Two crew logging question

F

FrankBravo

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 28, 2022
Messages
87
Display Name
Display name:
FrankBravo
I think this is a shade of gray question

We have a pilot who just upgraded to PIC from SIC, two crew aircraft

With my hours I log everything because it’s easy, but I don’t really need the time at this point and am not as well versed in the minutia as I could be

The recently upgraded pilot asked me this question

If I sign the plane out as PIC, I’m listed as PIC on the release
I sit in the right seat
He sits in the left seat and is PF

Could we both log PIC? I know I can because I’m listed as PIC, but could he log PIC as well, and would he log both PIC and SIC?

It’s his logbook and all that nonsense people say, but I really don’t want to end up getting ramped, or some call from the FAA asking about his books, or having to talk about this during his next check ride, since we occasionally fly together, it would be nice to have the reg done and done

Thanks
Frank
 
No gray area at all…
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) Except when logging flight time under § 61.159(c), 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
…

(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted; or
Click to expand...
 
FrankBravo said:
So that would be a yes do dual PIC logging?

Almost reminds me of the old safety pilot dual logging

Normally I just log whatever I am signed out as
Click to expand...

Yes. Note that this only applies because it's a two-crew airplane. If you were flying a 172, it doesn't matter who signed for it, it only matters who is at the controls (ignoring the safety pilot caveats for now).
 
RussR said:
Yes. Note that this only applies because it's a two-crew airplane. If you were flying a 172, it doesn't matter who signed for it, it only matters who is at the controls (ignoring the safety pilot caveats for now).
Click to expand...

Even if one could, I think the shame of logging SIC in a 172 would outweigh the benefits!
 
Thanks for the info everyone

so what would the FAR line and verse be if anyone has it handy

§61.51 (e) (i)?

Could one actually log BOTH sic & pic?
 
Last edited:
FrankBravo said:
Thanks for the info everyone

so what would the FAR line and verse be if anyone has it handy

§61.51 (e) (i)?

Could one actually log BOTH sic & pic?
Click to expand...

I would not log both...

It sounds like it's a two-crew airplane and you're always the acting PIC, correct?

In that case, you would always log PIC under 61.51(e)(1)(iii): "When the pilot... acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft..."

When the newly upgraded guy is your SIC and the Pilot Flying, he can log PIC under 61.51(e)(1)(i): "...when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated..."

When the newly upgraded guy is your SIC and the Pilot Monitoring, he can log SIC under 61.51(f) - either (1) or (2) would apply.

Does the newly upgraded guy ever get to be the acting PIC? If so, reverse the roles above.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I would not log both...

It sounds like it's a two-crew airplane and you're always the acting PIC, correct?

In that case, you would always log PIC under 61.51(e)(1)(iii): "When the pilot... acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft..."

When the newly upgraded guy is your SIC and the Pilot Flying, he can log PIC under 61.51(e)(1)(i): "...when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated..."

When the newly upgraded guy is your SIC and the Pilot Monitoring, he can log SIC under 61.51(f) - either (1) or (2) would apply.

Does the newly upgraded guy ever get to be the acting PIC? If so, reverse the roles above.
Click to expand...

Why couldn’t he log SIC as well since he’s signed as the SIC?
 
FrankBravo said:
Why couldn’t he log SIC as well since he’s signed as the SIC?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, maybe he can... But if one logs both PIC and SIC, one opens oneself up to a lot of questions.

Besides, there is no value in logging both PIC and SIC. There are no ratings or privileges that require SIC time. SIC time only really exists for the purpose of logging total time.
 
That being said. If his/her goal is the airlines, most of them do not want "sole manipulator PIC" listed on their applications. They specifically use the definition of who signed for the aircraft.
 
KaiGywer said:
That being said. If his/her goal is the airlines, most of them do not want "sole manipulator PIC" listed on their applications. They specifically use the definition of who signed for the aircraft.
Click to expand...


With our mins anyone who wanted to go airlines could have, the airlines could also only ask for time logged in planes painted purple, I’m only concerned about what’s legal per the FAR to log
 
FrankBravo said:
Why couldn’t he log SIC as well since he’s signed as the SIC?
Click to expand...

Technically you can as long as you're not trying to use it to appear like you have more time than you do - there's even a Chief Counsel interpretation that says just that.

