Logging PIC in a Complex/HighPerformance

[ksu_aviator]

I can't believe some one believes that you can log PIC in IFR without an IFR rating. It can't be done! Who is the pilot in command...its simple...the PIC is the one that the FAA will violate when something goes wrong. So the PIC during IFR training, while IFR is the CFII. Same goes for a high perf. and complex, until you actually have an endorsement for high perf. and complex you can not log pic time, however you can log acting as pic. I had to do this for my initial multi-engine commercial students.

 

[puddlejumper]

I'm sure many of us have experience with pilot job applications and insurance paperwork. I've noticed that several of these forms will breakdown the PIC time column into FAR part 1 and FAR part 61. Part 1 is time as acting or serving as PIC. This would be as the one whom is responsible for the flight, or the one the aircraft was dispatched to. Part 61 PIC would be time spent as a sole manipulator in an aircraft you, (a recreational, private or commercial pilot) are rated in, or a student as sole occupant. ATPs technically can't log part 61 PIC time unless they are actually acting as PIC of an operation requiring an ATP, otherwise they are part 1 PIC.
Now, just to see if I've got everything straight, back when I was a Commercial pilot, if I was flying a King Air during a 135 deadhead flight (part 91), I could log that as PIC per part 61. The insured, listed PIC was actually the part 1 PIC. Now as an ATP, I can't legally do that since the part 61 PIC only applies to rec, pvt or comm pilots. Well, that's my take on it.
There were several good threads on this subject in the old board. I believe AvBug led most of the discussions.

-PJ

 

[Timebuilder]

I admit it, I usually take Brian's "logical sense" approach to logging.

So, from a regs standpoint, a person working towards his endorsement may log the time where they are the sole manipulator. Not very difficult for a HP/complex student, but much of the time spent landing a tailwheel aircraft might have to be deducted from the flight time in order to eliminate that time where the student was not the sole manipulator, in other words, getting help to avoid ground looping, etc.


Have you hugged a bureaucrat today?

 

[JimNtexas]

Jetpup is 100% correct

Jetpup is 100% correct. Jeppensen's book "Fars Explained" provides additional background information explaining the difference between "logging" and "acting" as PIC.

This is the way it is in the United States.

How some future employer will react to logging PIC "sole manipulator" time is unknown, but the FAA is very clear that this time is logable PIC if you are qualified in the:

catagory (airplane), class( single engine land) and type (if a type rating is requred). Endorsements and Instrument ratings are not required to log sole manipulator pic time that can be used to satisfy FAA time requirements.

Jim

 

[Simon Says]

Ask yourself this..........Am I logging time for my own records or am I logging time to get hired with an airline. Even though the FAR says you can log PIC if you are the sole manipulators of the control can you explain to someone in an interview how you logged that time PIC when you did not have an endorsement. Tough question. I was asked how I logged PIC time when I was a CFI teaching another rated pilot in that A/C. I gave him the FAR answer, then he asked me if I needed a medical to teach students that are rated in the A/C. I said no which is correct then he asked me what the student logged. I said PIC. He then asked me how you can have 2 PIC flying a single engine piper. He went on and on about how he doesnt like people logging PIC time when they are really not PIC.

My recommendation would be to if you are logging time for the hopes to get hired at an airline be as conservative as possible. Whatever time you log you should be propared to answer for at an interview.

 

[skeezer]

He then asked me how you can have 2 PIC flying a single engine piper.

Easy, the student (even though he/she is rated in the aircraft) is NOT acting as PIC as per 14 CFR 1.1. He/She is obivoulsy the sole manipulator of the controls and thus can log that time as PIC per 14 CFR 61.51(e).

The CFI is the one who has the final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight (along with the other two parts of the PIC definition). Thus, the CFI is the PIC per 14 CFR 1.1. Additionally, as we all know, the CFI can log that time as PIC per the FARs as well.

So, If you asked me who the true PIC (in terms of responsibility) was, it would be the CFI. Thus, if only one person would log PIC, that person would be the CFI.

However since both can log the time as PIC, I say log it. Thats what I have done in the past, and that is what I will continue to do. When in doubt, just follow what the regs say and you will be right.

Some airlines, as pointed out before, want only certain types of PIC time. If I remember correctly, United makes you subtract your Dual received from your time (thereby eliminating the time spent as non Part 1 PIC).

I know some people do the Dual PIC thing to split the cost of multi time, but unless you are really giving instruction or doing hoodwork I would not try that. That type of situation might be what the airlines are trying to avoid. Of course, a discussion on that would start a whole new thread, so I digress.

If my interviewer had questioned me on logging PIC I would have backed it up with the regs, then probably got into a pissing contest if he tried to tell me not to log something that the FARs specifically tell me I can log.

Oh well, hopefully that made sense (probably not but I try ). We could probably argue about this forever, but I say follow the regs and log what 14 CFR 61.51 allows.

Skeezer

PS Consider this Scenario: You take your girlfriend flying for 1.5 hours and let her take the controls for .2 hours. How much PIC can you LEGALLY log?

The technical answer would be that, even though you are ACTING as PIC, you can only legally log 1.3 hours as PIC. Now, I can pretty much garauntee (sp?) that nobody does that but you can't go wrong if you follow the rules (well, this one at least). AOPA did a good article on logging PIC and used this as an example. I can't remember when they did it and I am too lazy to look it up .