Another logging question..

[IrishFlyer]

Thanks avbug, much appreciated.

My new avatar has shrunk!

IF

 

[100LL... Again!]

Mental masturbation might feel good, but it seldom accomplishes anything.
Juuust kidding.

Avbug's response is typical of those who like to play 'lawyer' with wording.
Common sense needs to be mixed in as well. A flight where no one can log PIC is ridiculous. If there was a FAR infraction or landing accident, who would get pinned? The person who was legally rated to fly for that flight. If he can get violated, he should log it.

This is obviously a case where the reg was written in an incomplete way.

Anyone have a look at the re-write of 135.225? See if you can find the inconsistency.

If I let my non pilot friend fly for ten minutes I have no problem letting the FAA know that I logged the whole thing.

They likely did not consider this scenario when writing the rules.

I think 61.51(e)(1)(iii) shows what their intent is.


If you really want to play games with words, you COULD try to make the case that the flight was illegal.

You have a student pilot illegally carrying a passenger, who happens to be a rated pilot.

Suppose a student pilot (pilot a) asks an acquaintance if they want to go for an airplane ride. The passenger happens to be a private pilot who is current (pilot B). Pilot B is under the impression that pilot A is a private pilot, and of course has no way of knowing, but assumes that anyone carrying a pax would be rated, right?

An incident occurs. Who gets blamed? Was the flight legal?

 

[Lead Sled]

Finally, a voice of reason cries out in the wilderness. Thank you 100LL.

 

[midlifeflyer]

A flight where no one can log PIC is ridiculous. If there was a FAR infraction or landing accident, who would get pinned?

I agree. But having pointed out the apparent legal opinion that says so, let me also point out the opposite.

A flight in which no one =is= PIC is obviously ridiculous. And nothing that Avbug said changes that. If no one "logged" PIC, who would get pinned? The question is pretty irrelevant. Obviously, the one who actually =was= PIC, which has absolutely nothing to do with who was logging it. There are a whole bunch of 61.51 scenarios where the real PIC gets to log no PIC time whatsoever and the non-PIC "sole manipulator" does.

Besides, is a flight where no one can log PIC truly ridiculous? Sounds so, but let's remember that the sole purpose of 61.51 logging is to show qualification. You get to play "legal games with the language because the entire concept of logging (unless you log Par 1 PIC in a separate column) is nothing but a legal construct to begin with. The "golden key" to understanding logging is to always keep in mind that the FAR treats "acting as pilot in command" and "logging pilot in command time" as =completely= different concepts. It's the difference between (1) having final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of a flight (commonly referred to as "acting as PIC") and (2) writing numbers in columns on a piece of paper while sitting at a desk with a beer in your hand. They =never= mean the same thing and they have completely different rules. As soon as anyone starts thinking that a PIC gets to log PIC becasue he is PIC, you tread on dangerous ground.

So, the "ridiculous" statement is better stated as:

Is a flight in which no one may count the time for the purpose of showing the FAA qualifications for FAA certificates, ratings or currency ridiculous?

Yep, still sound pretty silly, but not so sure about the ridiculous label.

 

[100LL... Again!]

I think 61.51(e)(1)(iii) shows what their intent is.

I think that this does show the intent of 61.51 - that whomever the responsible part is regarding the flight of the aircraft, they may log PIC.

I realize that this applies to a two pilot aircraft, but ask yourself this:

When the pic is letting the SIC fly, the aircraft is in the hands of another pilot who is qualified to fly the aircraft, if only as SIC.

When a pvt pilot allows a non pilot to handle the controls, you can argue that since the aircraft is in the hands of a NON pilot, the PIC here has at least as much responsibility as the PIC in the two pilot airplane.


Also, I'm interested in your opinion of my hypothetical scenario.

 

[avbug]

When a pvt pilot allows a non pilot to handle the controls, you can argue that since the aircraft is in the hands of a NON pilot, the PIC here has at least as much responsibility as the PIC in the two pilot airplane.

You don't "have" to argue anything, but as you seem to love to argue losing points, let's.

You argue regarding a very dead horse, the issue of logging PIC time. Both the FAA Chief Legal Counsel disagree with you, as does the language of the regulation. But what the hell. Let's review it anyway.

First, you want to know about your scenario. Your scenario reads:

Suppose a student pilot (pilot a) asks an acquaintance if they want to go for an airplane ride. The passenger happens to be a private pilot who is current (pilot B). Pilot B is under the impression that pilot A is a private pilot, and of course has no way of knowing, but assumes that anyone carrying a pax would be rated, right?