But why on earth would you want to do this? Have a flight that says 1.0 PIC, 1.0 SIC, 1.0 Total? Just causing confusion for no benefit. Who cares are SIC time if you can log PIC?
 
RussR said:
Technically you can as long as you're not trying to use it to appear like you have more time than you do - there's even a Chief Counsel interpretation that says just that.

But why on earth would you want to do this? Have a flight that says 1.0 PIC, 1.0 SIC, 1.0 Total? Just causing confusion for no benefit. Who cares are SIC time if you can log PIC?
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that interpretation, it would be nice to email our CP and CC myself just in case

This was my recommendation to him, I figured if he ever had to “un do” it this would make it easier to find the flights, maybe just ”§61.51(e)(1)(i)” in the comments of the flight.

Does not matter, if he legally can log it thats is all I care about, the ball is 100% out of my court

Thank you all
 
Last edited:
I fly for a major carrier. I’m a Captain, so always log PIC. I have absolutely no idea what my FO is logging, and I truly don’t care. We swap legs, but not seats. I’m not qualified in the right, and he’s not qualified in the left.
Regardless, it doesn’t matter. He will upgrade via company protocol, not how he logged time. If he wants to move on and show his log, the new carrier will laugh at him, and perhaps not hire him just because he logged that time.
Legality? Not sure it matters at that point in the game.
 
Kritchlow said:
I fly for a major carrier. I’m a Captain, so always log PIC. I have absolutely no idea what my FO is logging, and I truly don’t care. We swap legs, but not seats. I’m not qualified in the right, and he’s not qualified in the left.
Regardless, it doesn’t matter. He will upgrade via company protocol, not how he logged time. If he wants to move on and show his log, the new carrier will laugh at him, and perhaps not hire him just because he logged that time.
Legality? Not sure it matters at that point in the game.
Click to expand...


We are not 121

We have more facets we have to work here, “it’s not my job” doesn’t equate to much long term viability, some of the freedoms many 135s and 91s offer do come at a price, thinking outside of one’s perceived station is our version of 121s seniority

As long as what is logged is legal, everyone here will back it if asked by another company, his promotion in the company however will be based on more than policy or what’s in his logs
 
Last edited:
FrankBravo said:
We are not 121

We have more facets we have to work here, “it’s not my job” doesn’t equate to much long term viability, some of the freedoms many 135s and 91s offer do come at a price, thinking outside of one’s perceived station is our version of 121s seniority
Click to expand...
Well I’m sure you know your company’s policies and situations better than most here.
That said, as you inferred, he’s not looking to move to airlines so I really doubt it matters.
 
Kritchlow said:
Well I’m sure you know your company’s policies and situations better than most here.
That said, as you inferred, he’s not looking to move to airlines so I really doubt it matters.
Click to expand...

I just wanted a opinion on what’s legal

If the airlines don’t like the FAR as far as logging, why are they talking to applicants when they should be complaining to congressmen?

None the less, not my concern what the airlines do
 
FrankBravo said:
I just wanted a opinion on what’s legal

If the airlines don’t like the FAR as far as logging, why are they talking to applicants when they should be complaining to congressmen?

None the less, not my concern what the airlines do
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was never really an expert on the whole logging thing. I just know airlines don’t care much about that sole manipulator thing. They look for decision making experience.
 
Kritchlow said:
Yeah, I was never really an expert on the whole logging thing. I just know airlines don’t care much about that sole manipulator thing. They look for decision making experience.
Click to expand...

That has not been my experience


Again, not my monkey not my circus


We have had ex airline guys who were now responsible for much more command issues, W&B planning fueling and so on, many did not work out
 
FrankBravo said:
That has not been my experience


Again, not my monkey not my circus
Click to expand...
Okay… well, there are some seriously knowledgeable folks here (some already responded) that can answer your specific questions much better than me.

Fly safe
 
Kritchlow said:
Okay… well, there are some seriously knowledgeable folks here (some already responded) that can answer your specific questions much better than me.

Fly safe
Click to expand...

I got the answer I was looking for


Good bit of knowledge on this site
 
Previously I was a Captain for a scheduled 135 carrier and am now a Captain for a 91K Company. At both places I have occassionally been assigned as the SIC and have flown with another Captain and when it happened I just logged the entire time as SIC, even on the legs wher I was PF. There are major airlines, Southwest being one, where they state when putting in your PIC time only put in the time that you signed for the aircraft, or seved as an instructor. Those airlines don't consider sole manipulator time to be PIC.
 
