azure
Final Approach
Okay, thanks, that's all I was asking for. No need to get insulting.
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
Your belief is wrong. Mr. IFR cannot log time. As discussed here numerous times, acting PIC and logging PIC are different concepts.
The answer is not complicated or pedantic, but is pretty straightforward. Under 61.51(e)(1), the only time a person can log PIC is when (i) they are sole manipulator, (ii) they are solo, or (iii) they are acting PIC of a flight that requires more than one pilot.
More than one pilot is not required until Mr. VFR wears a hood. Mr. IFR cannot log any time while Mr. VFR is sole manipulator not wearing a hood...
...unless he is a CFiI, as 61.51(e)(3) allows a CFI to log PIC time whenever they are acting as an authorized instructor and qualified to act as PIC.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I get this part, while Mr.VFR's hood is on more than one pilot is required, and if the two agree that Mr.IFR is acting PIC then he can log that time.. but, to clarify the point below:
..what if you are in the clouds, or even outside of the clouds, but on an IFR clearance. Isn't Mr.IFR then becoming a required crew member since he is technically the only one that can accept that IFR clearance (assuming he is current and rated)?
The operation doesn't "require more than one pilot" under the type certification or the regulations. Mr. IFR is the only required crewmember at that point. Alas if Mr. VFR is still manipulating the controls, then Mr. IFR can't log anything. There's no provision in 61.51 for logging PIC just because you are PIC (or as I like to say, being PIC is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to log it).
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
It's not a matter of WHO is required, it's a matter of HOW MANY. The question you need to ask is, "does this operation require more than one pilot?" The answer is no. Mr. IFR cannot log the time above.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Last edited:
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
.. thanks, seems odd since Mr.VFR may be under the hood and have no idea they are in the clouds, and he is still sole manipulator
At the start of this thread I thought it was indicated that they can both log full time, since the OP's situation was pretty much identical to my example
*so in my example Mr.IFR was acting PIC.
*So, doesn't this mean that if Mr.IFR was acting PIC of an IFR flight he gets to log the time.. AND, so does Mr.VFR since they were sole manipulator?
*who gets to log the actual instrument time though? The sole manipulating non IR rated pilot? Or the acting PIC for the IR clearance but no manipulating the controls?
I guess stated another way. In scenario B, do you log 1.6 or 2 hrs as safety?
Scenario A: You go flying for 2 hrs.. your buddy is under the hood for 1.6. Typically if this was all VFR the left seat logs the full 2 hrs, and the right seat safety pilot can log the 1.6 (but no landing or XC time, etc., and can only log the 1.6 if both agree that while under the hood he is acting PIC).. what happens though if instead:
Scenario B: You go flying for 2 hrs.. your buddy is under the hood for 1.6.. but the whole 2 hr flight was conducted under instrument flight rules with a clearance, and all the approaches flown were cleared approaches, with some say 0.7 actual mixed in.. Does the right instrument rated safety pilot now get to log the full 2 hrs, plus the 0.7 actual, and the approaches, or is it still just the 1.6 as above?
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
lol sorry! Just want trying to full wrap my head around it and understand its real world applicability.
Thanks @dmspilot pilot, the clarification over "how many is required" vs "who is required" helped. So can you "get around" that by just leaving him under the hood while you go through actual IMC?
Last question, in addition to the post above.. I promise! I owe you guys all beers or something
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Read the link I quoted in my edited post. I covered the whole acting/logging thing in quite a bit of detail. Lazy ass mods wouldn't sticky that thread though.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Thanks... so basically, even if you were acting PIC, you can't always log it.. only when two crew members are required
From the example above I can only log the 1.6hrs that my buddy was under the hood, and that's it. My buddy can log the full 2 since he was sole manipulator the whole time. IFR clearances, IMC, VMC, etc., don't matter.. you were still acting PIC but can't log it unless the flight requires two pilots and you agreed to act as PIC or you were sole manipulator. Granted, if there is a pilot deviation during any of that 2 hr flight, technically it is the acting PIC who gets burned then throughout the duration of that 2 hr flight
Got it. I think that's what DMS pilot was also getting at. Still strange to me that a VFR only pilot can log the time in actual IMC without a CFI in the right seat and without the IR rated safety pilot logging any of that time or flying the plane.. but I guess if he is acting PIC he is assuming responsibility
Anyway, thanks
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Yep. That's the way the regs be written.
azure
Final Approach
The sole manipulating non IR rated pilot, and only that pilot... as long as the pilot flying is not wearing a hood.
Yes, it DOES sound crazy. But them's the regs.
As I said in my post, being pilot in command is not a necessary or sufficient condition to log it.
There are a couple of ways (sole manipulator, giving instruction) that you can log it if you are not pilot in command.
The only two ways you can log pilot in command because you are pilot in command require additional conditions (sole occupant of the aircraft, sole manipulator and rated, ATP in operations requiring an ATP).
