Logging XC Time

[nosehair]

As for endorsement of a student's logbook; an instructor's endorsement is a testament to the instruction given. It is not within the purview or duty of the instructor to define what the student can log so far as PIC. The instructor is endorsing the logbook for instruction given, "Dual." If the student wishes to note pilot in command time, then let the student do so. As an instructor, one is obligated, per 14 CFR 91.189(a) to sign the logbook of each person to whom he or she has given training. This does not mean that the instructor takes over the student's logbook. It means that the instructor places a signature to identify the instruction given. Period.

OK, Avbug, Midlife, and everybody else, I know what the legal interp is. If the rated pilot is actally the "sole manipulator", there is no legal justification for not allowing the student to log PIC for the dual givrn by my signature.

But at least, Avbug, the instructor who signs for the dual given must have the authority to decide how much of the time was the student "sole manipulator", and how much was dual only according to how much the instructor was "sharing" the controls. On a different thread, the question concerning recency of experience brings up the point that the instructor cannot count a landing if the student was on the controls with him "following through". so, if the instructor is only touching the controls, it is not sole manipulator.

And Avbug, I beg to differ. It is also the instructor's responsibility to insure the flight is properly logged before he signs.

So, if instructors would adhere to that policy, and only allow the real sole manipulator time as PIC, then we could make some judgements about the PIC quality of time, and isn't that what this is all about?

Who the heck cares about a hundred hours of "PIC" time when you're rideing along (flying straight-and-level) (on auto-pilot) in your friend's Turbo-Burno II, because it's LEGAL? NOBODY CARES!!!

 

[A Squared]

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.

Sorry, Nosehair, I'm going to have to call bull$hit on this statement. I have a copy of the regs published in 1950. The regulations have been reorganized from the Civil Air Regulations to its current form, but the relevant language is virtually identical.

CAR 43.44 (b) (1) "A Private or Commercial pilot may log flight time as pilot in command that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated,......"

The current 61.51:
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, 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 or has privileges;

Now, there are some minor differences between the two, but the basic wording has not changed for over a half of a century, if anything the current wording is *more* restrictive, with the inclusion of the word "only". Yeah they've added "recreational" and "sport" pilots since 1950, but that doesn't change the meaning. I realize that you have been around a while, but I'm guessing that 1950 predates your entry into aviation. For what it's worth, I appreciate your perspective on "real" pilot in command time, vs. wiggling the controls and logging it. Generally, I agree with you, and so do a number of airline recruiting departments. If I were writing this regulation, I think that you would like the way it read, However, neither you, nor I, nor an airline's recruiting department are in a position of authority on this issue.

 

[nosehair]

I have a copy of the regs published in 1950. The regulations have been reorganized from the Civil Air Regulations to it's current form, but the relevant language is virtually identical.

CAR 43.44 (b) (1) "A Private or Commercial pilot may log flight time as pilot in command that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated,......"

Thank you, Sir! I appreciate that. I admit that I did not ever look at that regulation back during those days in the early 60's when I solo'ed....

I did everything just like my flight instructor told me. Probably like most of us.

....now you bring up an interesting point. If the reg was then as it is now, I wonder why there is still so much confusion on that point, and why the airlines and other potential employers want to know REAL PIC time?

Anyway, thanks for your positive input.

~hair

 

[IP076]

Anyone care to let it out of the bag who the university not letting students log PIC time is? just curious.....

 

[midlifeflyer]

....now you bring up an interesting point. If the reg was then as it is now, I wonder why there is still so much confusion on that point, and why the airlines and other potential employers want to know REAL PIC time?

That's easy.

The "confusion" is there because the FAA happened to use the term "PIC" for two completely different purposes, and no matter how long and how consistently the FAA has explained that they mean two different things, some folks have varying degrees of difficulty separating them conceptually while others simply refuse to make the mental leap, while still others just want to whine about how terrible or silly or illogical it is that the FAA gets to decide what time can be put into an FAA-mandated column in an FAA-mandated document and used for FAA purposes.

Potential employers want to know "real" PIC time because aviation is no different than any other industry. Potential employers are interested in measuring relevant experience. In the aviation context, they are quite understandably interested in looking at numbers that reflect "duty, authority, responsibility" and not a bunch of mere "sole manipulator" time used to meet some technical FAA requirements.

 

[A Squared]

....now you bring up an interesting point. If the reg was then as it is now, I wonder why there is still so much confusion on that point,

I think that the confusion is understandable. It seems logical, obvious, even, that the only time that should be logged as Pilot in Command, is time when you were actually the Pilot in command of the aircraft. However, law is not about what is logical or obvious. It's about what the words of the law (or in this case, the regulation) mean. In this case, the regulation, as interpreted by official interpretation, mean something contrary to what is "logical" or "obvious" or what common sense tells you. To me and you, it seems screamingly obvious that "pilot in command" time should be exactly that, time when you are in fact the pilot who is in command of the aircraft and is responsible for it's operation and safety, and in fact, that is how it is defined in part 1. However 61.51 appears to allow (and I don't believe the interpretation is an unreasonable one, given the words of the regulation) logging "wiggling the controls" time as pilot in command time, even though it clearly is not.

....and why the airlines and other potential employers want to know REAL PIC time?