An incident occurs. Who gets blamed? Was the flight legal?

You're talking about a situation in which an unqualified individual (pilot A) invites a qualified individual (pilot B) for a flight. No formal agreement is reached regarding who is acting as PIC. An accident follows. You ask if the flight is legal, and who will be blamed.

The first question, weather the flight is legal, is a clear no. As no agreement has been reached, and pilot B has never been asked or agreed to accept the responsibilities of pilot-in-command, he or she is not acting as PIC. The student pilot is illegally carrying a passenger.

The second question cannot be answered, as insufficient information has been appended. Blamed by whom? Blamed for what? By insurance carriers, by the FAA? For failure to take command? Named in a civil suit? The truth is that non-pilot passengers have taken that blame in civil action, for failure to act. And been held liable. Could the same happen to a private pilot? Yes. However, not in enforcement action by the FAA, if the private pilot was not acting as pilot in command.

To return to the question at hand, regarding the logging of flight time, we may look once again to the regulation:

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.
(1) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person -
(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated;
(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or
(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
(2) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.
(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.
(4) A student pilot may log pilot-in-command time only when the student pilot -
(i) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft or is performing the duties of pilot of command of an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember;
(ii) Has a current solo flight endorsement as required under § 61.87 of this part; and
(iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating.

14 CFR 61.51(e) account for the ONLY circumstances under which one may log pilot in command time. A private pilot and a student pilot fly in a light, single engine, piston powered, two place airplane certificated for only one required flight crewmember. The student pilot is pilot A, the private pilot is pilot B.

The student pilot manipulates the controls. Can pilot B, who is acting as pilot in command by mutual agreement and understanding, accepting responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight, log the time in accordance with the regulation? No. Why? For the truly dense, let's review. Again.

14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(i) permits pilot B to log PIC time as sole manipulator of the controls, but eeegads, he's not sole manipulator of the controls. Sorry, pilot B. 14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(i) doesn't apply to you. Go to the back of the line. Can't log PIC flight time under 61.51(e)(1)(i).

Neither can pilot A. 14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(i) applies only to recreational, private, or commercially certificated pilots, and pilot A is a student pilot. Pilot A and pilot B cannot log flight time under 61.51(e)(1)(i).

14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(ii) permits pilot B to log PIC time as the sole occupant of the aircraft, but eeegads, he's not the sole occupant of the aircraft. Sorry pilot B. 14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(ii) doesn't apply to you. Go to the back of the line. Can't log PIC flight time under 61.51(e)(1)(ii).

Neither can pilot A. Pilot A is not sole occupant, either. Pilot A and pilot B cannot log flight time under 61.51(e)(1)(ii)

14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(iii) permits pilot B to log PIC time as PIC of an aircraft requiring more than one flight crewmember (by the regulations under which the flight is operated, or by the type design certification of the aircraft), but eeegads, he's not the PIC of an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember. Sorry pilot B. 14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(iii) doesn't apply to you. Go to the back of the line. Can't log PIC flight time under 61.51(e)(1)(iii).

Neither can pilot A. Pilot A is not pilot in command, and the aircraft does not require more than one crewmember. Pilot A and Pilot B cannot log time under 61.51(e)(1)(iii)

Gee whiz. That's 61.51(e)(1) out of the way, and no legal way to log it. Golly gee, 100LL, we've only got a few more options. Will lassie make it? Will she?

14 CFR 61.51(e)(2) permits pilot B to log PIC time as an ATP acting as PIC of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate, but eeegads and hold the phone. There's a problem here, pilot B. You're not an airline transport pilot, and you're not acting as pilot in command of an operation requring an airline transport pilot certificate. 14 CFR 61.51(e)(2) doesn't apply to you. Go to the back of the line. Can't log PIC flight time under 61.51(e)(2).

Neither can pilot A. Pilot A is a student pilot. Pilot A and pilot B cannot log flight time under 61.51(e)(2).

14 CFR 61.51(e)(3) permits pilot B to log PIC time as a flight instructor instructor while acting as an authorized instructor, but eeegads, he's not a flight instructor, and he's not providing authorized instruction, nor his he authorized to act as a flight instructor or provide instruction as such. Sorry pilot B. 14 CFR 61.51(e)(3) doesn't apply to you. Go to the back of the line. Can't log PIC flight time under 61.51(e)(3).

Neither can pilot A, who isn't a flight instructor, and who isn't providing instruction. Pilot A and pilot B cannot log time under 61.51(e)(3).

