exception I know of - if you are flying the plane under the hood in VFR conditions, your buddy in the right seat (safety pilot) may log PIC concurrently.
Click to expand...

Correct. Not really applicable to the OP's stated situation but yes.
 
dell30rb said:
One exception I know of - if you are flying the plane under the hood in VFR conditions, your buddy in the right seat (safety pilot) may log PIC concurrently.
Click to expand...
If and only if your buddy in the right seat is also acting as PIC. Remember that one need not be the PIC to be the safety pilot, and in many if not most cases not involving a CFI, the safety pilot is not acting as PIC. In that case, your buddy must be fully qualified to be PIC, including ratings, endorsements, and recent experience ("currency"), and if it's your plane and you value your assets, meet the insurance policy requirements, too.
 
Inverted said:
For the time you are exercising PIC privileges you log it. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...
Simple but inaccurate. Can you find "exercising PIC privileges" in 61.51?

There are plenty of examples, so just one simple one:

It's a HP airplane. You have the endorsements, your companion doesn't. Your companion does the flying while you act as PIC.

The flying companion is not exercising PIC privileges but logs PIC time; you are definitely exercising PIC privileges but cannot (at least not legitimately) log PIC time.
 
Why is the CFI sitting right seat the whole time? Is he getting a free ride?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Simple but inaccurate. Can you find "exercising PIC privileges" in 61.51?

There are plenty of examples, so just one simple one:

It's a HP airplane. You have the endorsements, your companion doesn't. Your companion does the flying while you act as PIC.

The flying companion is not exercising PIC privileges but logs PIC time; you are definitely exercising PIC privileges but cannot (at least not legitimately) log PIC time.
Click to expand...

The person without the endorsement cannot act as PIC, but can log PIC as sole manipulator of the controls. Just like flying a tailwheel aircraft.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Why is the CFI sitting right seat the whole time? Is he getting a free ride?
Click to expand...
He is getting a free ride. :) I don't think we have the comfort to fly over the Eastern type of Mountains and he has alot of experience going to Florida. So as a friend he's tagging along. He just happens to be able to log my flight time as training.
 
saracelica said:
He is getting a free ride. :) I don't think we have the comfort to fly over the Eastern type of Mountains and he has alot of experience going to Florida. So as a friend he's tagging along. He just happens to be able to log my flight time as training.
Click to expand...

Understood
 
He's sitting right seat so I can log PIC time and get the hours I need to be able to get checked out in the airplane. (Insurance requires 10 hours of flight time and it doesn't take that long to learn what the control does for the prop and leaning it out) So by the end of the trip I *should* have about 4-6 hours in type. Then we can focus on what the controls do. :) I'll also be that much closer to my xc time for IFR training. :)
 
Inverted said:
So my original statement is not inaccurate. PIC privileges include sole manipulator of the controls.
Click to expand...
If you're saying that one of the privileges of being PIC is deciding who gets to manipulate the controls, I'd agree. However, having the endorsement (or being grandfathered) is necessary to be the PIC, but not to manipulate the controls or log PIC time. Furthermore, manipulating the controls is not by itself sufficient to log PIC time -- you must also be "rated," although "rated" does not require having the endorsement/grandfathering.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you're saying that one of the privileges of being PIC is deciding who gets to manipulate the controls, I'd agree. However, having the endorsement (or being grandfathered) is necessary to be the PIC, but not to manipulate the controls or log PIC time. Furthermore, manipulating the controls is not by itself sufficient to log PIC time -- you must also be "rated," although "rated" does not require having the endorsement/grandfathering.
Click to expand...


if you get your multiengine rating on a seminole then automatically you get grandfathered into the complex realm? Is that what you mean by grandfathered?
 
Ron Levy said:
If you're saying that one of the privileges of being PIC is deciding who gets to manipulate the controls, I'd agree. However, having the endorsement (or being grandfathered) is necessary to be the PIC, but not to manipulate the controls or log PIC time. Furthermore, manipulating the controls is not by itself sufficient to log PIC time -- you must also be "rated," although "rated" does not require having the endorsement/grandfathering.
Click to expand...

Right. The OP is appropriately rated as I gathered from the post. My post was geared towards the OPs situation.
 
cirrusmx said:
if you get your multiengine rating on a seminole then automatically you get grandfathered into the complex realm? Is that what you mean by grandfathered?
Click to expand...

No. Getting your multi-engine rating in a Seminole would require you to have a complex endorsement before you take your checkride. The grandfathering comes in to having logged PIC time in a high performance aircraft before a certain date. For tailwheels its 1970 something. 71 or 76? I cant remember.
 
cirrusmx said:
if you get your multiengine rating on a seminole then automatically you get grandfathered into the complex realm? Is that what you mean by grandfathered?
Click to expand...
No. I'm discussing the grandfathering clauses in the high altitude, complex, high performance, and tailwheel paragraphs in 61.31 covering additional training endorsements. In each of those paragraphs, there is a date, before which if you logged PIC time in that sort of airplane, you need not have the additional training endorsement to act as PIC in that sort of airplane. So, if you took your ME practical test in a Seminole before that date (August 4, 1997, for complex), then you would have PIC time in a complex airplane before that date, and you would be grandfathered for complex, but only because of that PIC time, not because you took a practical test in a complex airplane.

However, if you show up today with a Seminole for an ME practical test with no complex endorsement in your logbook (and no complex airplane PIC time in your logbook before August 4, 1997), you and your instructor are both going to have a very bad day -- you, because you won't get the practical test (and worse if you flew the plane solo to the test site), and your instructor, for sending you for the test without all the required endorsements.
 
