Logging XC Time

[mrmarcus81]

I was told that once you get your commercial you can log XC under 50nm as long as it is airport to airport. I believe is because part 135 XC is airport to airport. Has anyone else heard this and if so do you know if the airlines care when they look at your log book.

 

[IFlyGC]

For pt.135 purposes yes, anytime you land at a different airport regardless of distance it counts as x-country but I personally wouldn't log it. Everything else needs the 50-mile rule (except for the ATP ticket you don't need to land 50 miles away, just overfly is OK) so just log that. By the time your ready for a 135 IFR job (1200 hours, etc...) you'll have 500 XC easily.

As for the airlines, they're back to hiring the 600-1 wonders again so XC time really won't matter too much. They're more interested in good actual IMC time.

I just noticed you're a CFI....have a student look through this stuff with you in the FAR's. It makes for a great hour of ground instruction!

 

[JeffSKDTW]

The ability to ~log~ XCs between two airports under 50NM is not limited to just Part 135--it is legally permissible. In fact, the only requirements are:

Part 61.1(b)(3) Cross-country time means—

(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) through (b)(3)(vi) of this section, time acquired during flight—

(A) Conducted by a person who holds a pilot certificate;

(B) Conducted in an aircraft;

(C) That includes a landing at a point other than the point of departure; and

(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.

Obviously, if you want to use the time toward a certificate, you must meet the distance requirements, but otherwise you can legally log it.

There is a lot of debate about whether you ~should~ log it, however. That is up to you. If you can easily track the different types, log them all. If you use an electronic logbook, such below-50 XC's are easy to parse out.

 

[mrmarcus81]

Hey guys thanks, I have been logging any airport to airport as XC regardless of distance and I don't want to go to an 121 interview and have them give me a hard time because of how I log XC time.

 

[PropsForward]

As for the airlines, they're back to hiring the 600-1 wonders again so XC time really won't matter too much. They're more interested in good actual IMC time.

What is a 600-1 wonder?

 

[IFlyGC]

A 600-1 (600 TT/100 multi) wonder is a term used to describe low time pilots who haven't gained sufficient experience before moving on to bigger and better things. Now before I get flamed, YES - people with 600 hours TT can sucessfully operate jet aircraft and do a d*mn good job of it. The problem is there are just as many who haven't experienced a lot that aviation has to offer.....poor wx, icing, hard IFR conditions. These people often make the captain think "I 'wonder' how on earth they got here"........

Do I have to explain what a spotted dick is as well?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hey guys thanks, I have been logging any airport to airport as XC regardless of distance and I don't want to go to an 121 interview and have them give me a hard time because of how I log XC time.

That's the issue. It's sort of like logging PIC in that Piper Meridian because the owner let you handle the controls for an hour - legitimate under the FAR but deadly if you try to pass it off as "experience" at an interview.

Same with cross country time. Put yourself in an employer's shoes for a moment. You look at a resume that simply says "1000 hours cross country PIC time." What's your expectation of how experienced this pilot is? Pretty experienced in dealing with the navigational, weather change, and other issues that come up in cross country flight, right? So you give the guy an interview, only to find that 950 of those 1000 hours involve flying to and from Todd Field [46IA] where he hangars his airplane and Ankeny [IKV] (3.9 NM) for lunch.

That doesn't mean don't log it. It does mean that when you are presenting information to show experience, decide which parts of the data are really relevant. Don't apply for a position in a bank by listing your tenure as a cashier at McDonald's as "financial experience"

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Are the applicants being interviewed at regionals so low time that this is really an issue now?

Other than my first part 135 single pilot job at 1200 hours, I cannot remember a single 121 employer that cared what my X-C time was. It never even appeared on any of the applications or hiring records that I did for the various airlines I worked for. The first regional I worked for wanted info on actual IFR time during the interview, but past that all anybody else cared about was TT, Multi, PIC, and Turbine.

