Logging IMC time

[Tri-holer]

Avbug
I take exception to your statement about the SIC logging IMC while acting as the PNF. I agree with your logic, especially when you throw in the night example.
I personally only log Instrument time when I am the sole manipulator of the controls. If the captain is flying, he can log that time.
As it is, I am pretty close to the 10% figure. If I logged his time too, I would be closer to 20% and I am sure that will raise eyebrows of an interviewer. I would rather keep them from thinking something stinks (even if it doesn't).
I spent plenty of time in the military doing evaluations and when someone flagged something, I sure paid a lot more attention than when everything was going smoothly. I think logging all that Instrument time would raise a flag.
And another thing. If I am going to log instrument time when he is flying, does that mean I have to stay awake for the whole flight?

 

[Caveman]

I took a little more pragmatic approach (pardon the pun) on logging student flown approaches in actual IMC. We couldn't have been there there doing that if I wasn't there with him. My certificate was at risk, not his. It was my responsibility to keep the right side up and be where we were supposed to be when we were supposed to be there. Therefore, I logged them. Particularly when they were SE or partial panel approaches. Under those circumstances IMHO I earned that approach whether or not I actually touched the yoke.

 

[flight-crew]

Very good debate indeed about the SIC logging instrument time when he/she is not flying. I can't argue with Avbug because he has pretty much backed up everything with FARs. The key word in the FAR is "Operate." I interpret the context of the word meaning the person operating the flight controls. After all, the F/A and FE (if required) are part of the required crew. They are required to be there in order to "operate" the aircraft. Obviously the F/A logging IMC time is a little extreme but I'm just trying to emphasize the many ways you can interpret "operate." I personally think that the FAR means the person flying. And also the fact that the FAR uses the word "Person" as a singular word (not "Persons").

If you've ever visited DOC's FAR forum, he had a pretty good discussion on this and his take on it is the same as Avbugs - that an SIC can log IMC just as he would log night time, the whole flight duration. http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/index.html

Now, I personally don't log IMC when I am not flying (I am an SIC). I only log it when I'm flying. WHY? The reason why is because when I'm at a major airline interview and they are examining my logbooks, I think it is a gray area. It's definitely something that I don't want to get into a debate about in the interview and start quoting FARs.... etc, etc. By the way, I know for a fact that CAL requires 100 hours of instrument time... I wouldn't want to get in there and have them think that I had padded my instrument time. I also don't log landings or approaches that I don't do.

To everyone else- we know what the FARs say, and I'm not disagreeing with Avbug at all. But with respect to a major airline interview, what do you think is the best way to do it?

 

[avbug]

FC,

I believe the majority of people will agree with you in principle, and in practice. The discussion will probably soon be moot (mute? I can never get that right). I believe the CFR will soon be changed to clarify this issue somewhat. Further changes are due within the next year or so, and I believe this will likely be among those changes.

From a practical point of view, of course, as the time isn't required to show recency of experience, and in our cases, won't apply for a certificate or rating, it's all really eye wash. The final analysis, then, is how you show the time. Much like logging an approach or landing, if anyone asks, the problem is easily solved by saying, "I flew it."

A friend gets by this by keeping a "sole manipulator" column to clarify his instrument, approaches, and landings. I find this unnecessary, but it's a personal choice, and isn't a wrong one. It clarifies his point quite nicely, and I believe that's what it's all about.

The actual issues are more of a technical legal nature, as opposed to ethics, but it can go either way. The bottom line is that in lieu of greater clarification of an official nature, it remains a personal choice, much like other logging issues outside the FAR. The technical debate rages on for folks like myself with no life and nothing better to do, yet it remains without a point.

I'm personally starting two new columns in my log, entitled "Actual Instrument while afflicted with Indegestion," (and a side column for the number of rolaids consumed on any given leg), and one for time spent with a pet monkey. I'll revise that when the powers that be finally wake up, come to their senses, and place bears on cockpits. I don't believe monkeys are compatible with bears, and something has got to give.

Not that it will come up, but if it does, I believe the monkey should NOT log any time spent in the clouds. But that 's just me.

