Logging time

JRflyboy

JRflyboy

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 10, 2020
Messages
11
Display Name
Display name:
JRflyboy
I'm in the process for looking for a plane to buy for personal use. As a current PP SEL with all of my time in Cherokee, Warrior, and Archer planes, I am looking at stepping up to (or over to) an Arrow, Cherokee 6, Cherokee 235, or Comanche. During a test flight of a prospect Arrow, I was with a CFI who performed the landing and takeoff to comply their insurance and since I do not have the complex endorsement yet. What is the appropriate entry for logging this correctly?
 
JRflyboy said:
What is the appropriate entry for logging this correctly?
Click to expand...
All time you are sole manipulator of the controls in a category and class of airplane for which you are rated.
 
JRflyboy said:
During a test flight of a prospect Arrow, I was with a CFI who performed the landing and takeoff to comply their insurance and since I do not have the complex endorsement yet. What is the appropriate entry for logging this correctly?
Click to expand...

I was/am in the same situation. A partner and I test flew an Arrow several months ago. I logged one takeoff/landing in the Arrow and about 1 hour of flight time (the owner was a CFI/II/MEI). We didn't end up purchasing that Arrow, but we did end up purchasing a different one a few weeks ago. That 1 hour and takeoff/landing count toward the 10 hours and 15 takeoffs/landings I need to satisfy our insurance requirements in the new plane.

I should note that I did perform the takeoff and landing.

Got about 5 more hours complex time on the way back from picking up the plane...

Anyway, give me a PM if you want to chat about the transition. I'm going through it now, so some of my experiences may be relevant to you.
 
I think it be appropriate to ask the CFI to log is as "dual received" in your logbook. If you're looking at a fall-back option and really want the time, that could clear it up. I don't know if it's quite right to log it as PIC as you are not rated for that aircraft because of the lack of complex endorsement. The endorsement is not just for takeoff and landing purposes because of the landing gear. It covers other items such as the variable-pitch propeller. In my opinion, that's probably your only option - Dual received with no takeoff or landing.
 
PilotMan said:
I think it be appropriate to ask the CFI to log is as "dual received" in your logbook. If you're looking at a fall-back option and really want the time, that could clear it up. I don't know if it's quite right to log it as PIC as you are not rated for that aircraft because of the lack of complex endorsement. The endorsement is not just for takeoff and landing purposes because of the landing gear. It covers other items such as the variable-pitch propeller. In my opinion, that's probably your only option - Dual received with no takeoff or landing.
Click to expand...
He is rated For any ASEL. An endorsement is not a rating.
 
Salty said:
He is rated For any ASEL. An endorsement is not a rating.
Click to expand...

Right - incorrect term on my part. FAR 61.31:

(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane, unless the person has—

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and

(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.
 
PilotMan said:
Right - incorrect term on my part. FAR 61.31:

(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane, unless the person has—

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and

(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.
Click to expand...
Note that, as always, “acting” as PIC is an entirely different thing than “logging” PIC.
 
PilotMan said:
Right - incorrect term on my part. FAR 61.31:

(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane, unless the person has—

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and

(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.
Click to expand...
Right. And you don't have to act as PIC to log PIC time. There should be a sticky about this somewhere.
 
You can log every minute when you are sole manipulator of the controls, including take off and landing even if you don't have an endorsement for tailwheel, high performance, or complex. They're all in the same category and class, and that's all you need for logging the time. Just be sure that someone else is acting as PIC.
 
dbahn said:
You can log every minute when you are sole manipulator of the controls, including take off and landing even if you don't have an endorsement for tailwheel, high performance, or complex. They're all in the same category and class, and that's all you need for logging the time. Just be sure that someone else is acting as PIC.
Click to expand...
True, but the OP clearly stated that the other pilot made the takeoff and landing, which would make those unloggable in this case.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
True, but the OP clearly stated that the other pilot made the takeoff and landing, which would make those unlovable in this case.
Click to expand...
Poor landings and takeoffs getting no love.
 
Speaking of logging .1, one of the silliest regs on the books with respect to logging of flight time is the tailwheel endorsement in 61.31 (h) (2):
(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...
Taken literally, it means that a person who held an SEL rating and had never flown a tailwheel airplane (and still hasn't) but who took the controls prior to that date for a few minutes in cruise could log 0.1 h and would not legally require an endorsement, even though he had never done a take off or a landing with a tailwheeled aircraft.

