Logging Turbo Prop Time

[avbug]

I guess that's the point...My comments aren't my opinion, but rather regulation...this is a regulation forum, to discuss the requireents set forth by the administrator.

My opinion is that the regulations are important, and should be followed. Accordingly, I have quoted the regulations, and expounded on them...not my opinion.

There is nothing the reader needs to choose to "make up his own mind." He need only read and understand the regulation, which is not ambiguous, nor the foundation of controversy.

 

[flx757]

Trans Mach,

What avbug is saying...what he is always saying, while ensuring he has the last word...is that he, and only he, can be right. Period.

Just let him live with his self-importance and move on...like everyone else here does.

 

[avbug]

That being your position...do you have anything to add to the conversation...such as something sticking to the topic of the thread, mate?

Your assertion here is that when I make statements of fact and quote the regulation, I'm really saying something other than fact?

It's really hard to argue with the regulation when it's quoted to you, isn't it?

Thanks for your deep contribution. Again.

 

[puddlejumper]

The point is that there are lots'n lots of corporate operators that operate BE-90s and -100 (to a lesser degree than the rest of the King Air fleet), and BE-200s, 300s and 350s ... none of which require a SIC for day VFR ... with a two pilot crew operating in a two pilot setting.

BE-300 Type Ratings have been issued with the limitation: "Second in command required" If you ever wind up interviewing a guy with a few hundred hours of FAR 91 SIC in a BE-300, try not to rip his head off too quickly. As long as the 61.55 training was accomplished, this is legit pilot flight time. Oh, and if he has a CE-500 type and skydive jump plane experience, OFFER HIM A JOB!

Personally, I have a part 61 PIC column in my logbook and also a non-required SIC column. The non-required SIC does not contribute anything to any of the other totals, it's just there for informational purposes. I stopped doing that a couple years ago as on occasion I will sit right seat on 135 flights as a non-required crew member to keep the folks in back happy. Technically, I do nothing but keep the seat warm and provide the image of a 2 pilot crew, since we operate both of our King Airs under the AP exception and have no SIC approval for them. It's dumb, but it pays. I totally believe we should get FAA approval for SIC in the King Airs, because the way it is now, I risk my own and the PIC's certificate every time I so much as key the mic from the right seat on a 135 leg. (Not that I would ever do such a thing)

Anyway, to reiterate, yes, ghetto, log the time as PIC when you are the sole manipulator of the controls. Part 91, at the acting PIC's discretion, you should be alternating legs anyway, so log them. Once you get the insurance and FAA required training, you will be able to act as PIC versus just logging it.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Avbug correctly states the regulation, but apparently thinks that a pilot may not create other logbook categories for their own purposes.

Suppose I am one such pt 91 "SIC" in a single pilot airplane. Suppose I never ever touch the controls. Suppose I create a column call "seat warmer" and log all my time in that column only. I have not violated any regulation regarding logging.

YES, anyone doing such would appear to be a real tool, but they are not misrepresenting their flight experience.

For one thing, it might help the person with insurance minimums, because some insurance companies are also interested in your time in the aircraft, whether loggable or not. I have personally experienced this once or twice.

In short, log what you want, but be aware of how others may view it, and never put a flight in a column that misrepresents your flight experience in regard to the FARs. For instance, never put sim in total time. There are times when sim may be used in LIEU of total time, but it is still not total time.

 

[TransMach]

Pilot Log Books

Avbug,

You have taken this discussion beyond the log book issue to a question of what is the value of a persons posts. Having given it an appropriate amount of thought, it appears that you are beginning (or started a long time ago) to believe that your opinion is regulatory fact simply because you stated it.. That, my friend, is delusional. Here's a couple of examples:

TransMach wrote: "Thanks for your opinion. I do value your point of view. In this case it appears to be yours and, ..."

Avbug wrote: "Mine and the FAA, being factually and regulatorily correct."

Your statements are your opinion, not rule, not rule language contained in the code or the guidance contained in the preamble.

Avbug wrote: I guess that's the point...My comments aren't my opinion, but rather regulation...this is a regulation forum, to discuss the requireents set forth by the administrator.

If your comments aren't your opinion, then what are they, "regulation" as you suggest? The Code of Federal Regulation is the rule, not your opinion about what it means or how it is or should be applied in industry. That's what this forum is for, to discuss how rule is or should be applied for those who choose to participate in the discourse.

Avbug wrote: My opinion is that the regulations are important, and should be followed. Accordingly, I have quoted the regulations, and expounded on them...not my opinion.

When you expound on the rule language (text) of a regulation, you are offering your opinion, nothing more ... that is unless you are the Chief Counsel and in which case you would express your opinion in the form of an interpretation, in written form such as The Whitlow Letter and others. But you're not. You are a contributing member of a discussion forum.


Unless you are quoting the rule, in rule language (I might add that if you quote the whole rule, not just the part that you are attempting to subvert to your way of thinking things might work better) you are expressing your opinion and each reader does have a choice to make.

That choice is to adopt or not adopt the writer's thoughts and opinion.

To suggest that you do not express opinion, but rather rule leads me to believe that you have started believe your own B.S.


Now let's be civil, recognize that neither of us (nor anyone on this board) are the "Oracle" of rule making and go on about helping others understand the rules, as we do by expressing our opinions ... which is all we as individuals have to offer here.

TransMach

P.S. -- Knowing from past history that you will retort, no matter what ... go ahead. It's your right in our free country -- the reader will still understand his choice.

 

[Ghetto Sled]

I think I'll just say, "screw it," and keep a clean logbook. I can forgo the 50 or so hours and be safe in the knowledge that I never have to trip over my own tongue explaining anything. Thanks for all the food for thought.

 

[TransMach]

Pilot Log Books

Ghetto Sled,

My point, exeactly. You have a choice to make, make it from an informed position.

Congratulations,

TransMach

 

[A Squared]

I'm going to have to side with Avbug on this one. I will say that he sees it as a clear line, where I see it as a shade of grey. Difference in our personalities, I suppose, but having said that, it's getting to be a pretty dark shade of grey for my tastes. Here's why:

Sure you it is your logbook, you can log irrelevancies such as trips to the supermarket in your pickup truck, if you want, but.......

Trans Mach wrote:

I'd list that time as what ever it was (MEL, IFR, XC, etc.) but I would also make an extra column called (BE-200 FAR 91 SIC) and list it there.

Which appears to me to be treading dangerously close to the edge. You're putting time in columns which *do* exist and which *are* used to determine your eligibility for a certificate, time which you really don't have a legitimate claim to, for in the eyes of the regulations, if you don't have your hands on the yoke, you're a passenger. So (if I'm following Trans Mach's words correctly) you're adding pilot time to some of your totals which in reality is not legal pilot time for you, as a part91 SIC.

The FAA has held, (and the NTSB has concurred on appeal) that if it *could* be used to meet the requirements for a rating or certificate, it *must* be accurate, or it is falsification. So, if you're putting time in the IFR or XC columns, which are requirements for the ATP.

THe defense that you had enough time in those categories that you didn't need the questionable time doesn't work either. Again, the FAA has held, and the NTSB concurred, that all the XC time has gotta be correct, not just the 500 hours you need for the ATP.

So to recap: If you've got a Part 91 SIC column, and you enter the time *only* in this column, you're probably on pretty safe ground, it's like logging mowing the lawn in a seperate lawn mowing column.

However, If you also put that time in Instrument, night, X-C, etc columns, you're getting very close to doing something which could be considered falsification.

 

[transpac]

I'm going to have to side with Avbug on this one.

Concur! Avbug can be a PITA, but he generally does his homework before posting.