Logging PIC in actual w/o a instrument rating

[Amish RakeFight]

If you're SEL rated, you may log your sole manipulator time as PIC. The CFII will log PIC as instructor time.

Both may log ACTUAL because it is considered a condition of flight like night.

You may not ACT AS PIC in actual unless you are instrument rated and current.

 

[avbug]

April 6, 1983

Harlan V. Elliott

Dear Mr. Elliott:
This is in reply to your December 10, 1982, letter questioning the accuracy of an interpretation appearing in the September/October 1982 issue of FAA General Aviation News (GA News) (found on page 15).
GA News addressed the following question:

When I am taking instruction for an instrument rating, can I log it as pilot in command time in actual instrument conditions when I am the sole manipulator of the controls in IFR conditions?

This question was answered as follows:

No. A pilot receiving instrument instruction in actual instrument conditions must be rated and current in the aircraft and already possess an instrument rating, in order to log pilot in command time for such conditions.

You note that the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) do not specifically permit a pilot to log pilot in command (PIC) tine in actual instrument conditions without an instrument rating, but neither do they specifically prohibit logging this time.

As you indicated in your letter, there are a number of FARs which bear on this. Section 61.51(c)(2) provides in part that a private or commercial pilot may log as pilot in command time flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated. Section 61.51(c)(4) provides in part that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. Section 61.65(e)(2) requires that an applicant for an instrument rating must have at least 40 hours of simulated or actual instrument time as a pilot, and Section 61.65(e)(3) requires the applicant to have at least 15 hours of instrument flight instruction by an authorized flight instructor. You offer your opinion that the remaining 25 hours required in Section 61.65(e)(2) which is not "dual" instruction under Section 61.65(e)(3), could be flown with a "watch pilot" and must be pilot in command time under Section 61.51(c)(2) and instrument time under Section 61.51(c)(4).

The only limitations on the PIC time which may be logged by a private or commercial pilot are those found in Section 61.51(c)(2), including the provision that PIC time may be logged when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he or she is rated.

Please note that Section 61.51(c)(2) and the other sections cited above are only provisions for logging flight time. Section 61.3(e)(1) provides in part that no person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under instrument flight rules, or in weather conditions less than VFR minimums unless that person holds an instrument rating. A noninstrument rated pilot who is taking instrument instruction in IFR conditions may log that as PIC time, but may not actually serve as the PIC. The other pilot must be the PIC, and is not merely a "watch pilot." We are informing GA News of our interpretation. I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
/s/
John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[avbug]

November 7, 1984

Mr. Joseph P. Carr

Dear Mr. Carr:

This is in response to your letter asking questions about instrument flight time.

First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as actual instrument flight time.

Second, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.57(e)(2) of the FAR, noting that Advisory Circular 61-65A, Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors, seems to contain advice contrary to your understanding of the rule.

As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions.

To answer your first question, The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilotactual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot. Note that, under Section 61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should include the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate.

To answer your second question, your understanding of Section 61.57(e) is correct. Section 61.57(e) provides currency requirements for acting as pilot in command (PIC) under instrument flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than the minimums for visual flight rules (VFR). No pilot may act as PIC under those conditions unless she or he has, with the last six months, logged the number of hours of instrument flight time, including the number of approaches, indicated in Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) or (ii). When that six-month currency period lapses, that is, on the day the pilot no longer has the required instrument flight time within the last six months, the pilot may in the next six months regain her or his currency simply by logging the required instrument flight time. Note that, during this second six-month period, Section 61.57(e)(1) prohibits the pilot from acting as PIC under IFR or below VFR minimums (imc). If that second six-month period runs without the pilot regaining currency, she or he may only again become qualified to act as PIC under IFR or in weather below VFR minimums (imc) by passing an instrument competency check as described in Section 61.57(e)(2).

