Current Chart FAR

[El Cid Av8or]

In training for the CFI certificate, my instructor, a fellow CFI student and I are having a hard time finding an FAR that states you have to have a current navigation chart on board while operating the aircraft. Anybody know of one?

For the aircraft...
A - Airworthiness certificate
R - Registration
R - Radio operator's permit (if going international)
O - Operating limitations
W - Weight and balance data

For the pilot...
P - Pilot's certificate
I - Identification (with picture)
M - Medical certificate

So where does it say you have to carry a chart and especially one that is current? We could not find it in parts 61 or 91.

 

[sbav8r]

Read this thread agian: chart currency

 

[El Cid Av8or]

Thanks for posting the link, sbav8r. Like a lot of the FARs, it sure is "interesting" to say the least...

Quote from one poster on that board...
VFR - Yes, but it depens on intrepretation. 91.103 and specifically, 91.503: "(a) The pilot in command of an airplane shall ensure that the following flying equipment and aeronautical charts and data, in current and appropriate form, are accessible for each flight at the pilot station of the airplane: (3) Pertinent aeronautical charts." The interpretation comes in to what exactly does "pertinent" mean?

IFR - Yes. 91.503: "(a) The pilot in command of an airplane shall ensure that the following flying equipment and aeronautical charts and data, in current and appropriate form, are accessible for each flight at the pilot station of the airplane: (4) For IFR, VFR over-the-top, or night operations, each pertinent navigational en route, terminal area, and approach and letdown chart. "

And then another...
91.503 comes under Subpart F which, under 91.501 Applicability says:

"This subpart prescribes operating rules, in addition to those prescribed in other subparts of this part, governing the operation of large and of turbojet-powered multi engine civil airplanes of U.S. registry. The operating rules in this subpart do not apply to those airplanes when they are required to be operated under parts 121.....135 etc."

So this doesn't apply to a PA28, C150, or any 121 or 135 ops from my interpretation.

And as far as 91.103, it talks about before beginning a flight, blah blah. Well, inflight isn't before beginning it, so that doesn't seem to apply either. I'm still searching myself for the chart/publication requirement...maybe its in an AC somewhere.

Looks like another successful attempt by the FAA to confuse the heck out of pilots.

 

[sbav8r]

Logging PIC questions are the ones that always get me. It seems that there is some way of logging PIC under any circumstances, including watching a lunar landing on Wings, if you just "interpret" the regs to your advantage. I've become so confused on these issues that I just follow one rule of thumb; if you have to look it up in the regs you probably shouldn't log it. Personally I don't care to have to explain my interpretation to the FAA or employer for a few more PIC hours. I'll just log time with clear and unquestionable experience.

 

[avbug]

14 CFR 61.51 is really quite clear on logging of flight time. Ample legal interpretations have been provided that there should really be no confusion on the issue. Post here with questions if you have them. You'll get quite a lot of help. It's not that hard to understand.

Can you fly with outdated charts? Yes. Can you fly without charts? Yes. Should you? You already know the answer to that.

The Administrator changed stance on that slightly a few years ago. Formerly it was taboo, and enforcement action could be taken for flying without current charts (remember that 91.13 has wideranging applicability). However, the administrator was convinced by the action of certain alphabet letter groups, that a chart is better than no chart...and it's not in the interest of safety to violate a pilot simply because the chart has expired.

A pilot is better to take an expired chart than none, in other words.

However, if you incur the wrath of the administrator based on failure to have current information, then you most certainly will be violated. You'll certainly have to explain your position based on 91.103, which states that you will have all information pertinent to the flight. That's not just the listed items, but is all-inclusive. Everything.

Some charting systems use old charts that are updated by you. You draw on the chart. So long as you have current information, you're in good shape. You won't be violated if the chart has reached it's expiration date. Or at least, if you are, you are in great shape for appeal.

 

[sbav8r]

As for the logging of flight time question I was just simply saying that there are numerous circumstances in which people log PIC when the regs are rather unclear.

The last time I entered one of these debates it was regarding this question.

A person logging PIC in complex/ high performance aircraft without either endorsement, while in the aircraft with someone who is.

CFR 61.51

(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 is-
(i) Is sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated.

