Question about currency

[kujo806]

A guy in my partnership hasn't flown in a while. His BFR is current, but hasn't performed his landings in the last 90 days. He is a bit concerned about flying solo since it has been a while. Is it ok for me to fly right seat as a current rated pilot in the plane? By the letter of the law, I think he needs to fly solo for 3 T&G's or with a CFI, but at the same time it seems like it would be safer to have two pilots in the cockpit as opposed to flying solo after a long hiatus. It would be simpler if we had a CFI in the partnership.

 

[poadeleted20]

The takeoffs and landings must be performed as sole manipulator of the controls, not necessarily as PIC. There is no FAA requirement for a CFI to be involved in regaining currency as long as the noncurrent pilot isn't acting as PIC with a passenger. So, assuming you are fully current and qualified to act as PIC, what you suggest is completely FAA legal.

The only possible problem would be if your insurance requires the PIC to occupy the left seat unless the PIC is a CFI giving training to a named insured. That's not common, but not unknown, either. In that case, you could still get around that by having the PIC in the left seat and the pilot needing currency flying from the right seat.

 

[DGlaeser]

Flying together is perfectly legal, and IMHO meets the spirit of the law as well.
You are acting as PIC until he completes the 3rd landing. He can log the landings since he is doing the flying. Done all the time.

 

[tehmightypirate]

Really?! I thought that only applied when two pilots would be required such as safety pilot simulated IFR operations? I guess it does makes sense that they can log PIC time and get credit for the landings even though they're not solo.

What about night currency? I assume the same applies that one pilot who was night current could have the other non PIC fly to get the required 3 takeoffs and landings?

 

[MAKG1]

What about night currency? I assume the same applies that one pilot who was night current could have the other non PIC fly to get the required 3 takeoffs and landings?

You can fly PIC at night when not night current. Just not with passengers and not for hire.

You get night current by flying solo for three full-stop landings at least an hour after sunset.

 

[oldShar]

Flying together is perfectly legal, and IMHO meets the spirit of the law as well.
You are acting as PIC until he completes the 3rd landing. He can log the landings since he is doing the flying. Done all the time.

But, until he completes his third landing, he cannot log his time as PIC, since he is out of currency. Log it as dual?

 

[JeffDG]

But, until he completes his third landing, he cannot log his time as PIC, since he is out of currency. Log it as dual?

You don't need to be "current" to log PIC time as the sole manipulator of the controls. He logs it all, the PIC in the right seat logs nothing.

 

[poadeleted20]

Really?! I thought that only applied when two pilots would be required such as safety pilot simulated IFR operations? I guess it does makes sense that they can log PIC time and get credit for the landings even though they're not solo.

Only the pilot actually flying gets credit for the landings no matter who's PIC. And unless the pilot flying is also under the hood (which is not part of the original scenario), the pilot acting as PIC but not flying logs nothing.

What about night currency? I assume the same applies that one pilot who was night current could have the other non PIC fly to get the required 3 takeoffs and landings?

Correct, but again the non-flying PIC logs nothing.

 

[poadeleted20]

You can fly PIC at night when not night current. Just not with passengers and not for hire.

Correct.

You get night current by flying solo for three full-stop landings at least an hour after sunset.

You don't have to be solo, just (as you said above) not as PIC with passengers ("for hire" isn't an issue here since we're talking PP's).

 

[Palmpilot]

You get night current by flying solo for three full-stop landings at least an hour after sunset.

And three takeoffs at least an hour after sunset.

 

[mcmanigle]

Correct, but again the non-flying PIC logs nothing.

Is there a definition somewhere for "total time" or "pilot time" out there somewhere?

 

[tehmightypirate]

Okay, so if you're current for daytime 3 landings in 90 days but not night current and your buddy who is night current takes the PIC role:

The pilot flying will log and get credit for the night landings regardless of wither they are current or not as long as the LEGAL PIC is current, correct?

I guess my question should be: is the legal PIC in the right seat considered a passenger? It sounds like they are not a passenger as they are the legal requirement to fly the plane.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I guess my question should be: is the legal PIC in the right seat considered a passenger?