(I'm basing that scenario on the assumption that the logging by "sole manipulator of the controls" language was the same in 1991 as it is now, but I believe it was. I still don't have an endorsement, but have logged over 1000 hours in TW. Sometimes I'm tempted to get one though.)
 
MauleSkinner said:
True, but the OP clearly stated that the other pilot made the takeoff and landing, which would make those unloggable in this case.
Click to expand...

That's why I specified that he has to be "sole manipulator of the controls", but it got me wondering about the other statement by the OP that the acting PIC had to do the takeoff and landing "to comply with insurance". I'm not aware of any policy I've had over the years that specified that the acting PIC had to also be the sole manipulator of the controls for takeoff and landing but not other phases of the flight. I'm not in any way suggesting that it's not a good idea (and a good thing to just tell the other pilot), but just curious if that's written into policies themselves.
 
dbahn said:
Speaking of logging .1, one of the silliest regs on the books with respect to logging of flight time is the tailwheel endorsement in 61.31 (h) (2):
Click to expand...
That's a reg about when you can act, not log. But yes, it depends on if you logged.

But what is really silly is that (insurance issues aside) I could jump in to a nosewheel aircraft with no instruction, no endorsement, and just go act as PIC even if I hadn't logged some nosewheel time back in the '70s.
 
People get so hung up on logging stuff, they tend to forget you only have to log what is required for currency or training purposes. Is it really worth all this head scratching to add another .5 to the book?
 
dbahn said:
Speaking of logging .1, one of the silliest regs on the books with respect to logging of flight time is the tailwheel endorsement in 61.31 (h) (2):

Taken literally, it means that a person who held an SEL rating and had never flown a tailwheel airplane (and still hasn't) but who took the controls prior to that date for a few minutes in cruise could log 0.1 h and would not legally require an endorsement, even though he had never done a take off or a landing with a tailwheeled aircraft.

(I'm basing that scenario on the assumption that the logging by "sole manipulator of the controls" language was the same in 1991 as it is now, but I believe it was. I still don't have an endorsement, but have logged over 1000 hours in TW. Sometimes I'm tempted to get one though.)
Click to expand...
You are correct. The sole manipulator logging was there long before 1991. But sometimes regs don't account for the 1/1000th of the population who might squeeze through.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
That's a reg about when you can act, not log. But yes, it depends on if you logged.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's my point. You can act as PIC now if you only logged the time before 1991. You did not have to be legal to act as PIC at the time you logged it.

To your other point, I'm just guessing that the transition from tailwheel to nosewheel isn't very challenging. :)
 
midwestpa24 said:
People get so hung up on logging stuff, they tend to forget you only have to log what is required for currency or training purposes. Is it really worth all this head scratching to add another .5 to the book?
Click to expand...
What head scratching? Once one gets over the horror that the FAA uses PIC in two separate contexts, the rules are pretty simple.

And yes, one only has to log to show currency and qualification. But then there's showing qualification for other things like insurance. Of course, bragging rights and a bit of scrapbook memory come into play too.

I'm sure they exist, and you might be one of the few who scratches his head after every flight thinking, "hmmmm...does this count for currency or my next certificate or qualification in some way," and logs accordingly, as opposed to simply logging every flight, filling in the boxes with what the rules permit.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What head scratching? Once one gets over the horror that the FAA uses PIC in two separate contexts, the rules are pretty simple.

And yes, one only has to log to show currency and qualification. But then there's showing qualification for other things like insurance. Of course, bragging rights and a bit of scrapbook memory come into play too.

I'm sure they exist, and you might be one of the few who scratches his head after every flight thinking, "hmmmm...does this count for currency or my next certificate or qualification in some way," and logs accordingly, as opposed to simply logging every flight, filling in the boxes with what the rules permit.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the constant stream of posts I see here and on FB groups asking can I log XXX, I held the controls for 5 minutes can I log it, etc.? I don't worry about it myself, as unless the aircraft requires a type rating I can log nearly any time I fly if I desire to.
 
midwestpa24 said:
People get so hung up on logging stuff, they tend to forget you only have to log what is required for currency or training purposes. Is it really worth all this head scratching to add another .5 to the book?
Click to expand...
If you're trying to add a rating or certificate, if you're trying to meet insurance company mins, or if you're trying to turn pro, yes its probably worth it. Otherwise, nope.
 