 

[IFlyGC]

Well I know ExpressJet is looking for a good mix of everything. A friend of mine was turned down because he had insufficient actual IMC time. Apparently they were looking for a minimum of 37 hours. Why 37 hours? who knows.........

(he went to find some clouds and gave them a call.....he's now on the line)

 

[100LL... Again!]

You can log airport-to-airport XC BEFORE you become commercial.

Obtaining a certificate does not change whether a flight is XC or not.

If you fly 3nm to another airport as a pvt, log it as XC.

You cannot count it towards a certificate or rating, but it DOES count for 135.

MAKE SURE you get that 500 XC by the time you get 1200 hours. You do NOT want to get passed over for a 135 job because you didn't make enough airport to airport flights.

 

[wheelsup]

You can log airport-to-airport XC BEFORE you become commercial.

If you fly 3nm to another airport as a pvt, log it as XC.

MAKE SURE you get that 500 XC by the time you get 1200 hours. You do NOT want to get passed over for a 135 job because you didn't make enough airport to airport flights.

I was logging it 100% as well, I just created a second column in my logbook titled "135 X-cty Time" and logged in under that column with a single entry to show how much time I had aquired to date at the time I stated logging it. I'd recommend staying away from logging it in your Xcty column used traditionally as 50+ NM stuff, however.

I even went so far as to figure out I had X amount of time till 1200 and X amount of 135 xcty time, so 1 out of every 3 flights had to be to another airport, etc, and I made it happen.

Now its a moot point as I've extended my CFI days another year so I'll have way over the 1200 mark and hopefully enought multi to go to a good regional, but I hear what 100LL is saying and wholeheartedly recommend the same.

I've known plenty of people with over 2000 hours and not enough xcty time for a 135 job and I vowed never to be that guy!

~wheelsup

 

[100LL... Again!]

Good. It's hard enough to find a jobwithout screwing yourself outta flight time.

I heard, btw, that some university does not let their students log PIC when a cfi is on board - wtf!!!

You fly it - you log pic if you are rated. What kind of crap is that?

 

[Vik]

Xjet is 600/100/20 actual, not 37.

 

[minitour]

Xjet is 600/100/20 actual, not 37.

...there's hope for me yet

-mini

 

[nosehair]

I heard, btw, that some university does not let their students log PIC when a cfi is on board - wtf!!!

100LL, I am glad you asked that question. It fired me up enough to make another attempt at explaining that *all* dual time after your Private is not PIC.

FAR 61.51(e) "A Recreational, Private, or Commercial Pilot =may= log PIC...during that time which he is the *sole* manipulator of the controls..."

Webster's Dictionary:
The word "may" : "To be allowed or permitted to"
The word "can" : "Possesion of a given power, right, or privilege"

It seems to me that most of the "time-builders" prefer to read the word "may" as if it were the word "can".

FAR 61.189(a) "A flight instructor *must* sign the logbook..."

It seems to me that the flight instructor who gives the training should be the one who "allows or permits" the logging of PIC time on a dual flight.

...back to 61.51(e) "....sole manipulator of the controls." I am of the opinion that, when I am giving dual to a rated pilot, and he is actually capable of flying the airplane, all of it, the flying, the radios, the planning, the trafic, etc, and I am along for additional training, sure, he can log PIC on my signature.

But, in the case of a new complex, aircraft check-out, or some old pilot comes out of the woods, or retires from sitting in a big airliner, and wants to rent your 172, and takes 5,8, 10 hours to re-learn how to handle this little airplane, as well as new procedures, it is not in keeping with the idea of "Pilot-in-Command" time.

You probably already know that airlines don't like having to seperate the "Real PIC from the FAR 61.51 PIC.

And I think the FAR 61.51 PIC intent is to "allow" the instructor to give the power, right, or privilege to each individual, as their performance indicates.

 

[Vik]

Island Air is 800/200. Thats my first choice over Xjet.

