Hypothetical Situation

[N49185]

True or False? A private pilot takes his 10-year old daughter for a ride in the family airplane and allows the girl to fly the airplane during cruise flight. The private pilot may log the cruise portion of this flight as PIC.

 

[ThomasR]

PIC

Without looking up the answer I say YES. I mean TRUE.

 

[apdsm]

Nope, the little girl gets the PIC time!!!

 

[dmspilot00]

False, and the little girl does not get to log PIC time.

 

[Big Duke Six]

True

Since she's not qualified, he is the PIC and can log it as such. SHE certainly can't log it, so somone has to. As in the military, the Aircraft Commander logs Aircraft Commander time no matter who is flying. Same scenario. Just my gut answer without looking...

 

[skeezer]

This comes down to the difference between acting as PIC and logging PIC. While the father may be acting as PIC, he cannot log the flight time because under 14 CFR 61.51(e)(1) states:

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.


Since the father is NOT the sole manipulator of the controls cannot legally log it. In reality, just freaking log it because nobody will care either way.

Peace!

Skeezer

 

[bobbysamd]

Logging flight time

The regs may say what they say, but there comes a time when there is too much hair-splitting. Just log the time.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

I better take over a thousand hours out of my log book and get the autopilot a logbook.

 

[DJS]

Autopilot

I better take over a thousand hours out of my log book and get the autopilot a logbook.

Back to splitting hairs...but the autopilot *is* a control and you manipulated it.

 

[FlyChicaga]

Did she PFT?

 

[A Squared]

Skeezer has the right answers

No,

and

"In reality, just freaking log it because nobody will care either way."

Good answer in both cases.

Yeah, it seems like hair splitting when you apply it to the context of a 10 year old girl, and it is, but the basic concept is relevant and non-trivial.

The concept is this: the fact that you are *acting* as PIC of a single pilot airplane does not entitle you to *log* PIC. WIthout this, the door would be open to unlimited double logging. You could go out with your buddy in an airplane, he logs all the time as PIC as he is "sole manipulator" and you log all the time as PIC as you agreed that you are the acting PIC. It's is perfectly reasonable for the FAA to forbid this. (yes I understand that you can accomplish almost the same theing by putting the flying pilot under the hood) However, the regulation which prohibits this, also necessarily prohibits the father from logging the time his 10 your old is flying.

 

[Pilot124]

Did she PFT?

That was awsome...ROTFLMAO

 

[Big Duke Six]

Context

Thanks for the references guys. While on paper you appear to be correct, I'm still not convinced that it would apply in the situation described. Taken literally, the reg does indeed prevent double-logging of time. Everyone understands that. But I have a hard time believing the Feds would prohibit a man from logging the time his daughter was flying in this scenario. I mean, yes the Feds can be anal, but I don't believe the intent here was to leave the aircraft without a PIC logging the time the aircraft was airborne.

But, if that is indeed the intent of the reg then I'll sit back and shake my head in wonderment, once again.

As a sidenote, someone mentioned the autopilot as being a "control". Good enough. If it came down to it, couldn't you also argue that the father was manipulating the non-rated daughter, via voice-control?

 

[FracCapt]

True or False? A private pilot takes his 10-year old daughter for a ride in the family airplane and allows the girl to fly the airplane during cruise flight. The private pilot may log the cruise portion of this flight as PIC.

That depends on who is REALLY in charge....the dad or daughter. Usually, it's the daughter. She just bats her eyes and daddy crumbles. In that case, SHE IS IN COMMAND!

 

[shamrock]

Remember when logging PIC time, along with PFT, was the most contentious issue on FlightInfo?

The good old days, I miss 'em!

 

[7B2]

A private pilot takes his 10-year old daughter for a ride in the family airplane and allows the girl to fly the airplane during cruise flight

She may not fly the plane at all, he is "just" a private pilot and not an instructor therefor he should be arrested, thrown in jail and his license taken away forever.
Make pictures of him while in jail and publish them on the internet and prosecute the guards and throw them in jail as well.
Make pictures of them and so on and on.........

 

[midlifeflyer]

True. My personal favorite logging issue!

I post my "rules of logging" from time to time. Here's Rule No 4:

==============================
Rule 4 Based on a unpublished 1977 Chief Counsel opinion (there is some reasonable disagreement on whether it's 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.
==============================

Here's the full counsel opinion:

==============================
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.


Section 1.1 of the Federal Aviation Regulations defines Pilot in Command as:

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; (2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and (3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

Section 61.51(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations provides, in pertinent part:

(2) Pilot-in-Command flight time.

(I) A private or commercial pilot may log as pilot in command time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts 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.

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.

It should be noted that more than one pilot may log PIC time for the same flight time. For example, one pilot receiving instruction may log PIC time in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(I) for the time he is designated PIC, and another pilot may log PIC time in accordance with (c)(2)(iii) for the same time during which he is actually giving flight instruction.

