• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.
  • Logbook Pro for Apple iOS version 8.1 is now available on the App Store. Major update including signature endorsements and dark/light theme support. Click here to install now.

Logging Time???

FlyGuy78

What up What up
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Posts
45
Total Time
2000
I had a chance this past week to fly a couple of trips in a King Air E90 and a C414. I was wondering if it is possible to log this time PIC as sole manipulator. I have my commercial multi but no high performance or high altitude endorsements. I have heard I can and cannot log this time. Looking for any advice....Thanks in advance....
 

Fr8Dog

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2001
Posts
155
Total Time
2800
No you can not log it as PIC even if you were the sole manipulator. Since both aircraft are over 200hp you would need to have a high performance sign off, and the airplanes are pressurized and certified to FL250 or greater so you would need a high altitude endorsement also. I am not sure on if it is FL250 or higher it may be different, but I know it is close to that. If the person you were flying with is a MEI you get get it logged as dual recieved if it was on a part 91 flight. If it was 135 then you are SOL because you were just a passenger sitting up front.
 

bobbysamd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
5,710
Total Time
4565
Oh, well . . . . .

I hear you, my friend, but I have to agree with Fr8dog.

Don't worry, if you play your cards right you'll get your chance to get all the multi you need.
 

TedCFII

Red Tail Step Child
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
91
Total Time
8000+
You do not need a High Performance Endorsement to fly a Multi-Engine Airplane. The regulation states "an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower". Your Multi-Engine Rating allows you to fly any multi with the appropriate check out and endorsement for high altitude.

The King Air would require the High Altitude Endorsement since they are certified to FL250. If I remember correctly the 90 Series and 100s are up to FL250.
The Reg States.. " an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating Altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL"

My interpretation is like this. The Saab 340 has a maximum operating alititude of 25,000 feet. King Air 200,300,350s have Service Ceiling of something like 35,000(?) So if the airplane is certifified to fly up to 25,000 or higher then the High Altitude Endorsement is rewquired.

You can reference FAR 61.31(f) High Performance
and FAR 61.31(g) for High Altitude

Hope this helps and doesn't make the water any muddier!

See Yaaa!
 

CaptBuzzard

I'm back!
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
145
Total Time
2000
You might want to re-think the high performance reg. An airplane with an engine with more than 200 hp. (An) being the key word. Though it doesn't say combined hp, since all twins have more combined hp than 200, but the difference in a Piper Apache that has 150hp per side and a Piper Aztec with 250hp per side is that to fly the aztec, you must recieve a high performance endorsement in either the aztec or in a 230 hp C-182 for that matter. Doesn't matter which one it is received in, it is a one time endorsement regardless which type of aircraft it is in. For twins, the regs only consider the horsepower of each engine alone, not combined. It doesn't say that anywhere but, that is the words right from my local FDSO. I personally think it should be combined for a twin, because think about it, a fresh multi-rated pilot can go fly around in an underpowered apache, which is a more compicated plane to fly than a meesly C-182. Granted the 182 may be fuel injected (whoopty doo), but when that left engine quits in that apache, the pilot will have his or her hands more full than when that engine quits in that 182. To fly (in my opinion the less complicated airplane) the 182 you must have the endorsement, but not the apache. I personally think that with a multi-engine rating should come a high performance endorsement as well. But what do I know, I didn't write the regs. Good luck
 

bobbysamd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
5,710
Total Time
4565
"Low performance" twins?

Seminoles have 180 hp a side, for a total of 360. I read FAR 61.31(f) just now. Yes, it does say, "an engine of more that 200 hp," but it's hard for me not to think of a Seminole as a high-performance airplane. I don't believe that the FSDO is construing the definition correctly.

A "high-peformance" airplane used to be defined in the regs as one with an engine with more than 200 hp, or an airplane with flaps, landing gear, and controllable prop. We always gave Seminole students their high-performance airplane endorsement at the same time we signed them off for their Private Multi. I guess that is the new "complex" endorsement now.
 

