Yet another logbook question, and one about Flight Following.

gil_mor

gil_mor

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
248
Location
Sedona, Az
Display Name
Display name:
gil_mor
Hi Everybody.

While working on my PPL, my CFI made me write 100% of the flight time (with him on board) as "Dual received" and 0% PIC.

I got my license and went to get checked out on a 172.
Total flight time was 1.1
The CFI put 1.1 Dual, and 1.1 PIC.

Is this right? Can you explain?

Question 2:
I fly in rural Northern AZ, when flying P52 - INW and back my CFI told me I shouldn't bother with flight following because they can't see me anyway.
The other CFI said "I tell my students to always use flight following"

Who is right, what do you think?
What do you do?

Thanks a bunch.
 
Take a good look at the reg (61.51 e) on logging of PIC time.

As a student pilot, you could only log PIC when you were the sole occupant.
As a rated pilot, you can log PIC time for any time you're manipulating the controls of an airplane for which you are rated.

As for flight following, if they give you a transponder code and say "radar contact", they see you. If ATC tells you they can't see you, they won't give you flight following.

I recommend flight following - it gives you practice on the radio and familiarity with ATC procedures (you can learn a lot just listening) and in the event of a problem (weather, mechanical, whatever) ATC is already RIGHT THERE.
 
gil_mor said:
Hi Everybody.

While working on my PPL, my CFI made me write 100% of the flight time (with him on board) as "Dual received" and 0% PIC.
Click to expand...

Note there is a difference between BEING PIC and LOGGING PIC. We're talking logging PIC here.

As a student pilot, the only time you can LOG PIC time is when you are solo. Also during your practical test, that time is also PIC unless the examiner wants it differently - and that would be unusual.

I got my license and went to get checked out on a 172.
Total flight time was 1.1
The CFI put 1.1 Dual, and 1.1 PIC.

Is this right? Can you explain?
Click to expand...

So now you as a properly qualified PP-ASEL are flying with an instructor and receiving instructions. In this case, you were filling the FAR squares that let you log PIC. So log the time. And you were receiving Dual instruction. Log that, too. The two are not mutually exclusive.



Question 2:
I fly in rural Northern AZ, when flying P52 - INW and back my CFI told me I shouldn't bother with flight following because they can't see me anyway.
The other CFI said "I tell my students to always use flight following"

Who is right, what do you think?
What do you do?

Thanks a bunch.
Click to expand...

They both may be right. What should you do? Try to get flight following! If they can't see you they will tell you that. The only way to learn the custom and limitations of the airspace you fly in is... to fly in it and ask for flight following... be guided by what happens.

-Skip
 
gil_mor said:
Hi Everybody.

While working on my PPL, my CFI made me write 100% of the flight time (with him on board) as "Dual received" and 0% PIC.

I got my license and went to get checked out on a 172.
Total flight time was 1.1
The CFI put 1.1 Dual, and 1.1 PIC.

Is this right? Can you explain?

Question 2:
I fly in rural Northern AZ, when flying P52 - INW and back my CFI told me I shouldn't bother with flight following because they can't see me anyway.
The other CFI said "I tell my students to always use flight following"

Who is right, what do you think?
What do you do?

Thanks a bunch.
Click to expand...

1. Yes. When you are "rated" (i.e. have a PPL or higher cert) in category and class, you can log all time spent as the "sole manipulator" as PIC. Prior to your checkride you can only log PIC when you're solo. You also get to log the time on your checkride as PIC (at least if you pass that is, I don't know if that's true for a pink slip result).

2. FF offers several advantages but it's only available when you are in an area with radar coverage. Also worth noting is that FF has nothing whatsoever to do with filing a VFR flight plan, the two are somewhat complementary.
 
gil_mor said:
Question 2:
I fly in rural Northern AZ, when flying P52 - INW and back my CFI told me I shouldn't bother with flight following because they can't see me anyway.
The other CFI said "I tell my students to always use flight following"
Click to expand...
This is probably obvious, but the only reason they couldn't see you in northern AZ is because you're flying too low. If you fly higher (not sure how high you need to be in that area - probably not more than a few thousand feet AGL), they can see you. Radar coverage in the contiguous US is very good.

Like others, I don't deal with VFR flight plans. I used one once in my life - and of course I forgot to close it. Luckily, they called the FBO on the field where I had landed and they reported seeing my plane on the ramp. Otherwise, it would have been ALNOT time pretty quickly.