No. Technically the non current control manipulator in the left seat is the passenger.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is there a definition somewhere for "total time" or "pilot time" out there somewhere?

There is no definition for "total time" and no use of that term alone in the FAR's of which I am aware. "Pilot time" is defined in 14 CFR 61.1:

Pilot time means that time in which a person--
(i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember; (ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device; or
(iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.

...and "flight time" in 14 CFR 1.1:

Flight time means:
(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing; or
(2) For a glider without self-launch capability, pilot time that commences when the glider is towed for the purpose of flight and ends when the glider comes to rest after landing.

 

[poadeleted20]

Okay, so if you're current for daytime 3 landings in 90 days but not night current and your buddy who is night current takes the PIC role:

The pilot flying will log and get credit for the night landings regardless of wither they are current or not as long as the LEGAL PIC is current, correct?

Correct.

I guess my question should be: is the legal PIC in the right seat considered a passenger? It sounds like they are not a passenger as they are the legal requirement to fly the plane.

Greg got this part -- the PIC is the required crewmember, and the noncurrent pilot flying is the passenger.

Only exception to this is when the legal PIC is a CFI giving training to the noncurrent pilot flying and nobody else is aboard. In that case, neither of the two is considered a passenger with respect to the other, and the 61.57 landing currency rules do not apply. See the Kortokrax interpretation, which was later extended to cover 61.57(a) general landing currency as well as 61.57(b) night landing currency.

 

[Neil Rubin]

Correct.

How can that be? As I understand it, we are talking about an airplane certificated for single-pilot operations (e.g., a 172), in part 91 operations, nobody under the hood, and nobody in the plane is a CFI. One person is a legal PIC, and the other isn't, because they are out of landing currency.

There can only one required crew member for this operation, and as a legal matter that must be the legal PIC. The person trying to get landing currency may be manipulating the controls, but he is legally a passenger and cannot be a required crew member. Since he's not a required crew member, and neither pilot is a CFI, the out-of-currency pilot doesn't meet the requirements to log pilot time (and thus also can't log flight time or PIC time), under the definition you posted, Ron. Right?

I can't see why he couldn't log the landings and use them for 61.57 currency purposes, but I don't see how he meets the standards to log the time for use toward a rating. There's some logic to this, too. It's one thing to let pilots log landings or approaches while they are out of currency, as this is a way to get back into currency. Letting pilots who are out of currency drone along for hours with other people on board (potentially including passengers in back) and log the time for it without first becoming current, probably isn't a wonderful idea.

Is there some Chief Counsel opinion that suggests otherwise?

 

[TMetzinger]

How can that be? As I understand it, we are talking about an airplane certificated for single-pilot operations (e.g., a 172), in part 91 operations, nobody under the hood, and nobody in the plane is a CFI. One person is a legal PIC, and the other isn't, because they are out of landing currency.

There can only one required crew member for this operation, and as a legal matter that must be the legal PIC. The person trying to get landing currency may be manipulating the controls, but he is legally a passenger and cannot be a required crew member. Since he's not a required crew member, and neither pilot is a CFI, the out-of-currency pilot doesn't meet the requirements to log pilot time (and thus also can't log flight time or PIC time), under the definition you posted, Ron. Right?

I can't see why he couldn't log the landings and use them for 61.57 currency purposes, but I don't see how he meets the standards to log the time for use toward a rating. There's some logic to this, too. It's one thing to let pilots log landings or approaches while they are out of currency, as this is a way to get back into currency. Letting pilots who are out of currency drone along for hours with other people on board (potentially including passengers in back) and log the time for it without first becoming current, probably isn't a wonderful idea.

Is there some Chief Counsel opinion that suggests otherwise?

Go read the regs again, and show me where ACTING as PIC is required to LOG PIC time or flight time.

 

[poadeleted20]

Go read the regs again, and show me where ACTING as PIC is required to LOG PIC time or flight time.

