Another logging question..

[midlifeflyer]

I'm still waiting to see the logbook falsification certificate action brought by the FAA because a private pilot logged the whole flight time he let his 7 year old niece touch the controls.

And I've always thought of the dog as being Shoeshine Boy. At least =he= already knows how to fly.

 

[midlifeflyer]

one other question for you. The same student passed his private last week. He is now moving onto his commercial/instrument. He needs to do some hour building and asked me if I wanted to accompany him on some cross country flights so as I can demonstrate to him the commercial maneuvers. I am reluctant to accompany him to much as I feel it’s an important learning curve doing long solo cross country flights in anticipation of a commercial license.

I will hopefully have my CFI ticket very soon, so I presume I could log this as instruction given. But if I am still trying to grasp the FOIs holding only a CPL/IR do I only log the time I was the sole manipulator of the controls or acting as safety pilot?

Good thought about being reluctant because post private cross country flights should be a learning experience for the new pilot. Better to not have an experienced pilot in the other seat.

To answer the logging question, even if the "only certificated pilot on board" opinion =is= valid, once we have two pilots on board with the appropriate category, class, and type ratings, we are out of that very narrow situation.

It's been pretty clear for a long time that, there are only two ways for a non-ATP or non-CFI to log PIC time under 61.51.

One is being the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft covered by the pilot's ratings.

The other is when acting as the pilot in command on a flight when flying an aircraft that requires more than one pilot or when a federal aviation regulation requires more than one pilot. Assuming we're under Part 91, I there is only one situation that I know of: acting as PIC while acting as a safety pilot under 91.109(b)

 

[avbug]

I don't know that the woulda, coulda, shoulda's have any real place here. When dealing with questions of regulation, what we think oughtta be really means nothing. It's irrelevant.

What does matter is the regulation, and the interpretation thereof.

The question was posed as to the meaning of the regulation, and it's application, and the answer given. That the FAA has or has not successfully pressed enforcement action, and what one might get away with in accordance with that lack of prosecution, is hardly material or germain to the topic of legality.

The regulation is clear on the conditions under which one may log the time. Beyond that, one may do whatever one wants, though it's hardly relevant to the question. In a business wherein accuracy counts, trying to see what we can get away with hardly becomes us.

 

[IrishFlyer]

Thank you all for your very informative replies.
I cannot say I have found the definitive answer, bit I have learned plenty on what to's and what not's regarding the FARs.

If I took control of the aircraft during this particular flight and demonstrated slow flight and stalls. Is that time loggable?

Luckily with this flight I entered it into my logbook with pencil so I can edit the contents as necessary.

Cheers,

IF

 

[avbug]

I wouldn't worry about the pencil. Mark was correct previously when he stated that the FAA likely won't every look or care, unless you write in big block letters that you logged the time when you didn't fly and spell out the circumstances. All we're really doing here is examining the regulation and it's meaning.

If you manipulate the controls and you're rated in the airplane, of course you can log it. (Remember that rated means category and class, and that endorsements are not ratings, nor necessary for the logging of time).

To append Mark's prior comments; if you are PIC and served as PIC, and you log the flight time as PIC...is there any reason to put any more detail in your logbook that would throw that entry into question in the future?

There is not. Accordingly, as your logbookis a legal document, if you wish to log time, don't add more to it than necessary. As an example; we often have discussions about the efficacy of logging safety pilot time as PIC time. Too much of it looks funny, all logging issues aside. However, if you're going to act as safety pilot and PIC, and log the time accordingly (changing the scenario for the purpose of illustration, here), is there any reason that you must ever state that you logged that PIC time as safety pilot? Not really. If you simply write PIC in your logbook, which is true and correct, then there's nothing that might cause an interviewer or the FAA, or another soul to question it.

I believe that was the gist of Mark's comment before, to which I responded with my last post. The issue here is only that of legality. However, as Mark noted, if you were pilot in command, and you logged it as pilot in command...wouldn't it be prudent to stop there and leave it as such? Such logging is not consistent with the regulation, but one viewing that log entry would have no reason to question further unless you put in big bold letters ...and I did it while Johnny was manipulating the controls and I didn't touch a goldarn thing, even though I was really in charge and stuff... if you get my point.

 

[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.