3 questions that made me go hmmm :P

[dapilot]

1) Displaced Threshold -- The regulations do NOT state that you can NOT land on the DT, and Ive seen some larger aircraft do it. The definition of DT just states that the DT is a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway. So why does a DT even exist if you can takeoff and land on it? Why not make it one long runway? Does it have to do with obstruction clearance or weight limitations on this portion of the runway?

2) I have heard that you can file your destination airport as your alternate airport as well - is this true? And if so, under which Part? 91/121/135? What is the little flaw in the regulations that lets you do this?

3) So you CAN log high performance, complex time, high altitude as PIC even BEFORE getting the endorsement? Did this regulation change in the past or have I been misguided all my aviation life? I went to ERAU and I remember that in 1997-1998, my instructor saying something about this regulation changing but I had to DELETE the PIC time that I was training in for a complex aircraft, not that I could keep it... Does this have anything to do with "acting" as PIC being different from "logging" PIC?

Thanks for your help guys

-=cK=- (captain Krishna)

 

[avbug]

Dapilot,

1. Generally a displaced threshold is for takeoff or taxi only. Typically it doesn't meet the weight bearing requirement for a landing surface, which may involve greater loads and impact forces than an airplane imparts while taxiing or taking off. Simply put, the airplane lands harder than it takes off.

It may also be displaced due to construction, obstacles, electronic guidance reasons, surface condition, surface traffic interference, or any other number of reasons. Large airplanes shouldn't be landing on the displaced threshold, anyway. Large airplanes should be landing in the touchdown zone. When approaching to land at a runway marked with a displaced threshold, one should not land prior to the displaced threshold.

The pilot controller glossary defines the displaced threshold as a point on the runwayother than the designated beginning of the runway. The threshold is defined as the beginning of that portion of the runway useable for landing. While you may not know the reason for the displaced threshold, you need to be aware that the surface prior to the displaced threshold isn't useable for landing (but only rollout from the opposite direction).

2. Sure, you can file the destination as the alternate. But why do you want to? You don't always need an alternate. If your destination needs an alternate, and manages to meet the alternate requirements, then you can use it...some might do this for fuel purposes when stretching a trip. However, if an airport is questionable enough to require an alternate, then pick another field, or a reasonable subtitute that not only meets the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law as well.

There are cases when you may require a takeoff alternate, and the destination can serve as the takeoff alternate if it's within an hour's flying time. Sometimes it's advantageous to list your alternate as the destination and the destination as the alternate for fuel planning purposes, if the alternate lies between the departure points and the actual destination. There are ways to do this that work to your advantage, so long as you understand your limitations, and have a sound knowledge of what to expect for actual conditions.

Sometimes folks will file to the alternate and use their intended destination as the filed alternate, then switch them enroute. This is sometimes done for weather for fuel purposes. Personally, my advice is always be sure you can get in, and carry plenty of fuel. For those traveling in light airplanes, my personal rule of thumb is that it's really hard to run out of fuel if you don't burn off the bottom half of the tank.

3. You can log as PIC the time you spend as sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft for which you are rated. Rated means category and class, and a type rating if required. If you are a private pilot with an airplane category rating and a single engine land class rating, you may log the time you spend as sole manipulator of the controls in that category and class. If that airplane requires a high performance endorsement and you don't have it, you can still log the time, because you are RATED in the airplane.

An endorsement is NOT a rating.

You may not act as pilot in command of the airplane requiring the endorsement, if you don't have the endorsement. However, you may log the time as PIC. There is a difference between acting as pilot in command, and logging pilot in command. 14 CFR 61.51 is all about writing time in your logbook, and doesn't authorize or speak to actually BEING pilot in command. Your question regards logging time, and you are able to log PIC in tailwheel airplanes, high performance airplanes, high altitude airplanes, and complex airplanes even though you don't hold an endorsement for those airplanes.

Without the endorsement, though you can log the time as PIC, you cannot ACT as PIC.

