logging flight time

[1900heavy]

Help me out guys.
I'm with a Part 91 company.
Let's say I have a 12 hrs flt. And our SOP says anything over 10 hrs requires 3 pilots and rotate every 4 hrs.
So, do you guys log all 12 hrs or just whatever you sit in a cockpit?

Thanks.

 

[fisherpilot]

We just log when you are actually in the cockpit. The pilot resting is not acting as a required crew member when he is resting even though he is required by our SOP's.

 

[avbug]

Help me out guys.
I'm with a Part 91 company.
Let's say I have a 12 hrs flt. And our SOP says anything over 10 hrs requires 3 pilots and rotate every 4 hrs.
So, do you guys log all 12 hrs or just whatever you sit in a cockpit?

Your SOP is irrelevant to the question of logging time. Do you find your SOP referenced in 14 CFR 61.51? Doubtful.

If you are a required crewmember assigned to duties in flight, you may log the time. If you're not a required crewmember (company procedures don't make you a required crewmember, insofar as the regulation is concerned), then you may not log the time.

Are you talking about logging PIC time? 61.51(e)(1)(iii) provides that:

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.
(1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-
(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted;

Therefore, if you're flying an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember, the PIC may log PIC for all the time in which he acts as PIC. Acting as PIC is not the same as manipulating the controls. A PIC who allows a cruise pilot in his seat is still PIC and still ultimately responsible for the safe outcome of the flight.

Note that the subparagraph above refers to "the regulations under which the flight is conducted." This does not mean your company SOP's, which have no influence on the regulation, and are meaningless insofar as the regulation is concerned.

If you're the SIC, then the regulation applies a little differently, as found in 61.51(f)(1):

(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:
(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of § 61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate;

To log the time as SIC, one must be at a crewmember station.

The pilot resting is not acting as a required crew member when he is resting even though he is required by our SOP's.

Again, this is subjective. If the PIC remains the PIC for the duration of the flight, then the PIC may log the time as PIC. Under a Part 135 or Part 121 operation, the designated PIC remains PIC for the entire flight, and it's a company designation, not a decision between pilots. Under a Part 91 operation, you can switch off between pilots as PIC as often as you like...every five minutes, if you want. Being named PIC on the flight plan is irrelevant, as is company SOP; you decide amongst yourselves who is PIC (or let your company decide per your SOP's if you wish; the regulation doesn't care and is silent on the matter; it's a Part 91 leg).

Whether your SOP's require a crewmember or not has no bearing on whether the crewmember is considered required by the regulation (which is all that counts). To be required by the regulation, he or she must either be required by the regulation Part under which the aircraft is being operated (eg, Part 121, Part 135, etc), or the kind of operation (91.109(b)(1) as safety pilot, for example) involved. The other choice is a requirement by the aircraft certification. In this case, however, if the aircraft only requires two crewmembers per the operating certificate, and your Part 91 company standard procedures require three, then it's still a two-pilot airplane.

Bear in mind that a clear and distinct difference exists between acting as PIC and logging PIC. These are two entirely distinct and separate subjects, as repeatedly affirmed by the FAA chief legal counsel. One need not be acting as PIC to log PIC. A pilot in command may not be in the pilot seat, and therefore not acting as PIC, but may remain the pilot in command for the duration of the flight, if so designated. The PIC may thus log the time.

Whether you choose to do so, of course, is another matter.

 

[bizjet800]

Avbug:

So are you saying it's legal to log PIC even if you're resting in the back?

And is there no specific reg that says how much you can log under Part 91 in a day? And could they nail you on being wreckless if something were to happen at the end of a long day?

Thanks in advance.

 

[avbug]

So are you saying it's legal to log PIC even if you're resting in the back?

If you're the pilot in command of an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember by certification, or by the regulations under which the flight is operated, then yes.

I'm not saying that. The regulation is.

And is there no specific reg that says how much you can log under Part 91 in a day?

14 CFR Part 91 doesn't prescribe flight time limitations, save for fractional operators under 91.1057, 91.1059, and 91.1061.

You have to be careful with that question, however, as all operators fly under Part 91, including Part 121 and 135. Those regulations only add to the requirements of Part 91, which doesn't dissolve or go away if one is a charter operator or an airline. If one is operating under Part 121, for example, one is also beholden to Part 91, and therefore operating under Part 91...and subject to both flight and duty limitations.

For a corporate operator, not operating under a certificate (eg, Parts 119, 121, 135, etc), and not operating as a fractional provider (91, subpart K), one does not have to abide a particular daily, monthly, quarterly, or yearly flight time limit. Indeed, I know many individuals that well surpass the traditional annual flight time limits prescribed for airlines and charter operations, while performing aerial application and other utility operations.

Flight instructors operating under Part 91 and 141 face daily limitations as a function not of Part 91, but of 14 CFR 61.195(a) (8 hours instruction in any 24 hour period). One should never confine one's self to visiting one particular regulation if one intends to abide or understand the regulation (a good example is Part 43, of which most pilots have no knowledge, yet which is very important to aircraft operation and ownership, and a responsibility of the PIC every time a flight is undertaken).

And could they nail you on being wreckless if something were to happen at the end of a long day?

You can rest assured of facing charges of Careless and Reckless Operation (91.13) in the event enforcement action is pursued following an accident or incident, regardless of whatever other regulations might have been violated.

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

If you have operated in any way, shape, or form that could possibly be construed as careless or reckless (and it doesn't take much imagination to parlay nearly anything into that category, if one thinks about it), chances are it will be added to the list. In fact, it's a standard addition to many enforcement actions.