The FAA is unconcerned with "things like insurance." Logbook entries are to show "training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review, and for meeting the recent flight experience requirements."
 
midwestpa24 said:
I'm referring to the constant stream of posts I see here and on FB groups asking can I log XXX, I held the controls for 5 minutes can I log it, etc.? I don't worry about it myself, as unless the aircraft requires a type rating I can log nearly any time I fly if I desire to.
Click to expand...
People are going to ask. People want to log for reasons other than regulatory. The student pilot wants to log every landing, assisted or not, even though there is no currency and next to no qualification requirement to do so. Instrument students log every approach, far beyond the maybe half dozen needed by regulation to check off the boxes for the rating. The 50 hour pilot wants to log every millisecond as a sign of her progress. Pilots with ASEL want to know if they can log that time their uncle let them take the controls of their Baron, in the clouds.

For so many, it's part of the fun. I have been online for about 30 years answering these questions and often just shake my head sadly. But even so, I for one rather they ask and thereby perhaps learn the rules and not worry about annoying someone.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
For so many, it's part of the fun. I have been online for about 30 years answering these questions and often just shake my head sadly. But even so, I for one rather they ask and thereby perhaps learn the rules and worry about annoying someone.
Click to expand...

It's kind of fun, but it's also a good opportunity to review the regs before you try to answer a question incorrectly, which is often done on this kind of forum.

Particularly for the career airman, and sometimes for the picky examiner, I do think it's important not to put "incriminating" entries in the logbook. For instance if you flew and then realized that you were out of currency it's best to just not log the flight and have it follow with a flight for the FR. Some DPEs make a point of finding those errors, partly for their own entertainment, and partly to teach the examinee something he apparently didn't know.

Logging flight time will always be a recurrent subject on aviation social media. Like headsets and wing location they just won't go away . . .
 
dbahn said:
Logging flight time will always be a recurrent subject on aviation social media. Like headsets and wing location they just won't go away . . .
Click to expand...
The good news is that more people seem to accept the rules. For years, if you stated the rule correctly you were yelled at because after all "YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY LOG PIC UNLESS YOU ARE ACTING AS PIC!!!! :mad3::mad3::mad3::mad3::mad3::mad3::mad3::mad3::loco::loco::loco:"
 
dbahn said:
Taken literally, it means that a person who held an SEL rating and had never flown a tailwheel airplane (and still hasn't) but who took the controls prior to that date for a few minutes in cruise could log 0.1 h and would not legally require an endorsement, even though he had never done a take off or a landing with a tailwheeled aircraft.
Click to expand...
This is likely a self-limiting problem.
 
dbahn said:
Particularly for the career airman, and sometimes for the picky examiner, I do think it's important not to put "incriminating" entries in the logbook. For instance if you flew and then realized that you were out of currency it's best to just not log the flight and have it follow with a flight for the FR. Some DPEs make a point of finding those errors, partly for their own entertainment, and partly to teach the examinee something he apparently didn't know
Click to expand...
I’ve had a couple of ATP applicants who had time logged that was quite obviously not loggable. In one case, he had jet SIC time logged, but not the 61.55 requirements. I asked, “Did you (with emphasis) LOG when you did your 61.55 training for that airplane?” His response was “we didn’t do any training.”:rolleyes: After further discussion, he asked, “do you mean that if somebody asks me copilot his jet, I have to know that there are training requirements?” Um, yes, you kind of need to know that you’re qualified for any flight operation that you conduct.

the second guy had King Air SIC time logged, with “(name of operator) Part 135 flight” in the comments. “Do you have an SIC 135 authorization for that airplane/operator?” “No.” :rolleyes:

in both cases, we clarified the requirements for those flight operations, and even without those times they made the minimum for the ATP (one by only about 3 hours), so we were able to conduct the checkrides.
 
Lindberg said:
This is likely a self-limiting problem.
Click to expand...

No doubt - particularly if you want to insure the plane, but common sense would almost certainly prevail even before that (I hope!).

The point is that on April 14th, 1991 there was almost no requirement to act as PIC in a TW aircraft. The following day you needed to have shown proficiency in specific operations with a CFI and have the logbook endorsement. I think that's when TW ops started to be something of a cult and people spent 5 to 10 hours getting the endorsement instead of one or two hours the day before. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top