 

[flight-crew]

Thanks Avbug. I appreciate your humor too.

 

[TIS]

What NO ONE has mentioned

Maybe I missed it but I what haven't seen anyone mention is that it is basically up to the POI if an ATCO certificate is involved.

I have worked at a number of companies. Some have credited the PNF with IMC time while some have not. The final arbiter has always been the POI for the operation.

Even if you're operating under Part 91, the determination as to whether you are instrument current might well rest with whatever opinion an inspector has on the matter. In other words, the FAA gets to choose and I think we all know how many different ways that could shake out!

TIS

 

[avbug]

An inspector's opinion means nothing. Very often pilots will say, "I will go ask the FSDO." However, the FSDO has no power or authority to interpret the regulation.

An inspector, or POI, may certainly make a personal interpretation (which is not binding) for the purpose of beginning enforcement action. An inspector may also elect to overlook something, or miss something due to lack of understanding. However, once action is started, the inspector/POI has no control over the matter. The accusation is made, but the decision rests on law, not opinion. The opinion of the inspector has no legal standing.

When one seeks legal standing, one must base it on either case law, the letter of the law, or a legal interpretation provided to clarify the stand of the administrator. A viewpoint expressed by a POI or inspector represents none of these

The issue is one of logging time, which has nothing to do with an operating certificate. Specifically, the issue revolves around the logging of instrument time while acting in a capacity other than the pilot-in-command. This time in no way affects a POI/Inspector, his or her duties, or the provisions of the operating certificate.

The FAA does not get to choose. In a case of nebulous understanding, in the extreme, an administrative law judge may ultimately issue a ruling, but outside of the Administrator and FAA legal counsel at the regional and national level, FAA personnel do not represent the viewpoint of the FAA. The regulation by which both we and the FAA are bound, is written into the Code of Federal Regulation. This determines the way in which we log time. For time which is not required to be logged (such as instrument time when not used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating), we may elect to log it as we wish...or as a potential employer might wish to see it logged.

Instrument time is instrument time. Simply because a pilot is not PIC, he or she is not magically removed from instrument conditions. He or she is filling the role of SIC in instrument conditions, and is a required crewmember to operate the aircraft. Hence, he or she may log instrument time. If he or she elects to divide the time in the logbook by sole manipulator, PIC/SIC, or any other division, this is a private matter and does not involve the administrator. It does not interest the administrator. However, the time may be logged.

 

[172driver]

"Specifically, the issue revolves around the logging of instrument time while acting in a capacity other than the pilot-in-command"

Clarify this for me if you would avbug. Has the issue changed? The flight instructor is always the PIC when I fly. The student may log PIC but if anything happens, the CFI is the one with his/her tickets on the line. This is especially true with an unrated student in IMC. Of course the CFI should log instrument time.

I thought the issue was whether or not the CFI/SIC could log approaches and holds for currency. Maybe that was just my issue.

 

[avbug]

172,

This thread began by asking if a student working on an instrument rating may log instrument time when in instrument conditions (yes), who's name should be on the flight plan when doing instrument training under IFR (PIC's), and if the SIC may log instrument time in instrument conditions (yes).

As for the question of weather an instructor is always pilot-in-command, a big resounding NO! Many instructors think they are, but fail to understand the regulation. Being a flight instructor does not make one pilot in command. Being an authorized instructor engaged in giving flight instruction does not make one pilot in command. An instructor is pilot in command by prior arrangement ONLY.

During the conduct of primary flight training in which the student is not authorized to act as pilot in command, the instructor must be PIC. The student has no choice. If he or she wants to go fly, someone must act as PIC, and it cant' be the student.

For a student who is rated in the airplane and able to act as PIC, it's not so simple. While the instructor may log PIC for all time spent acting as an authorized instructor, he or she is not necessarily the PIC. There is a difference between logging PIC, and acting as PIC.

A very common misconception is that the instructor will always field the lions share of the blame in the event of a mishap. This is not true. It's preached from every bench and seat in hangars and airports around the country, but it's just not true. His or her certificates are no more on the line than anyone else's. If that instructor allows something to happen which his or her experience could have been prevented within the limitations of his or her experience in the aircraft, then that is another matter. Negligence is always a factor. However, liability and the issue of negligence do not make one the PIC.

