Whats your interpretation

OK now for another idea up to interpretation. In the FAR'S the prerequisite for an instrument rating is the pilot must fly 40 hrs of simulated or actual instrument 15 of which must be with a CFII. So the term "actual" would lead me to believe that as long as there is a instrument rated pilot in the aircraft it would be legal for the VFR rated pilot to log PIC sole manipulator and the instrument rated pilot to log PIC as he would be legal to pick up a clearance in actual IMC condititions . I'm thinking this would be a good question for the general counsel.
 
Last edited:
That's how I've always done it.

With most of my career spent flying in S FL, it was usually a tenth here and a tenth there.
Yep. SoCal pilots tend to be the same way.
.1 on the climb out and .1 on the approach through the marine layer.

At least 50% of my 1000 hours have been in the IFR system and I've only got a little over 50 hours of actual.
 
Ok, now that we are finally on the same page, and I know what the heck we are talking about. . .

Actually, there was an FAA opinion on this at one time. I can't remember if it was official or not but it addressed Tim's scenario. That opinion was that on a moonless overcast night with no discernible horizon, a pilot could in fact log that as actual instrument conditions. Somebody had a letter from the feds to that effect. I can't remember if it was Ron Levy or Mark Kobler that had it.

Greg, I believe this is the letter you are referring to.

November 7, 1984

Mr. Joseph P. Carr


Dear Mr. Carr:

This is in response to your letter asking questions about instrument flight time.

First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as actual instrument flight time.


[unrelated portion snipped]


As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions.


To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot. Note that, under Section 61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should include the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate.


[unrelated portion snipped]


Sincerely,

/s/

John H. Cassady

Assistant Chief counsel

Regulations and Enforcement Division
 
OK now for another idea up to interpretation. In the FAR'S the prerequisite for an instrument rating is the pilot must fly 40 hrs of simulated or actual instrument 15 of which must be with a CFII. So the term "actual" would lead me to believe that as long as there is a instrument rated pilot in the aircraft it would be legal for the VFR rated pilot to log PIC sole manipulator and the instrument rated pilot to log PIC as he would be legal to pick up a clearance in actual IMC condititions . I'm thinking this would be a good question for the general counsel.

Why will no one read the reg? 14 CFR 61.51(e). There is no clause in there that allows an acting PIC to log PIC in an operation that requires only one pilot. It requires sole manipulation.

It would be a TERRIBLE question for counsel, as it has been asked and answered a billion times already. The reg is also pretty clear on it.
 
Right...no "interpretation" required. Read the reg, it's very clear, and the FAA has never contradicted that clarity.
 
Yep, with the exception of the rather exacerbating John Lynch (now thankfully no longer employed at the FAA), nobody in an official capacity at the FAA has said that the rules here mean anything other than what they explicitly say (quite refreshing). If the FAA wanted you to log PIC just because you are PIC, they'd have written it that way. Being PIC has never been a necessary nor sufficient condition to log PIC.
 
OK now for another idea up to interpretation. In the FAR'S the prerequisite for an instrument rating is the pilot must fly 40 hrs of simulated or actual instrument 15 of which must be with a CFII. So the term "actual" would lead me to believe that as long as there is a instrument rated pilot in the aircraft it would be legal for the VFR rated pilot to log PIC sole manipulator and the instrument rated pilot to log PIC as he would be legal to pick up a clearance in actual IMC condititions . I'm thinking this would be a good question for the general counsel.
To echo @MAKG1, why would you ask the FAA Chief Counsel a question that has already been answered? More than once. And that you would read ia new one if you haven't read the others?

Here's the most recent one, the 2011 Walker Interpretation. Notice it even says it's been answered before. The earliest I know of was actually in 1980.

The answer is the same as 90%+ of all logging flight time questions (it's probably closer to 99% but I'm feeling conservative today): If you fit into a 61.51 box, you log the applicable time. If you don't fit into a 61.51 box, you log nothing. So, as the interpretation says, the non-insturment-rated pilot logs PIC because his activity fits under 61.51(e)(1)(i); the instrumentd rated pilot logs nothing because there is no 61.51 box his activity fits in.
 