We hope that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry on the proper logging of PIC time.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY EDWARD P. FABERMAN

for NEIL R. EISNER Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations & Enforcement Division Office of the Chief Counsel -
==============================

and, here's a completely fabricated story of how the opinion came to be:

==============================
The Unofficial, Unvarnished, and Totally Made-Up Truth About the "Only Pilot On Board" Opinion

My guess is that one day the lawyers at the FAA went out drinking after work and started talking about the logging rules. One of them said, call him Joe, said, "Can a pilot log PIC time if he lets his dog fly the airplane?"

Betty, who was a real stickler for strict readings, replied, "No. Since the dog had its paws on the controls, the pilot wasn't the 'sole manipulator of the controls.' So he can't log anything."

Peter rolled his eyes and said, "I know these rules are a bit convoluted, but really! That is the stupidest thing I ever heard! OF COURSE the pilot can log the flight! He's the ONLY ONE who can!"

"So what?" said Betty. That's what the reg says!"

"Oh BULL!" he said, "The guys who wrote 61.51 couldn't cover EVERY possible situation. A flight in which NO ONE can log PIC is ridiculous.

Fortunately, in addition to being sensible, Peter really knew his stuff. "There's a rule of law that's been around for a long, long time. It applies to both statutes and regulations." Peter continued, "'An interpretation that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result should be avoided.' A flight on which NO ONE can log PIC is absurd."

The others had to agree.
==============================

 

[midlifeflyer]

She may not fly the plane at all, he is "just" a private pilot and not an instructor therefore he should be arrested, thrown in jail and his license taken away forever.

I assume you're joking. If not, head over to your local EAA chapter and tell them they should be jailed for their "Young Eagles" program participation.

 

[A Squared]

D'oh,

well I guess that interpretation settles it Mark. THinking about it, you posted that interpretation last time this topic came up...**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**, maybe this time I'll learn.


regarding:

"There's a rule of law that's been around for a long, long time. It applies to both statutes and regulations. An interpretation that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result should be avoided.'

while that sounds nice and certainly is something to strive for, absurd is in hte eyes of the beholder. Personally, I think that it absurd that the regulations are construed to permit logging of PIC time whei you are not actually the PIC, and when you are not even qualified to act as PIC. Many others also hold the view that this is absurd. However, that's how the regs are currently interpreted. Absurdity seems not to be a consideration.

 

[ThomasR]

Hypothetical

It follows that the daughter by progression could obtain a license on her sixteenth birthday.

 

[midlifeflyer]

well I guess that interpretation settles it Mark. THinking about it, you posted that interpretation last time this topic came up...**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**, maybe this time I'll learn.

Only problem is that I only claim that the opinion came from a source that =I= think is reliable. Some day I may try to track it down a bit more.

Personally, I think that it absurd that the regulations are construed to permit logging of PIC time when you are not actually the PIC, and when you are not even qualified to act as PIC. Many others also hold the view that this is absurd. However, that's how the regs are currently interpreted. Absurdity seems not to be a consideration.

Actually in this case, I don't think that the rules are =construed= to say that. The language is used is really pretty clear and reflect an underlying FAA policy to permit one to count this kind of "hands-on flying time" toward the requirements for certificates or ratings. You are welcome to argue the counting is absurd. You'd be in good company.

 

[skeezer]

On a side note, is there a website or some other place where all the past FAA chief counsel opinions can be found? I would like to get my hands on them if I could because I hate being wrong


Thanks!

Skeezer

 

[Typhoon1244]

Did she PFT?

Yes, she gets to fly a glorified winged weed eater in exchange for all the pretzels she can eat.

Sort of like when I got hired by ASA...

 

[A Squared]

The language is used is really pretty clear and reflect an underlying FAA policy to permit one to count this kind of "hands-on flying time" toward the requirements for certificates or ratings. You are welcome to argue the counting is absurd. You'd be in good company.

First, let's ignore for a moment what the regulation does or doesn't say, and look at the situation from a common sense standpoint. In the abstract, the practice of logging PIC time when you are not in fact the PIC is at least as absurd as ..say...no one logging time in an airplane which is in flight.

The same argument could be made, that without the interpretation you posted, the words of the regulation are very clear and unambiguous, the father may not log the time.


regarding the "sole manipulator" provision, you say:

"The language is used is really pretty clear and reflect an underlying FAA policy to permit one to count this kind of "hands-on flying time" toward the requirements for certificates or ratings.

Do you know for a fact that it was originally the intent of the FAA to allow pilots to log PIC when they were not PIC? Or was FAA policy shaped by a regulation which was worded in a way which did not reflect thier initial intent?

