logging (PIC) time

Hilton wrote:
Chris wrote:
According to AOPA CJ is correct.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.html

Any Pilot that is rated for the aircraft, meaning ASEL if the plane is
single engine land, can log PIC time for the time he is sole
manipulator of the controls. This is true whether or not he has a
current medical, BFR or, if the plane meets the criteria, the
endorsements required for high performance and/or complex aircraft.
However, there must be a pilot in the plane that DOES meet all the
requirements for the plane being flown.

Typical FAR's...clear as mud!

If you looked in Part 61, you would see that Part 61 with regards logging
PIC is pretty darn clear, you just need to read it in B&W without trying to
read between the lines.


You are right. Part 61 is very clear. Pilot B is a required crewmember
for the operation of the flight and should log PIC. There is nothing in
part 61 specifying that pilot A has to be under the hood or any other
silly exceptions. Pilot A cannot fly the plane himself, so pilot B is
required. I should point out that in fact that it is common practice
that pilots who are unable to act as PIC to get a qualified friend to
fly with them. The lack of qualification does not prevent the pilot
from logging PIC since he is sole manipulator of the controls. The
other pilot is required to be on board by regulation -- someone who is
qualified has to be on board to act as PIC or the flight is illegal --
and should log PIC while doing so. The FAA has consistently ruled in
favor of this interpretation and it is also interpreted this way in the
part 61 FAQ. I also believe the AOPA interpretation supports my view. I
cannot understand why you seem to have a problem with this. The
regulations are very clear and were specifically written to allow for
this kind of situation.

The question of whether pilot B is actually PIC, though, is more
important. As Doug points out, if pilot B is not allowed to act as PIC
then he is not PIC and the flight then consists of a non-current pilot
and a passenger, which is illegal.

Hilton wrote:
Chris wrote:
According to AOPA CJ is correct.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.html

Any Pilot that is rated for the aircraft, meaning ASEL if the plane is
single engine land, can log PIC time for the time he is sole
manipulator of the controls. This is true whether or not he has a
current medical, BFR or, if the plane meets the criteria, the
endorsements required for high performance and/or complex aircraft.
However, there must be a pilot in the plane that DOES meet all the
requirements for the plane being flown.

Typical FAR's...clear as mud!

If you looked in Part 61, you would see that Part 61 with regards logging
PIC is pretty darn clear, you just need to read it in B&W without trying to
read between the lines.


You are right. Part 61 is very clear. Pilot B is a required crewmember
for the operation of the flight and should log PIC. There is nothing in
part 61 specifying that pilot A has to be under the hood or any other
silly exceptions. Pilot A cannot fly the plane himself, so pilot B is
required. I should point out that in fact that it is common practice
that pilots who are unable to act as PIC to get a qualified friend to
fly with them. The lack of qualification does not prevent the pilot
from logging PIC since he is sole manipulator of the controls. The
other pilot is required to be on board by regulation -- someone who is
qualified has to be on board to act as PIC or the flight is illegal --
and should log PIC while doing so. The FAA has consistently ruled in
favor of this interpretation and it is also interpreted this way in the
part 61 FAQ. I also believe the AOPA interpretation supports my view. I
cannot understand why you seem to have a problem with this. The
regulations are very clear and were specifically written to allow for
this kind of situation.

The question of whether pilot B is actually PIC, though, is more
important. As Doug points out, if pilot B is not allowed to act as PIC
then he is not PIC and the flight then consists of a non-current pilot
and a passenger, which is illegal.

Doug wrote:


First of all. Who is PIC? The definition of PIC is in the glossary in
front. The PIC is the pilot who is "in charge of the flight". Since
pilot 1 is in charge of the flight (it is HIS airplane AND he feels
that pilot 2 is not qualified to fly it), then pilot 1 must be PIC. But
he can't be PIC because he isn't under a current flight review.

If there had been an incident, you can be almost certain that the FAA
would have decided that pilot 2 was in charge of the flight because he
was the only qualified pilot on board. The FAA would have taken a dim
view of any action where pilot 2 allowed an unqualified pilot to
over-rule him.