But I always get FF, which is much more useful. There are exceptions of course - Alaska, for example, where radar coverage isn't nearly as good.
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
A twist:

Can a solo student pilot (or private pilot) that goes unintentional VFR into IMC (yes, I know...that NEVER happens, right)- Is the actual IFR time loggable?
Click to expand...

Technically no, since there is no IFR time logging provision. I can fly IFR under clear skies and 100 miles of visibility.

IFR is a set of rules, not a meteorological condition.

What you CAN log it as is under 61.51(b)(3)(ii) actual instrument conditions.

Of course, you don't actually have to be in IMC to log instrument conditions. Fly over Lake Michigan at night with only 5 miles of visibility and an overcast, it is black as a woman's soul. If you don't have an autopilot or your instrument rating, you are going to end up in splashdown. But, it is loggable as actual instrument, and legal under VFR.
 
Last edited:
Last picky points...

Remember that "rated" means only category, class, and (if applicable) type ratings, i.e., something on your pilot certificate. HP, complex, tailwheel, and high-altitude are endorsements, not ratings, so if you're rated, you can log PIC time while getting the training for those endorsements (e.g., a PP-ASEL getting HP/complex endorsement training in a Bonanza). OTOH, when getting your initial ME training, or additional rating in a helo or glider, you're in an aircraft for which you are not rated, and so cannot log PIC time.

If a solo Student or other non-IR pilot logs "actual instrument time without an instructors signature, the Chief Counsel recommends noting what made it "actual instrument conditions" so there's no question about flying into IMC illegally.

Finally, as stated above flight following is always a good idea if available both to provide extra eyes looking for traffic and (speaking as an instructor specializing in instrument training) to get you good comm practice for your IR.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Thanks for clearing that up. My Cessna Training Center logbook has a column for Actual IFR time.
Click to expand...
Not at all uncommon to see the terms IMC, IFR, and "actual instrument conditions" confused and abused, even by people who should know better like the folks writing CTC's training materials.
 
Ron Levy said:
Last picky points...

... non-IR pilot logs "actual instrument time without an instructors signature, the Chief Counsel recommends noting what made it "actual instrument conditions" so there's no question about flying into IMC illegally.
Click to expand...

Joe is a private pilot with no IFR ticket. Ted is a private pilot with a ticket. Everyone is otherwise good in the plane. Ted files IFR for a flight in IMC. Both agree Ted is legal PIC. Joe flies the airplane part of the time in IMC. How does Joe note this in his log (include any remarks you recommend for clarification.)

Bob is a private pilot who let his medical lapse. George is a private pilot (not CFI). Both are otherwise rated and in good standing. George agrees to be legal PIC and let's Bob fly the airplane. How does Bob log this? If he notes George's name is it necessary, or nice, or irrelevant to include George's certificate number? What would happen if George were a CFI but Bob said he didn't care to log it as dual or instruction - then how does Bob log it (assume Bob is hard headed and won't log it as dual unless that is the only legal option).
 
sba55 said:
This is probably obvious, but the only reason they couldn't see you in northern AZ is because you're flying too low. If you fly higher (not sure how high you need to be in that area - probably not more than a few thousand feet AGL), they can see you. Radar coverage in the contiguous US is very good.
Click to expand...

No. Coverage in the mountain west is pretty spotty. Western Colorado, Northern NM, Eastern Utah and Northern AZ will have places where most SE GA normally aspirated birds will not be able to get high enough to get radar coverage.

Incidentally, I flew from Denver to Hutchinson KS, and I needed to be at 10k over the plains for center to see me. That's over 6k above the (very flat) ground.
 
jnmeade said:
Bob is a private pilot who let his medical lapse. George is a private pilot (not CFI). Both are otherwise rated and in good standing. George agrees to be legal PIC and let's Bob fly the airplane. How does Bob log this? If he notes George's name is it necessary, or nice, or irrelevant to include George's certificate number?
Click to expand...

Geoff logged it as PIC. Geoff did not note Tom's certificate number, but the time logged was in Tom's aircraft and Geoff noted the reason for the flight and who was along because that is what Geoff typically does.
 
