What to log?

[DrewBlows]

No one has addressed the second part of my question. Should I log my time as Turbine (and combine it with any turboprop time I may aquire in the future?), Jet, or just say forget it. What kind of time are the Boeing operators looking for.

Note: I do keep an electronic backup which makes sorting time by a/c, or catagory pretty easy.

 

[blzr]

I just log it all as turbine. forget that turbo jet, turboprop thing. Going across the page I put the Date, type, ship#, Multi, Turbine, inst, approach, PIC or SIC, Total. ANd again, yes, log it all if you are in the right seat.

 

[DrewBlows]

Well it looks as though this topic had already been addressed on Doc's FAR Forum. It appears that the SIC can log all time in IMC including the legs in which he is PNF. Below is the post from that site. What a great site, thanks for the suggestion, Trip.




Posted by DOC on October 31, 2004 at 09:52:47:

Dear Readers,

This has been an ongoing argument with FAA for a long time. Finally, they agree that SICs may log instrument time, even when acting as Pilot-Not-Flying (PNF), or Pilot-Monitoring (PM) for anyoner using the new lingo.... See Scenario number 1 below.

Sorry for the delay in posting this one.

Doc

From the AFS-640 FAQ site:
"QUESTION: The situation is I have been hired as a pilot for a Part 135 operator as an SIC pilot crewmember position. This Part 135 company operates an LR Jet and I will serve as an SIC. And you can assume that I am § 61.55 and Part 135 SIC current and qualified. I have reviewed the Part 61 FAQ website and still have a few questions about how flight time can be logged as an SIC. I would like to know how an SIC would log night flight time, actual instrument flight time, simulated instrument flight time, cross country flight time, takeoffs and landings, and instrument approaches under the following scenarios:

Scenario No. 1: I acted as an SIC on a Part 135 flight operation in which the duration of the total flight was 2.0 hours. The flight consisted of 1.0 hour of actual instrument flight time, 0.3 hour of simulated instrument flight time (hood time), 0.5 hour during night conditions, 1.5 hour during day conditions, and 1.8 hours of cross country flight time. During the flight, there were 2 instrument approaches performed. There was 1 takeoff and 1 landing performed during daytime conditions. There was 1 takeoff and 1 landing performed during nighttime conditions. How would an SIC log the night flight time, instrument flight time, and cross country flight time, takeoffs and landings, and instrument approaches where the PIC is the flying pilot and is the sole manipulator of the controls, and I as the SIC is the non-flying pilot?

Scenario No. 2: I acted as an SIC on a Part 135 flight operation in which the duration of the total flight was 2.0 hours. The flight consisted of 1.0 hour of actual instrument flight time, 0.3 hour of simulated instrument flight time (hood time), 0.5 hour during night conditions, 1.5 hour during day conditions, and 1.8 hours of cross country flight time. During the flight, there were 2 instrument approaches performed. There was 1 takeoff and 1 landing performed during daytime conditions. There was 1 takeoff and 1 landing performed during nighttime conditions. How would an SIC log the night flight time, instrument flight time, and cross country flight time, takeoffs and landings, and instrument approaches where I as the SIC (the SIC does not hold a LR Jet type rating) is the flying pilot and is the sole manipulator of the controls?

Scenario No. 3: I acted as an SIC on a Part 135 flight operation in which the duration of the total flight was 2.0 hours. The flight consisted of 1.0 hour of actual instrument flight time, 0.3 hour of simulated instrument flight time (hood time), 0.5 hour during night conditions, 1.5 hour during day conditions, and 1.8 hours of cross country flight time. During the flight, there were 2 instrument approaches performed. There was 1 takeoff and 1 landing performed during daytime conditions. There was 1 takeoff and 1 landing performed during nighttime conditions. How would an SIC log the night flight time, instrument flight time, and cross country flight time, takeoffs and landings, and instrument approaches where I as the SIC (SIC holds a LR Jet type rating) is the sole manipulator of the controls?

Scenario No. 4: Would there be a difference if the flight was a Part 91 operation instead of Part 135 operation in how I would log the night flight time, instrument flight time, and cross country flight time, takeoffs and landings, and instrument approaches in this scenario?

ANSWER: For Part 61 purposes and to clarify my responses to your questions, the only flight time that is required to be logged is stated in § 61.51(a). Emphasis Added: Read § 61.51(a) because that is the rule that establishes the requirements for logging time in a pilot’s logbook. But your questions also involve Part 135 because you said you’re employed as an SIC for a Part 135 operator. So, Subpart F of Part 135 would apply, as appropriate, for documenting flight time, duty period limitations, and rest requirements. But my answers are only going to address the § 61.51 logging of flight time, because this Q&A website only addresses Part 61 requirements.

Scenario No. 1: Ref. § 61.51(b)(1)(ii), (2)(iii), (3)(i), (ii), (c), (e)(1), (f), and (g); The SIC is the non-flying pilot (meaning the PIC is the sole manipulator of the controls) and per the scenario the SIC does not hold a LR Jet type rating.

