Finally, Legal info on logging PIC

[Beetle007]

I decided to post a new thread regarding logging of flight time because I found a very good website that answers the questions of Several of my previous posts, and ALL logging of flight time questions. I would recommend every Pilot read this, as it cleared up many of my misunderstandings and confirmed many of my beliefs via FAA general council letters.

Answers to my earlier Post:

http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal2.html http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal9.html


Answers to ALL logging of flight time (With General Council Letters as evidence):

http://www.propilot.com/doc/logging2.html

 

[LAZYB]

FAA's Chief Counsel's Office

Legal Interpretation # 92-40

June 5, 1992

Dear Mr. Butler:

Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1992, in which you ask
questions about logging pilot-in-command (PIC) and
second-in-command (SIC) time when operating under Part 121 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

Your letter presents the following scenario: under a Part 121
operation, the air carrier has designated a pilot and a co-pilot.
The pilot is the authorized PIC and the co-pilot is the
authorized SIC. During the course of the flight, the SIC is the
sole manipulator of the controls for one or more legs.

You ask two questions. The first asks whether the pilot
designated as PIC by the employer, as required by FAR 121.385,
can log PIC time while the SIC is actually flying the airplane.
The answer is yes.

FAR 1.1 defines pilot in command:

(1) Pilot in command means the pilot responsible for the
operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.

FAR 91.3 describes the pilot in command:

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the
operation of that aircraft.

There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC
time. Part 61 deals with logging flight time, and it is
important to note that section 61.51, Pilot logbooks, only
regulates the recording of:

(a) The aeronautical training and experience used to meet
the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent
flight experience requirements of this part.

Your second question asks if the SIC is flying the airplane, can
he log PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) because he
is appropriately rated and current, and is the sole manipulator
of the controls. Additionally, he has passed the competency
checks required for Part 121 operations, at least as SIC. The
answer is yes.

FAR 61.51(c) addresses logging of pilot time:

(2) Pilot-in-command flight time.

(i) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may
log pilot-in-command time only that flight time during
which that pilot is the sole manipulator of the
controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated,
or when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft,
or, except for a recreational pilot, when acting as
pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one
pilot is required under the type certification or the
aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is
conducted.

(ii) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot in
command time all of the flight time during which he
acts as pilot in command.

(iii) Second-in-command flight time. A pilot may log
as second in command time all flight time during which
he acts as second 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.

As you can see, there are two ways to log pilot-in-command flight
time that are pertinent to both your questions. The first is as
the pilot responsible for the safety and operation of an aircraft
during flight time. If a pilot is designated as PIC for a flight
by the certificate holder, as required by FAR 121.385, that
person is pilot in command for the entire flight, no matter who
is actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft, because
that pilot is responsible for the safety and operation of the
aircraft.

The second way to log PIC flight time that is pertinent to your
question is to be the sole manipulator of the controls of an
aircraft for which the pilot is rated, as you mention in your
letter. Thus, under a 121 operation you can have both pilots
logging time as pilot in command when the appropriately rated
second in command is manipulating the controls.

We stress, however, that here we are discussing logging of flight
time for purposes of FAR 61.51, where you are keeping a record to
show recent flight experience or to show that you meet the
requirements for a higher rating. Your question does not say if
the second pilot in your example is fully qualified as a PIC, or
only as an SIC. This is important, because even though an SIC
can log PIC time, that pilot may not be qualified to serve as PIC
under Part 121.

An example of this difference is FAR 121.652(a), which raises IFR
landing minimums for pilots in command of airplanes flown under
Part 121 who have not served at least 100 hours as PIC in that
type of airplane. Served and logged are not the same in this
context, and no matter how the SIC logs his time, he has not
served as a PIC until he has completed the training and check
rides necessary for certification as a Part 121 PIC.

We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

Sincerely,

/s/ Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division



http://www.apocalypse.org/pub/u/amb/pic-time.txt

The following information is a compendium of legal interpretations culled from the files of the FAA's Chief Counsel's Office which pertain to the subject of logging of flight time.

