Question in logging multi-time

[PUflight]

My buddy and I just stumbled upon a good deal. He's an MEI, I'm a CFII so I should know the answer to this question, but I'm not positive. We're buying 50 hours of multi, and splitting it. My question is does he have to endorse my logbook for this time we split? Just wondering. Thanks!

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

Since you have your multi have him log it as Dual given, and sign your logbook as dual received.

Fly safe,
TA

 

[Timebuilder]

If you are not multi rated, and this will be fifty hours of mutiengine instruction, then signing your logbook is the logical way to go.

However, until the checkride is passed, you cannot ACT as PIC. That's important to many people.

Note: there are some wonderful discussions about all of the details of logging time on Doc's website. Some people say that there is a legitimate reason that this is the only industry where we can log an activity as PIC time, when in fact the regulations do not allow us to ACT as PIC, and vice versa.

To me, it's like Being able to "log" that I produced 1,000 widgets, when in fact I never produced a widget at all, never performed the "act" of making the widgets. It is an idea that is consistent with bureaucracies, rather than realities.

So, logging questions which would have been "simple" if they were simply a record of pilot time have become complicated by having to "fit" with other regualtions.

But I have digressed. Go to Doc's forum for now, and soon someone with more logging experience will suggest an answer that may apply specificallly to you.



http://www.propilot.com/

Go to the drop down menu on the left side, and select DOC's far forum.

If you are on a pro pilot track, be aware that there is a difference between logged PIC time and what the airlines see as being the PIC according to FAR One, the pilot who has final responsibility for the aircraft. In the area of trainers, this would mean that the FBO is willing to rent you the airplane as the pilot, not someone receiving instruction.

 

[PUflight]

Thanks for the responses, yes I have my multi, this is merely to build some flight time by splitting the costs with a MEI. I figured that he would have to endorse my logbook, since we both would be logging this as PIC. Kind of like when I give dual to a student who already has his private, I log it has dual given and PIC, where as my student logs it as dual received and PIC. Thanks for the responses though!

 

[Timebuilder]

Good.

What I am suggesting is that an interviewer might not agree that you were PIC if you were receiving instruction.

 

[avbug]

An instructor may log pilot in command when acting as an authorized instructor. If your purpose of flying is to "build time" (don't get me started), rather than receiving legitimate instruction, your "instructor" is not entitled to log the time.

If you're going to be out "building time," consider building experience, instead. Make that time count. Push it toward proficiency; one of you get under the hood, the other act as safety pilot and serve as pilot in command, and you can forget endorsing each other's logbooks. Personally, I look skeptically on pilots who have too much instruction in their books. Someone, expecially a low time pilot, who shows up with 50 hours of dual in a light twin, raises questions...what did that person need 50 hours of dual for?

Fill the time with approaches, engine-out approaches, minimum controllable airspeed, and all manner of other proficiency-enhancing exercises while flying by reference to instruments. With one under the hood and one as safety pilot, the issue of needing instruction for 50 hours never comes up.

As for the legitimacy of separating the logging of time vs. acting as PIC; it makes perfect sense, and has no bearing nor reasonable analogy to widgets.

A pilot is not current. He may not act as PIC with passengers aboard. However, by manipulating the controls, he may regain his currency and proficiency legally...he may log the time for currency, without impinging on the legal restriction from acting as PIC. Another pilot acts as PIC, the uncurrent pilot regains currency as PIC; everyone is happy.

The regulation is sensible, and clear. Someone must always BE pilot in command; the aircraft has got to have one.

Regulations regarding acting as pilot in command refer to doing. Regulations regarding logging of PIC refer to record keeping. For the purpsoes of safety, certain minimum performance and experience standards are set forth before one can act as PIC.

Without taking on the full responsibility of being and acting as the PIC (when unable due to recency of experience, etc), the FAA also recognizes that many activities representative of acting as PIC clearly count toward proficiency...and has elected to permit record keeping of this time, and crediting of this time, to the experience requirements set forth. It makes perfect sense.