Buzo

The Jack of all trades
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
254
Total Time
6000
The high performance is needed only if you have an engine over 200hp. Most light twins do not require a hp endorsement since they have a combined hp of over 200hp but each engine is less.
 

mwaugh

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Posts
9
Total Time
1700
The people who say you CAN log the time are basing it on their interpretation of 61.51 (e) which says you can log the PIC time when you are the sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft in whcih you are RATED. An endorsement is not a rating, it is a requirement to ACT as PIC, but is not a requirement to LOG PIC.

You log what you want, it's your logbook. :)

Mat
 

capt_zman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
462
Total Time
>7000
Just one question, how did you get a multi-engine rating without a high performance endorsement? What airplane did you do it in? How did the examiner let that fly?
 

chperplt

Registered User
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,123
Total Time
.
If you remember back a few years ago, part 61 changed quite a bit. One of the things that changed was the wording of the high performance endorsement.

I obtained my commercial ME in a Seminole, and did so without a high performance endorsement. The examiner let it fly because the endorsement was not and is not required for the rating, or for the aircraft used.
 

BellyFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
49
Total Time
3000
61.51e says.....

e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in- command time only for that flight time during which that person --

(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated;

(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or

(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

"Rated" means Category, Class, and Type, if applicable. Unless the aircraft requires a type rating that you do not hold, your airplane multi-engine land rating will suffice. All time which you are sole manipulator may be logged as PIC.

I am curious. Do either of these aircraft require a type rating? Can anyone point to an FAA lisitng of aircraft requiring a type rating? Thanks.
 

FlyGuy78

What up What up
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Posts
45
Total Time
2000
In response to Capt_Zman, I did my multi in a 1957 Piper Apache. It only has 160hp per side, which isn't considered high performance. So, there wasn't any problems with the examiner. I have reviewed FAR61.51 a lot and I'm still not sure if this time is loggable. I don't want to put something in my logbook that isn't true that will come back and bite me later on in my career.
 

A1FlyBoy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Posts
682
Total Time
Enough
I got my Multi-Engine rating in a Seminole - an aircraft that is complex, NOT high performance. My High Performance checkout was in a C182RG.
 

A1FlyBoy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Posts
682
Total Time
Enough
p.s.

the difference, when considering IS an aircraft HIGH performance, is the HP PER engine SIDE.
 

CaptBuzzard

I'm back!
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
145
Total Time
2000
Thank You, that is what I am trying to imply. HP per side. Those who have received high performance endorsements in a Seminole recently better look in to things a little deeper. Your endorsement is not valid. A Seminole, Apache (unless it is a later rare Apache 235) even a Seneca with the 200hp engines is not considered high-performance. Combined hp does not matter. It seems stupid, but that is the way they put it. I wish the regs would just say something about multi-engine airplanes, but I think when it says: an airplane with AN engine with more than 200hp. An engine is one engine, and since multi-engine airplanes have the same output on each side, an engine is either the left, or the right.
 

puddlejumper

Unemployed /Contract User
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
306
Total Time
6030
Just a quick note on this topic. Neither a PA-28R-201 or PA-28R-200 are high performance. The 201 is not the horsepower of the engine. The last digit differentiates the different model, (multi-tapered vs. Hersey bar wing) not the horsepower.

One other thing, most turbocharged singles will have service ceilings of greater than FL250. The T206H for instance, I believe is certified to FL270. The high altitude endorsement is only required to act as PIC of pressurized aircraft certified above FL250.

It is my opinion that it is perfectly legal to log the time as long as you were the sole manipulator of an aircraft you were rated in. There are many, many discussions on this in the archives and the pro-pilot site.

The King Airs that require the type ratings are the 300/350 and some specially modified 200s, I believe, with MGTOW greater than 12,500 pounds.

-PJ
 

AWACoff

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
1,121
Total Time
3000
I don't have a high altitude sign off and I've logged 1400 hours in Brasilias and 328s. Only the PIC needs it as stated above.
 

Checks

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2001
Posts
447
Total Time
7,000
To summarize,

Sure you could legal log the flight under Part61 PIC BUT the real question is should you?