For this reason, many operators elect to abide the standards prescribed by Part 135, even though no regulation exists requiring them to do so. Even numerous government operations do this. The CFR duty limitations prescribed by Part 135 (or Part 121, for that matter) are a recognized, known standard, and if one is living up to the same standard, it's hard to be cited as careless or reckless.

A slightly different example of this is the Part 135 pilot which times out his daily flying allowance, and then goes off duty, and continues to fly the airplane home as a "Part 91 Ferry." This is legal and acceptable, but one needs to be careful just how far one intends to push it, because in the event of an accident or incident, or a question arising from an alleged violation, exceeding the times (however legal it may be) can still be construed as careless or reckless. Such charges don't often get applied by themselves, but once one has drawn attention to one's self (it might be something as simple as an altitude bust, or it could be that landing gear that failed when you least wanted it to fail), the barn door is open and you've got a game tag stapled to your butt.

The latter example is particularly appropriate, because while the pilot certainly can't be held liable for a mechanical failure that's outside of his control, the outcome, and even the event itself could come under closer scrutiny, including the handling of the event, hinging on the lack of rest or excessive flight time that day. The FAA can make the case that the event might have been handled better, with better decision making, better checklist use, better radio procedure, better adherence to the regulation, if one had been better rested...and there comes the basis of careless and reckless operation, again.

 

[gulfstream2345]

SOP vs regulations

If your SOP (a part of a FOM/GOM) is a part of a 135 or 121 operation then the SOP is requlatory by the fact that it is approved by the FAA.

If you're the pilot in command of an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember by certification, or by the regulations under which the flight is operated, then yes.

I'm not saying that. The regulation is.



14 CFR Part 91 doesn't prescribe flight time limitations, save for fractional operators under 91.1057, 91.1059, and 91.1061.

You have to be careful with that question, however, as all operators fly under Part 91, including Part 121 and 135. Those regulations only add to the requirements of Part 91, which doesn't dissolve or go away if one is a charter operator or an airline. If one is operating under Part 121, for example, one is also beholden to Part 91, and therefore operating under Part 91...and subject to both flight and duty limitations.

For a corporate operator, not operating under a certificate (eg, Parts 119, 121, 135, etc), and not operating as a fractional provider (91, subpart K), one does not have to abide a particular daily, monthly, quarterly, or yearly flight time limit. Indeed, I know many individuals that well surpass the traditional annual flight time limits prescribed for airlines and charter operations, while performing aerial application and other utility operations.

Flight instructors operating under Part 91 and 141 face daily limitations as a function not of Part 91, but of 14 CFR 61.195(a) (8 hours instruction in any 24 hour period). One should never confine one's self to visiting one particular regulation if one intends to abide or understand the regulation (a good example is Part 43, of which most pilots have no knowledge, yet which is very important to aircraft operation and ownership, and a responsibility of the PIC every time a flight is undertaken).



You can rest assured of facing charges of Careless and Reckless Operation (91.13) in the event enforcement action is pursued following an accident or incident, regardless of whatever other regulations might have been violated.



If you have operated in any way, shape, or form that could possibly be construed as careless or reckless (and it doesn't take much imagination to parlay nearly anything into that category, if one thinks about it), chances are it will be added to the list. In fact, it's a standard addition to many enforcement actions.

For this reason, many operators elect to abide the standards prescribed by Part 135, even though no regulation exists requiring them to do so. Even numerous government operations do this. The CFR duty limitations prescribed by Part 135 (or Part 121, for that matter) are a recognized, known standard, and if one is living up to the same standard, it's hard to be cited as careless or reckless.

A slightly different example of this is the Part 135 pilot which times out his daily flying allowance, and then goes off duty, and continues to fly the airplane home as a "Part 91 Ferry." This is legal and acceptable, but one needs to be careful just how far one intends to push it, because in the event of an accident or incident, or a question arising from an alleged violation, exceeding the times (however legal it may be) can still be construed as careless or reckless. Such charges don't often get applied by themselves, but once one has drawn attention to one's self (it might be something as simple as an altitude bust, or it could be that landing gear that failed when you least wanted it to fail), the barn door is open and you've got a game tag stapled to your butt.

The latter example is particularly appropriate, because while the pilot certainly can't be held liable for a mechanical failure that's outside of his control, the outcome, and even the event itself could come under closer scrutiny, including the handling of the event, hinging on the lack of rest or excessive flight time that day. The FAA can make the case that the event might have been handled better, with better decision making, better checklist use, better radio procedure, better adherence to the regulation, if one had been better rested...and there comes the basis of careless and reckless operation, again.

 

[avbug]

If your SOP (a part of a FOM/GOM) is a part of a 135 or 121 operation then the SOP is requlatory by the fact that it is approved by the FAA.

No, it is not, and does not apply to the requirement for logging flight time. A company may set a standard for using two pilot crews in a single pilot airplane in their operations manual, and the company will be expected to abide this requirement. However, this does not meet the criteria of 14 CFR 61.51 that the second pilot be required by the type certification or regulations under which the flight is operated.

While the operator is held to the standard established in their GOM, the GOM is not a regulatory device, and does not represent regulation. Establishment of a requirement for a SIC in a GOM or other company document does NOT establish a regulatory requirement for a SIC.

 

[BoilerUP]

OpSpecs are more applicable than FOM/GOM for 121/135 air carriers.