Well, the airlines realize that there is a big difference between no $hit, the buck stops here pilot in command time, and "wiggling the controls" PIC time, so they request that applicants leave out "wiggling the controls" PIC time. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[nosehair]

while still others just want to whine about how terrible or silly or illogical it is that the FAA gets to decide...

OUCH!...Bitchslap!!

 

[midlifeflyer]

I really wasn't referring to you. It was a far more general comment.

BTW, on that "CFI gets to decide how much sole manipulator time (and hence PIC time) the student has? Maybe OK in theory but two problems with it. One technical, one practical.

I generally agree with AvBug. The logbook is owned by the pilot. It's accuracy is the pilot's responsibility.

With one exception. 61.51(h) says that training time must "Include a description of the training given, the length of the training lesson" and be endorsed by the instructor. By endorsing the line entry, the CFI is saying that the "description of the training given, the length of the training lesson" are accurate. But that's it. Want to add a qualitative aspect? Write "needs a lot of work" in the description of training or provide a separate written critique (I use a 2-part carbonless kneeboard-sized form for the purpose).

The larger practical problem in giving CFIs control over the PIC column of a pilot's logbook is the large number of CFIs who simply don't know the rules.

In October, 1980, more than twenty-four years ago, the FAA Legal Counsel wrote that in every one of the following situations, the pilot receiving training may log PIC when the sole manipulator of the controls (direct quote):

==============================
1. The purpose of the flight is instruction in advanced maneuvers.
2. The purpose of the flight is simulated instrument instruction in actual VFR conditions.
3. The purpose of the flight is instrument instruction actual IFR conditions.
4. The pilot in the left seat is not current in the aircraft or in the conditions of flight.
5. The purpose of the flight is transition from tricycle to conventional landing gear.
6. The purpose of the flight is obtaining logbook endorsement authorizing operation of a high performance aircraft, as required by FAR 61.31(e).
==============================

Nevertheless, lots of CFIs still get it wrong. The ones who hang out online get "corrected" ad nauseum, but there are many CFIs out there who are not online and equate acting with logging. If you grab 10 logbooks at random, I'd bet that more than half of them show training in one of those 6 categories that their CFI didn't "let" them log as PIC time under the mistaken belief that they couldn't. Left to CFIs, pilots are missing whole blocks of legitimate qualification PIC time (one flight school where I teach requires 10 hours for the first complex transition). I'm more concerned about the career, certificate, rating and insurance effects of those missing blocks than I am about an extra 0.03 hours of unearned PIC time when I take 2 minutes to demonstrate a lazy 8 to a commercial applicant. Under your scenario, the "student" would not be permitted to correct his instructor's error.

And of course there are CFIs who will abuse it - using their authority to decide the "quality" of time rather than whether the pilot was the only one who had his hands and feet on the controls. In fact, unless I'm misreading, doing exactly that is the thrust of your argument.

Nosehair, you and I have a difference in underlying philosophy. In one of your posts you said

So, if instructors would adhere to that policy, and only allow the real sole manipulator time as PIC, then we could make some judgements about the PIC quality of time, and isn't that what this is all about?

You see the logbook as a record of experience in which quality of time is important.

I don't. I see the logbook as merely an official and somewhat artificial record of numbers that the FAA requires us to keep to show technical qualification for certificates, ratings and currency. If I go up to do 6 practice instrument approaches under the hood for currency, do them all at my home airport and every one of them sucks, they still "count". But if I make the mistake of thinking that those entries have anything whatsoever to do with proficiency, I am a statistic waiting to happen.

Fly for proficiency, log for currency, and pray you never confuse the two.

 

[nosehair]

Nosehair, you and I have a difference in underlying philosophy. In one of your posts you said You see the logbook as a record of experience in which quality of time is important.

I don't. I see the logbook as merely an official and somewhat artificial record of numbers that the FAA requires us to keep to show technical qualification for certificates, ratings and currency. If I go up to do 6 practice instrument approaches under the hood for currency, do them all at my home airport and every one of them sucks, they still "count". But if I make the mistake of thinking that those entries have anything whatsoever to do with proficiency, I am a statistic waiting to happen.

Fly for proficiency, log for currency, and pray you never confuse the two.

Who-hooo! Midlife! There it is! Exactly, I see it as a record (like a school record) of quality of experience!

Since you pointed it out, I do see the logbook of a 141 student differently than a 61 student. Since the 141 student has a record of quality of training experience, the logbook is only a record required for FAA experience requirements.
The 141 training record is the record I have been trying to make in a logbook for the guy who is part 61 and this is the only record of training.

...an old dog trying to learn new tricks....

 

[midlifeflyer]

The 141 training record is the record I have been trying to make in a logbook for the guy who is part 61 and this is the only record of training.

Then =do= it! No reason why you can't maintain a 141-style training record for part 61 students, whether it be the Jepp style folder or individual syllabus lesson sheets like Gleim. What a great way for a student and you to see their progress. I know of Part 61 schools where it's required.

That 2-part form I mentioned? Although I usually just check off the boxes for a FR or transition of recurrent training session, I enter grades when working with a pilot on a certificate or rating. I made mine up, but there are similar ones available comercially. If you want to take a look, you can sort of see it here (excuse the pop-ups)

http://midlifeflight.tripod.com/cfi_stuff/index.htm