Logging Dual and PIC

[fussle]

I have been logging PIC along with flight training, but when I recently took my Commercial Checkride, the examiner said that when you log flight training you can not log PIC too. He told me this since he knew I am going for the airlines or corporate that it could cost me a job if it was logged incorrectly. Any thoughts?

 

[standaman]

????

This doesn't make too much sense to me.

If you are appropriately rated in the airplane you can log PIC based upon FAA definition that PIC is "sole manipulator of the flight controls." The other way you can log PIC is if you are an instructor because you are responsible for "safety of flight." So if you are in flight training and are rated in the airplane (for example private pilot single engine land) and you are training on your instrument license you can log PIC with an instructor on board and log dual given as well. You at that time are "sole manipulator of the flight controls." Your instructor is responsible for "safety of flight" and giving you instruction so you must log dual given. Now if you went to go get your multi engine license you could only log dual given and not PIC because you are not rated in the airplane yet.

 

[CA1900]

As long as you're the sole manipulator of the controls of a plane in which you're rated, you absolutely can log PIC during dual lessons once you've received your private certificate. There's nothing shady about it, and nothing you're going to have to "defend" at a job interview, provided you followed the employer's instructions for their particular time grid.

"Rated" means what's on your certificate, incidentally -- endorsements (high performance, etc.) which are required to ACT as the PIC are not required to LOG it.

Some airlines (I think United is one) will require you to subtract time where you're not acting as the PIC (such as the receiving-dual situation), while others don't. Logging time is covered under 61.51, and that's the guideline you should use for your logbook. The examiner is incorrect in this case.

 

[bobbysamd]

Logging dual and PIC

I have been logging PIC along with flight training, but when I recently took my Commercial Checkride, the examiner said that when you log flight training you can not log PIC too. He told me this since he knew I am going for the airlines or corporate that it could cost me a job if it was logged incorrectly. Any thoughts?

Your examiner is wrong. Pursuant to 14 CFR 61.51(e)(i), you have every right to log the time as PIC:

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

(emphasis added)

You are sole manipulator as you receive instruction. Because you are sole manipulator, you may log the time as PIC.

Every airline has its own idea about what can or cannot count as PIC. Fill out the applications exactly as instructed. Keep your logbook the FAA way and not United's, Delta's, AA's, Mesa's or any other airline's way.

Hope that helps some more.

 

[350DRIVER]

but when I recently took my Commercial Checkride, the examiner said that when you log flight training you can not log PIC too

He is incorrect by saying this, you sure can log flight training time as PIC time as long as you are appropriately rated in the aircraft. The above information is right on.....


3 5 0

 

[JCJ]

As described above, there are many circumstances where you may LOG PIC when you are not ACTING as PIC


understand that logging PIC is not the same as acting as PIC and it makes more sense

 

[Jeff29]

Contradictory Paragraphs?

How does 61.51(e)(1) "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 -- (i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated." work with 61.51(e)(4) "A student pilot may log pilot-in-command time only when the student pilot -- (i) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft or is performing the duties of pilot of command of an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember; (ii) Has a current solo flight endorsement as required under §61.87 of this part; and (iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating."

These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other.

Basically, I'm wondering if a student pilot (recreational, private, or commercial rated) is flying with an instructor and does NOT satisfy paragraph (e)(4)(i-iii), can the student still log PIC under (e)(1)(i) if the instructor does not touch the controls?

 

[JeffSKDTW]

Basically, I'm wondering if a student pilot (recreational, private, or commercial rated) is flying with an instructor and does NOT satisfy paragraph (e)(4)(i-iii), can the student still log PIC under (e)(1)(i) if the instructor does not touch the controls?

Your confusion lies in that once you are a certificated pilot (recreational, private, commercial, etc.), you will never be a "student pilot" again. Therefore, 61.51(e)(1), which relates to recreational, private, or commercial pilots, does not relate nor overlap with that 61.51(e)(4), which solely relates to student pilots.

Therefore, to answer your question quoted above, the "sole manipulator of the controls" provision of 61.51(e)(1) does not come into play for a true "student pilot", because she is not yet "rated" in any aircraft (read the end of 61.51(e)(1)(i).

Hope this helps.

 

[paulsalem]

What you can log, and what you should log

I hear that when you go for a non CFI job companies do not like to see you 'double-dipping' time.

Just because you can log somthing does not mean you should.

My situation:

I have my multi and am looking for 15 hours of PIC to get my MEI. I know a guy that owns a 135 company flying Navajos. Can I log the time where we're in cruise and I am the 'sole minipulator'? Should I? Everyone I talk to (CFI's) gives me the same answer. No don't, because you don't have 135 mins. And even if its a dead leg I still shoudln't b/c Navajo systems questions are fair game on any interview.