In this case the pilot is "rated" ASEL. This is all that is necessary for logging pilot in command flight time, an endorsement for high performance/ complex is not a rating.

CFR 61.31
(e) Additional training for operating complex airplanes.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) (2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane, unless the person has
(i) received and logged ground instruction and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and
(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilots logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person proficient to operate a complex airplane.

note: in (2) it states that if any pilot has logged time in complex aircraft prior to August 4, 1997 the endorsement is not needed.

So by this he may not solo the airplane or act as pilot in command of it, but may log pilot in command flight time for the time for which he was sole manipulator of the controls. Someone else in the aircraft is needed to act as pilot in command to make the flight legal, if that person has the proper endorsement.

This is how I interpret the regs, correct me if I'm wrong. With that said I personally would not log the time until the endorsement was issued because I do not want there to be any questions regarding my integrity when applying for jobs.

 

[avbug]

Sbav8r,

Clearly there is a difference between logging PIC, and acting as PIC. This is where pilots sometimes confuse themselves. However, the regulation is quite clear.

Two pilots may log PIC at the same time, just as occasions arise when neither pilot may log PIC. Only one pilot may act as PIC, though two may log it. One pilot must always be PIC, even though sometimes neither pilot can log it.

Yes, without an endorsement, one cannot act as PIC, but one may log PIC as sole manipulator. This is perfectly legal, and acceptable. An endorsement is not a rating, and while you can't act as PIC, you can certainly log the time you flew the airplane.

Personally, I never received any endorsements, as I logged the time before the endorsements became requirements. I wasn't required to get them. Does this mean that an employer or inspector will flip out when examining my logs, and finding time in these various airplanes with no endorsements? Of course not. Because any competent inspector or prospective employer understands that logging time is not the same as acting as PIC, and any truly competent person understands that competency is in the person, not the logbook.

Who cares what the logbook says? It's all about what you can really do. Hours mean nothing. Don't we all know pilots with glorious pasts and histories that can't hardly tie their shoelaces, let alone close the airplane door? (I do). Weather their logs are falsified or not isn't really even an issue. What they can do with the airplane is, and that's all that counts. (with the exception of discussing theory, such as the regulation, of course).

 

[sbav8r]

Two pilots may log PIC at the same time, just as occasions arise when neither pilot may log PIC. Only one pilot may act as PIC, though two may log it. One pilot must always be PIC, even though sometimes neither pilot can log it.

ahhh... Thanks for clearing that up for us, I think.

We've started doing quizes over at Jetcareers.com, you care to bring some of your knowledge over there and post some questions? I've read all your posts and I bet all the newbies could really benefit from your experience. Post any questions in the Tech talk thread. I for one have been amazed by some of the uncommon knowledge I've learned from your posts that I would have never learned from books. Thanks

 

[midlifeflyer]

As for the logging of flight time question I was just simply saying that there are numerous circumstances in which people log PIC when the regs are rather unclear.

The last time I entered one of these debates it was regarding this question.

A person logging PIC in complex/ high performance aircraft without either endorsement, while in the aircraft with someone who is.

This is how I interpret the regs, correct me if I'm wrong. With that said I personally would not log the time until the endorsement was issued because I do not want there to be any questions regarding my integrity when applying for jobs.

Log what yo want, but, so far, I'm not aware of someone getting in trouble for logging something properly.

I'll say the same thing I usually do under these circumstances.

Whether the PIC logging regulations are unclear or not depends in large part on your definition of "unclear". The FAA has officially and consistently interpreted 61.51 for almost 25 years. If your definition is "it's been exactly the same for almost 25 years but =I= still don't understand it or won't accept it" then I guess they're unclear.

Take your complex high-performance example. The earliest FAA legal counsel interpretation I could find clearly setting it out is dated in 1980.

FWIW, here's my person FAQ on the logging rules (it's cut and paste; I'm not =that=longwinded):

Here's a simple version of the rules as they have been written in the FAR and repeatedly and consistently 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 us, it covers simulated instrument flight where a second "safety pilot" is required by the regulations all the time that the "manipulator" is under the hood. If the two pilots agree that the safety pilot is acting as PIC, the safety pilot can log the time as PIC.

