Whats your interpretation

denverpilot said:
Seriously. Pushed it. Right into a pole. Daylight. Not bad weather. A pole. A pole holding up an t-hangar. With a painted stripe for where the nose wheel belonged and painted stripes for the mains too.
Click to expand...

Well hell Delta taxied a MD88 into a light pole at KBNA years ago. Capt apparently got off the yellow line and did a number on the right wing. I was taxing in one day and it was still there, "Delta" name covered w/ a blue tarp, bunch of trucks and equipment adjacent repairing it. For some reason they didn't move it somewhere else out of view of passengers in other planes and in the terminal, where you could see it from too.
 
Last edited:
:goofy: this thread (and the others like it) is making my head hurt!
 
MAKG1 said:
Yup, we keep running into that problem at CAP. The new pilots all need PIC time, but can't log safety pilot time as PIC for two reasons:

1. Without a Form 5, they can be safety pilot, but are not authorized to act as PIC by the aircraft owner.
2. You need a high performance endorsement to act as PIC in a 182.
Click to expand...

I see anything in the regs that indicates that the FAA cares whether the aircraft owner "authorized" a person to "act" as PIC. It may have some other implications (insurance, other legal problems), but for FAA logging purposes I don't see how it's relevant.
 
bradg33 said:
I see anything in the regs that indicates that the FAA cares whether the aircraft owner "authorized" a person to "act" as PIC. It may have some other implications (insurance, other legal problems), but for FAA logging purposes I don't see how it's relevant.
Click to expand...

It means they aren't acting as PIC, so they can't log it.

If you think you can just control someone else's property contrary to their permission, you might not run afoul of the FAA, but there are a bunch of other agencies that might be interested.
 
MAKG1 said:
It means they aren't acting as PIC, so they can't log it.

If you think you can just control someone else's property contrary to their permission, you might not run afoul of the FAA, but there are a bunch of other agencies that might be interested.
Click to expand...

I think you absolutely can "act" as PIC in an airplane without regard for the owner's permission (assuming the owner isn't the other pilot). In that situation, you can log that time as PIC. You're certainly right that there are other legal implications, but that's not relevant to whether you can log the time under 61.51.
 
Dave Theisen said:
In a climb in VMC conditions, you still have visual cues out the side. That's very different than a moonless night without being able to see any lights. JFK Jr. was legally flying under VFR, but out over the water in the dark without being able to see the lights behind him or the lights on the island, he was definitely in IMC.

Many times I have flown 4-5 hours on an IFR flight plan without logging a minute of IMC.
Click to expand...

Dave,

One does not log IMC, the log book has columns for Instrument - Actual and Instrument - Simulated. In my logbook there is no column for IMC. IMC is defined in the PCG as:

INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS− Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions.
Click to expand...

JFK was in actual instrument conditions, but was VFR in VMC and not IMC. The distinction between actual instrument conditions and simulated instrument conditions is whether or not you can rely on visual means to control the aircraft, if you can't, you must rely on your instruments and you log this as actual instrument time. If you can use visual means to control the aircraft, but are simulating instrument time by virtue of using a view limiting device with a safety pilot, you can log Simulated Instrument time.

One is IMC when 900 feet on top of an overcast with the visibility CAVU.
 
Grum.Man said:
You can't have two pilots be PIC. If only one is instrument rated then he is the only one that can log PIC in IMC.
Click to expand...

But you can have up to 853 pilots logging PIC, because that is the maximum passenger load of the A380. One real PIC, one student FO as sole manipulator, a CFI instructing the FO, a CFI instructing the cfi instructing the FO, a CFI instructing the CFI who is CFI instructing the cfi instructing the FO....

Some days I really miss Ron L.
 
bradg33 said:
I think you absolutely can "act" as PIC in an airplane without regard for the owner's permission (assuming the owner isn't the other pilot). In that situation, you can log that time as PIC. You're certainly right that there are other legal implications, but that's not relevant to whether you can log the time under 61.51.
Click to expand...
True. Most rules tend to go out the window once we are dealing with people who don't care about rules. Someone who steals an airplane is definitely acting as PIC, even if the person is not a pilot at all.

OTOH, it is generally considered bad form to put evidence if a felony in ones logbook. :D:p
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
I don't understand.
Click to expand...
Sorry, my bad - just that I don't dive too deep into the nuance. If I'm right seat VFR, buddy under the hood, I'm logging it, and not researching whether I should, in the knowledge that it's probably "legal" 97.43 percent of the time. If I'm wrong one time in a hundred, so be it. No one is likely to care. Or notice
 
MAKG1 said:
It means they aren't acting as PIC, so they can't log it.

If you think you can just control someone else's property contrary to their permission, you might not run afoul of the FAA, but there are a bunch of other agencies that might be interested.
Click to expand...
Roger, I don't think the FAA cares. Pretty sure CAP's rules aren't relevant for logging time, though. I know I sat safety pilot for CAP colleagues regularly, logged it per FAA, and there were probably at least a few times my Form 5 wasn't current. Not a problem, as I was current for FAA purposes. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Roger, I don't think the FAA cares. Pretty sure CAP's rules aren't relevant for logging time, though. I know I sat safety pilot for CAP colleagues regularly, logged it per FAA, and there were probably at least a few times my Form 5 wasn't current. Not a problem, as I was current for FAA purposes. . .
Click to expand...

Considering if there was an accident or incident the insurance setup would fine everyone on board, and not the FRO, since there's no real chain of responsibility there that actually means anything (the FRO would probably lose that privilege but most FROs I know don't want the job anyway).

Haven't seen an FRO have to pay for a mistake. Have seen people sitting in the back seat have to pay part of an internal insurance claim though. It wasn't as high as the front seaters, but they were held liable for not saying anything.
 
I left CAP a couple-three years ago, so things might have changed. Then again, probably not. I'm thinking the guy in the left seat was current and qualified, CAP and FAA, and I was, as far as FAA was concerned. What I logged wasn't CAPs affair, though if something went sideways while he was under the hood, I imagine CAP would get thier knickers in a knot. Just no issue with the FAA or other non-CAP entity. . .
 
Who logs or agrees to be PIC isn't going to matter come enforcement action. The FAA is going to determine who is PIC on their own by their policy of pursuing enforcement against whomever they can do the most damage to.
 
flyingron said:
Who logs or agrees to be PIC isn't going to matter come enforcement action. The FAA is going to determine who is PIC on their own by their policy of pursuing enforcement against whomever they can do the most damage to.
Click to expand...
You deserve an R&W eye roll for that.
 
Out of curiosity, is there any STC that's ever performed on a 1-pilot airplane that turns into into a 2-pilot-required one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top