The designation as pilot in command is made by agreement between the parties during instruction.

A flight instructor may instruct without a current medical certificate, without a current flight review, or recent flight experience. Such an individual is not acting as a pilot in such a case, nor is such a person paid for pilot services. Such a person is an instructor, and may not act as pilot in command. Clearly, the instructor is not always pilot in command, nor is the instructor required to be pilot in command.

It's not a matter of weather the instructor ought to log instrument time when acting as an authorized instructor in instrument conditions. This is clearly defined in 14 CFR 61.51(g)(2): "An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument conditions."

On the subject of logging instrument approaches or holds for currency, a second in command may log the approaches performed by the second in command, for currency. There is no requirement to be acting as pilot in command in order to log approaches or landings. However, one must perform the approaches, and must be sole manipulator of the controls for the landings, in order to count them for currency.

 

[172driver]

Thank you for the clarification. Let's see if I can clarify my semi-muddled statement. My statement was that the CFI is always the PIC when I fly (with students), not necessarily the case for others. This is the policy of my employer and I agree with it. If there is an emergency of some type, I'd prefer to be acting as PIC rather than my less experienced student. We both log it of course but I act as PIC. The brief is always made before the flight.

If I were working somewhere else and flying with an extremely competent student, I would consider allowing them to act as PIC. When I fly with other CFI's the PIC role and duties are always determined and briefed before the flight. Usually the flying pilot will be the PIC and the NFP is in charge of checklists and radios.

Now, if my engine were to fail and I allowed the rated student to choose an unsuitable landing site, do you not think the FAA would come after me? How about this one. Private pilot with 50 hrs flying with CFI at 1000 hrs+. If we arranged for the student to be PIC and something happened, who would they blame? I tend to think the CFI would be at fault simply for allowing the PIC arrangement to be made this way. Just my opinion.

 

[avbug]

In virtually every case when I have an emergency on board, if I have someone as a student or a junior, I have them fly the airplane. Experience like that can't be bought, and it's a valueable lesson. I would be highly remiss as an instructor and a senior in depriving that person of the experience. It's a matter of managing the event and providing proper oversight and instruction such that the outcome is favorable. There is no reason why the student can't fly the airplane.

I teach a student to do an emergency landing over and over. A person will NEVER fly with me without experiencing multiple engine failures, and very seldom will these occur near a runway. Frequently I take the student to the ground, often to the flare in a pasture or over a country road. If it's permissible with the aircraft owner, I'll land them there, too. Therefore, I should have no beef with a student being prepared to handle the real thing, because I've taken them there so many times it's second nature. An instructor who fails to instill this in a student has failed the student...and I see it a lot today.

As far as I am concerned, if an instructor is afraid to let the student handle an emergency, the instructor has already failed the student. Certainly some oversight and supervision is in order, but for most all but primary students, I make it clear that in the event of an emergency, I want the student to treat the flight as though he or she is pilot in command. In many cases, the student IS the pilot in command.

Many instructors feel that they will be blamed because they have an instructor certificate, or more hours. More hours means nothing. An instructor certificate is not a higher certificate; it's not even a pilot certificate. It's a teachers certificate. In many cases, instructors fly in aircraft when they are not able to act as pilot in command (such as instructors who cannot hold a medical certificate). The FAA does not expect the instructor to be PIC, and nowhere is this required by the regulation, except in circumstances in which the other pilot (student) is not able to act as PIC.

If I instruct an owner in his or her aircraft, I do not presume to tell the owner I am in charge. If I am instructing for a club or school which has a policy about the instructor being pilot in command, this has already been agreed and determined, and is only verified by a briefing before the flight begins. So be it. However, there is no need to be the PIC in every case.

If an instructor shows negligence and allows an accident to happen which has been preventable, then the instructor is liable. If the instructor shows poor judgement in his or her capacity, then the instructor is liable. One might suggest that any time an ATP is on board, his or her greater experience should make him or her liable. Cases have been recorded when others on board have been held liable. It's certainly possible. However, the pilot in command is ultimately responsible for the safe outcome of the flight.

