Sic Illegal

[Bluto]

Day, night, actual instrument, and VMC are all conditions of flight. An instrument approach, like a landing, is not a condition of flight. Do you log night time as PNF? Now, I can see where there is some debate. 61.51(g)(1) does state:

A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument conditions.

While this is worded somewhat ambiguously ("person", instead of people), it makes no mention of being the "sole manipulator" of the controls in fact, it makes no mention of manipulating the controls at all. For legal purposes, who is considered as "operating the aircraft" under part 121, or 135? Is it just the captain? If that's the case, according to this reg, SICs could never log instrument time. I know you guys don't think that is the case. I would suggest that when an SIC is required, both the PIC and SIC can be considered to be operating the aircraft. Also, in 61.51(b)(3) it states that you *must* log "Conditions of flight- day or night, actual instrument, simulated instrument..." for the purposes of meeting aeronautical experience requirements.

 

[avbug]

Bluto is correct.

The reason that one only logs landings and approaches when one has performed them are two-fold; one is that he FAR specifically states this to be the case, and requires that for the purposes of currency, the landings and approaches must be performed by the person logging them. The second, tied with the first, is the purpose the FAR makes this requirement; landings and approaches are skill related functions and represent specific acts.

Instrument conditions are nothing more than conditions of flight. A landing is an act or function, not a condition of flight. An instrument approach is an act, not a condition of flight.

A SIC may not log an approach if the SIC has not performed the approach. A PIC may not log the approach, if the PIC has not performed the approach. However, both PIC and SIC may log instrument time for the duration of that approach, because their presence is required in the aircraft in order to operate the aircraft, and the conditions of flight were instrument conditions.

Someone commented on having a disproportionate amount of instrument time. Typically an applicant is anticipated to have an average of approximately 10% instrument time, for the average pilot. Slightly more or less than this is acceptable. Large differences from the norm may require explaination, but I have never had a raised eyebrow in many years of flying, and many inteviews. Additionally, logging instrument time regardless of position, assignment, or manipulation of controls, does not create a disproportionate amount of time in the logbook.

Comparing the logging of approaches and landings to the logging of instrument time is comparing apples and oranges. It's nonsensical, rather like comparing hours flown to colors of airplanes flown. One may indeed log instrument conditions during an approach, but one may only log the approach if one performed the approach.

 

[402driver]

AUTOPILOT?

I agree with Avbug, he has got this subject figured out!

IMC is a condition of flight. If you're a required crewmember, you can log the conditions of flight (night, IMC, etc.) Saying that you can not log IMC (Instrument Meteorological CONDITIONS) if you are not actually flying the aircraft is as ridiculous as saying you can't log IMC time if the autopilot is "operating" the aircraft.

Just my $0.02 worth

Aloha!

 

[328dude]

Absolutly amazing. I actually got in my car and drove over to the MM center in OKC and asked this specific question (this wasent the only reason I was there).

Wouldn't you know it, three diffrent answers by three diffrent guys. Had a forth but he kept changing his position halfway threw the rant. I'm still not sure what he ment.....

Either way, I'm getting to the point where everyone will interpete the FARS diffently from others. Go with your gut feeling and hopefully your right. I would tell you to ask the FAA but I'm still in total shock by those guys over there. I guess I found Waldo.
Later

Avbug, you are impossible to debate with. Ever think of politics?
I mean this in a good way.

Take care

 

[avbug]

328,

I'm really not into a debate, but would much rather explore an issue. In this thread, for example, some about the topic was of enough interest to prompt a variety of responses...all of which were insightful and equally of value.

Politics to me, are a dirty word. I'd rather be subject to a long root canal over several months, in a land of no anesthesia or electricity, by a doctor who uses candles for lighting and who obtained his diploma from the same facility that taught Dan Quayle to spell "potatoe."

While the Mike Monroney center is filled with high ranking and authorative people, none are qualified or empowered to provide you with a legal interpretation. Much like visiting a FSDO, the best you can receive is an opinion. Frustrating...yes. Typical? Yes. Expect that on all issues. No answer received from an inspector is acceptable or defensible as fact; it can never be counted for more than opinion.

This seems problematic and nonsensical. However, it isn't as absurd as it might appear. A pilot working the line for a large airline, by comparison, might make a statement about the airline. This statement might be a reiteration of company policy, or it might be the opinion of the pilot about company policy. The pilot is not empowered to make statements for the company, nor to interpret policy. The worker bees in the FAA are in the same boat. They are tasked with maintaining policies and enforcing those policies as they are taught, but they are not empowered to interpret the policies.

Accordingly, until receiving direction from someone or a source that is empowered to interpret the regulation, take it with some grain of salt.

 

[ifly4food]

While the Mike Monroney center is filled with high ranking and authorative people, none are qualified or empowered to provide you with a legal interpretation. Much like visiting a FSDO, the best you can receive is an opinion. Frustrating...yes. Typical? Yes. Expect that on all issues. No answer received from an inspector is acceptable or defensible as fact; it can never be counted for more than opinion.