Ron Levy said:
Remember that "rated" means only category, class, and (if applicable) type ratings, i.e., something on your pilot certificate. HP, complex, tailwheel, and high-altitude are endorsements, not ratings, so if you're rated, you can log PIC time while getting the training for those endorsements (e.g., a PP-ASEL getting HP/complex endorsement training in a Bonanza).
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming, Ron.
 
jnmeade said:
Joe is a private pilot with no IFR ticket. Ted is a private pilot with a ticket. Everyone is otherwise good in the plane. Ted files IFR for a flight in IMC. Both agree Ted is legal PIC. Joe flies the airplane part of the time in IMC. How does Joe note this in his log (include any remarks you recommend for clarification.)
Click to expand...
It's all PIC time for Joe, plus actual instrument time for any time spent in actual instrument conditions (and simulated instrument time for any time under the hood). In order to forestall any legal questions later, I'd suggest putting "PIC - Ted" in the remarks block even though it's not required. I'd also suggest not doing this for safety, not legal, reasons, unless Ted has training and experience in evaluating the performance of other pilots and determining when to take control if the other pilot has a problem, and can safely to take control and fly an approach from the right seat in actual instrument conditions. Typically, we call folks like that "instrument instructors," but I recognize that there may be some non-CFI's who can do all that. OTOH, there are fatal loss-of-control accidents on record involving folks trying to do just what you have Joe and Ted doing, so choose wisely.

Bob is a private pilot who let his medical lapse. George is a private pilot (not CFI). Both are otherwise rated and in good standing. George agrees to be legal PIC and let's Bob fly the airplane. How does Bob log this?
Click to expand...
Same as above -- all PIC time for Bob, plus actual instrument time for any time spent in actual instrument conditions (and simulated instrument time for any time under the hood). Again, I'd also suggest putting "PIC - George" in the remarks block just so there's no question about illegal activity if the FAA ever looks at that entry in Bob's logbook.

If he notes George's name is it necessary, or nice, or irrelevant to include George's certificate number?
Click to expand...
Well, if it's George Smith, I might do that, so the FAA knows which of the many George Smiths out there it was in case the question ever arises. If it's George Krzyzewski (Coach K's brother), it's probably not important.

What would happen if George were a CFI but Bob said he didn't care to log it as dual or instruction - then how does Bob log it (assume Bob is hard headed and won't log it as dual unless that is the only legal option).
Click to expand...
If George isn't giving training, then it's not dual. You don't log training time just because the person in the other seat happens to be a CFI -- that person must agree to give you training, actually give you training, and sign your logbook for it to be loggable training time.
 
Ron Levy said:
...so if you're rated, you can log PIC time while getting the training for those endorsements...
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense. Thanks!

About FF -
If I fly 9000 - I'm only 1000ft above ground (at some points). So chances are - they wont see me, but I'll try it anyway, to get some radio experience.

My "VFR Flight Plan" is giving my girlfriend a print of my planned flight from skyvector, and call her to open and close it.:wink2:
 
COFlyBoy said:
No. Coverage in the mountain west is pretty spotty. Western Colorado, Northern NM, Eastern Utah and Northern AZ will have places where most SE GA normally aspirated birds will not be able to get high enough to get radar coverage.

Incidentally, I flew from Denver to Hutchinson KS, and I needed to be at 10k over the plains for center to see me. That's over 6k above the (very flat) ground.
Click to expand...
Huh? Aren't you just repeating what I just said? It's a matter of altitude, and I was pointing this out to our new pilot OP.
 
Ron,
What I thought, as well, but appreciate the useful discussion
 
Ron Levy said:
It's all PIC time for Joe, plus actual instrument time for any time spent in actual instrument conditions (and simulated instrument time for any time under the hood). In order to forestall any legal questions later, I'd suggest putting "PIC - Ted" in the remarks block even though it's not required. I'd also suggest not doing this for safety, not legal, reasons, unless Ted has training and experience in evaluating the performance of other pilots and determining when to take control if the other pilot has a problem, and can safely to take control and fly an approach from the right seat in actual instrument conditions. Typically, we call folks like that "instrument instructors," but I recognize that there may be some non-CFI's who can do all that. OTOH, there are fatal loss-of-control accidents on record involving folks trying to do just what you have Joe and Ted doing, so choose wisely.
Click to expand...

Joe can log PIC even though he is violating 61.3 (e) ?
61.3 (e)
e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;
 
sdflyer said:
Joe can log PIC even though he is violating 61.3 (e) ?
61.3 (e)
e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;
Click to expand...

Read it again... Joe isn't ACTING as PIC, Ted was. Joe LOGS PIC under the sole manipulator clause.

Seriously...use the flow chart.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Read it again... Joe isn't ACTING as PIC, Ted was. Joe LOGS PIC under the sole manipulator clause.

Seriously...use the flow chart.
Click to expand...

