Logging SIC time......

[A Squared]

Ok, if clarity is what we're after then the REGULATIONS (which is what midlife was referring to...61.51) only talk about time logged for the purposes previously described.

If an NTSB judge and the FAA have been adding to the rules again outside the scope of the rulemaking process, then that's another thing.

I personally wouldn't log any bogus time. But, the regulations are right there, and so are the obscure, relatively unobtainable interpretations and case law for everyone to research to make up their own minds as to what they're going to do.

A couple of responses:

1) Regulations and statutes are only part of the story, The case law is the rest of the story, in all law, not just FAA administrative law.

2) This is administrative law, not statutory law. If a cop collars some thug hanging around a deserted parking lot at 0200 with a slim jim in his pocket, there's no case. Yeah, we all know that he's there to steal a car, the slim-jim, confirms out suspicions, but still ther's no case. He claims he was on his way home and that's just a piece of spring steel he uses for a back scratcher. The DA has to prove otherwqise, and they can't. Unless there's trespassing charges or something else, they guy will walk. Contrast that with Administrative law: The FAA catches someone with a couple of pages of P-51 time, yeah the guy may claim he was never planning on using that time for any official purpose, but the differnce is, the NTSB judes are required to accept the FAA's spin on the situation (within certain limits)

3) 1 and 2 aside, there *is* a specific regulation which addresses this. 61.59 (a): no person may make or cause to be made : (2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or excercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating or authorization, under this part.

Is a "LOGBOOK" specifically required? no, not exactly, but you are required by 61.51 to record experience to show compliance, so a record (acceptable to the administrator) is required.

Now, does it say that only the entries actually used have to be honest, but the unneccessary ones can be bogus? nope, it says you may not make *ANY* false entry.

If they didn't care what you put in the logbook, the regulation would read:

"............Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry that is used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or excercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating or authorization, under this part in any logbook, record, or report."

Read it and think about the difference in the wording between that and the way the regulation is actually worded. If wer'e after clarity, it doesn't get much cleaer than *Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook*

You might *think* there's some wiggle room in there, but the FAA says that there is not, and the NTSB is bound by law to agree with the FAA.

 

[bigD]

You might *think* there's some wiggle room in there, but the FAA says that there is not, and the NTSB is bound by law to agree with the FAA.

I agree with all you're saying, A^2, but just to play devil's advocate, why would the FAA include "...that is required to be kept, made or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or excercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating or authorization, under this part." if 61.59 prohibited ANY false entry in a logbook? Why not just say, "Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report." and leave it at that?

 

[A Squared]

why would the FAA include "...that is required to be kept, made or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or excercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating or authorization, under this part." if 61.59 prohibited ANY false entry in a logbook? Why not just say, "Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report." and leave it at that?

A regulation which specified "Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report." would include areas which the FAA has no jurisdiction: Anything you write your personal diary, your mariner's logbook, your tax records, virtually everything you ever write in your life. "any logbook, record, or report" covers just about everything. The FAA doesn't care what lies you write in your diary about the fish you catch, nor do they have jurisdiction. I suspect that a regulation which purports to regulate things outside the FAA's jurisdiction might be open to legal challenge, invalidating the entire regulation. That last part is just speculation, i'd be interested in commentary on that from someone more knowledgable, but at any rate, the law is pretty clear: If an inspector walks up to you as you get out of an airplane you've just landed, and asks you to show that you're legally current, you're required to show him something (not that instant, but sooner or later) and whatever you show him has to be truthful, all of it.

 

[English]

However, CFR 61.51(f) clearly states when it is legal to log SIC time. First, you must have the training specified in 61.55. Additionally, more than one pilot must be required either by the aircraft's type certificate or the regulation under which the flight is conducted.

Nowhere is "insurance requirement" mentioned.

Flx757 is right on.

Which jet are we talking about here? If it is a CJ, then yes, there are some circumstances under which you can be a legal SIC.

Share with us which airplane, and I'll give you more info if it applies.

 

[JohnnyP]

It would be a CJ2.

