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.