Logging PIC in actual w/o a instrument rating

[Rally]

Scenerio:

Private Pilot in a Single Engine Land aircraft, flying in a SEL aircraft with a CFI-I in actual IMC under a instrument flight plan. Can the student log PIC time? I say yes because:

"Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges"

Privieges refers to the aircraft not the type of operation.

Am I right?

Thanks

 

[avbug]

You are correct; posession of an instrument rating is not required to log instrument time.

 

[Rally]

Re-read, I said PIC time not instrument time.

 

[skyaddict]

Both the CFII and the student can log PIC time in this scenario, even though the CFII is (as he woud have to be if the student was not instrument rated) acting as the PIC. This is because the student instrument pilot is sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft for which he is rated. Acting (or being legal to act) as PIC and being able to legally log PIC are apples and oranges.

 

[avbug]

Posession of an instrument rating is not required to log PIC time in instrument conditions.

 

[Super 27]

This is the classic question of who IS PIC versus who is LOGGING PIC. It's very important to know that they're two different things. In this case, while both pilots can certainly LOG PIC time (you cited exactly the correct reason in the regs), the student most certainly can't BE the PIC. Since the CFII is providing instruction, not only can he/she log PIC, but can also log the actual time.

 

[Midnight Flyer]

Posession of an instrument rating is not required to log PIC time in instrument conditions.

Irregardless of if you're logging PIC or not, wouldn't one need an instrument rating to fly in instrument conditions to begin with?
Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Irregardless of if you're logging PIC or not, wouldn't one need an instrument rating to fly in instrument conditions to begin with?
Maybe I'm missing something.

One would need an instrument rating in order to act as pilot in command in instrument conditions. But that "one" doesn't need to be the one doing the flying.

You could be "missing" that there are three district concepts at work here:

1. Who is acting as the pilot in command of the flight? In other words, who is inc charge. Its all about authority and responsibility. Privileges and limitations. You'll find a bunch of regs i Part 61 to deal with who is allowed to be in charge and under what circumstances.

2. Who is doing the hands-on flying? It might be the pilot in command; it might be another pilot; it might be the PIC's 8 year old niece.

3. Who is eligible to log the time in the PIC column of a logbook? That is is sole and exclusive province of only one regulation in the whole FAR: 61.51

The mistake so many of us make is that we think that all three are the same, when they couldn't be more different.

That 8 year old can fly all she wants in instrument conditions and it's perfectly legal, so long as someone with the proper certificate, ratings, and currency is in charge of the flight.

 

[acaTerry]

Irregardless of if you're logging PIC or not, wouldn't one need an instrument rating to fly in instrument conditions to begin with?
Maybe I'm missing something.

No such word. Some dictionaries added it to appease the ignorant, but officially there is no such word.

Now, the important part....please continue

 

[Midnight Flyer]

No such word. Some dictionaries added it to appease the ignorant, but officially there is no such word.

Now, the important part....please continue

Sure it's a word, Terry. It wouldn't be in a dictionary, even if it's to appease the ignorant, if it wasn't a word.

Just because it's a word you choose not to include in your vocabulary doesn't mean it's not indeed a word.

To "appease the ignorant", here's a definition:

irregardless
adverb
regardless; a combination of irrespective and regardless sometimes used humorously
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.