There are more than 30 years of Chief Counsel interpretation letters which point this out, but people still keep asking the question. As Neil is, I think, a lawyer, I would just suggest to him what you did -- read 14 CFR 61.51(e) and see that subparagraph (1)(i) says a pilot rated (or having Sport Pilot privileges) in an aircraft need only be the sole manipulator of the controls, not necessarily acting as PIC, to log PIC time.

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.

(1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
​

And yes, there are about a dozen Chief Counsel letters on this stretching back at least to the Beane letter of 1977.

 

[Neil Rubin]

I actually see that I slightly misread the question that Ron answered "Correct" to. I agree with his answer to the question actually posed: can the sole manipulator log the landings. As for logging the time as pilot time / flight time / PIC time, I'm still not sure I understand how. It seems to me that in the scenario described, nobody gets to log the time, at least until the third landing is completed.

There are more than 30 years of Chief Counsel interpretation letters which point this out, but people still keep asking the question. As Neil is, I think, a lawyer, I would just suggest to him what you did -- read 14 CFR 61.51(e) and see that subparagraph (1)(i) says a pilot rated (or having Sport Pilot privileges) in an aircraft need only be the sole manipulator of the controls, not necessarily acting as PIC, to log PIC time.
And yes, there are about a dozen Chief Counsel letters on this stretching back at least to the Beane letter of 1977.

Yes, I know 61.51(e) well, and am fully aware that you can log PIC without acting as PIC (or even being legal to act as PIC), in certain circumstances. The circumstances that I recall being addressed in Chief Counsel opinions are where either one of the pilots is a CFI or one of the pilots is under the hood. Then, that counts as "flight time" for both pilots, either because the simulated instrument operation has two required crew members or because flight instruction is occurring. Then, as everyone should know by now, a pilot can log pilot time, flight time, and PIC time even if not endorsed, current, etc., so long as the other pilot is a legal PIC.

Here we've got a different scenario. No flight instruction is being given or received, and the operation does not legally require two pilots. The key issue, in my mind, is not 61.51(e) (governing PIC time), but rather 61.1(b)(15) (governing pilot time, of which PIC time is a subset). The non-current pilot (legally a passenger) is not giving or receiving instruction and is not a required crew member, so he does not meet the requirements of 61.1(b)(15). For the purposes of that section, it seems just as if I, as a private pilot, took my non-pilot friend (or even pilot friend who is not rated in category and class) up and let him manipulate the controls. Since I'm not a CFI, he doesn't get to log anything, right? Change the hypothetical to a friend who is an appropriately rated pilot, but not legal to act as PIC (no medical, not current, missing endorsement, no BFR, etc.) and no simulated instrument is involved. How is that any different from the standpoint of 61.1(b)(15)? Certainly nothing in the Beane letter suggests to me that it should be different.

 

[Neil Rubin]

. . . but rather 61.1(b)(15) (governing pilot time, of which PIC time is a subset). . . .

Just to clarify why I say PIC time has to meet the 61.1(b)(15) pilot time definition in order to be loggable:

1.1 says "Flight time means: (1) Pilot time that commences . . . ."

61.1(b)(1) says "Aeronautical experience means pilot time obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device . . . ."

61.1(b)(14) says "Pilot time means that time in which a person (i) Serves as a required pilot flight crew member; [or receives / gives training from / as an authorized instructor]"

61.51 starts out by saying that "Training time and aeronautical experience" must be logged. The regulations that actually require that you have a certain amount of PIC time (e.g. 61.65, 61.67, and 61.129) all refer to it as a form of "aeronautical experience" and a subset of "flight time."

61.51(e) refers to the time in question as "pilot-in-command flight time."

So, from the above, I think it is quite clear that to be usable for obtaining subsequent ratings or Category II/III authorization (which I believe, along with oddball things like warbird LOAs, are the only uses for PIC time as far as the FAA is concerned), the PIC time has to be both "flight time" and "aeronautical experience." The definitions for both of those require that it be "pilot time." "Pilot time" requires that you be a required crew member or that training be going on.

