Logging time SIC

[greygoose]

Ive been looking for this for the past few days, can anyone lead me in the right direction. I know you cant log the landings being a PNF since you arenet the sole manipulator. But can a SIC PNF log IMC and the approaches the PIC flies, since you are a required crewmember?

 

[MTpilot]

under what rules?

 

[777_Jackpot]

61.51 PILOT LOGBOOKS
(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

No, you can't log instrument time while SIC PNF because "you" are not the person operating the aircraft, that is you are not actually flying. The number of pilots required on the aircrafts type certificate and the operating part would not be a factor. Unless someone else has a different interpretation. Hope that helps

 

[User546]

Unless someone else has a different interpretation. Hope that helps

And when it comes to anything related to SIC, EVERYone has a different interpretation!

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

61.51 PILOT LOGBOOKS
(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

No, you can't log instrument time while SIC PNF because "you" are not the person operating the aircraft, that is you are not actually flying. The number of pilots required on the aircrafts type certificate and the operating part would not be a factor. Unless someone else has a different interpretation. Hope that helps

Aaaaaaactually, it seems that an SIC PNF could log the instrument time because the regulation (quoted above) only requires that the person operate the aircraft... as opposed to being sole manipulator of the controls. What's the definition of "operate?" Well, here is a legal interpretation (I've emphasized the pertinent paragraph):

January 19, 1993

AEA-7

Thank you for your request for an interpretation of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) on the subject of "operation" of an aircraft. We apologize that other matters have delayed our answer until now.

We will briefly state your question. A ground crewmember, who was directing an air carrier aircraft by providing taxi guidance, caused the aircraft to have a collision. The pilot relied on the ground crewmember's guidance. Can the ground crewmember be charged under FAR 91.13 with careless or reckless operation of an aircraft and assessed a civil penalty?

We assume here that the aircraft was taxiing out to fly, "for the purpose of air navigation", so that FAR 91.13(a) applies.

Section 101(31) of the FAAct defines "operation of aircraft":

"Operation of aircraft" or "operate aircraft" means the use of aircraft, for the purpose of air navigation and includes the navigation of aircraft. Any person who causes or authorizes the operation of aircraft, whether with or without the right of legal control (in the capacity of owner, lessee, or otherwise) of the aircraft, shall be deemed to be engaged in the operation of aircraft within the meaning of this Act.

The second sentence of the definition includes possessory control situations and proprietary control situations for operations that are commercial in nature. This leaves the first sentence as more apposite to the facts under discussion.

The FAAct, section 101(30) defines "navigation of aircraft":

"Navigation of aircraft" or "navigate aircraft" includes the piloting of aircraft.

FAR 1.1 defines "Pilot in command" (PIC) as:

"the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.

FAR 1.1 defines flight time as:

"the time from the moment the aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight until the moment it comes to rest at the next point of landing. ("Block-to-block" time.)

From these definitions it is evident that under the facts given, the PIC operated the aircraft within the meaning of FAR 91.13, whether or not the controls were actually manipulated. Any operation of the aircraft by a ground crewmember, then, was coincident with operation by the PIC. Is this possible?

NTSB decisions make it clear that a PIC may reasonably rely on information given by any member of the ground or flight crews, when the PIC has no reason or basis to look behind or question the crewmember's performance. Administrator v. Lusk, 2 NTSB 480, 482 (1973); Administrator v. Thomas, 3 NTSB 349 (1977); Administrator v. Bass, EA-3507 (1992). This is because the complexity of large air carrier aircraft operations make it impossible for one person to do everything required. Nonetheless, all who supply information to the PIC, and all who perform duties on the aircraft, are not, in every circumstance, "operating" or "causing" the operation of an aircraft within the definition given.

By the same reasoning, the ground crewmember who guides the aircraft during taxi is merely another source of information to the PIC. The information supplied is no more vital than that supplied by the person who computed the weight and balance, or the person who signed the maintenance release, for example.

This is not to say that only the PIC can "operate" an aircraft. Past interpretations of this division have held that a second in command (SIC) is deemed to be operating the aircraft, whether or not the SIC is actually manipulating the controls. The SIC is, to some extent, both "causing" the operation of, and "piloting" the aircraft in his duties. Likewise, the flight engineer, by the nature of his duties, engages in the operation of an aircraft.

Quoting an earlier interpretation issued by the General Counsel in March, 1967, and signed by Nathaniel N. Goodrich:

Few would contest the fact that modern air carrier operations are of a complex nature, demanding the time and energies of a highly skilled crew. Each member of this crew performs delegated functions that the pilot in command of a less complex aircraft would himself carry out. Thus, they are all engaged in varying phases of the operation and each necessarily performs a portion of the total operation. To eliminate any member from his function would leave a gap in the "operating" team. If the pilot in command of the aircraft would be responsible as an "operator" for some misconduct leading to careless or reckless operation of the aircraft, other misconduct, if attributed to a flight engineer, must be part of "operation" as well. Just as it is not necessary for the pilot to be manipulating the controls of the aircraft, it is not necessary for the flight engineer to be manipulating the controls at the time of his misconduct. If his actions create a hazard to the flight, he must be held accountable under the definition of "operating".