Advisory Circular 61-65A, paragraph 15a, explained in part that a pilot failing to meet the recency of instrument experience requirements for a period of 12 months must pass an instrument competency check. This simply meant that, when a pilot becomes qualified to act as PIC under the instrument conditions described, he or she has at least a 12-month period in which currency my be maintained or regained by logging the required instrument flight time. After that 12-month period, if currency has not been maintained or regained, the pilot must pass an instrument competency check. Advisory Circular 61-65A was not intended to expand the second six-month "grace" period to 12 months. As you note, the Advisory Circular has been changed, and paragraph 15 was rewritten to more accurately reflect the requirements of Section 61.57(e)(2).

Sincerely,
/s/
John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[avbug]

The requirement for an instrument rating is found in 14 CFR 61.3(e), as follows:

(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;
(2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate aircraft category, class, and type rating (if required) for the aircraft being flown;
(3) For a glider, a pilot certificate with a glider category rating and an airplane instrument rating; or
(4) For an airship, a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating and airship class rating.

Note that an instrument rating is required to act as PIC under instrument flight rules, or in conditions less than the minimums for VFR flight. However, as can be seen in the preceeding legal interpretations, a pilot may fly in instrument conditions while still within the legal requirements for VFR...so long as visibility and cloud clearance requirements for VFR have not been compromised, the flight may be conducted under VFR, and remain VFR, but still be in instrument conditions (moonless night over the ocean, for example).

One does not need an instrument rating to act as PIC, nor to log PIC, under "actual" instrument conditions.

One should be instrument proficient, and that should go without saying...but it's not a legal requirement. Failure to be proficient is legally covered by 91.13.

 

[CrewDawg]

Someone please tell me if this is flawed logic but when in doubt, I would ask myself the following question. Could I fly/log this flight if I were by myself? If the answer is no, don't fly/log it. If yes, then by all means fly/log it.

 

[avbug]

Thats really the point. Legally a pilot without an instrument rating can flying VFR in instrument conditions and log it as PIC.

Should he? That's been discussed...but it's legal. The non-instrument rated pilot could fly and log it all by his lonesome, as PIC, and instrument. No CFI required.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Someone please tell me if this is flawed logic but when in doubt, I would ask myself the following question. Could I fly/log this flight if I were by myself? If the answer is no, don't fly/log it. If yes, then by all means fly/log it.

What logic? It sounds like you start with the premise that you should only log what you can fly yourself and end up with the conclusion that, therefore you should only log what you can fly yourself. I think that's called a tautology. It's a statement of opinion, not logic.

When in doubt I start with this one: You may legitimately log what the rules and regulations say you may legitimately log.

 

[nosehair]

tell me if this is flawed logic

The logic is flawed. Probably in the same way as mine was, in that I always thought that you had to be able to be the PIC to log PIC.

Even when I read 61.51(e) logging PIC time... I read that as starting out as: you are the PIC, here is how to log it... or these are the parameters that must be met, with the preconceived notion that you were qualified to act as PIC. I knew you did not have to BE the PIC during the flight. You could be taking instruction, but you were qualified to be the PIC if the flight instructor were not along.

Well, that is not how it reads. I personally think that is how it was meant to read, but it doesn't. So. Brand new Private pilots can go for a ride in Unka Harry's Piper Mirage, hold the yoke while straight and level at altitude on instruments, and log it PIC instrument time.

I suspect that PIC time will eventually lose it's meaning, and will no loger be valuable to log.

 

[Flying Ninja]

Wouldn't it be great if the FAA published a clear, scenario based publication (hell, they put out enough ACs as it is) that describe this? After a century of flight, one would think, logically and in common sense, the FAA would have gotten around to such a fundamental, everyday life issue. ;-)

 

[nosehair]

Wouldn't it be great if the FAA published a clear, scenario based publication (hell, they put out enough ACs as it is) that describe this? After a century of flight, one would think, logically and in common sense, the FAA would have gotten around to such a fundamental, everyday life issue. ;-)

Honestly, I don't think they want to make a public admission to the fact that they have allowed the term 'PIC' to become so bastardized.

I don't think it was ever a concious intent to make 'logging' and 'acting' as two seperate entities. I just don't believe it. I believe the 'legalists' who have come along in the last 15-20 years who know how to twist words to their personal 'advantage' have made the case that the regulation allows for this.

So, I think they just don't want to admit to it by making a publication that deals with such an absudity.