 

[TMetzinger]

I'm glad you think that. You're not correct, but that's ok. Please don't ever become the FAA Chief Counsel.

 

[poadeleted20]

I actually see that I slightly misread the question that Ron answered "Correct" to. I agree with his answer to the question actually posed: can the sole manipulator log the landings. As for logging the time as pilot time / flight time / PIC time, I'm still not sure I understand how. It seems to me that in the scenario described, nobody gets to log the time, at least until the third landing is completed.

Yes, I know 61.51(e) well, and am fully aware that you can log PIC without acting as PIC (or even being legal to act as PIC), in certain circumstances. The circumstances that I recall being addressed in Chief Counsel opinions are where either one of the pilots is a CFI or one of the pilots is under the hood.

In the interpretations about which you seem to be thinking, the question is whether the second pilot not actually flying can log PIC time as well as the pilot actually flying. Yes, for the second, nonflying pilot to log the PIC time, one of the other conditions listed in 61.51(e) for logging PIC time without being the sole manipulator of the controls (like ATP commanding an ATP-required flight, PIC when two pilots are required, or CFI giving flight training) must exist.

But in the regulations and all the interpretations, the only requirements to log PIC time under 61.51(e)(1)(i) are that the pilot involved be the sole manipulator of the controls and be rated (or in an LSA, have Sport Pilot privileges) in that aircraft. The other regulations to which you make reference are all irrelevant, as the Chief Counsel clearly says in the third paragraph of the 1993 Hicks interpretation and repeats in nearly every interpretation on point over the last 20 years.

For more, I would suggest going to the Chief Counsel's legal interpretation web page, and searching on "61.51 PIC logging" -- you'll get a couple of dozen interpretations on point.

 

[EdFred]

If only there were a flowchart somewhere that answered whether or not one could log PIC time or not....

 

[poadeleted20]

If only there were a flowchart somewhere that answered whether or not one could log PIC time or not....

The flow chart isn't the issue here, Ed -- Neil would tell you based on his thinking up to this point that your flow chart is wrong. The problem is that he isn't understanding that logging PIC time under 61.51(e)(1)(i) requires only that you be the sole manipulator of an aircraft in which you are rated or have Sport Pilot privileges, and only that.

 

[tinerj]

And three takeoffs at least an hour after sunset.

As I understand it, both the take-off and landings have to meet that criteria. So if a pilot took off at sundown, then flew for an hour, and then made a landing, that would not count toward the three.

nit, nit, nit, pick, pick, pick

 

[poadeleted20]

As I understand it, both the take-off and landings have to meet that criteria. So if a pilot took off at sundown, then flew for an hour, and then made a landing, that would not count toward the three.

nit, nit, nit, pick, pick, pick

I'll pick even further. It would count toward the three landings, but not the three takeoffs, which are independent events. That pilot could make up for that by taking off an hour before sunrise the next morning.

However, your point is well-taken not only for the reason you posted, but also because of the lack of "takeoffs" columns in most pilot logbooks, especially older ones, which often do not distinguish between day and night landings, no less allow for takeoffs. You're on your own to ensure that is all properly documented.

 

[acrophile]

The problem is that he isn't understanding that logging PIC time under 61.51(e)(1)(i) requires only that you be the sole manipulator of an aircraft in which you are rated or have Sport Pilot privileges, and only that.

Actually, Neil is pointing out an interesting subtlety that I'd never noticed before. His point is that 61.51(e)(1)(i) sets forth the requirements for logging flight time as PIC time. And flight time, in turn, has additional criteria that must be met (such as being a required crew member).

Alternatively, though, the wording of 61.51(e)(1)(i) could be taken to mean that you can log rated-sole-manipulator time as flight time (as well as PIC time) even though it does not meet the definition of flight time stated in 61.1(b). But that interpretation is suspect precisely because it does contradict the stated definition.