Inverted said:
For tailwheels its 1970 something. 71 or 76? I cant remember.
Click to expand...
It's actually 1991.

(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane. The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:

(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;

(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and

(iii) Go-around procedures.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991.
Click to expand...
 
Inverted said:
No. Getting your multi-engine rating in a Seminole would require you to have a complex endorsement before you take your checkride.
Click to expand...
Right -- either the endorsement, or PIC time in a complex airplane before August 4, 1997.
The grandfathering comes in to having logged PIC time in a high performance aircraft before a certain date.
Click to expand...
Since a Seminole is not high performance under the current rules, you don't need to meet the HP requirements to be PIC in one, and you would not be grandfathered for HP for PIC time in one.

BTW, there is a "gotcha" involved in the HP/complex area. Before 8/4/97, there was a requirement for additional training and an endorsement to act as PIC of a "high performance" airplane, with that term being defined as either retractable/controllable prop/flaps or over 200HP -- one endorsement earned in either, good for both, so if you got it in an Arrow, it was good for a 182, and vice versa. Only problem is that when the FAA split them in 1997, they kept the HP name for over 200HP. As a result, a pre-97 "high performance" endorsement earned in an Arrow (which is under the current rule complex but not HP) does not give you PIC privileges in an over 200HP airplane today, but the PIC time you got in doing it gives you complex PIC privileges today.

As an example of where this can be an issue, I tripped over a guy who'd earned a "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow in the early 90's, but never flew an over-200HP airplane until he bought a Lance in 2003. The instructor who checked him out in it either didn't notice or didn't understand the limits of that old endorsement, and did not add a post-97 high performance endorsement to his logbook. He happily but illegally flew it for several years until he came to me for his instrument rating, at which point my review of his logbook unearthed the problem. I added the correct endorsement after the first day's flying with him, but he's lucky nothing bad happened during the intervening years.

For tailwheels its 1970 something. 71 or 76? I cant remember.
Click to expand...
Complex: August 4, 1997
High perfomance (current definition): August 4, 1997
Tailwheel: April 15, 1991
High altitude aka "pressurized": April 15, 1991
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
However, if you show up today with a Seminole for an ME practical test with no complex endorsement in your logbook (and no complex airplane PIC time in your logbook before August 4, 1997), you and your instructor are both going to have a very bad day -- you, because you won't get the practical test (and worse if you flew the plane solo to the test site), and your instructor, for sending you for the test without all the required endorsements.
Click to expand...

Interestting....I thought complex only applied to ASEL
 
Doesn't a succesfully completed multiengine checkride implies that you are capable of retracting gear, using props, and opening/closing cowl flaps?:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:
 
cirrusmx said:
Doesn't a succesfully completed multiengine checkride implies that you are capable of retracting gear, using props, and opening/closing cowl flaps?:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:
Click to expand...
Since you won't get to fly the ME checkride if you show up in a Seminole without the complex endorsement (or grandfathering time from before 8/4/97) in your logbook, the question is moot. Two other points -- the definition of complex doesn't include cowl flaps but does include wing flaps, and not all twins in which you might take the AMEL additional rating ride are complex, starting with the Partenavia P68.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since you won't get to fly the ME checkride if you show up in a Seminole without the complex endorsement (or grandfathering time from before 8/4/97) in your logbook, the question is moot. Two other points -- the definition of complex doesn't include cowl flaps but does include wing flaps, and not all twins in which you might take the AMEL additional rating ride are complex, starting with the Partenavia P68.
Click to expand...

let me rephrase then.

Doesn't a succesfully completed multiengine checkride on a seminole implies that you are capable of retracting gear, using props, and extending/retractomg wingflaps?:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:


 
cirrusmx said:
Doesn't a succesfully completed multiengine checkride on a seminole implies that you are capable of retracting gear, using props, and extending/retractomg wingflaps?:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:
Click to expand...
I should think it does imply that, but that does not replace the regulatory requirement to meet 61.31(e), and regardless of that, you will not have a valid ME practical test in a Seminole in your logbook without already having met the requirements of that paragraph of the FAR's.
 
Ron Levy said:
I should think it does imply that, but that does not replace the regulatory requirement to meet 61.31(e), and regardless of that, you will not have a valid ME practical test in a Seminole in your logbook without already having met the requirements of that paragraph of the FAR's.
Click to expand...

So, lemme see if I get this right....

If I bring a SEL w/o an electrical system, I can take a practical in it sans the requirement for use of electronic navigation systems

but.....

If I bring a ME w/o feathering capabilities, I need to bring another airplane to complete the test
?
 
Inverted said:
So my original statement is not inaccurate. PIC privileges include sole manipulator of the controls.
Click to expand...
A non-pilot has the privilege to be the sole manipulator of the controls with a qualified pilot as PIC. So, the only pilot privilege in your example is the logging itself. "I get to log because I'm allowed to log."
 
Jaybird180 said:
If I bring a SEL w/o an electrical system, I can take a practical in it sans the requirement for use of electronic navigation systems

but.....

If I bring a ME w/o feathering capabilities, I need to bring another airplane to complete the test
?
Click to expand...
What practical tests are we talking about? In the first case, if you mean bringing an ASEL to a PP-ASEL practical test with no means to perform the communication and electronic navigation tasks, no, you cannot take that whole test in that aircraft, although you may be able to use hand-held devices for those tasks on the PP test in such an aircraft -- seems to be up to the individual DPE's.

If you mean bringing an AMEL without feathering capability to an ME rating test, no, you cannot take that whole test in that aircraft. I suppose you could have a second twin which can be feathered in which to perform that task alone, but I can't imagine why you'd want to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top