The answer is the same as 90%+ of all flogging flight time questions (it's probably closer to 99% but I'm feeling conservative today): If you fit into a 61.5p box, you log the applicable time. If you don't fit into a 61.51 box, you log nothing. So, as the interpretation says, the non-insturment-rated pilot logs PIC because his activity fits under 61.51(e)(1)(i); the instrumentd rated pilot logs nothing because there is no 61.51 box his activity fits in.
FTFY. :D
 
Yep, with the exception of the rather exacerbating John Lynch (now thankfully no longer employed at the FAA), nobody in an official capacity at the FAA has said that the rules here mean anything other than what they explicitly say (quite refreshing). If the FAA wanted you to log PIC just because you are PIC, they'd have written it that way. Being PIC has never been a necessary nor sufficient condition to log PIC.
That's mostly true but there have been a few interpretations of Part 61 logging rules that don't really stand the "just read the reg" test.
 
Last edited:
To fly IFR the airplane must be equipped and the pilot be rated and current. Idc how you spin it you cannot log IFR time with only a VFR license.
did you not bother to read the link i gave you? it says you are WRONG and it IS the legal interpretation by the FAA. YOU ARE WRONG!

bob
 
This is one of R&W's so called "mental masturbation" threads.
 
did you not bother to read the link i gave you? it says you are WRONG and it IS the legal interpretation by the FAA. YOU ARE WRONG!

bob
Don't get frustrated about it. I'm guessing reading it wouldn't matter. It's always next to impossible to combat "belief" with "reality."

In fact, why even read something that might show on'es beliefs are incorrect?
 
I imagine that if it was attached to one of his posts, it can be searched for. Unless, of course, he edited it out of any post he may have made.
I'm pretty sure it was part of his signature block. When that changes, it changes in all posts, even old ones.
 
I took the chart down because no one read it before asking these questions anyway. Hell I even wrote a huge explanation of what PIC is, and the difference between acting and logging but the lazy MC wouldn't bother to make that a sticky either. So I pulled it down.


If you want it back tell the MC to get off their lazy asses and hit the damn sticky button
 
I imagine that if it was attached to one of his posts, it can be searched for. Unless, of course, he edited it out of any post he may have made.

The URL returned a 404 a few days ago. I was asking him if it's fixed. Or moved to a new server. Or whatever. Google results go to a dead link. I haven't checked it today.
 
I took the chart down because no one read it before asking these questions anyway. Hell I even wrote a huge explanation of what PIC is, and the difference between acting and logging but the lazy MC wouldn't bother to make that a sticky either. So I pulled it down.


If you want it back tell the MC to get off their lazy asses and hit the damn sticky button
Can you put the damn chart back up so that I can click the damn sticky button? Can't click it if it doesn't exist.
 
I think I solved logging for all time - If It's dark, I log night. If flying by refernce to instruments, it's IFR. Under the hood, it's simulated IFR. If I'm flying, it's PIC. And when safety pilot, too.

That aligns 97.31 percent of my scenarios with the regs. For the remaining 2.69 percent, I suspect the FAA doesn't care. . .
 
The same scenario shows up when taking instruction for an HP, complex, tailwheel, or instrument rating. Presumably, you're the sole manipulator (or there is something wrong with the instruction), so you log PIC for all of it. As long as it's in a single engine land plane under 12,500 lb with a prop. It doesn't work, however, with seaplanes, multis, jets, heavy aircraft, or gliders -- or student pilots -- until after your checkride.
What about an amphibian if you take off from land, and land on the water.....? :eek:
 
Never ceases to amaze me at how people interpret the FAR's if they did read them or how many instructors out there don't have a clue and unfortunately pass bad info onto their students. Being PIC and acting PIC has always been debated.

Timwinters -- regarding your scenario of dark night flying by instruments due to lack of horizon -- you can definitely log as actual instrument time. I use to take my instrument students out over the ocean at night with no moon heading east out of Central Florida when too much Chamber of Commerce weather interfered with getting my students actual time. Great for spatial disorientation, too! Throw in some "put your head down and I have the airplane" unusual attitudes and you have the makings for some interesting recoveries. I think this kind of flying actually was more intimidating than under the hood.
 