Thank you for your answer. I can see where you base your opinion from. Let's all remember, however, that Avbug's interpretation is just one more opinion (interpretation), and nothing more. If 4 feds in OKC couldn't agree, than who can!
The bottom line is that the only interpretation that matters is the one who is interviewing you or the fed that is violating you.
When it comes to logging time, go with your instincts of what is right and fair.
For now, I'm going to continue only logging actual IFR when I'm the sole manipulator.

 

[Speedtree]

so we ask the question. Who is qualified to give interpretation of FARs? Are there different levels of Inspectors within the FAA or is it just the hearing board who is investigating your incident/accident who ultimately decides. I agree that you will get very different responses from any number of FAA personnel. The head honcho at the Houston FSDO when giving CFI checkrides always stresses the FARs and only your own interpretation of them. He will not accept somebody else's interpretation as your answer to one of his questions even if it was his own interpretation. He puts all the responsibility on each individual to interpret the FARs for themselves.

So I agree with 328dude, Avbug, and IFFF. Interpret them for yourself and I always take the conservative way out. Logging less time probably won't hurt you except to slow you down a little. Logging too much time could potentially get you. And this applies to other areas of logging time as well. I don't operate SIC so I haven't had to make this decision yet.

 

[avbug]

Don't interpret the FAR for yourself. Take the time to get to know the regulation; most of it is very plain. Where areas of ambiguity remain (mostly intentional in the writing of the FAR), legal interpretations do in many cases exist.

Who is qualified to give interpretation of the FAR? The FAA Chief Legal Counsel writes interpretations, all of which are archived and available (I have them on CD, along with all other FAA publications). These give a great deal of insight into the rendering of the appropriate portions of the CFR.

"The bottom line is that the only interpretation that matters is the one who is interviewing you or the fed that is violating you. "

This is not correct. An inspector may follow specific guidelines or an understanding in bringing enforcement action. However, in so doing, the inspector is not able to interpret the FAR. He or she may only act within the guidelines as he or she understands them. The interpretation of the FAR will be handled in the appeals process, as provided in administrative law.

The "fed" does not violate you. An inspector may initiate enforcement action, but once initiated, much like a police officer writing a speeding ticket, it's out of his hands. He simply starts the process. The process itself is in your hands. How the individual inspector views the FAR is largely irrelevant, as the only rendering that is of effect is that provided in the appeals process. In every case, the true rendering of the specific law will be shown, and will be applicable.

It behooves every pilot to research and understand the relevant federal aviation regulations. Most of the time when a question comes up, it's proposed by someone who hasn't cracked a book, and then doesn't like the response because it may differ from the traditional public perception.

In my own case, I do NOT offer an interpretation of the FAR. That is outside the scope of my authority and ability, and in no case will I attempt to do so. I may offer an opinion. However, where references are provided, the law is clear on the matter. Most of the time, it's simply a matter of reading and applying that law.

One caution on that subject, and that is that a reading of one passage or subparagraph is usually insufficient to understand the FAR. A common example is the logging of time. 61.51(e)(1)(iii) is often the basis for the dual logging of PIC time during safety pilot training operations. This is legal and acceptable, but needs reference to 91.109(b)(1) for clarification as to the necessity of the second crewmember, to qualify the logging of that time. It also requires reference to 61.51(e)(1)(i). Many segments of the FAR require cross referencing for a full or better understanding of both the legality, and allowances of the law.

 

[TurboS7]

Wait a minute. When I am in my 738 and the first officer is flying does that mean I don't have to look at the instruments to back up my FO. What if he goes into a death spiral into the ground, I am not responsible because I am not required to look at my instruments, I am not logging time so why should I look??? Think about it, I agree with Avbug.

 

[350DRIVER]

This is probably the most concerning and frustrating thing that is bothersome since that was the advice I gave some of our other pilots who are going to be around our flight department for awhile. But it seemed as soon as I told them to contact the FSDO and get a "correct" answer it was no more than an "opinion" that they have received and it seemed like for as many as inspectors as they would speak to all the answers or as I would call them "opinions" were all different...... It is truly amazing since I thought it was a very clear answer regarding the logging of SIC time BUT the inspectors at out FSDO seemed to have numerous "different" opinions that varied from each others.....

One Inspector a lady told one of our pilots that as long as the so-called SIC who was 135 qualified SHOULD log PIC on the 135 legs in the C90B instead of logging SIC IF he took off and did the landing even though he did not have 135 PIC authorization- go figure how she came up with this opinion but she seemed that this was the only "correct" way to do it in her opinion- a tad ming boggling after reading the regs inside and out....

Probably the best thing to do is GET a typed letter from the inspector on how to log the time and keep it with you forever so IF you are ever questioned that inspector would also be questioned and YOU would have an "out" during an interview..

I know at 23 years of age I am taking all precautions because I do plan to go 121 very shortly I hope and I am not going to be questioned about this which now seems to be a very large opinionated grey area that the inspectors all seem to be divided on.....

I thank all of you for your positive feedback and knowledge- It is a great way to broaden my horizon and also an honor in a way to be able to get a seasoned pilots interpretation...

thx alot once again to all who have taken the time to respond