In 1967, a court case (Newberger v. Pokrass) determined that a passenger may be held liable in part for negligence on the part of the pilot in command. In that particular case, both the passenger and the PIC fell asleep. A crash resulted. The passenger sued the pilot's estate, citing neglegence and claiming damages and injury. The jury decided that the PIC (Pokrass) was 85% responsible, but that the passenger (Newberger) was 15% responsible. The jury felt that had the passenger been awake, he may have been able to prevent the incident from occuring.

Quite obviously the passenger is not automatically the PIC. Neither is an instructor. Liability may be had in many ways, but don't fall into the trap of thinking because you hold a teaching certificate it is grounds for ultimate liability, or responsibility. It isn't. You must do your job on all counts, and you must take reasonable precautions to see, within the limits of your responsibility in the airplane, that the flight is conducted safely. However, that ultimate responsibility rests with the PIC, even if that PIC happens to be your student.

 

[172driver]

Agreed again. However, the reason you don't see it as often is probably because the CFI's out there have had their authority chopped.

I landed on some rural roads and in fields as a private student. We even pulled the mixture and pitched up to see when the prop would stop windmilling and how it would affect the glide. (Over an airport with an extremely experienced CFI). Thus, I couldn't believe it when I came to this school and was told to recover from simulated engine failure at 500' AGL. Often, the student doesn't know if they would've made the landing site or not and they come away from the experience feeling very simulated. i.e. they have a tendency to not take it as seriously if they know their engine comes miraculously back to life at 500'.

I agree 100% that this is an enormous disservice to the student.

I also agree that the student should fly the emergency as I provide oversight and instruction, just like the rest of the flight. However, I am the acting PIC, and will take over if the student can't provide a safe outcome with my help. Ever seen em just lock up and start squealing? It happens a lot when mom and dad are paying for their training and they really don't even like flying, just the idea of a career as a pilot. Welcome to my world...perpetuated by all the glossy ads. But that's another thread altogether.

Thanks for rapping with me again avbug.

 

[avbug]

"Ever seen em just lock up and start squealing? It happens.."

Yes. That's why God invented door handles Open door, push student out. Return pale and starey eyed, claiming student panic'd and jumped...

I had a student do that really only once in a serious way (Not jumped). He was a teenager, who flew the airplane well except during an emergency landing. I resorted to several practice sessions of the same thing over and over, pulling the engine abeam the numbers as nothing more than an exercise in not freezing up, and in completing the maneuver to a landing.

The student didn't panic, but he froze, focusing on the runway, scared to turn in too soon, too far out, whatever. Even spacing it off. His airspeed would bleed off, and like clockwork, I would have to correct. Same place, every time. Out of exhasterpation, I let him do it one day to the point of a stall, and as the airplane began to buffet a bit, I buried the stick in the panel and we nosed over quite steeply. As the ground filled up the windscreen, his eyes got very big, and he tried to say something, but nothing came out.

He turned to look at me for direction, and I said, "You and I are going to die together in this airplane, because you insist on stalling it instead of flying it. How do you feel about that?" He didn't feel good about it, or so he seemed to say. I released the stick and told him to take it, and land.

After that he did just fine. Unusual measure, but it worked, and I have little doubt that he remembers it to this day.

as an aside...

I never had the guts to do it, but I always wanted to solo a student from the downwind...step out the door and pull a ripcord and let the student land. I recall being terrified and thrilled when my instructor stepped to the side of the runway and let me go around. I can only imagine what a student would think if his instructor stepped out the door on the downwind. Perhaps a little sadistic, but it would sure break up the monotony, wouldn't it?

Anybody ever hear of an instructor doing that? (intentionally?). It's got to have happened, somewhere.

 

[172driver]

Never heard of it but I like it

 

[TIS]

avbug, please allow me to clarify

When I brought up the issue of it being up to a POI here's what I meant. The POI is responsible for approving the forms and paperwork a company uses, no? They have been at every place I've ever worked. At least one of the forms that they must approve deals with record keeping, in particular, those records necessary to show pilot qualification.