Timwinters -- regarding your scenario of dark night flying by instruments due to lack of horizon -- you can definitely log as actual instrument time. I use to take my instrument students out over the ocean at night with no moon heading east out of Central Florida when too much Chamber of Commerce weather interfered with getting my students actual time. Great for spatial disorientation, too! Throw in some "put your head down and I have the airplane" unusual attitudes and you have the makings for some interesting recoveries. I think this kind of flying actually was more intimidating than under the hood.
Reminds me of the night I had to resort to instruments to correct an unusual attitude I got into in good VFR weather west of Phoenix. I could see lots of lights on the ground, but my brain just couldn't make sense of what I was seeing until I got the wings level again!
 
Reminds me of the night I had to resort to instruments to correct an unusual attitude I got into in good VFR weather west of Phoenix. I could see lots of lights on the ground, but my brain just couldn't make sense of what I was seeing until I got the wings level again!

One can get a very powerful illusion approaching Miami from the NW at night.

The lights of either Alligator Alley or Tamiami Trail can be mistaken for a false horizon, leading to a bad case of the leans as you try to square up with them. It snuck up on me more than once and was a bit unnerving.
 
I think I solved logging for all time - If It's dark, I log night. If flying by refernce to instruments, it's IFR. Under the hood, it's simulated IFR. If I'm flying, it's PIC. And when safety pilot, too.

That aligns 97.31 percent of my scenarios with the regs. For the remaining 2.69 percent, I suspect the FAA doesn't care. . .
Yep, that's going to be true for most, except there may be folks who are in various situations where their safety pilot time can't be logged as PIC.
 
Log-all-the-things.png
 
Yep, that's going to be true for most, except there may be folks who are in various situations where their safety pilot time can't be logged as PIC.
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.
 
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.

No instructors who'll combine both an initial Form 5 and the endorsement?! (After some dual anyway...) Or endorse, then Form 5?

The above doesn't seem to be much of a real problem unless your instructors aren't willing.

Maybe I'm forgetting something? But I don't recall that being a problem around here.

We did however have some low time pilots I wouldn't have been too happy riding along as an Observer or Scanner with and might never have if I was still doing that stuff. One pushed an airplane into a pole.

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.
 
No instructors who'll combine both an initial Form 5 and the endorsement?! (After some dual anyway...) Or endorse, then Form 5?

The above doesn't seem to be much of a real problem unless your instructors aren't willing.

Maybe I'm forgetting something? But I don't recall that being a problem around here.

We did however have some low time pilots I wouldn't have been too happy riding along as an Observer or Scanner with and might never have if I was still doing that stuff. One pushed an airplane into a pole.

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.
The problem is on the mend at the moment, but there is a distinct shortage of CAP instructors in the Group, and a glut of new pilots. An instructor will easily combine Form 5 and endorsement or flight review, if you can get his time for free. We have no less than seven in the squadron, with zero 182 time, and only one instructor, and a G1000 airplane for which CAP requires an unobtainable ground school. Fortunately, they are all quite interested in ES, so I'm working them through scanner training. This will improve shortly, since we've also found a gung-ho CFII, who is working on his CAP instructor approval, and another senior pilot in a neighboring squadron who just spent 7 weeks at ATP in Vegas pounding out more ratings than you can shake a stick at, including CFI and CFII.
 
The problem is on the mend at the moment, but there is a distinct shortage of CAP instructors in the Group, and a glut of new pilots. An instructor will easily combine Form 5 and endorsement or flight review, if you can get his time for free. We have no less than seven in the squadron, with zero 182 time, and only one instructor, and a G1000 airplane for which CAP requires an unobtainable ground school. Fortunately, they are all quite interested in ES, so I'm working them through scanner training. This will improve shortly, since we've also found a gung-ho CFII, who is working on his CAP instructor approval, and another senior pilot in a neighboring squadron who just spent 7 weeks at ATP in Vegas pounding out more ratings than you can shake a stick at, including CFI and CFII.

We always had a shortage of instructors also, but it mostly had to do with nobody in the Wing being willing to appoint any more. There were qualified CFIs who couldn't get past whatever fake gauntlets someone was making them run through. Every once in a while some wonder child who was a CAP instructor from another Wing would move to town and instantly be appointed, which was downright weird.