Incidentally, you can also log instrument time if you're not instrument rated...perfectly legal and acceptable, but you should be prepared to note in your logbook the circumstances under which you logged the time, and include a reference to what made it legal (eg, sole manipulator while another pilot acted as PIC, dark moonless night over featureless terrain with adequate cloud clearance and visibility, etc). The wisdom in doing so can be another matter entirely...and remember that no flight is acceptable unless it is both legal AND safe.

Good luck!

 

[dapilot]

alright

ok I understand everything you just said and now Im gonna have to go into my logbook and make an entry to correct my PIC time...

as far as landing on the displaced threshold, yes you are correct and I also agree landing ON the dt is a no-go but I was tryin to see the "legality" of it - there IS no regulation in the FAR stating that you CAN'T land on it is there

its funny how the FAR and AIM is...it's sold as ONE book but the FAR's tell you what you CANT do and the AIM tells you what you CAN do... except the FAR is legally binding where the AIM isnt...kind of messed up if you ask me

-=cK=-

 

[avbug]

CK,

The FAR/AIM you get from Sporty's is nothing more than an effort by a publisher to make more information available to you. There is no such thing as the FAR/AIM. It's simply an effort to put part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) together with the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) as a convenience to you.

The CFR is a codified set of regulations governing the operation of certain agencies, the activities that pertain to those agencies. It is administrative law, different from the criminal or civil law we're all more familiar with.

The aeronautical information manual is just what it says: it's a publication that provides a handy easily readable source for operating practices and proceedures. It's the standard reference that tells you how the airspace system works, what ATC expects of you, and what you should expect of the system.

Most of the AIM is spelled out in regulations elsewhere. Some of it serves to clarify regulations, much of it reiterates the regulations. It also includes information to be found in other sources, such as the Air Traffic Controllers Handbook, etc. The information still applies to you, you're still bound by it...it's just gathered into one source as a reference for your benifit.

Some people try to dismiss what is spelled out in the AIM by saying it's not regulatory. That's a mistake, and failure to adhere to the practices and proceedures spelled out in the AIM can lead to enforcement action. The AIM may not be THE regulation, but it's telling you about what is required, and you will be held accountable for acting in accordance with the information contained therein.

Sometimes folks mistakenly believe that if they don't see it in their commercial copy of the FAR/AIM, then it's fair game. That's not the case. In many instances, several regulations need to be consulted to get the full picture. The regulations covering maintenance are a perfect example of that.

I'm not aware of any regulations which are countermanded by the AIM.

Incidentally, the "FAR" is a common use term. The regulations which are officially titled the FAR are the Federal Acquisition Regulations, pertaining to the General Services Administration.

 

[midlifeflyer]

da pilot wrote:
3) So you CAN log high performance, complex time, high altitude as PIC even BEFORE getting the endorsement? Did this regulation change in the past or have I been misguided all my aviation life? I went to ERAU and I remember that in 1997-1998, my instructor saying something about this regulation changing but I had to DELETE the PIC time that I was training in for a complex aircraft, not that I could keep it... Does this have anything to do with "acting" as PIC being different from "logging" PIC?


Yes, it has to do with the difference with logging and acting. And whether you've been misguided all your aviation life depends on when you started flying. Was it before 1980? That's the earliest time I know of that FAA Legal Counsel said something applicable, like,


"6. The purpose of the flight is obtaining logbook endorsement authorizing operation of a high performance aircraft, as required by FAR 61.31(e)." ***
"The pilot receiving instruction may also log PIC time in each of these situations, as the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which she or he is rated. Specifically, neither the currency requirements of situation 4 nor the log book endorsement of situation 6 are ratings within the meaning of Section 61.51. "Rating" as used in that section refers to the rating in categories, classes, and types, as listed in Section 61.5, which are placed on pilot certificates."

 

[midlifeflyer]

BTW, I think I recognize the 1997-1998 reference.

As you probably already know, the FAA revised Part 61 in 1997. John Lynch, who was pretty much responsible for the re-write, started the Part 61 FAQ (which gets cited a lot, but is definitely =not= official) as a resource for common questions and answers about what the rules mean.

Anyway Lynch decided to disregard years of official FAA interpretation and make up his own. And Lynch decided that, even though the FAA didn't say so in Part 61 before or as rewritten or anywhere else official for that matter, Lynch wanted you to have that endorsement before you could log the time.