I do understand ACTING, thank you

"Joe flies the airplane part of the time in IMC" as sole manipulator while Ted is acting as pilot in command..But Ted is not CFII, and Joe is not instrument rated. Ted has no privileges to train and issue endorsements..

What would FAA made of this case?
 
The FAA would do absolutely nothing. No regulations have been broken. Joe logs the time while he manipulates the controls. Ted logs nothing while Joe does so.

It would be absolutely no different than me flying a single engine tailwheel plane with someone who has the endorsement. Rated in the plane is all that matters.


Now, if something happened - Ted's on the hook because he IS PIC, but Ted would be on the hook anyway, even if he were flying the plane and something happened.

Again...use the flowchart.
 
Last edited:
To those folks who keep insisting there is something illegal in this, a couple of questions:

1. Is there anything in the FARs that says that PIC has to be in the left seat unless a CFI?

2. Is there anything in the FARs that says that PIC has to be the one operating the controls?

Now repeat the exercise with the added conditions that the flight is (1) under IFR and (2) in IMC.

'Nuff said.
 
Honestly, I know everybody gets worked up about the topic of logging PIC...but I love discussions like this. Safety issues aside, I had never worked through the IMC scenario in my head and was very surprised with outcome of the mental exercise.
 
FlyNE said:
Honestly, I know everybody gets worked up about the topic of logging PIC...but I love discussions like this. Safety issues aside, I had never worked through the IMC scenario in my head and was very surprised with outcome of the mental exercise.
Click to expand...

Remember, the FARs are primarily written on what you CAN'T do...

If they don't prohibit it, you're probably good to go.

"But, but, but where in part 91 does it say I can chew bubble gum while flying? Is it legal?"
 
EdFred said:
Remember, the FARs are primarily written on what you CAN'T do...

If they don't prohibit it, you're probably good to go.
Click to expand...


Yes it sound arrogantly good in theory until you deal with FAA directly. :D
 
The FAA has their catch-all of 91.13

I have my catch all of "probably" :)
 
azure said:
To those folks who keep insisting there is something illegal in this, a couple of questions:

1. Is there anything in the FARs that says that PIC has to be in the left seat unless a CFI?

2. Is there anything in the FARs that says that PIC has to be the one operating the controls?

Now repeat the exercise with the added conditions that the flight is (1) under IFR and (2) in IMC.

'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Ted has "final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight". If something happens sure FAA wont find any problem with Ted's actions, and Joe's manipulation. :D I like your story though :D:thumbsup:


​
 
EdFred said:
The FAA has their catch-all of 91.13

I have my catch all of "probably" :)
Click to expand...


Indeed! Unless sure Ted is FAA certified psychic who can control airplane via Joe's brain :ihih::D
 
sdflyer said:
Indeed! Unless sure Ted is FAA certified psychic who can control airplane via Joe's brain :ihih::D
Click to expand...

If that's the case, would Ted then actually be manipulating the controls?
 
sdflyer said:
Ted has "final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight". If something happens sure FAA wont find any problem with Ted's actions, and Joe's manipulation. :D I like your story though :D:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
You can be sure that with Joe in the left seat and Ted not a CFI, the FAA will be asking Ted and Joe some hard questions about who was really in charge and whether there was any unauthorized instruction going on, but if they answer truthfully and accurately, Ted should be the only one whose neck is on the chopping block.
 
EdFred said:
The FAA has their catch-all of 91.13

I have my catch all of "probably" :)
Click to expand...

Not to beat this to death, but the 91.13 isn't the catch all that some believe.