14 CFR 61.51(e)(4)(i) permits pilot B to log PIC time as a student pilot when sole occupant of the aircraft, or when pilot in command of an airship requiring more than one flight crewmember. But eeegads, pilot B isn't a student pilot, isn't the sole occupant of the aircraft, and isn't flying an airship...he's in an airplane, not a blimp. Sorry Pilot B. 14 CFR 61.51(e)(4)(i) doesn't apply to you. Go to the back of the line. Can't log PIC flight time under 61.51(e)(4)(i).

Neither can pilot A, who isn't flying solo, isn't pilot in command, and isn't in a blimp either.. Pilot A and pilot B cannot log flight ime under 61.51(e)(4)(i).

Clearly, neither pilot may log pilot-in command time. But what about second in command time? As 14 CFR 61.51(f)(1) requires that the aircraft type certificate require a SIC, or 61.51(f)(2) requires that the regulations under which the flight is conducted require a SIC, no provision exists under which either pilot A or pilot B may log SIC time during this flight. No PIC, no SIC.

The only provision remaining for logging this time would be 61.51(h). This section applies to training and instruction received. As neither pilot is an authorized instructor, neither is qualified to give instruction, we'll leave that aside; neither pilot may log flight time in accordance with 61.51(h).

In short, neither pilot may log the time. Perhaps then, o argumentative one, you may provide clear evidence to the contrary, or will you drop it?

That issue has been handled; you have no where to go with it, except personal opinion (which has no meaning in a question of regulation or law). You have brought up Part 135 twice now in this thread; once regarding statements I made in a different thread. You failed to respond in that thread or to address the issue. If you have something to say about that thread, then make your statement on that thread. If you're brining up a new point regarding another regulation (eg, 135.225), then start a new thread on that topic and we'll address it. Clearly you don't understand the regulation well; a treatment of that topic, if you can look for understanding and not arguement, may serve you well.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think 61.51(e)(1)(iii) shows what their intent is.

I agree. They made a special provision allowing an acting PIC to log Part 61 PIC even when not doing the flying in a two pilot operation. They also made a special provision for allowing an ATP who is acting as PIC in an operation that requires an ATP certificate, even when in the bathroom. Why? Neither provision is necessary if the basic rule is Act as PIC = Log Part 61 PIC.

Of course, they also put in the basic rule that says that, except for those two situations, a pilot may log Part 61 PIC =only= when the sole manipulator of the controls.

You'd also avoid all those nasty NTSB cases like the one where two CFIs got nailed when they claimed to give each other flight instruction on 200 flights so they could both log Part 61 PIC. http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4008.PDF

How much easier if they could simply have said that the non flying pilot was always the acting pilot in command. And how easy it would be to build time!

Also, I'm interested in your opinion of my hypothetical scenario.

Suppose a student pilot (pilot a) asks an acquaintance if they want to go for an airplane ride. The passenger happens to be a private pilot who is current (pilot B). Pilot B is under the impression that pilot A is a private pilot, and of course has no way of knowing, but assumes that anyone carrying a pax would be rated, right?

An incident occurs. Who gets blamed? Was the flight legal?

Gotta agree for the most part with Avbug.

That, of course assumes a couple of things about your scenario. Change the facts slightly and there will be a different result. The assumptions I am reading into it are:

1. It is the student pilot's intent to act as PIC on the flight and take a passenger.

2. The passenger in fact "has no way of knowing" that his good friend is only a student pilot and planned on being just a passenger.

Under those assumptions, the flight is illegal. And the student pilot will definitely be responsible if an incident occurs. And the FAA and any lawyer looking to pin responsibility on the private pilot, will look very, very hard to find the facts that show that #2 is unlikely.

Of course, the scenario has nothing to do with logging PIC, doesn't?

 

[Lead Sled]

...The passenger in fact "has no way of knowing" that his good friend is only a student pilot and planned on being just a passenger...

[font=ARIAL,]Just to add some fuel to the fire...

Things aren't always logical. There have been a few cases where individuals holding CFI certificates were riding along as passengers in aircraft that were involved in accidents. In the court battles that insued, they were found to be ACTING PICs in aircraft and their estates were consequently held liable for monetary damages. The kicker is that, in each case, these CFIs weren't sitting in one of the two front seats and in one case the CFI was seated in the back row of a Piper Aztec.

Guys, if you are a CFI and if you are rated to fly in the airplane that you happen to be in, even if you are just an innocent passenger, you can potentially be held financially liable in the event of an accident. Our legal system - you gotta luv it baby!
Lead Sled [/font]

 

[100LL... Again!]

