midlifeflyer said:
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.