Total Flight Time: 2.0 hours
SIC Flight Time: 2.0 hours
PIC Flight Time: None
LR Jet Flight time: 2.0 hours
Day Conditions Flight Time: 1.5 hours
Night Conditions Flight Time: 0.5 hours
Actual Instrument Flight Time: 1.0 hours
Simulated Instrument Time (Hood time): None
Cross Country Flight Time: 2.0 hours
Instrument Approaches: None
Takeoffs (Daytime): None
Landings (Daytime): None
Takeoffs (Night time): None
Landings (Night time): None

Scenario No. 2: Ref. § 61.51(b)(1)(ii), (2)(iii), (3)(i), (ii), (c), (e)(1), (f), and (g); The SIC is the flying pilot (meaning sole manipulator of the controls) and per the scenario the SIC does not hold a LR Jet type rating.

Total Flight Time: 2.0 hours
SIC Flight Time: 2.0 hours
PIC Flight Time: None
LR Jet Flight time: 2.0 hours
Day Conditions Flight Time: 1.5 hours
Night Conditions Flight Time: 0.5 hours
Actual Instrument Flight Time: 1.0 hours
Simulated Instrument Time (Hood time): 0.3 hours
Cross Country Flight Time: 2.0 hours
Instrument Approaches: 2
Takeoffs (Daytime): 1
Landings (Daytime): 1
Takeoffs (Night time): 1
Landings (Night time): 1

Scenario No. 3: Ref. § 61.51(b)(1)(ii), (2)(iii), (3)(i), (ii), (c), (e)(1), (f), and (g);The SIC is the flying pilot (meaning sole manipulator of the controls) and per the scenario the SIC holds a LR Jet type rating.

Total Flight Time: 2.0 hours
SIC Flight Time: None
PIC Flight Time: 2.0 hours
LR Jet Flight time: 2.0 hours
Day Conditions Flight Time: 1.5 hours
Night Conditions Flight Time: 0.5 hours
Actual Instrument Flight Time: 1.0 hours
Simulated Instrument Time (Hood time): 0.3 hours
Cross Country Flight Time: 2.0 hours
Instrument Approaches: 2
Takeoffs (Daytime): 1
Landings (Daytime): 1
Takeoffs (Night time): 1
Landings (Night time): 1 Scenario No. 4: Ref. § 61.51(b)(1)(ii), (2)(iii), (3)(i), (ii), (c), (e)(1), (f), and (g); No, there is no difference in whether the flight was a Part 135 operation or a Part 91 operation. § 61.51 is the only rule that addresses logging of aeronautical experience (otherwise, “flight time”) in a pilot’s logbook.
{Q&A 587}"

 

[Mel Sharples]

Should I log actual on my Captain's legs? How about his/her approaches (seems like I remember something about being the sole manipulator of the controls to log an approach?

Don't log the approaches OR actual unless you are the sole manipulator. Why? Most "experts" (FAA, DE's, etc.) agree that if you are not actively flying the plane, as in sole manipulator, you cannot log actual. While some people will argue that you can, think about it for a second. You will still get PLENTY of actual time at most regional airlines. If you ever go to an interview and they subscribe to the theory that most do (sole manipulator) you are screwed if you logged it all. Even if you think you are right, getting into an argument at an interview won't get you the job. Be conservative and that way you won't get into trouble.

It's like the moron's that argue they can log SIC in a King Air for running the radios. Big mistake. Even if you think you can prove it, it doesn't matter unless the interviewer believes it too. If they don't, this will be viewed as logbook padding or pencil whipping and it may cost you the job.

Don't blow it for a little bit of actual.

Any other tips on logging would be helpful (what kinds of things will future employers be interestede in...Turbine, Jet, ect.).

If it is a turboprop, log it as turbine. If it is a turbofan, log it as turbine and turbofan. It's good to have a total turbine column and then break it down by for turbojet or turbofan. Turboprop doesn't matter by itself, just lump it in turbine.

That's my $.02 worth, anyway. Good luck!

 

[mike1mc]

I posted the question on Doc's page, we'll see what reply I get.

Please post a response here. I'm interested.

 

[trip]

I guess some SIC's are logging it all now and some Fed says it is O.K.

Most interviewers will view it as sole manipulator I'm afraid, because thats how it has been done for years.

Only log your own approaches.

Like the poster above says--It really doesnt matter. you will be in the soup a plenty.

Cheers.

 

[temcgrew]

Has anyone ever been asked by an interviewer why they have so much IMC time? or did you fly this leg, how bout that leg? and so on down the pages? All I've seen is them thumbing thru the pages, maybe checking the totals to see if the all add up, and yes, for IMC to be about 10% of the total time. If you fly a J-41, then it will be closer to 40% because they never can get above the weather.

 

[FarginDooshbahg]

I guess some SIC's are logging it all now and some Fed says it is O.K.

Most interviewers will view it as sole manipulator I'm afraid, because thats how it has been done for years.

