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.

 

[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.

 

[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?