...there's hope for me yet

-mini

 

[midlifeflyer]

It seems to me that the flight instructor who gives the training should be the one who "allows or permits" the logging of PIC time on a dual flight.

I've been searching, without success, for the part where the FAA says or implies that a CFI has the right to override what the FAR says a pilot is authorized to write in his or her own logbook, with the exception of what constitutes "training received".

 

[nosehair]

*all* dual time after your Private is not PIC.

FAR 61.51(e) "A Recreational, Private, or Commercial Pilot =may= log PIC...during that time which he is the *sole* manipulator of the controls..."

Webster's Dictionary:
The word "may" : "To be allowed or permitted to"
The word "can" : "Possesion of a given power, right, or privilege"

It seems to me that most of the "time-builders" prefer to read the word "may" as if it were the word "can".

FAR 61.189(a) "A flight instructor *must* sign the logbook..."


...back to 61.51(e) "....sole manipulator of the controls." I am of the opinion that, when I am giving dual to a rated pilot, and he is actually capable of flying the airplane, all of it, the flying, the radios, the planning, the trafic, etc, and I am along for additional training, sure, he can log PIC on my signature.

Midlife...

These excerpts are an attempt to "imply" the idea of the proper logging of PIC.

Do you see the difference between "may" and "can" ?

Do you see the responsibility and authority of the instructor who "must" sign the logbook ?

And if you continue to see "may" as "can", then you should at least acknowledge that, in the case of an unskilled pilot, he would *only* be allowed to log the actual time he was the "sole manipulator*. And that's what I'm really talking about. If I can't leave the controls alone - in other words, if I can't solo you, you can't log it PIC.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Do you see the difference between "may" and "can" ?

I do. "Can" talks about ability. "I =can= log the time" means that I have the physical and mental skills and equipment to write it down in my logbook. "May" involves permission. I =may= log the time" means that something or someone with authority gives me permission to write certain things in my logbook.

Either way, FAR 61.51 (e) gives "A recreational, private, or commercial pilot" the permission to log pilot-in-command time under certain circumstances. Not the pilot's CFI.

Do you see the responsibility and authority of the instructor who "must" sign the logbook ?

Definitely. A CFI has both the authority and responsibility to endorse instruction given. That means if a student writes "power-on stalls" in the remarks of a logbook entry, or enters 1.0 "flight training received" or "0.5 ground training received" I will not sign it unless it is true. But that does not give me veto power over legitimate flight time entries. (I'm defining "legitimate" as "authroized by the regulations" not as "stuff I like")

you should at least acknowledge that, in the case of an unskilled pilot, he would *only* be allowed to log the actual time he was the "sole manipulator*. And that's what I'm really talking about. If I can't leave the controls alone - in other words, if I can't solo you, you can't log it PIC.

I acknowledge that if the CFI is handling the controls, the pilot is not the sole manipulator and may not log that part of the total flight time. But that's pretty objective and I don't acknowledge your authority to add a subjective test that says "If the pilot =is= the only one on the controls but I don't like it, the pilot is not =really= the only one on the controls"

For better or for worse, the FAA has consistently taken the view that "logging" PIC has absolutely nothing to do with proficiency, currency, or ability. The language that authorizes to write numbers on a piece of paper while sitting at a desk with a beer in the other hand contains nothing like "but only if the pilot did a good job." I don't have to like it and it would have been nice if the FAA had chosen language other than "pilot in command" to describe time that may be counted toward certificate ratings and currency. But that's the way it goes.

Sorry, but "I don't like the rules, so I'll make up my own" and "The rules permit someone to [fill in the blank of your choice], but I won't let them" is =way= too authoritarian for my tastes.

 

[nosehair]

I do. "Can" talks about ability. "I =can= log the time" means that I have the physical and mental skills and equipment to write it down in my logbook. "May" involves permission. I =may= log the time" means that something or someone with authority gives me permission to write certain things in my logbook.

Nope. That's your own personal definition. Mine is copied word for word from Webster's dictionary. But I'm not trying to mince words...that was a lame attempt to do something like what a lawyer would do in legalese.