I have no doubt that the FAA interprets the reg as you say: the rated sole-manipulator can log PIC time. But for the reason Neil explains, this may be an instance of the FAA interpreting the regs contrary to what the regs actually say.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I actually see that I slightly misread the question that Ron answered "Correct" to. I agree with his answer to the question actually posed: can the sole manipulator log the landings. As for logging the time as pilot time / flight time / PIC time, I'm still not sure I understand how.

The answer, as others have said, is to read 61.51's rules on logging flight time and some of the interpretations.

61.51 creates a series of "boxes" for logging flight time. Fit in a box and you log it; don't fit in a box if you don't. So, take the scenario and, for each pilot, see if it fits in a box or not. It's that straightforward and that simple.

 

[poadeleted20]

Actually, Neil is pointing out an interesting subtlety that I'd never noticed before. His point is that 61.51(e)(1)(i) sets forth the requirements for logging flight time as PIC time. And flight time, in turn, has additional criteria that must be met (such as being a required crew member).

Alternatively, though, the wording of 61.51(e)(1)(i) could be taken to mean that you can log rated-sole-manipulator time as flight time (as well as PIC time) even though it does not meet the definition of flight time stated in 61.1(b). But that interpretation is suspect precisely because it does contradict the stated definition.

I have no doubt that the FAA interprets the reg as you say: the rated sole-manipulator can log PIC time. But for the reason Neil explains, this may be an instance of the FAA interpreting the regs contrary to what the regs actually say.

I just don't see anyone taking the FAA to court saying the FAA shouldn't let them count time they've already logged, and until that happens, the interpretation stands as written.

 

[EdFred]

I always wondered about being current with two 2 night take offs and 3 night landings scenario and a night departure with passengers. There's no regulation saying anyone needs to be certified or current to taxi an airplane. There's no regulation stating high speed taxis must be performed by a certified and current pilot or that a person has to be solo to do so. So, if you're legal to be "un-current" right up to the moment the wheels lift off, and you become current at the exact moment the wheels leave the surface...

 

[midlifeflyer]

I have no doubt that the FAA interprets the reg as you say: the rated sole-manipulator can log PIC time. But for the reason Neil explains, this may be an instance of the FAA interpreting the regs contrary to what the regs actually say.

This isn't the only example of this being the case. Take the safety pilot/PIC situation. The analysis is sound but based on the premise that 91.109(c) makes the Non-Flying PIC a pilot who "acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the ... regulations under which the flight is conducted."

But it's not true. No question that if the flying pilot is PIC, the safety pilot is a required crewmember. But if the safety pilot is PIC, the flying pilot is not a required crewmember at all.

Some of the rules and their interpretations are grounded more in policy than in strict regulator interpretation. Applying a strict legal analysis to them without recognizing that can easily lead to the wrong conclusions.

What has been pretty consistent is that the flight logging rules of 61.51 define the universe of logging flight time independent and regardless of the definition of flight time in 61.1.

 

[poadeleted20]

I always wondered about being current with two 2 night take offs and 3 night landings scenario and a night departure with passengers. There's no regulation saying anyone needs to be certified or current to taxi an airplane. There's no regulation stating high speed taxis must be performed by a certified and current pilot or that a person has to be solo to do so. So, if you're legal to be "un-current" right up to the moment the wheels lift off, and you become current at the exact moment the wheels leave the surface...

Don't bet your ticket on this one. I'm sure the FAA Chief Counsel would say your interpretation is incorrect.

 

[EdFred]

This isn't the only example of this being the case. Take the safety pilot/PIC situation. The analysis is sound but based on the premise that 91.109(c) makes the Non-Flying PIC a pilot who "acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the ... regulations under which the flight is conducted."

But it's not true. No question that if the flying pilot is PIC, the safety pilot is a required crewmember. But if the safety pilot is PIC, the flying pilot is not a required crewmember at all.

Some of the rules and their interpretations are grounded more in policy than in strict regulator interpretation. Applying a strict legal analysis to them without recognizing that can easily lead to the wrong conclusions.

What has been pretty consistent is that the flight logging rules of 61.51 define the universe of logging flight time independent and regardless of the definition of flight time in 61.1.

