Logging PIC in actual w/o a instrument rating

[Amish RakeFight]

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.

One reason they have acting and logging PIC was due to the insurance requirements of multi engine planes. Owners would need a certain amount of twin PIC and could only attain it by having an acting PIC, such as an MEI.

 

[nosehair]

One reason they have acting and logging PIC was due to the insurance requirements of multi engine planes. Owners would need a certain amount of twin PIC and could only attain it by having an acting PIC, such as an MEI.

Yeah, that's the typical response I get to 'justify' logging as opposed to 'acting'.

But where the sense in that? The reason insurance companies started using PIC time as a benchmark to experience and proficiency is because the PIC time meant time that he was actually being the PIC.

So, along come the 'new age' pilots who have discovered an 'interpretation' of the regulations which technically allows logging PIC when you're not, so what's the point of the insurance companies or the FAA or anybody requiring a certain amount of PIC time? It doesn't mean anything anymore.

I understand about your scenario where a multi-rated pilot should get some more time in a multi after the rating, and flying with a CFI can still be logged PIC. He has the ability to act as PIC. That's not the root problem with this concept. It's the guy who cannot act as PIC who can still log it. That's wrong. It doesn't matter what anybody says about 'insurance' or FAA certification PIC time requirements, those times are supposed to reflect actual PIC time, or at least 'acting as PIC' under the supervision of an instructor. That's why they are required times. They are supposed to indicate a level of experience.

As long as PIC time can be logged by a person who cannot actually take over the control of the airplane and handle it safely and competently, the term PIC time" will no longer have any substance or meaning.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

I hear ya nosehair, and thats why the airlines are much more specific as to what constitutes PIC time.

Although one "manipulating" the controls is gaining experience in the operation of the aircraft just the same.

 

[avbug]

I don't think it was ever a concious intent to make 'logging' and 'acting' as two seperate entities.

Actually, the FAA did intend that, and the purpose is described in preambles to the Federal Register at the time of the regulatory initiation.

Clearly the FAA intended this, as various reglations cover various aspects of PIC, defining it specific to each regulatory reference.

The regulation is clear. What we have are lazy pilots who don't take the time to learn the regulation.

 

[Flying Ninja]

The regulation is clear. What we have are lazy pilots who don't take the time to learn the regulation.

I can speak for myself that I don't have a law degree nor do I feel I'm an expert on lawyer speak. I do the best I can in interpreting the regulations but over time, I've discovered that what I once thought was right, was actually wrong. I'm sure the words in the regulations haven't changed. My understanding changed over time as I gained more experience. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if it was clarified to begin with instead of all this guess work and hit and misses?

 

[midlifeflyer]

One reason they have acting and logging PIC was due to the insurance requirements of multi engine planes. Owners would need a certain amount of twin PIC and could only attain it by having an acting PIC, such as an MEI.

It's much older than that. I did some historical checking and the separation of "real" PIC time from a certain type of time that counts toward pilot certificates and ratings goes back to at least the 1920s.

Here's what I found (edited paste from another thread):

A friend and I were corresponding about some old versions of the current FAR. He came across a hard copy of the 1926 Air Commerce Regulations, and I've seen some later ones. We were going back and forth on the different ways the FAA counted time toward certificates and ratings.

As far as I've been able to tell, the counting of "LOGGED PIC" time is a child of the FAR and didn't exist in the CAR ("Civil Air Regulations") or the ACR before that. Instead of PIC requirements for certificates and ratings, what was counted in the ACR was something called "solo flying." "Solo flying" at the time was not defined as being the only person on board as it is under the FAR. But I think you'll find how it was defined rather familiar. Here's the 1929 version:

==============================
Sec. 61. Meaning of Solo Flying.
As used in these regulations, a person is engaged in solo flying when he is the sole operator of the controls and is in command of aircraft in flight.
==============================

Notice that at least as early as 1929, we have the "sole manipulator" as a concept of how to count flight hours toward certificates and ratings and that back then they were looking for two conditions: manipulator =and= actually in command.

The current version of the rule, still using "solo" instead of PIC ("solo" as "sole occupant" first appears in the 1950s) and dropping the need to actually be the in command seems to make its first appearance in a 1942 revision to Part 20 of the CAR, adding a new rule on logging:

==============================
20.673 Logging of pilot flight time.

***

(b) The holder of a pilot certificate, other than a student pilot certificate, may log as solo flight time that portion of any flight during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls: Provided, That he may log as solo flight time only 50 percent of any flight time during which a certificated instructor or a certificated airline transport pilot is in the aircraft serving as an instructor for the purpose of reviewing or increasing such pilot's skill;
==============================

Recall that "solo flight time" is being used for many of the certificate and rating purposes that "logged PIC" is used now.

Change "solo flight time" to "pilot in command" and, except for removing the instruction debit, you have the rule in essentially the same form today as it was 65 years ago. You count sole manipulator time toward certificates and ratings without regard to whether you are in command of a flight.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want from this. And you can argue that the whole thing is stupid or that the FAA should have chosen a term other than "PIC" for "a certain type of time counted toward certificates and ratings." But I find it kinda hard to argue that the way FAA Legal has interpreted the current rule was just some accidental mix-up or something that a bunch of FAA lawyers made up.

Besides, even leaving out the 65+ year history, the formal FAA Legal interpretation of the rule is about 25 years old - FAA has had a long time to change it if it did not reflect what the FAA wanted.

Anyone else notice that the proposed extensive revision of Part 61 doesn't touch it?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I can speak for myself that I don't have a law degree nor do I feel I'm an expert on lawyer speak. I do the best I can in interpreting the regulations but over time, I've discovered that what I once thought was right, was actually wrong. I'm sure the words in the regulations haven't changed. My understanding changed over time as I gained more experience. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if it was clarified to begin with instead of all this guess work and hit and misses?

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder.

==============================
Logging pilot-in-command flight time.
A sport, recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person--
Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges;
==============================

I don't think this is as clear as AvBug does. It's that "only" in the middle. The regulation =can= be read two ways. In English comprehension, the question is whether "sole manipulator" is a just necessary condition or a necessary and sufficient condition.

Read as just a necessary condition, it means that you need to =at least= be sole manipulator, sort of like "Only people with shirts may enter our store" doesn't mean that you don't have to wear pants.

I know nosehair always thought that being PIC was understood and, looking at the language as supplying a necessary but not sufficient condition supports that interpretation.

But... for at least 25 years the FAA has told us that it treats it as both necessary and sufficient. And it's been consistent. How much more clarity do you want?