This issue HAS come up at three different certificate holders for whom I have worked and in the final analysis it WAS indeed the POI who had the final word. The final determination of what was right surrounded forms and their proper use. Say what you likw about a POI having no say other than opinion but the fact is that a POI can hold up the whole show if they like and in my experience they frequently do.

The score: PNF cannnot log IMC - 2 ..... PNF can log IMC - 1

My personal belief: Two pilots are required to operate the plane. The plane flies in the clouds. BOTH pilots get to log what the airplane does because they BOTH have to be there.

Also, while I agree that once an enforcement action has been initiated it is out of he inspector's hands, the inspector has some pretty wide latitude before he puts his findings in an envelope and mails them off to the regional counsel. Getting something that far can involve a lot of factors that have nothing to do with the law at all. THIS is where I manintain that an inspector's opinion is indeed quite operative.

Anyway, I'm not writing this to be argumentative, especially since I'm so late on the draw. I've been working. It's a fine discussion based on the experience of those who've seen different and various things in their careers. Just my perspective.

TIS

 

[Timebuilder]

Thanks, TIS. That's question one for my new Chief Pilot.

 

[A Squared]

TIS,

I would agree that the POI has a lot of say in what happens with company recordkeeping, and that often a POI will run things like his own fiefdom, regardless of what the regulations actually are. With one of these types, managemant must chose thier battles, and just roll their eyes at the more inconsequential annoyances. My company used to have a POI like this. I think that the point that avbug was trying to make was that the POI's jusisdiction does not extend through my front door to the shelf where I keep my logbook. The POI may dictate that instrument time may only be logged when the moon is full and Venus is ascending, and that is what is going to get put on the company paperwork. In my own personal logbook, though, I will log what I am legally entitled to log, the alignment of the planets be dammned.

For the record, I take a conservative approach and log the instrument time when I am PF. I believe that I am entitled to legally log all instrument time whether pf or pnf.

Regards

 

[avbug]

TIS,

Agreed...I've seen POI's dictate what records the company keeps, and the requirements have varied with the POI. This is correct. It doesn't have anything to do with what the pilot can log, but it does affect how the company records what the pilot does.

My current employer is required to track a pilots instrument time, but does not differentiate between PIC/SIC instrument; both pilots log the time.

It's good to see you back on the board. Where have you been?

 

[TIS]

Something's clear to me now!

We've been talking past each other and I now understand why. I've been talking about the records a certificate holder will have on you. You've been talking about what will wind up in your logbook. Where I was stuck is that I have a personal policy of keeping those two things pretty much the same. I don't ever want to have a situation arise in which my personal records prove something essential that company records do not.

If there's one thing I've learned in this business it's that trouble can come from all directions including some that that don't exist in this universe until some space warp thingamajig comes along and drops it at your doorstep. To that end, it seems to me that I oughtta keep the same records my employers keep.

As to where I've been - Let's just say that at my company the pilot shortage is very definitely real. Couple that with two kids taking up more and more of whatever time I have leftover and the fact thaat I have just bought a new remodeling project (that I also have to live in), and I think it's probably clear that I'm spread pretty thin.

Anyway, I'm around and looking for things to talk about. I have some new material on weather radar that's about to be completed. I might throw that up here soon. I will warn you however that it's so long that it will probably have to be divided into several parts.

TIS

 

[A Squared]

TIS,

Your point about your personal records matching company records is a good one. I initially took that approach, until I realizd that the captains at my company are pretty casual about what they put in the IMC column. Some put in a standard half hour, regardless of what really happened, some put in a standard percentage, regardless of what really happened, some underestimate badly, one offered to put down whatever I thought I "needed". I now log my estimate of the true IMC time. I think that my logbook is a more accurate indication of the time I spent with my hands on the yoke, flying the airplane only by reference to instruments. Yeah, it doesn't neccesarily match the company records. Might it look fishy if the two were compared? possibly? Should I shortchange my logbook because I fly with lazy captains? I dunno, what is the lesser of two evils?

regards