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.

 

[sbav8r]

Whether the PIC logging regulations are unclear or not depends in large part on your definition of "unclear". The FAA has officially and consistently interpreted 61.51 for almost 25 years. If your definition is "it's been exactly the same for almost 25 years but =I= still don't understand it or won't accept it" then I guess they're unclear.

Read my post, I interpreted it the same way. However, try calling a few of the FSDO and your likely to get conflicting answers. When this debate was brought up on another board we did just that and sure enough the answers conflicted. Complex and High-performance endorsements have only been required since 97, so the FAA has not been interpreting this issue for 25 years.

 

[avbug]

Complex and high performance endorsements have been required longer than that, but the regulation was re-written in 1997.

Don't call the FSDO. The FSDO does NOT have the authority to interpret a regulation. The FSDO initiates enforcement action and processes things at the field level. Legal interpretations are issued through legal counsel at the regional and national levels.

Learning regulation will be central to keeping your career intact. Now is as good a time as any to start. Don't speculate. Ignorance of the regulation will not serve in your defense. Your best bet is to get to know the system, and the regulation, and make it work for you.

 

[sbav8r]

Good to know. I already have both endorsements so I log PIC, but when I was training my instrucor did not have me log PIC. It was not until I began working on the CFI that I realized that I was legal to log PIC without the enforsement. Do to the conflicting information from the FSDO I assumed it was not a good idea to log it because it would raise unnecessary questions regarding your flight time. In the future I will have students log it as PIC.

Quite often instructors and schools use the FSDO as final authority on a subject, I'm glad you told me that. I thought that interpretation of the regs was within their duties.

So any chance you'll make it over to Jetcareers.com Avbug?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Complex and High-performance endorsements have only been required since 97, so the FAA has not been interpreting this issue for 25 years.

But they have. What they have been consistently interpreting is the word "rating". The high performance endorsement was on ly one of about 10 examples in the opinion. The '97 revision didn't change the word "endorsement" to "rating". 61.51's in an aircraft for which the pilot is "rated" has been the same just about forever. In order to be a"rating" it has top be printed on the back of your pilot certificate. Period. That hasn't changed one bit since 1980.

The fact that someone in a FSDO gets it wrong is irrelevant to whether it is clear or not. The mistaken beliefs of the cop on the beat doesn't rise to the level of official departmental policy. What if he told you that you needed a blue pilot certificate in order to act as PIC in a Cessna 152?

There =was= one little snafu over this (which is where some of the FSDO people got their mistaken idea). John Lynch, who was responsible for much of the Part 61 rewrite and writes the Part 61 FAQ said that you needed the endorsement in order to log PIC. He was wrong and was very soon corrected by the FAA legal department, which has been absolutely consistent in interpreting the word "rating" in 61.51.

 

[bobbysamd]

John Lynch warning

I always like these debates regarding reg interpretations on the FAA FAQ. Many people believe that the answers posted on an FAQ is the law. But it isn't. The FAQ might provide informed (?) guidance, but it is not black-letter law.

In other words, take an FAR by its plain meaning and follow it as stated. Don't look for shades of gray. Don't do what John Lynch says on the FAQ. Guaranteed, you'll be laughed right out of the FSDO and the ALJ's chambers if you say you relied on John Lynch's FAQ and not the reg as written.

 

[A Squared]

Good to see some healthy skepticism about John Lynch's FAQ. Be very careful, as it has no official standing and has makes a fair amount of statements which have no basis in the text of the regulations.

I saw one "FAQ" answer in which Mr. Lynch presented one of his opinions in a format which made it appear as if it was an excerpt from the regulations, the thing is, there was nothing in the regulations even remotely like that, and it was just a complete fabrication. Unfortunately, Mr. Lynch's "FAQ's" are badly tainted by Mr Lynch's opinions of how things "should be", not how he regulations are actually written.

His FAQ's are useful in only two instances:

1) when they are backed up by a FAA counsel legal opinion.

or

2) when they address a policy issue for examiner designees, which is the limit of Mr. Lynch's authority.

Otherwise, the law is what the words of the law say, and Mr. Lynch's opinions of how the world "ought" to be are pretty irrelevant.

regards