So that's what the FAQ said. Someone sent the FAQ statement to FAA Legal. Lynch was duly rebuked and the FAQ was changed to reflect the correct interpretation.

This has happened more than once with the FAQ.

 

[dapilot]

ahhhhh

midlifeflyer, that explains it thanks

 

[U-I pilot]

confused....maybe....

Ok...in regards to this PIC logging thing, I have two things that need to be clerified:

1) Is the definition of "sole manipulator of controls" as clear cut as it sounds? The other pilot may TELL you what to do but you do it....is that how i understand this?

2) I am real uneasy with this log PIC but other person is real PIC issue. Lets say for example I (a private single engine land, Inst. rated pilot) goes out flying with a buddy of mine. My buddy is NOT a CFI. He however already has his complex endorsement and we are flying a piper arrow (complex airplane). If he is the "real" PIC and logs this time, I can not log this complex time also since you cant double log the PIC time. If he didnt log this time as PIC could I? (basically does the CFI rating make a difference being that both then can log PIC "recieved" vs. given"?)

3) Does this issue have any other snags with 141 schools versus 61 training?

Hope i didnt thoroughly confuse anyone.
-Thanks
Bryan

 

[midlifeflyer]

U-I pilot wrote

Ok...in regards to this PIC logging thing, I have two things that need to be clerified:

1) Is the definition of "sole manipulator of controls" as clear cut as it sounds? The other pilot may TELL you what to do but you do it....is that how i understand this?

It is. The sole manipulator of the controls is the one who is handling the controls of the airplane. It's really just English. Tortured English, but English

2) I am real uneasy with this log PIC but other person is real PIC issue.

Your uneasiness is (1) understandable and (2) the reason that people still fight about these dead issues. At an FIRC I went to 2 years ago, the #1 problem that the room of more than 100 CFIs had was with logging vs acting issues.

Lets say for example I (a private single engine land, Inst. rated pilot) goes out flying with a buddy of mine. My buddy is NOT a CFI. He however already has his complex endorsement and we are flying a piper arrow (complex airplane). If he is the "real" PIC and logs this time, I can not log this complex time also since you cant double log the PIC time.If he didnt log this time as PIC could I?

Here's a perfect example of why people have trouble with this. Your non-CFI buddy can't log the time at all. Only you can.

Your non-CFI buddy clearly is acting as PIC. He's the one with the endorsements; he's the only one qualified to act as PIC. But, your buddy can't log PIC for the purpose of showing currency or qualification for a certificate or rating. "Acting" as PIC, standing along, is =never= a sufficient condition for =logging= PIC under the FAA rules. In this scenario, you are the =only= one who can =log= the time.

(basically does the CFI rating make a difference being that both then can log PIC "received" vs. given"?)

In the CFI situation, you get to log PIC because you are the sole manipulator. The CFI gets to log it because of a separate rule that says that a CFI can log PIC time for all the time she provides instruction. It had nothing to do with who is handing the controls.

3) Does this issue have any other snags with 141 schools versus 61 training?

Not for 141, but our 135 and 121 friends will probably tell us that what the airlines are looking for is different. I've heard that airlines are not interested in the PIC time you logged as a safety pilot in a 152, while they are interested in the times you've =acted= as PIC. I understand that some may well log all time in which they are =acting= as PIC in a separate "non-FAR PIC" or "acting PIC" column.

FWIW, here's a logging PIC summary I prepared some time ago It's a cut-and-paste from my personal FAQ):

Here's a simple version of the rules as they have officially been (written this way in the FAR and repeatedly interpreted by the FAA Chief Counsel) for at least 20 years.

(I'm limiting it to student, recreational, private, and commercial pilots. CFIs and ATPs can fend for themselves. If they don't know the rules, tough.)

Rule 1 If you are a recreational, private or commercial pilot, you may log PIC any time you are the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft you are rated for.

"Rated" means the category and class (and type, if a type rating is necessary for the aircraft) that is listed on the back of your pilot certificate. Nothing else matters. Not instrument ratings. Not endorsements for high performance, complex, tailwheel aircraft. Nothing.