Avbug - your petulant rehash ofthe entire reg was appreciated, but unnecessary.

Also, FAA legal counsel has reversed itself in the past as well. My point is that to NOT log the time is kind of silly, and shows a nearly neurotic adherence to the letter of the law.

If my buddy flies the plane for 10 or fifteen minutes and I was not a CFI, I'd log the whole thing.

I agree with the analysis of the hypothetical flight. I just wanted to see if anyone would say that the passener PVT pilot was PIC.

And who appointed you the bbs police re: my mention of 135 regs?

Easily ignored by those who would feel offended. I'm lazy, sue me.

 

[A Squared]

[font=ARIAL,]Just to add some fuel to the fire...

Things aren't always logical. There have been a few cases where individuals holding CFI certificates were riding along as passengers in aircraft that were involved in accidents. In the court battles that insued, they were found to be ACTING PICs in aircraft and their estates were consequently held liable for monetary damages. The kicker is that, in each case, these CFIs weren't sitting in one of the two front seats and in one case the CFI was seated in the back row of a Piper Aztec. [/font]

You know, I've been hearing this for a couple of decades, but I've never seen anything concrete to support it. I'm inclined to believe that it is an Urban Myth. I obviously would change that view if you were to reference an NTSB order in which this actually happened. In absence of that, I would say that it's probably just a tall tale that has been repeated so often that it has been accepted.

 

[Lead Sled]

You know, I've been hearing this for a couple of decades, but I've never seen anything concrete to support it. I'm inclined to believe that it is an Urban Myth. I obviously would change that view if you were to reference an NTSB order in which this actually happened. In absence of that, I would say that it's probably just a tall tale that has been repeated so often that it has been accepted.

There was an article in one of the flying magazines several years ago that gave the details. I remember reading it, but I don't remember the specifics. Additionally I attended an CFI revalidation course several years ago and they had an aviation attorney talk about the incidents. But, I'm like you - I'd like to read the case law for my self.

Lead Sled

 

[midlifeflyer]

There have been a few cases where individuals holding CFI certificates were riding along as passengers in aircraft that were involved in accidents. In the court battles that insued, they were found to be ACTING PICs in aircraft and their estates were consequently held liable for monetary damages.

Citations, please. Like some of the others, I've been trying to track down this urban legend for a long time. Here's the best that I could come up with (personal FAQ)

==============================
There are a few NTSB reports in which the probable cause of an accident included the actions of a CFI/passenger. But in all of them, the CFI was doing a more than just being a passenger. They range from the unfortunate, like this one where the Passenger/CFI, faced with an engine failure. attempted to help (I'm reading this report in the worst way. The report doesn't really tell us whether the CFI was "merely" a passenger. A non-PIC CFI is technically a passenger even if giving instruction. Personally, I think the result would have been the same if the passenger were not a CFI, but just another rated pilot. )

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X15194&key=1

to the stupid, such as this one where the CFI "passenger" essentially talked another pilot into flying in marginal conditions with an inoperative artificial horizon and ended up sharing the blame for the accident..

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X05581&key=1

But the CFI in the back seat taking a nap and being held responsible for an accident? No hits.

Some might see these two (and the few others) as prime examples of the urban legend, but I think they illustrate two categories to be careful about.

In the first, taking action always involves the risk of being held for the consequences if you do it wrong. I'm not that thrilled with the idea, but I'm comfortable with accepting that level of responsibility. (Besides, despite the probable cause finding, I don't know whether there was any certificate action or civil legal action taken. There may not have been).

The other category is illustrative of a more general rule that if you act like a moron you're going to share the blame for what happens.
==============================

 

[Lead Sled]

Mark...

I wish that I had kept the magazine article. (I probably would have kept every airplane magazine one that I've ever read, but my wife had different ideas. She said something about "clutter" and "trash". ) I do remember, from both the article that I read and from the AOPA Flight Instructor Revalidation Course I took nearly 20 years ago, that the CFIs were found partially liable in civil court - they should have recognized the deteriating situation and used their influence to get things back on track. The fact that they weren't sitting at one of the pilot stations didn't seem to matter to the juries. I'll ask my aviation attorney buddy and see if he can get me some references.

Lead Sled

 

[midlifeflyer]

(I probably would have kept every airplane magazine one that I've ever read, but my wife had different ideas. She said something about "clutter" and "trash". )

Are we married to the same woman?

 

[Lead Sled]

Are we married to the same woman?

Hummm. She does seem to want to visit Denver a lot. Does your wife have a mole...

Lead Sled