Your thoughts....

 

[Timebuilder]

My thoughts:

if you are planning on going for an airline job, and that airline wants to define PIC as under FAR 1 as some are want to do, then you should do yourself a favor and keep a separate column in your logbook for that part 1 PIC time.

If you are receiving instruction for your instrument rating, for example, you can log that as PIC time (under part 61) in one column, but not in the FAR 1 column. By this simple act you can keep straight what is the main sticking point with some airlines, ie: the question of who was really "in command" of the aircraft. That's what they want to know, not who was permitted by the FAA to log PIC time so that the circuitous regulations can be fulfilled.

It's simple, it's easy, and you will always know at a glance how much responsible pilot in command time you have.

If the examiner said you cannot log this time as PIC time, as pointed out above he is incorrect. I think it is more likely that he was inarticulate or you misunderstood him.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I hear that when you go for a non CFI job companies do not like to see you 'double-dipping' time.

This question gets discussed a lot. I'm not in an aviation-related business, but I can't think of a good reason not to legitimately log 61.51 PIC time to meet FAA requirements. So, if a single engine pilot who has never flown anything but a 152 gets a ride in a Malibu and his friend lets him fly it for a while, there's no reason not to log it as PIC. Can you imagine working at an FBO flight school and being offered your first 135 job but not being able to take it because you didn't log those 15 NM cross countries? The guy knows you, knows you're qualified, and wants to hire you, but can't because you were worried about what Delta might think.

The problem is that aviation employers are probably no different that employers in any other industry. While they may be interested in whether you meet technical FAA requirements are far more interested in the quality of that time. If applicants are answering the question, "How much PIC time do you have" by including the time they touched the controls of an airplane they were not really qualified to fly, no wonder they get nailed on interviews.

But the answer isn't to avoid logging legitimate time. It's finding ways to collect and present the time so that you make it clear what you are relying on to show your experience and what was put into you logbook so that you can show qualification for an FAA certificate, rating or currency. As Timebuilder suggests, keeping a separate column of "real" PIC time - when you were in charge of a flight in an aircraft that you were qualified to fly - gives you an easy method to collect and report =experience= data.

Like I said, this general issue gets discussed a lot, But what I haven't seen talked about much are strategies for presenting experience time to potential employers in an accurate, meaningful, and honest way. That would be a very interesting discussion to see.

 

[paulsalem]

MidLife,

What if that same single engine private pilot new a guy w/ a Caravan (single engine turboprop). What would it look like if he logged PIC time in it, with out any prior dual received time?

(The pilots that I'd fly with in the 135 company are not MEIs, so I'd have no chance to log dual received prior to logging PIC. Also, I would not get paid, I'd just be flying to get some time, and the real Pilot-in-Command would be the guy in the left seat being paid to fly the aircraft)

I would like to do it as the book says, and hence agree with your last post. If I was the sole minipulator of the controls then I am legal to log PIC. But I've herad that companies do not like to see that. Or they will drill me with systems qustions on the aircraft.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would like to do it as the book says, and hence agree with your last post. If I was the sole minipulator of the controls then I am legal to log PIC. But I've herad that companies do not like to see that. Or they will drill me with systems qustions on the aircraft.

Like I said, I think this is a "presentation" problem rather than a "record keeping" problem. Are you making that flight sound like it was "quality" time or "meet FAA requirements" time?

(BTW, keep in mind the reverse of the problem - not all Part 1 PIC time is loggable as PIC under 61.51. So if =all= you did was to log Part 1 PIC in the PIC column, you might have a falsified logbook).

Take this with a grain of salt, but despite the horror stories you sometime hear, I have a little problem with the concept that you will get in trouble with a company by doing what the law very specifically permits you to do. Your logbook is kept because FAR 61.51 starts off by saying

==============================
Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:
==============================

Note: "acceptable to the Administrator," not "acceptable to Delta." Your logbook is a record that you are required to keep in order to meet federal government requirements. But the information that you hand over to an employer to show how qualified you are is always fair game. The issue is keeping them separate.

I know from reading a lot of messages on this subject that employers generally want to see Part 1 PIC. That makes sense. Understandably, they could care less about the cross country flight you took with your uncle in his Malibu and lawfully logged as cross country PIC time toward your instrument rating. And if you tell them that "I have command time in a Malibu" you will get nailed, and rightfully so. But I can't imagine a company saying that you should not have counted the time toward your instrument rating.

I agree with Timebuilder's suggestion of a separate column for it. I undersatnd a lot of pilots do that. When at the interview, you point out that the "regular" PIC column reflects time that qualifies for meeting various FAA requirements, but that the "Part 1 PIC" column reflects your command experience. I'm sure there are ways applicants have even put his information on their resumes so that it is clear which is which.