There was one case where, even though he was sitting asleep in the back
seat of a four place plane, the FAA ruled that the pilot was PIC simply
because he was an ATP while those flying the plane were an instructor
and private pilot. I have to disagree with that interpretation; I think
this is one of those cases that proves that the FAA is not always
right, but they did it anyway. I really think the FAA should consult
with me more before taking actions like this. If they did, the world
would be a better place.

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...
You are right. Part 61 is very clear. Pilot B is a required crewmember
for the operation of the flight and should log PIC.

As I posted elsewhere, being a "required crewmember" is necessary, but not
sufficient. The flight ALSO has to require MORE THAN ONE crewmember
(because of the aircraft or regulations under which the flight is done).
So, for example, where a safety pilot is required in addition to the pilot
flying the airplane, the second pilot is required and thus gets to log PIC.
But in the case we're talking about here, only one pilot is required, so any
additional pilots do not get to log PIC.

Note that this is the same reason that, when a lone pilot in the airplane
allows a passenger to fly the airplane, they are not permitted to log as PIC
the time during which the passenger is flying. They are acting as PIC,
which is part of the requirement, but the regulations governing the flight
require only one pilot, which does not meet the other part of the
requirement.

There is nothing in
part 61 specifying that pilot A has to be under the hood or any other
silly exceptions.

Yes, there is. The requirement that the flight is conducted under rules
that require more than one pilot does require, for example, that Pilot A be
under the hood. Without simulated instrument flight, there is no regulatory
requirement for there to be two pilots.

Pilot A cannot fly the plane himself, so pilot B is
required.

But ONLY Pilot B is required. This is different from simulated instrument
flight, because a single pilot cannot by himself operate in simulated
instrument conditions.

I should point out that in fact that it is common practice
that pilots who are unable to act as PIC to get a qualified friend to
fly with them.

But those friends acting as PIC have no legal right to log the time as PIC.

The lack of qualification does not prevent the pilot
from logging PIC since he is sole manipulator of the controls.

That's true.

The other pilot is required to be on board by regulation

They are required, true. But ONLY they are required. The pilot actually
flying the airplane is optional. He is essentially a passenger who is being
permitted to manipulate the controls, for the purposes of Pilot B deciding
whether he can log the time or not.

-- someone who is
qualified has to be on board to act as PIC or the flight is illegal --
and should log PIC while doing so.

No. The flight is not conducted under any regulation that requires two
pilots, and so the mere act of acting as PIC does not qualify Pilot B for
logging PIC time.

The FAA has consistently ruled in favor of this interpretation

No, they haven't. Or, put another way, please feel free to cite an FAA
ruling that supports your interpretation.

and it is also interpreted this way in the part 61 FAQ.

No, it's not. The FAQ *does* discuss the safety pilot scenario, but there's
nothing in the FAQ that suggests a pilot acting as PIC while *not* acting as
safety pilot for simulated instrument conditions can log PIC.

If you feel otherwise, please feel free to quote the pertinent part of the
FAQ.

I also believe the AOPA interpretation supports my view.

No, it doesn't.

I cannot understand why you seem to have a problem with this.

Because you are incorrect.

The
regulations are very clear and were specifically written to allow for
this kind of situation.

No, they are clear but they do NOT allow for "this kind of situation".

The question of whether pilot B is actually PIC, though, is more
important. As Doug points out, if pilot B is not allowed to act as PIC
then he is not PIC and the flight then consists of a non-current pilot
and a passenger, which is illegal.

That much is correct.

Pete

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
ups.com...
There was one case where, even though he was sitting asleep in the back
seat of a four place plane, the FAA ruled that the pilot was PIC simply
because he was an ATP while those flying the plane were an instructor
and private pilot.

I have heard this story so many times that it seems to have almost acheived
urban legend status. Can you point me in the direction of where I might
find this case? I've tried to search for this but I've been unsuccessful.

but I *have* seen it, or at least a posted version that came from a
generally reliable source. Thus, it is legal to log the time if the
flying passenger is not a pilot, but not if the flying passenger is
a pilot who can log it.