Rule 2 If you are a student, recreational, private or commercial pilot, you may log PIC any time you are the only person in the aircraft.

This means that even without category and class ratings, you may log PIC time if you are solo. In addition to the obvious (student solo) it also means, for example, that if you are ASEL and solo in an AMEL or ASES, you may log the time as PIC.

Rule 3 If you are a private or commercial pilot, you may log PIC any time you are acting as PIC* of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required.

More than one pilot may be required because the aircraft is not certified for single-pilot operations. But more common for low-time single engine drivers, it covers simulated instruments where a second "safety pilot" is required by the regulations all the time that the "manipulator" is under the hood.

Rule 4
Based on a unpublished 1977 Chief Counsel opinion (there is some reasonable disagreement on whether it's still any good), you may log PIC if you are acting as PIC* and you are the only person on board with the necessary aircraft ratings.

This is the answer to the silly question: "Can I log PIC while I let my two year old fly the airplane?" Frankly, I can't imagine that the FAA gives a hoot about this one way or another.

Rule 5
If you are a student, recreational, private, or commercial pilot and don't fit into Rules 1-4, you may not log the time as PIC even if you are acting as PIC.


*"Acting as PIC" assumes that you are qualified to act as PIC. That does mean being current and having the appropriate endorsements in addition to ratings.

 

[avbug]

UCPilot,

I'm not certain what you're asking. There is no loophole here, no issue.

Logging time is not the same as flying an airplane. One activity is writing numbers and letters in a book, the other is the act of taking responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight.

Logging time as pilot in command is not the same as acting as pilot in command. There are circumstances under which both pilots may log PIC time, and circumstances under which only one may log PIC time, and circumstances under which nobody may log PIC time. In each case, there is only one pilot in command of the flight.

How clearcut do you wish "sole manipulator" to be? The question is very simple. Who is manipulating the controls. With more than one person operating the airplane, even in a crew environment, one person is flying, the other is not. Either one may be the pilot in command...but who is manipulating the yoke and rudder pedals, or conducting the flight through alternate means such as autopilot, aircraft flight control system, etc? There's only one person at a time doing that, and that's the sole manipulator of the controls.

For the purposes of logging landings for recency of experience, one must be sole manipulator of the controls. If one needs help and salvation on every landing, one isn't soley manipulating the controls, and those landings don't count for currency. The intent of the regulation is clear: in order to meet the recency of experience requirements you need to be the guy that actually flew the airplane.

Situation Two that you provided lists you flying in an arrow with a non-CFI friend. The fact that he is not a flight instructor doesn't mean a thing. It appears that you're not endorsed for complex aircraft, but your friend is. You're flying the airplane: you're manipulating the controls. You log the time. Pure and simple.

While you're flying the airplane, your friend is the pilot in command. You can't act as pilot in command because you're not endorsed. Your friend must be the acting PIC. However, and this is important: he can't log the time. He's responsible for the flight, but he's not acting as pilot in command of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member. He can't log the time. But you can.

Change the scenario a bit, and you wear a view limiting device. You now need a safety pilot. Let your buddy be safety pilot, and he can still act as pilot in command. Only, now he's acting as PIC of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member (in accordance with 14 CFR 91.109(b)), and he can log PIC while you log PIC.

If your buddy were a flight instructor, he could also log PIC while acting as an authorized instructor, and you could log the time while acting as sole manipulator of the controls.

Remember, as discussed before, you can log this time because an endorsement is only required to ACT as pilot-in-command, but is not needed to log PIC.


*After posting, I note that Midlifeflyer was composing a reply at the same time. After reading his post, and noting the comment about instructors having issues with logging time, it's worth noting that these issues aren't that complex. It's more a case of lazy flight instructors who won't take the time to study or learn the material they're paid to know. Logging and regulation issues are not rocket science, nor are they difficult. A basic lack of understanding of the regulation on the part of an instructor, or any pilot, speaks to lack if professionalism, rather than to the complexity of the regulation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

avbug wrote:
*After posting, I note that Midlifeflyer was composing a reply at the same time. After reading his post, and noting the comment about instructors having issues with logging time, it's worth noting that these issues aren't that complex. It's more a case of lazy flight instructors who won't take the time to study or learn the material they're paid to know. Logging and regulation issues are not rocket science, nor are they difficult. A basic lack of understanding of the regulation on the part of an instructor, or any pilot, speaks to lack if professionalism, rather than to the complexity of the regulation.