I knew a girl who would ride right seat in Navajo's and King Airs. She didnt have a Part135 SIC checkout and the PIC wasnt an MEI but she logged every **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** minute of it because "hey, Part61 says I can!"
A year later she went on over 20 regional interviews and guess what there favorite question was? Tell me your ITT limits on the King Air? Or whats flaps speed on a Navajo? Lets see your Part135 SIC lettter. She is still flight instructing.

Your choice.
 

msw

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2002
Posts
157
Total Time
10,000
Deftone45075 -

You are wrong about logging PIC time. Under certain circumstances, it is perfectly legal to LOG PIC time even if you are not qualified to ACT as PIC, for example, due to a lack of an "endorsement". Before this will make sense to you, you have fully understand the strange and confusing concept in the FAR's that there is a distinct difference between LOGGING of PIC time, and actually ACTING as the PIC of an aircraft.

There is an extensive discussion of the concepts of logging of PIC time vs. acting as PIC at the following link:

www.propilot.com/doc/logging2.html

It's pretty interesting, you ought to read it.
 

cjh

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Posts
132
Total Time
< enuf
Remember, ratings go on your certificate, endorsements go in your logbook. Are you "rated" for an aircraft? Look on your pilot's certificate, and see if you meet all the requirements (category, class, and type if required). If the answer = "yes", then you are rated for the aircraft.

What does that mean? It means you meet the requirements of 61.51(e)(1)(i) to LOG PIC time when you are the sole manipulator of the controls. 61.51(e)(1) says nothing about endorsements being required to log PIC time.

Can you ACT as PIC, with regard to endorsements? This is where 61.31 comes in. If you are missing any of the required endorsements for the aircraft in question, then even though you might be legal to LOG PIC time, you cannot ACT as PIC. In this case, you must have another pilot on board who CAN act as PIC.

Here are the appropriate references from the regs, along with a legal interpretation from the AFS board.

61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and authorization requirements.
(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL), unless that person has received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor and obtained an endorsement in the person's logbook or training record from an authorized instructor who certifies the person has satisfactorily accomplished the ground training.

(Note, the above refers to ACTing as PIC and also references an entry in the LOGBOOK, not your certificate. Emphasis in reference is mine)

61.51 Pilot logbooks.
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in- command time only for that flight time during which that person --

(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which
the pilot is rated;

(Note, rated, not endorsed. Again, emphasis in reference is mine.)

Finally, here is the interpretation from the FAA legal eagle.

"14 CFR section 61.51(e) governs the logging of pilot-in-command time. This section provides, in pertinent part, that a private pilot may log pilot-in-command time for that flight time during which that person is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated. (Emphasis added)

The term "rated," as used under 14 CFR section 61.51(e), refers to the pilot holding the appropriate aircraft ratings (category, class, and type, if a type rating is required). These ratings are listed under 14 CFR section 61.5 and are placed on the pilot certificate.

Therefore, based on the scenario given to Mr. Lynch, a private pilot may log pilot-in-command time, in a complex or high performance airplane, for those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls because the aircraft being operated is single-engine land and the private pilot holds a single-engine land rating. Note, while the private pilot may log this time as pilot-in-command time in accordance with 14 CFR section 61.51(e), he or she may not act as the pilot in command unless he or she has the appropriate endorsement as required under 14 CFR section 61.31.

14 CFR section 61.31 requires a person to have an endorsement from an authorized instructor before he or she may act as pilot in command of certain aircraft (a complex airplane, a high performance airplane, a pressurized airplane capable of operating at high altitudes, or a tailwheel airplane). These endorsements are not required to log pilot-in-command time under 14 CFR section 61.51(e).

As you stated in your letter, there is a distinction between acting as pilot in command and logging pilot-in-command time. In order to act as pilot in command, the pilot who has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight, a person must be properly rated in the aircraft and be properly rated and authorized to conduct the flight. In order to log pilot-in-command time, a person who is the sole manipulator of the controls only needs to be properly rated in the aircraft."
 
Top