The law has been refined and tweaked over the years, but the essence hasn't changed (it used to be ATPs could always log PIC even in part 91-only operations when the were PIC. There used to be a riddle about how many people you could get logging pIC at the same time).
Yes, I just say "is the PIC" not "acting"
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
No. Nothing about being the acting PIC allows you to log the time.
Neither.
So are the FARs.
Mr. IFR can log the time that Mr. VFR is under the hood, since he's now pilot in command with two crew required.
Scenario A:
Mr. VFR logs 2.0 flight time, 2.0 PIC, 1.6 simulated instrument, all approaches, landings and XC.
Mr. IFR logs 1.6 flight time, 1.6 PIC if he was acting PIC for the flight (1.6 SIC otherwise), and that's it.
Scenario B:
Mr. VFR logs 2.0 flight time, 2.0 PIC, 0.9 simulated instrument, 0.7 actual instrument, all approaches, landings, and XC.
Mr. IFR logs 1.6 flight time, 1.6 PIC, and that's it.
I know there's an official interpretation that XC cannot be logged by the safety pilot. I believe the same is true of approaches in actual with the sole manipulator under the hood, since the safety pilot isn't actually flying the approach.
And there are still scenarios where anywhere from zero to three people can log PIC.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
There's a letter out there that indicated at least one person may log PIC if 61.51 isnt met.
Really? The only thing that ever espoused that crazy view I recall was John Lynch, and nothing he wrote on the subject had any official merit (in fact, they roundly disavowed all he wrote).
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Which crazy view?
Ed is right, the "zero" scenario, where for example a private pilot takes his friend up and lets the friend be the sole manipulator, while the letter of the law still reads that way, doesn't really exist any more since there is a letter of interpretation stating that the pilot may still log that time that the non-rated friend is manipulating the controls.
Many scenarios for one logging PIC. For two logging PIC, it can be in a multi-crew operation where the SIC is sole manipulator or the safety pilot scenario. For three, it's a two-crew-required where there is a captain (acting PIC) under 61.51(e)(1)(iii) or (e)(2), a rated FO who is sole manipulator under (e)(1)(i), and one or both of them are receiving instruction from an appropriately rated instructor who logs PIC under (e)(3). Fun!
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
From what I recall it was pre-Lynch days. 1978 rings a bell for some reason
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Have you got solid aviation examples for this? It certainly hasn't been my experience.
azure
Final Approach
Nor mine personally, but that has been the conventional wisdom, and they certainly have strong financial incentive to avoid payouts.
Actually, there was a thread recently on BeechTalk in which folks were asked to relate stories of aviation insurers refusing to pay a claim. 33 posts with the usual thread drift. Only one example (mine) was mentioned.
Beware of using other, larger market, insurance as an example.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think it’s an OWT perpetrated by some insurance companies (Avemco comes to mind) to get you to choose them over another insurance company that ‘might not pay’.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Avemco actually will send out in their newsletter maybe once a year or so, a list of things they refused to cover and why. Good education to avoid doing those things.
denverpilot
Tied Down
“Here’s all the reasons why that money you send us, could be worthless, thanks to our lawyers who carefully craft our policies...”
LOL. Seems like a super crappy marketing plan.
Not to mention, who needs a “newsletter” from an insurance company? Save the printing costs there kids, and the paper. LOL.
If EXISTING customers need education on the product they purchased, that’s just pitiful. Read the damn policy before you sign it.
azure
Final Approach
A former poster (who now goes by the handle poadeleted20) used to post frequently about the dangers of doing things contrary to technicalities in the regs because your insurance might not pay out in the event of bent metal even if the violation had nothing to do with the incident. If it's an OWT, it's one that dies hard. I certainly would not try to convince another pilot that he has nothing to worry about, even if I myself might not be all that concerned. After all, it's his airplane.
That's one of the thing different from state to stat. In some states, the technicality is a basis for denial; in others the technicality had to be a cause.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, Mr. Curmudgeon - It's an EMAIL newsletter.
It actually has reasonably useful safety articles and such. And I'm glad to have seen the article on denials too, it was quite interesting.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,021
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
That would be the Beane letter... 1977
And how does that support the assertion that you can log PIC just because nobody else is?
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,021
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
"Also, a pilot, rated in category and class (e.g. airplane single-engine) could, as the pilot who "Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight" log PIC time if another pilot, not appropriately rated, was actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft."
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
IMO it doesn't. Apparently the Chief Counsel didn't understand the meaning of the word "only".
denverpilot
Tied Down
Well, Mr. Curmudgeon - It's an EMAIL newsletter.
It actually has reasonably useful safety articles and such. And I'm glad to have seen the article on denials too, it was quite interesting.
Because data centers sending out useless newsletters use less resources than paper printing... uhhhh... right. LOL.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,021
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
I should also point out, that while I have been aware of yea olde Beane letter for many years, I have never seen, nor am I aware of anyone who has claimed to actually have seen, an actual copy of the signed original.
sarangan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,904
- Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
Its like saying a lawyer is "practicing" law.