FrankBravo said:
If the airlines don’t like the FAR as far as logging, why are they talking to applicants when they should be complaining to congressmen?
Click to expand...

Any company can have whatever hiring practices and requirements they want. If they only want to count PIC time that you obtained while wearing red underwear or on days with a lunar eclipse, that's up to them. Doesn't mean it's not all valid PIC time, they just are only interested in a subset of it.
 
FrankBravo said:
Do you have a link to that interpretation, it would be nice to email our CP and CC myself just in case
Click to expand...

I would, but the FAA interpretation website search function seems to not be working. Even obvious searches aren't returning any results.
 
Kritchlow said:
As noted in other sections, that is a good chart for part 91, but not necessarily 135 or 121.
Click to expand...
It's a accurate chart for the FAA under Part 61 which is independent from any of the operational Parts. It's not necessarily what a an employer (even a Part 91 employer) wants to see, but that just means, see what the employer wants and query the data to provide it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It's a accurate chart for the FAA under Part 61 which is independent from any of the operational Parts. It's not necessarily what a an employer (even a Part 91 employer) wants to see, but that just means, see what the employer wants and query the data to provide it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I worded my statement incorrectly, but it is not accurate for a two crew operation.
As a pt 121 Capt, if I let the FO fly the leg, according to that chart I cannot log PIC.
I think that’s sort of covered in the ATP notation on the chart.
 
Kritchlow said:
Perhaps I worded my statement incorrectly, but it is not accurate for a two crew operation.
As a pt 121 Capt, if I let the FO fly the leg, according to that chart I cannot log PIC.
I think that’s sort of covered in the ATP notation on the chart.
Click to expand...
That notation refers to recreational, etc pilots, CFIs too.

Can you point to the relevant Part 121 logging regulations that are different?
 
I don’t think that chart isn’t accurate because it’s 91, it’s not accurate because it appears to pertain to single pilot aircraft operations
 
midlifeflyer said:
That notation refers to recreational, etc pilots, CFIs too.

Can you point to the relevant Part 121 logging regulations that are different?
Click to expand...
Greg Bockelman said:
He can’t because it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Follow along…

At least a private pilot —> yes
Rated in aircraft —> yes
Sole manipulator —> no
Acting safety pilot —> no
= You May not log PIC

…. yet I’m the captain of the airliner who signed for the plane. I just happened to give the FO the leg.

Call it 91 vs 121, single crew vs two crew, ATP vs PP, or whatever. I may be using the wrong verbiage on that point.

Perhaps we are talking about two different things here…??
 
FrankBravo said:
I don’t think that chart isn’t accurate because it’s 91, it’s not accurate because it appears to pertain to single pilot aircraft operations
Click to expand...
That’s probably a closer description to the point I’m trying to make.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
He can’t because it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Im not saying there’s a cut out in 121 for special logging, but rather the chart is not absolute for all operations. You yourself have admitted that in the past.
 
That is what I was trying to point out with the disclaimer. That chart was never intended to cover ALL possible scenarios.
 
Kritchlow said:
Perhaps we are talking about two different things here…??
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I'm only discussing the FAA's logging rules, not what you or I or an employer want them to be. I thought that was clear from my earlier comment but perhaps not.

I have my own issue with the chart but not about this. Yes, the chart makes it clear it is not discussing the rules about logging that may be different for recreational & sport (e.g., can't log PIC based on being PIC is a multi-pilot crew, 61.51(e)(1)(iii)), CFIs (e.g. may also log PIC anytime acting as CFI, 61.51(e)(3), and ATPs (e.g. may also log PIC any time acting as PIC in a op that requires an ATP, 61.51(e)(2)). All those additions and exceptions would make for a very cluttered chart.

OTOH, that does not mean the rules it lays out don't apply to ATPs at all or that ATPs can't log all the ones the chart does mention. They can. After all, 61.51(e) begins with, "A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights..." with no restriction on an ATP's authority to log PIC as sole manipulator based on whether they do or do not "sign for the aircraft." I only asked whether you can point to one which does restrict it. I'll even accept an OpSpec that restricts logging FAA flight time in that way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top