I'm a little kinder than you (but not much). I understand the initial difficulty in using a concept (PIC) in one way when talking about duties and responsibilities when flying and in another when talking about putting numbers in a book.

But you're right. It's not rocket science and once someone disconnects "acting as PIC" from "logging PIC" and is willing to accept them as two completely different concepts, it's not difficult at all to follow them. Even the regulation itself is in surprisingly understandable language.

Where I start taking issue is with CFIs who, told the rules, shown the rules, etc, don't care and insist that they are right no matter what. I don't think they're lazy though. More like stubborn.

 

[U-I pilot]

one last thing

Ok... thanks for the responses...they clear most all ambiguity i saw in this issue. One last question however, in my personal case, I am in a 141 school working on my commercial certificate. I was previously ASEL, IR. For commercial training we fly a piper arrow (complex). Because this is a commercial training course can I "log" these initial few flights in the arrow as PIC since i was the sole manipulator of controls?
(i now have my endorsement and it doesnt really matter for those few hours but just curious)
-Thanks again for the thorough replys

 

[midlifeflyer]

U-I pilot asked:
One last question however, in my personal case, I am in a 141 school working on my commercial certificate. I was previously ASEL, IR. For commercial training we fly a piper arrow (complex). Because this is a commercial training course can I "log" these initial few flights in the arrow as PIC since i was the sole manipulator of controls?

Here's 4 questions you can ask yourself. If the answer to all four is "yes", you may log the time in the PIC column.

1. Did you have at least a recreational pilot certificate?
2. Did your certificate it say "airplane single engine land" on the back?
3. Was the aircraft an "airplane, single engine, land"?
4. Were you the sole manipulator of the controls?


AFAIK, Part 141 doesn't have or authorize a separate set of logging rules from Part 61.

 

[U-I pilot]

ok...thanks....
that solves that

 

[U-I pilot]

wait a second....

asked MY instructor to bring more fuel to the fire:

by the logic presented before me here, I could log PIC in a bonanza, PC-12, meridian TBM-700 or any single engine land. This dont seem right...
Now after asking another instructor here, the answer is its ok. Who knows for sure, AOPA? FSDO? cause these gray FAR's sure dont.

I guess you can do this but do people that log this time have questions asked later on? problems or snags? whats the catch with this "logged but not acting" PIC

 

[dapilot]

two things for two people...

avbug:

*After posting, I note that Midlifeflyer was composing a reply at the same time. After reading his post, and noting the comment about instructors having issues with logging time, it's worth noting that these issues aren't that complex. It's more a case of lazy flight instructors who won't take the time to study or learn the material they're paid to know. Logging and regulation issues are not rocket science, nor are they difficult. A basic lack of understanding of the regulation on the part of an instructor, or any pilot, speaks to lack if professionalism, rather than to the complexity of the regulation.
^^^^^^^

I'm a flight instructor and a paragraph like that makes people with questions about any confusions about regulations or such, like myself reluctant to ask or follow up on the topic (adding fuel to the fire you can say). This is an aviation message board and we can freely discuss anything aviation related here without worrying about "who's" reading what you write (because almost all pilots have an ego and a pride they worry about so they don't bring up topics like these in front of other flight instructors or students), and it's clear that "you know your stuff" - but alot of us aren't as well-versed or comprehensive about the regulations as you are. I don't want to start anything but I just wanted to say that just because someone asked some questions, you calling flight instructors who don't know these confusing acting/logging PIC rules are lazy and saying they don't take the time to study or learn the material is just wrong. Lots of well qualified, professional, flight instructors and advanced students for that matter understand various topics - each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

I am not afraid to admit I don't know all the regulations by heart and call me a bad pilot if you may but I tell my students if I don't know something, I tell them I will find out for them or tell them where to look to find the answer...


ps - I didn't mean to sound defensive in this post, but i was just standing up for all the flight instructors who feel the way I do

U-I pilot:

I don't know if anyone is going to respond to your last message - if you did read all the other previous posts, you would clearly see the answer to your question. After reading all the posts, the answer seems pretty clear to me, and you as a Commercial Pilot applicant should see the answer as well...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: wait a second....