 

[JungleJetFO]

If a company owned a jet certified for single pilot operations, but the insurance company required that it be flown by a crew of two, could the right seat guy log it as SIC time even though the aircraft doesnt require one?

If you're rated for the jet, you know you can log PIC in it though right? Anytime you have sole manipulation of the controls.
Since you have nothing to lose , I would write to the FAA and get clarification. If you're going to fly in this jet, it's worth the effort to get the flight time to count. SIC can get you your next job and it seems pretty sad that you are flying for a living and can't count any of it as flight time.

 

[JungleJetFO]

Now, does it say that only the entries actually used have to be honest, but the unneccessary ones can be bogus? nope, it says you may not make *ANY* false entry.

I think there's a big distinction here and this gets into the spirit of the law. It says you may not make any *INTENTIONAL* false entry. What you are saying is including unintentional false entries. The point of this section about logbooks is to stop someone from intentionally falsifying his logbook by filling it with flightime he did not fly, which is a criminal act. If you log SIC because you were under the impression you could (from a fellow pilot, the FSDO, etc.) but really can't, I don't believe falls under an intentional false entry.

 

[A Squared]

I think there's a big distinction here and this gets into the spirit of the law. It says you may not make any *INTENTIONAL* false entry. What you are saying is including unintentional false entries. The point of this section about logbooks is to stop someone from intentionally falsifying his logbook by filling it with flightime he did not fly, which is a criminal act. If you log SIC because you were under the impression you could (from a fellow pilot, the FSDO, etc.) but really can't, I don't believe falls under an intentional false entry.

That's a good point, but on the other hand there's always that old axiom that ignorance ofhte law is no excuse. At any rate, my comments were not really directed at the original question of whether you could log SIC in a Citation , but rather at the commonly held notion expressed by 2 posters here that you can put anything you want in your logbook, it's not a violation till you put it on an 8710 or use it to fulfil some other Part 61 reqirement.

You're right, there is *some* room for honest mistakes, but I can't say how much. Far better to know hte regulations well and follow then to the best of your ability, than to take a shot in the dark and hope that the FAA will consider it an innocent honest mistake.

There's an NTSB decision wihich sheds some light on the FAA's willingness to consider something an honest mistake. http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4044.PDF

Very briefly, a pilot was in hte preocess of geting checked out in a Navajo of which he was a part owner nad was already on a part 135 certificate. He was updating his logbook by having his girlfriend read from the aircraft flight records, and he wrote into his logbook. He had to leave to take his mother to the hospital and while he was away his girlfriend filled in some flights in his lobgook herself. She listed as dual received several flights which were not actually dual received, and the pilot didn't catch the mistaken entries. Someow this came to the attention of the FAA. Ultimately, the pilot prevailed in his appeal to the NTSB, as he did in the initial NTSB hearing, it shold be noted that not only did hte FAA bring an Emergency revocation against this guy, but when it was struck down by the NTSB judge, the FAA appeled to the full board.

To me that speaks volumes about the FAA's willingness to consider something a harmless mistake.

On a different note, there are also aspects of this case which may be skirting some grey areas in part 135 charter. One of the things this docket illustrates is how far the FAA is willing to go to find stuff to hang you if they think that you've been playing fast and loose with charter regulations.

 

[JungleJetFO]

I'm really curious to know why this guy was investigated in the first place. Was it a mishap? Once you have an investigation , everything is under scrutiny and all of a sudden things that seem trivial become magnified under the microscope.

 

[bart]

Personally, I wouldn't log any of the time in it unless you are typed. It is a huge red flag in an interview for Citation or CJ SIC time that is not Part 135. I am sure the pilot you are flying with is typed for single pilot operations, and so no SIC required. The only way around it for the type is:

1) The PIC is not rated for single pilot operations (Highly Unlikely)

or

2) The aircraft is operated under Part 135 with no waiver in the Op Specs for Single Pilot Operation (More likely).

Get them to type you at school, that will solve alot of your problems. They are sending you to school, right?