I think you're overstating the case here. At best, it's the General
Counsel's opinion that it's legal, but I don't think that alone makes
it legal.

But you don't have a copy of the opinion and I can't find it on my
Summit CD and it is not supported by the regulations, so your evidence
is pretty scanty, to say the least.

If there was ever such an opnion, it might have well been corrected by
a later opinion, which is why it's not to be found.

Without some evidence, I don't think you should say "it's legal".

If something bad happens during the flight the FAA will consider Pilot
#2 PIC. Pilot #1 can not act as PIC without a current BFR. So if pilot
#2 is taking the responsiblity he might as well log it.

My somewhat simplfied interpretation of the FARS for PIC is as follows.

1. A pilot may only log PIC only if they are legally qualified to fly
the airplane as the solo, Note 90 day currency must be met if any
passengers are on board. (note there may be a few exceptions)

2. Both a Pilot and Safty pilot my log PIC when performing simlulated
instrument flight. Both must meet #1.

3. A Flight instructors may log PIC when giving instruction to pilots
that meet #1. But should be careful not to abuse this. i.e. does the
pilot really need instruction for insurance, currency, ratings, etc.

There are some other possibilities, for logging PIC but the above are
the basics according to Brian.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

I had considered this but wanted to keep my post simple, if Pilot #2
was unaware that Pilot #1 was not legal, pilot #2 might be able to
convince the FAA that he was not aware that he was PIC. Otherwise the
legal precedence that the FAA seems to take is that the most qualified
pilot is the most legally responsible.

IF pilot #2 is a 10000hr ATP and they end up busting the Washington
ADIZ who do you think the FAA is going to go after? (the answer is
probably would be both, but I think the legal PIC would be in the most
hot water)

Brian

Good point, This policy was imparted to me during my instructor
training. And I even indirectly referenced it in my post below.

As an instructor you quickly learn that there is a lot of
unsubstantiated information around. I have heard more rules quoted to
me that no one can find in the FARs than I can remember.

Even if the story is not true, it does have good point that just
because you are not the pilot in command if you have the experinence
and ratings you should do everything you can to keep other pilots from
doing something stupid.

If someone does have some information to substantiate the story I would
love to see it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

"Brian" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
My somewhat simplfied interpretation of the FARS for PIC is as follows.

As long as people understand they are overly simplified...that is, some
nuance is lost in the simplification. It's not so much that it's wrong, but
that it's incomplete and could lead to wrong interpretations of the FARs.

1. A pilot may only log PIC only if they are legally qualified to fly
the airplane as the solo, Note 90 day currency must be met if any
passengers are on board. (note there may be a few exceptions)

More to the point, this is *sometimes* a "necessary" but not "sufficient"
requirement for logging PIC.

In addition, whether one is current to carry passengers or not is completely
unrelated to *logging* PIC. IMHO, a discussion about *logging* PIC should
not introduce that issue, as doing so just complicates the discussion
without need.

2. Both a Pilot and Safty pilot my log PIC when performing simlulated
instrument flight. Both must meet #1.

Almost.

But in absence of passengers (two pilots, both are required crew members, no
passengers) the passenger currency requirement need not be met by either
pilot. See what I mean about needlessly complicating the discussion.

Additionally, if the safety pilot is acting as PIC, the pilot flying need
only meet the category and class rating requirement. He doesn't even need a
current BFR.

IMHO, the attempt to tie *logging* PIC with the requirements to *act* as PIC
(which, in spite of your use of the word "log" in #1 is really what #1 is
about) is the classic mistake people make when talking about the issue.
Logging PIC and acting PIC are two entirely different things. Only in very
specific situations does the question of acting as PIC affect the question
of logging as PIC.

Trying to come up with a general interpretation that always includes the
question of acting as PIC is doomed to failure; there are too many ways to
log PIC time without being qualified to act as PIC.

Pete