Originally posted by U-I pilot
asked MY instructor to bring more fuel to the fire:

by the logic presented before me here, I could log PIC in a bonanza, PC-12, meridian TBM-700 or any single engine land. This don't seem right...

But it is (unless one of those airplanes requires a type rating).

Now after asking another instructor here, the answer is its ok. Who knows for sure, AOPA? FSDO? cause these gray FAR's sure don't.

Problem is that it's =not= gray. It's been absolutely crystal clear official FAA policy for over 20 years.

As I said before, people have a lot of trouble with it because they just mentally can't or won't accept it.

I guess you can do this but do people that log this time have questions asked later on? problems or snags? whats the catch with this "logged but not acting" PIC

There's no catch for the person who properly logs flight time in accordance with FAA requirements.

Actually, there is a catch. I'm not sure how the FAA would find out, but let's say we go back to the scenario where you're flying a Bonanza with your non-CFI friend who has the proper endorsements. You are a lowly private pilot with no endorsements. You do all the flying but decide you don't feel comfortable with logging the time as PIC. Your friend logs the time as PIC.

No problem for you, but your friend just violated the regs.

 

[avbug]

dapilot,

I'm not criticising those who ask questions. One hallmark of an honest instructor is being willing to admit not knowing something, and then taking the time to find out the answer.

I meet a lot of instructors who don't realize that they're just as green as the primary students they're teaching. I hear instructors babble this or that about regulations or theories of flight, when it's perfectly obvious they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

On a number of web boards, and in hangars everywhere, a common comment is "my instructor said..." followed by a host of misinformation.

The subject of logging is very straightforward. One need only read the regulation. However, if instructors are arriving at a refresher course and still asking these questions, one must wonder what these people have been doing for the past two years (at least) while they plied their trade.

More offensive are the posts that ask questions such as "what are the requirements to be a ground instructor?" This is simple: look it up. But so often I field or deal with questions of that nature...people take no thought but to ask, rather than soiling their fingers in the pages of the books they should already know and understand. That's where my bone of contention takes shape.

You should feel free to throw anything out for discussion. A question on logging time is a valid question, as is anything you feel worthy of throwing out there. If you're going to ask "what makes an airplane fly?", then that may cause some grumbling...you see my point. But a valid question bears no shame.

I hear folks say all the time, "there's no such thing as a stupid question." Well, I'm here to say that's just not true. There are stupid questions. I hear them a lot. Perhaps that's better said as there are unprepared questions that wreak of emptiness of forethought...but it's still just about as offensive, either way it's put.

I don't think anybody here will decry any question of comment you have to throw out there. That's the purpose of these boards: discussion and sharing. Or for some of us (me), it's simply because if we weren't doing this, we'd have to get off my cantankerous rump and do something meaningful...

 

[JediNein]

Many times displaced thresholds are there because the airport community allowed homes to be built next to the runway. Folks move in and immediately start complaining about the noise. So the airport authorities move the runway down. At BFL, the runway has already moved 3,000 feet, and the third runway now has buildings on it.

We're going to see big changes at BFL soon as the first development on the downwind has successfully caused flight restrictions and the second development is right next to the "new" terminal. Hello people, houses= noise complaints=restricted flying... GRRR!

Anyways, ask the tower if the displaced threshold is available for landing. Sometimes you get lucky and a shortened taxi, sometimes they might allow an opposite direction landing or another runway....

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[dapilot]

roger that...

avbug, i understand what you are saying now... and i agree that things that are easily looked up should be looked up, and the gray areas are well meant to be posted...

JediNein...that makes sense as well... thanks for your input on the issue.