 

[Beetle007]

That looks like a great link LazyB..thanks


Did you notice that a Private Pilot who takes his non-pilot friend up flying can't log the flight time as PIC while the friend is manipulating the flight controls? Just because the Private pilot is acting as PIC...he doesnt qualify to log PIC because he isnt controling the aircraft 61.51. And, this is made very clear by the FARs. This is one scenario when applying common sense would lead you to log flight time "Illegally." But, most of the scenarios work in our favor. Common Sense would say "The Pilot who is acting as PIC should be the pilot Logging PIC."


It appears as if two logbook columns should become industry standard for reflecting the "two Major types of PIC." Obviously, a pilot who is type rated and controling the aircraft will benefit from the flight more than a non-rated pilot. Therefore, I understand the FAA throwing us a bone and allowing us to log it differently. One of the FAA guys states "dont look a gift horse in the mouth."

I'm guessing the Flight Instructors who read the FAR's literally and research FAA legal interpretations will continue to debate these issues with "common sense" Pilots for as long as I am alive.

The FAA gives us the answers, but our minds can't accept them. Kind of like that Movie MATRIX. The humans can't accept the perfect world that goes against reality.....and it causes the first harvest of humans to all die.

 

[LAZYB]

Ain't it great

Beetle007

The Feds like ambiguity, and they usually don't like to put anything in writing, re: interpretations, at the FSDO/GADO level.

When I flew for Rockwell Int'l we were in a hangar on the south side of LAX with the FSDO & USCG - now FEDEX ramp. I had a question on the regs and walked over to ask a FSDO inspector. His response - "what do you think it means?"

Sometimes pilots shop the FSDOs until they get the answer they want.

 

[flywithastick]

Re: Ain't it great

The Feds like ambiguity, and they usually don't like to put anything in writing, re: interpretations, at the FSDO/GADO level.

Same can be said for most federal and state agencies. It keeps them in business.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Did you notice that a Private Pilot who takes his non-pilot friend up flying can't log the flight time as PIC while the friend is manipulating the flight controls?

There's actually an old legal opinion that deals with this in the context of a situation where one pilot is rated and the other is not. I snipped out inapplicable parts for brevity. Due to the age of the opinion, some of the references to the FAR sections have changed, but the text of the applicable FARs are identical.

June 22, 1977

Mr. Thomas Beane

Dear Mr. Beane:

This letter is in response to your recent letters to the FAA Flight Standards Service and to the Chief Counsel inquiring about the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time by an airman whenever he is not the sole manipulator of the controls.

[snip]

A pilot may log PIC time in accordance with Section 61.51(c)(2)(I) when he is not actually "flying the airplane", if the airplane is one on which more than one pilot is required under its type certificate or under the regulations under which the flight is conducted and he is acting as PIC. Also, a pilot, rated in category and class (e.g. airplane single-engine) could, as the pilot who "Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight" log PIC time if another pilot, not appropriately rated, was actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft.

Because of it's age and the fact that there's no support whatsoever for it the logging regulation (now =or= then), people who have heard this one (which I call the "only rated pilot on board" opinion) tend to argue about whether it's valid.

But as far as I am concerned, yes, you can log PIC while your 3 year old niece "flies" the airplane. Besides, does anyone think the FAA or a potential employer really cares about this one.

 

[Timebuilder]

Did you notice that a Private Pilot who takes his non-pilot friend up flying can't log the flight time as PIC while the friend is manipulating the flight controls? Just because the Private pilot is acting as PIC...he doesnt qualify to log PIC because he isnt controling the aircraft 61.51. And, this is made very clear by the FARs.

If there is a mishap, who will be seen as responsible? The person manipulating the controls? Nope. The person with the expereince and the certificate will be held as the responsible pilot in command. Why would this person be unable to log this flight as PIC? The only reason is "because we say so", which is at best idiotic.

This acting versus logging question calls into question the ability of the Feds to act as credible regulators in our industry. The contradictory, accident-driven patchwork of ambiguous regulations is an impenetrable hum of useless white noise that whould be quickly struck down if they were civil law. As federal regulations, they are beyond the reach of reason.

And sadly, respect.