Seven pilots waiting on instructors is nothing though. We had dozens who'd fly but weren't progressing much due to time and schedule constrained people including the few instructors. One year the instructors passed out lists of people waiting on checkrides and such and divvy'd up the lists and said they'd get everyone on their list finished up. They about killed themselves but they got about 80% done. And then a bunch of them had life happen and just left. A lot of effort by the instructors wasted. They went back to their old ways of helping whoever was the most persistent and would show up anytime.

Weekdays were always easy with a couple of the instructors who were retired and didn't have day jobs. That was by far the easiest way to get stuff done. Call them up and show up on a Tuesday morning and you'd be done long before the weekend warriors.

As far as the ground school goes, those same instructors asked for and got permission to teach that Cessna course as a group ground activity on a couple of back to back weekends. CAP had legitimate access to all of the materials and one of them had been to the factory for the class so his signature went on everyone's forms. But he enlisted help from the other instructors to do portions of the class teaching under his "supervision" with permission from the powers that be. Worked pretty well. Folks who needed the course had to commit to show up for the whole thing though.

Don't burn out that new CFII. That happens a lot in that organization. That or they do it until the logbook has enough hours to apply for a job that takes them out of town, and poof, they're gone. Similar to FBOs that way, I guess. But they have to do it for free.

I've toyed with going back with my ratings someday, but I also hear the current crop of CFIs whining that they're buried in students around here, at least right now.

I don't care about the money but students who are paying for ratings seem to be a little less flaky about showing up (kinda... A trend anyway) than some of the stories of CAP pilots not bothering to even call and cancel with some of our CFIs a few years ago.

"Free" apparently meant "disrespect my time" to a small number of idiots who didn't realize what a deal they were getting.

And teaching outside of CAP is a whole hell of a lot less paperwork. Even if most of that has moved online these days. Less messing around, more teaching, is how I look at it.

Guess we'll see what tomorrow brings. It'd be nice to extend my desire to "give back" to that organization, but man that organization also had an impressive way of wasting a LOT of my time.

I always joked it was an organizational structure not built like a typical lean and mean volunteer non-profit or charitable company, but like the military, who had butter bars galore to throw at paperwork 5 days a week.

The paperwork alone ate up at least two or three full workdays a month for me when I was a Comm Officer and a Wing Assistant DC. Unbelievable for an organization meant to be operated by people in their spare time. And that didn't count meetings, or special events, or major training events or...

Once I moved to the boonies I simply couldn't attend all the stuff I was supposed to attend. And when I did, so little actually got done, it became impossible to allow that much time to be wasted.

Just the flipping mandatory safety briefings were enough of a waste of time right there.

I'd lose an entire session of having all the right people in a room where I could move them along in their training or whatever paperwork hassles they needed help or signatures with, blown to sitting there listening to someone talk about buying proper snow tires for my truck. Or whatever stupid topic filled the time.

And the freaking audits of gear... Every freaking year.

Yes I know who has the equipment.

Yes I have a recent photo of the thing.

Yes there's one broken antenna on a radio we never use, never will, and I can't get anyone to dispose of it properly.

Yes I'll take the damned ding on it, I'm a volunteer and I really stopped caring about three hours ago. It's a useless piece of trash that nobody can get off the books.

Write whatever the hell you want on the audit form, it's 30 minutes to midnight and I'm done and going home.

LOL.
 
One of my Air Force buddies told me:

1. File what you want.
2. Fly what you get.
3. Log what you need.
 
True, but not to log PIC time.

As long as they are rated ASEL and sole manipulator of the controls, they can log the time. Right?
This sub-thread deals with safety pilots, who (1) are not manipulating the controls and (2) must be acting as PIC in order to log PIC.
@MAKG1 gave a perfect example. Others are safety pilot in the flying pilot's personal airplane. Ina addition to any needed endorsements, some owners are loathe to allow anyone other than themselves to act as PIC and in other cases, the safety pilot might not meet the owner's open pilot warranty or otherwise be insurance-approved to act as PIC.
 
Look, the FAA does not give a furry rodents fat pucker hole who was PIC or whether you hold the pencil in your left hand or your right as long as you don't bang up the airframe or blunder into P51.
Now, if you do either of those two things then no matter what you logged you are screwed, so again it does not matter.
Do you comprehend? It does n o t matter.
sheesh

Not true. If you don't log the PIC time, they can't initiate an enforcement action against you.
 
Back
Top