It's a chicken/egg thing, and I bet that in your career you have seen other examples of policy unintentionally shaped by interpretations of regulation or law.

Take a look at the regulation, it says "...may log pilot in command time only for that flight time during which the person- (i) is the sole manipulator of the controls..."

To me that seems more like a restrictive statement, rather than the permissive one which it has been construed as. If it had been intended to be permissive, it would sem that they would have used "...for all flight time..." instead of "...only for that flight time..."

I see two possibilities:

One: it was always the intent of the FAA that pilots could log PIC anytime they touched the controls of an aircraft, and the regulation as interpretatd, reflets the FAA's true and initial intent.

or

two: The FAA position originally was that it was understood that a pilot would only log PIC when he was actually the acting PIC, and furthermore, 61.51(e)(1) placed the *additional restriction* that PIC time could only be logged by a private or commercial pilot if he was actually manipulating the controls (different rules apply to an ATP in a position which requires an ATP, see 61.51(e)(2)) then somewhere along the line, it was noticed that there is no regulation which says you *must* be PIC in order to *log* PIC (even though it was intended to be assumed) and FAA counsel is forced to conclude in an interpretation, that in the absence of a regulation requring you to *be* PIC in order to *log* PIC, then you may log PIC time when you are not PIC. Once that interpretation is made, it then *becomes* FAA policy, even though it wasn't originally FAA policy.

To me sceanrio 2 makes much more sense than scenario one. Scenario 2 is consitent with both the definition of pilot in command, and the restrictive wording of 61.51(e)(1), scenario one is not. I believe that this is a case of a poorly written regulation controlling policy. The term "pilot in command" has a tremendous significance, read part 1 and 91.3. the significance goes far beyond "I had my hands on the controls" I cannot fathom that the FAA ever *intended* for pilots to claim PIC time, merely because they had thier hands on the controls. Yet an imperfect set of regulations was interpreted to allow this (and perheps corretly so based on the words of hte regulations) ....by the time part 61 is re-written in 1997, it has become intrenched in FAA policy and the pilot community so the wording is not changed to reflect the original intent of the FAA. If you will recall, it was proposed by the FAA back when part 61 was being rewritten that the wording be changed to disallow PIC logging by somone who was not a PIC (further evidence as to what the true intent of the FAA is/was) but there was such a howl of protest from pilots who had been using the sole manipulator loophole that the idea was dropped.

Anyway, this is all moot as the interpretation of logging vs acting is clear, even if the regulation is not, still, I'd be interested in your response.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Do you know for a fact that it was originally the intent of the FAA to allow pilots to log PIC when they were not PIC? Or was FAA policy shaped by a regulation which was worded in a way which did not reflect their initial intent?

It's a chicken/egg thing, and I bet that in your career you have seen other examples of policy unintentionally shaped by interpretations of regulation or law.

True. But ultimately, unless we're talking constitutional issues which is a whole different ball game, policy isn't a hostage of legal interpretation. Agencies and legislatures, confronted with a non-constitutional interpretation they don't like, just rewrite the regulation and statute to overrule the court. Happens all the time.

If the FAA didn't like the interpretation, which has been around for a long time, the FAA would have changed it. Long ago. Just look at some of John Lynch's rants where he wants the word "ratings" to include "endorsements." He just can't stand it and says how 'there's gonna be a change to the regulation'. Been saying it for 6 years now, but nothing. He may want it changed, but it's clear the FAA doesn't.

On the other hand, remember the Angel Flight legal opinion? That was the one where FAA legal said that Angel Flight arranging charitable transport and the pilot taking charitable deductions for their expenses was a Part 91 violation for the pilots and a 135 violation for Angel Flight. Based on prior interpretations, FAA legal was probably right. But it was a really stupid thing to do and it didn't take long for the FAA, on policy grounds, to say to legal, "don't be jerks. There's no way we're going to let you do that." In that case, it didn't even take a regulatory change - just a "policy directive". The anti-Angel Flight opinion was March 8, 1993. The retraction was April 23.

 

[midlifeflyer]

On a side note, is there a website or some other place where all the past FAA chief counsel opinions can be found?

Except for those that John Lynch quotes from once in a while in the Part 61 FAQ and the ones that get posted verbatim in online forums and newsgroups, there aren't any real repositories that I'm aware of on the Internet.

Summit Aviation got a whole bunch of them some years ago and publish them on their reference CD.

I think the Jepp publication "FARs Explained" prints many.

West Publishing, along time lawbook publisher, publishes "Federal Aviation Decisions: Chief Counsel Interpretations and Civil Penalty Decisions." Most state and federal libraries, even courthouse libraries, don't have it, but some law schools carry it.

It may be that none of these sources have all of them (although the West should be the most complete - we're talking volumes here), since they are primarily written to answer a specific question asked by a specific person.