This definition of "operating" appears to be limited to flightcrew members. In Administrator v Hart, 2 NTSB 1110, 1111 (1974), the Board wrote:

...the term "operate" should logically be given a broader construction to include those required flight crewmembers whose participation in the operation of an aircraft is essential to the safety of flight.

A flight crew engages in "piloting" an aircraft. A ground crew member does not engage in "piloting" aircraft and, in the circumstance presented here, did not "cause" the operation of the aircraft.

We do not interpret the actions of the ground crew taxi guide as "operation" of an aircraft in the circumstances presented.

This interpretation was prepared by Arthur E. Jacobson, Attorney, Operations Law Branch; Joseph A. Conte, Manager, and has been coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Service at FAA Headquarters. We hope this answers your question.

Donald P. Byrne

Now, FWIW, I do not log instrument time unless I'm the guy moving the yoke. I think that is generally accepted as the "right" way to log the time. But legally, I think you could log it when you're the PNF.

cc

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yup, cc. The SIC "operates" the aircraft also and gets to log the "conditions of flight" just like the PIC.

The approach issue is pretty much the same as the CFI logging student approach issue. The FAR uses "perform" the approach rather than "sole manipulator" language as for landings. AFAIK, there hasn't been any official interpretation either way and you can justify either one depending on how you view the meaning of the word "perform."

FWIW, cc, I've never seen a list of rules for the "generally accepted right way to log" time apart from the rules for meeting the FAA's requirements certificates, ratings, or currency (with perhaps the odd extra column for insurance or employment needs)

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

FWIW, cc, I've never seen a list of rules for the "generally accepted right way to log" time apart from the rules for meeting the FAA's requirements certificates, ratings, or currency (with perhaps the odd extra column for insurance or employment needs)

Yeah, midlife, that was the point I was trying to make... there isn't one. I said "I think... generally accepted 'right'... " because I believe it is the way most people would expect to see you log this time, not because it is correct or legal. This happens to be a case where I didn't follow my own advice but, as I've said in other posts, log what you can legally log, however you can log it, and sort it out later if someone wants it differently.

Have a great 4th...

cc

 

[check6]

No, you can't log instrument time while SIC PNF because "you" are not the person operating the aircraft, that is you are not actually flying. The number of pilots required on the aircrafts type certificate and the operating part would not be a factor. Unless someone else has a different interpretation. Hope that helps

Can't a CFII log PIC IFR if in actual even though they may not be manipulating the controls?? As an authorized instructor, you can log PIC time as long as you are acting just as that.

And, I'm adding, don't log SIC time in a plane certified for 1 pilot, even if you did take a 135 SIC checkride. That's crap time in my book(I almost did it). Unless of course the airplane in question doesn't have an Autopilot, then it is required in a 135 operation, unless it's cargo(I think).

 

[midlifeflyer]

Can't a CFII log PIC IFR if in actual even though they may not be manipulating the controls?? As an authorized instructor, you can log PIC time as long as you are acting just as that.

Just to clarify, a CFI can log PIC in actual when giving instruction in actual whether or not the CFI is acting as PIC. The CFI can be out of every type of currency that exists and without a medical for the past 10 years and can still log it.

Point is that the instructor rule is a special rule of instructors that isn't dependent on being required crew or anything other than acting as an instructor. It usually doesn't make a good example for "normal" PIC/SIC discussions. (Yes I know, I used CFIs as an example of the problem with the definition of "perform" earlier.)

 

[check6]

Just to clarify, a CFI can log PIC in actual when giving instruction in actual whether or not the CFI is acting as PIC. The CFI can be out of every type of currency that exists and without a medical for the past 10 years and can still log it.

This makes sense. There is a huge difference between "Acting as PIC" and "logging PIC."

 

[100LL... Again!]

If they ever rewrite this FAR, it will shut down this entire forum.

I know of no better way to start an argument than to bring up the issue of logging time.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yeah, sure.

(a) It won't happen

(b) It won't help.

The FAA policy of counting "sole manipulator time," for example, toward certificates and ratings goes way back. Under the CAR, it was called "solo" which I'm sure caused its own problems. As soon as John Lynch's famous FAQ error about logging PIC in a high performance error was publicly corrected, he threatened that a change was in the works. Five or so years later, even with re-writes to accommodate sport pilot certificates, there's no change.

At this point, we have at least a 20 year history of solid and consistent official interpretation of 99% of it, and still folks argue. Find a new way of saying it and the battles will just start all over again.