So? Being sole manipulator has nothing to do with being a required crew member.

 

[poadeleted20]

So? Being sole manipulator has nothing to do with being a required crew member.

Agreed as far as the pilot flying logging PIC time as sole manipulator under 61.51(e)(1)(i). But it has a lot to do with the nonflying PIC/safety pilot being able to log PIC time under 61.51(e)(1)(iii) as the PIC when two pilots are required. However, the Chief Counsel specifically addressed this question in letter interpretations and said it's OK. This was covered most recently in the Trussell interpretation.

 

[stratobee]

The takeoffs and landings must be performed as sole manipulator of the controls, not necessarily as PIC. There is no FAA requirement for a CFI to be involved in regaining currency as long as the noncurrent pilot isn't acting as PIC with a passenger. So, assuming you are fully current and qualified to act as PIC, what you suggest is completely FAA legal.

The only possible problem would be if your insurance requires the PIC to occupy the left seat unless the PIC is a CFI giving training to a named insured. That's not common, but not unknown, either. In that case, you could still get around that by having the PIC in the left seat and the pilot needing currency flying from the right seat.

This is not what was said in the thread I started. There I couldn't bring along anyone - now all of a sudden you can. Exactly what is the difference between my scenario and this?

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68041

 

[EdFred]

I guess I look at it just like any training flight. The instructee isn't required to be in the plane either. Granted the PIC logging for the CFI is under a different section, but that's how I look at it.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is not what was said in the thread I started. There I couldn't bring along anyone - now all of a sudden you can. Exactly what is the difference between my scenario and this?

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68041

The difference in the scenarios is that in your case, the original post asked about an A&P riding along on a post-maintenance flight, and said nothing about the A&P riding along being qualified to be PIC for the flight. Later on, it turned out he wasn't PIC-qualified for the flight with or without passengers. Since the intended flight in that aircraft did not require two pilots, that makes him nothing but a passenger, and since you weren't legal to be PIC with a passenger, that wouldn't be legal.

In this thread, the original post asked about the second seat being occupied by a pilot fully qualified to be PIC and acting as PIC, while the noncurrent pilot flew the plane. That makes the flying pilot the passenger in the FAA's eyes, and since the second pilot is legal to be PIC with a passenger, then it's all kosher.

 

[poadeleted20]

I guess I look at it just like any training flight. The instructee isn't required to be in the plane either. Granted the PIC logging for the CFI is under a different section, but that's how I look at it.

You can look at it any way you want, but if the trainee is "rated" (or has privileges), then unless or the trainee is under the hood, the only way the CFI giving the training can log PIC time is under the 61.51(e)(3) provision for "a certificated flight instructor ... serving as the authorized instructor." The 61.51(e)(1)(iii) provision for "pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required" does not apply to that situation (assuming we're talking a 172 or the like, not a Learjet).

 

[PilotRPI]

Are you sure you want to act as PIC while someone is brushing up on their rusty skills (asking respectfully)? Might I suggest having them go up with an instructor for an hour? It doesn't take that long to get it back, and instructors have experience getting people into shape, and reacting to errors from a "student."

I try and fly regularly. Sometimes, if I don't feel 100% confident, I'll ask the local instructor to go up for a few circuits and bumps. With all we spend on this aviation thing, what is an extra $50?

 

[midlifeflyer]

So? Being sole manipulator has nothing to do with being a required crew member.

Of course not.

Consider:

Can a private pilot take a child up in a 172 and have the child be the sole manipulator of the controls? Under the hood? Does the child thereby become a "required crewmember?"

Can Paul Pilotis suffering under a medical disability with an expired medical keep his skills up to snuff by having his friend go up with him in a 172 and act as PIC while Paul does the flying? Can Paul g under the hood hood? Does the pilot without the medical thereby become "required crewmember."

As you answer them consider the requirements for acting as a required crewmember in a 172 in an operation requiring more than one pilot: Private pilot (see limitations on students and sport pilots) with a current medical (61.3(c))