From Order 2150.3B

Appendix E. Examples

1. Elements of Regulations. A frequently-cited regulation is 14 C.F.R. § 91.13, Careless or
Reckless Operation. This seemingly simple regulation has numerous elements. The actual
wording is:
CARELESS OR RECKLESS OPERATION
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may
operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an
airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or
discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or
property of another.
a. Subparagraphs of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13. The regulation has two subparagraphs.
Subparagraph (a) covers "Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation". Subparagraph
(b) covers "Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation". Because the two
subparagraphs cover two different conditions, i.e., for the purpose of air navigation vs. other than
for the purpose of air navigation, there must be an item of proof (IOP) that provides evidence to
identify one or the other as appropriate. If evidence shows that an aircraft was being taxied from
the hanger to the line, subparagraph (b) would be appropriate. But if evidence shows an aircraft
to have been on a take-off roll, then subparagraph (a) would be appropriate. There must be
evidence to support the choice. Assume, for example, that the operation was for the purpose of
air navigation and sub-paragraph (a) applies. The elements that must be included as an IOP are:
(1)A person.
(2)Operate (for purpose of air navigation).
(3)An aircraft.
(4)Careless or reckless.
(5)Endangerment.
(6)Life or property of another.
b. First Element. The first element is identifying the person, putting them in the aircraft,
and proving that this person was an operator of the aircraft. Identifying the person and showing
his or her operation of the aircraft may be done through witness statements, a response to the
letter of investigation, documents such as logbooks, or training records, or Air Traffic reports.
The form of the evidence can vary, but who the person is must be documented. For certificated
airman, such as pilots and mechanics, ISIS data on qualifications will be an additional IOP.
c. Second Element. The second element to prove is that the aircraft was being operated for
purposes of air navigation. For an aircraft that is airborne, or taxiing in from a flight, this is easy.
For an aircraft that is on the ramp, or a taxiway, you will need some evidence to establish
whether subparagraph (a) or (b) is the appropriate choice.
d. Third Element. The third element to prove is that an aircraft was involved. A
definition of aircraft is found in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1, General Definitions. Aircraft means a device
that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air. The specific form of the evidence can
vary, but a specific aircraft must be identified through IOPs. A supporting IOP will be a copy of
aircraft registration data from the Integrated Safety Information System (ISIS). [Note:
Ultralights are not aircraft, they are vehicles, with their own definition under 14 CFR part 103.]
e. Fourth Element. The fourth element is selecting between careless or reckless and
providing evidence to support the decision. Careless indicates a lack of care, an act a reasonably
prudent person would not commit if mindful of the potential consequences. Reckless can be
alleged when there is evidence that a person intended to do what they did. It is not necessary to
prove, or even allege, that they knew that their action was a violation of any regulation. For
either choice, the careless/reckless element must be supported by evidence in one or more IOPs.
(1) Example of reckless IOP. For example, during the investigation of a gear-up landing
incident, the evidence may include a statement from the aircraft owner who had personally
advised the pilot the gear system was inoperative or a statement from a passenger who was told
by the pilot that the normal gear system was inoperative. This evidence may indicate that a
charge of reckless is appropriate.
(2) Example of careless IOP. On the other hand, the evidence may include a picture of
the aircraft on the runway with the gear-handle up, a statement from a mechanic saying the gear
operated normally when tested, or a statement from the pilot saying he was preoccupied with
other traffic. This evidence may indicate that a charge of careless is appropriate.
(3) Evidence indicating no violation. If the evidence included a mechanic’s statement
and repair order stating that the gear malfunctioned because of a broken part, then there may be
no violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13.
f. Fifth Element. The fifth element in this regulation is endanger. An IOP in a gear-up
landing might consist of evidence documenting the aircraft damage that endangered the property
of another. It is not necessary to show actual endangerment, evidence of potential endangerment
is sufficient. Appropriate evidence in a low flying case might include pictures of a school
playground that was flown over, statements from teachers describing children in the playground
at the time, and the altitude of the aircraft relative to terrain features. Potential endangerment can
often be best explained in the section B analysis.
g. Sixth Element. The sixth and final element in this example requires evidence that the
endangerment was to the life or property of another. If the above gear-up landing example is in
a rented aircraft, the evidence to prove this element could be an ISIS report showing that the
owner is another. Evidence of a passenger in the aircraft would also support this element, as the
passenger is another. If an aircraft flown solo was entirely owned by the violator, and if there is
no nearby property or persons to be endangered, there very well may be no violation.

2. Summary. To summarize, all enforceable regulations include some number of elements and
evidence to support each of the elements must be included in an EIR to support a violation
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Define "unauthorized instruction". If it doesn't show up in a logbook, it didn't happen. How could the FAA prove one way or the other?
Click to expand...
Like I said, they'd ask questions, and see what answers they got. I think the pilots involved would really have to be stupid to talk themselves into that one, but "stupid" and "pilot" aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Here is another interesting point.

61.51
(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;


Yes Joe is sole manipulator..But hang on, Ted is acting as PIC? Then..

(iv) When the pilot performs the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a qualified pilot in command provided—
***

(A) The pilot performing the duties of pilot in command holds a commercial or airline transport pilot certificate and aircraft rating that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft being flown, if a class rating is appropriate;


So since Joe is not acting as PIC he is under "the supervision of a qualified PIC" Ted. But Ted doesn't have CP, ATP or CFI certificates.. So?


Anyhow just playing scenario and thinking out-loud - nothing else. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top