If one performs a given duty appropriate to pilot in command, even though one did not hold the title of PIC, one logs the time, as set forth in 14 CFR 61.51(e). Simple. Nothing to do with logging that which one did not do. One performed the duties, one flew the airplane, one was in charge, etc. One is entitled to log it.

Moreover, it's regulatory, which should pretty much end any arguement on the subject.

 

[Timebuilder]

Without taking on the full responsibility of being and acting as the PIC (when unable due to recency of experience, etc), the FAA also recognizes that many activities representative of acting as PIC clearly count toward proficiency...and has elected to permit record keeping of this time, and crediting of this time, to the experience requirements set forth. It makes perfect sense.

That's precisely what I am talking about. It only makes "perfect sense" in the world of FAA bureacracy. Out in the real world, a "log" is a record of actual activity and responsibility. This idea had to be thrown out in order to satisfy the various senarios of currency and so forth that have been mentioned. Regulatory reasoning, you might call it.

As was said, the airplane must have a PIC. Why then would we have a situation where the pilot who is ACTING as PIC, in other words, performing that duty, would be unable to LOG the "PIC time?"

The accounting profession goes back to the time of cuneiform tablets. The basic idea is one of recording what has happened, not "who is permitted to log." This idea is an idea that was created to satisfy a regulatory need.

The concept of one PIC logging that time spent as PIC is too uncomfortable for the feds to deal with, because of this tangled mess of requirements and permissions they created in order to give them power over pilots.

Moreover, it's regulatory, which should pretty much end any arguement on the subject.

Absolutely. Tyranny decreases freedom, and you can count on more tyranny in this area in the future.

 

[avbug]

Timebuilder,

Enough is enough. You really think that regulation regarding logging flight time is tyrrany?

Enough with the political garbage, the religious postings, all that. It's getting tiring. Sickening. Enough. Really.

The FAA exists by congressional mandate, per the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as ammended. The FAA is not an accounting firm, and pilot are not necessarily accountants. The FAA is responsible for overseeing civil aviation in the United States, and the FAA is charged with establishing the regulation by which we are permitted to fly. This includes the basis for your very certification as a pilot; your privilege (not right).

The FAA grants you this privilege; you have no privilege to fly without it being granted by the FAA. Accordingly, you fly according to the regulation provided by the FAA; the FAA grants the privilege, the FAA sets the rules. Got it so far?

The FAA has clearly established that the logging of flight time is different than acting as PIC. One is about writing hen scratches in a book, the other is about safely operating an airplane in actual flight operations. Not to hard to grasp yet, is it??

Perhaps you'd be happier if you were only permitted to log the time when you actually serve as pilot in command. Would that work for you? Possibly, but it wouldn't work for thousands of others. By writing the regulation as they are, the FAA has reduced training costs and expenses for most of us, and has enabled flexibility in an otherwise potentially rigid regulation. Further, the FAA has recognized the act of piloting the airplane, in allowing logging for being sole manipulator, etc. This, instead of only permitting the legal PIC to log the time. The FAA is being generous, mate. You really have a problem with that?

The FAA recognizes that one has accomplished the act of manipulating controls or performing the duties of pilot in command, in allowing this time to be used toward currency, even though one has not acted as the legal pilot in command. This is fair, sensible, and appropriate. Much better than telling a pilot that he can't log the approach he flew, or the landings he made, simply because he wasn't the legal acting pilot in command. Now THAT would make no sense.

You really believe that 14 CFR 61.51(e) represents tyrrany? You need to come out from under your shelter and learn what tyrrany really is, then. You'll be shocked nearly to death.

You may even be enlightened to learn that the so-called "FAR's" are the shortest of the various regulations, the compendium of which becomes the Code of Federal Regulations. Shortest, sweetest and the easiest to follow and understand. And still you complain.

Tell you what, I'm even willing to put up with the whining about that, so long as you quit spouting scripture and pounding religion on an aviation web site. Not a lot of hope, I know; you've been asked to drop it by more than a few, including a number of respected members here...but golly, it surely would be a nice, fresh breath of air. Whaddaya say?