Either way, FAR 61.51 (e) gives "A recreational, private, or commercial pilot" the permission to log pilot-in-command time under certain circumstances. Not the pilot's CFI.

Why not? Why cannot the CFI have a say in those "circumstances"?

Definitely. A CFI has both the authority and responsibility to endorse instruction given. That means if a student writes "power-on stalls" in the remarks of a logbook entry, or enters 1.0 "flight training received" or "0.5 ground training received" I will not sign it unless it is true. But that does not give me veto power over legitimate flight time entries. (I'm defining "legitimate" as "authroized by the regulations" not as "stuff I like")

It's not "stuff I like", Midlife, it's how I honestly believe the regulation was meant to read. "Sole manipulator", hmmmm...just exactly what does that mean? Each one will have an opinion on that. And the boys in Washington are not gonna even try to make a definition...it's not high enough on the list, and really, we're making much to do about nothing.

I acknowledge that if the CFI is handling the controls, the pilot is not the sole manipulator and may not log that part of the total flight time. But that's pretty objective and I don't acknowledge your authority to add a subjective test that says "If the pilot =is= the only one on the controls but I don't like it, the pilot is not =really= the only one on the controls"

How can you say that? I didn't say that. Not the way you re-wrote it. I'm talking about "touching" the controls - actually helping a bit with rudder inputs during flare to avoid a sideload touchdown, or a little bit of elevator to avoid a hard or nosefirst landing, etc,etc,etc...

For better or for worse, the FAA has consistently taken the view that "logging" PIC has absolutely nothing to do with proficiency, currency, or ability. The language that authorizes to write numbers on a piece of paper while sitting at a desk with a beer in the other hand contains nothing like "but only if the pilot did a good job." I don't have to like it and it would have been nice if the FAA had chosen language other than "pilot in command" to describe time that may be counted toward certificate ratings and currency. But that's the way it goes.

No, it hasn't been "consistant". I don't know when the idea that dual time was loggable as PIC time, but there was a time when 61.51 did not exist. Or at least exist in it's present form. PIC time was acting PIC time. Period. X/C time did not have a distance requirement. I think the original Private and Commercial X/C requirements were to have at least one long X/C of a certain distance. The general assumption was that you used navigational skills to get from A to B and that was X/C. The FAA *trusted* the CFI to determine what was X/C, and what was PIC.
That's gone. The trust is gone. We have definable parameters of what is PIC and X/C. Defined by the people who do not do the training. And even if it was me defining, I, nor anybody else, could make a rule that applies to each seperate case. The only person who can be trusted to make those decisions is...the flight instructor. Is the intended training being accomplished in a manner that produces safe, competent pilots? That is the question.

How did you ever get into the mindset that FAR language "authorizes you to write numbers in your logbook while sitting at a desk with a beer in your hand"?
I know you have used that analogy to explain the current mindset - and that's what it is, MIdlife, a "Mindset" - to mindlessly write all dual flights as PIC as long as you are hanging on to the controls.

When a person is getting into a new airplane, he is a student. I am a student when I check out in a new airplane. That's student time. Not PIC time.
You know it, and I know it, and every instructor knows it. But you have kneeled to the popular opinion that 61.51 says you "can" log PIC. Nobody wants to listen to someone who reads the "may" word.

Sorry, but "I don't like the rules, so I'll make up my own" and "The rules permit someone to [fill in the blank of your choice], but I won't let them" is =way= too authoritarian for my tastes.

Webster's Dictionary: Ethics: 1) Principles of right or good behavior. 2) A system of moral principles or values. 3) The study of the general nature of morals and the specific moral choices an individual makes in relating to others.

Sometimes legalese and ethics don't mix. You have to make your own choices.
I've said all I want to say on the subject for now, Midlife. I enjoy "bantering" with you, and I know I cannot get "trust" back into the system, and we have to eat it as it is.