NO WHERE in the regs does it mention "sole manipulator" with regards to night, instrument or any other "condition of flight" as defined in Part 1 and in Part 61.51 (3) (i)(ii)and (iii). If "some Fed says it's ok", it's because they understand this.

The regs say "operate" when referring to a specific "condition of flight", and they say specifically "sole manipulator" for logging PIC, etc. These specific terms--"operate" and "sole manipulator" mean completely different things, and that is why they are specifically used when applicable.

Just because you and others confuse this doesn't make it right. And "most interviewers" know the difference. It's amazing to me how many people here don't.

BTW, to the person "waiting" for "Doc's" answer, someone already posted it above, and he agrees with what I am saying. The regs are very specific and it is not that difficult to understand. You can log instrument time the same way you can log day or night time.

You guys are making WAY more out of this than is necessary. No one is going to "catch hell" on an interview for observing the regulations as written.

 

[Daveman]

Not Knocking ANYONE!

intoxicated rage.

 

[Mel Sharples]

If "some Fed says it's ok", it's because they understand this.

I hate to argue with you, but interpretations of regs vary from FSDO to FSDO. They shouldn't, but they do. What is "legal" to one may not be legal to all. That is one reason why airlines often move their operating certificates, to get away from a certain FSDO.

The regs say "operate" when referring to a specific "condition of flight", and they say specifically "sole manipulator" for logging PIC, etc. These specific terms--"operate" and "sole manipulator" mean completely different things, and that is why they are specifically used when applicable.

So let me get this straight... By your definition, an FE could log actual time because he is a required "operator" for that flight. I think you are taking that too literally. As the reg reads:

(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) 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
flight conditions.


Are you telling me the PNF is operating the aircraft solely by reference to instruments? I don't mean "you are in the soup too", I mean operate. Again I think you are reading too literally. I don't think that was the intent of the law (and intent does matter to the FAA).

Just because you and others confuse this doesn't make it right. And "most interviewers" know the difference. It's amazing to me how many people here don't. You guys are making WAY more out of this than is necessary. No one is going to "catch hell" on an interview for observing the regulations as written.

I really beg to differ on this one. Not all interviewers share your views. Many feel the reg DOES apply only to the PF. And again, it doesn't matter because even if they are "ignorant" as you imply, unfortunately their opinion matters.

I'm not saying you CAN'T ever log it, I am just warning people to be careful. Even if you are right, is it worth it to blow an interview over a little actual? (Keep in mind NOT everyone agrees on this -- I personally know two different people who interview at two different airlines and they prefer not to see PNF's logging actual, right or wrong.)

You are making a bold statement that it is definitely legal. Do you have an official FAA opinion to back this up? If not, you are playing with fire.

 

[trip]

"Disclaimer Statement: The answers provided to the questions in this website are not legal interpretations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel provide legal interpretations. The FAA's Office of Chief Counsel does not review this website nor does it disseminate legal interpretations through it. However, there are some answers provided in this website where the FAA Office of Chief Counsel's legal interpretations have been reprinted"

The interviewers will see it anyway they like, its their game. Take FEDEX for example 1500 PIC in the rightseat of a lear as a typed FO is legal but probably not going to get you in the door. thats not the PIC THEY like.

It is not a big deal to get worked up over.

 

[a-v-8er]

OMG!!! Instrument time is a condition of flight, just like night is! If you're in it, you log it (whether you're PF or PNF). Shooting approaches and landings are sole manipulator based. Plain and simple! Those are used for currency, conditions of flight is not.

The PF and PNF are technically doing an equal amount of overseeing the systems and screens during 99% of the time on most flights. In other words, no one is actually hand flying the plane since the autopilot is on!!! So, should no one log conditions of flight then (just PIC or SIC)?!?!?!

Take a break, take a kit kat and just log whatever you're flying in whether it be IMC, night or day! Log only the approaches and landings you do and log all the IMC you want regardless if it was your leg or the other guy's...

 

[JetSpeed219]

Nicely put A-V-8ter

 

[T-handle]

Regarding logging IMC, there's no need to actually engage in an verbal argument with an interview panel. If they disagree with your logging, just state your case (like a-v-8er's statement) and if possible back it up with an FAA rep name who agrees. Don't get into some 5 minute discussion to the point where both parties are raising their voices.

Heck, in most cases, the PNF ends up doing more "work" in IMC conditions than the PF anyways,

If it costs you your job, then you may want to redo your logbooks. Have fun with that!

 

[Jim]

(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) 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 flight conditions.

Are you telling me the PNF is operating the aircraft solely by reference to instruments? I don't mean "you are in the soup too", I mean operate. Again I think you are reading too literally. I don't think that was the intent of the law (and intent does matter to the FAA).

Mel,

Here is the FAA legal opinion on "operates" (from Doc's FAR Forum at propilot.com). So yes, the SIC and FE "operate" the aircraft. The reason a FE does not log actual instrument is because it is "pilot" time and a FE does not log "pilot" time. It does not matter who is PF or PNF, both are "operating" the aircraft.




January 19, 1993

AEA-7

Thank you for your request for an interpretation of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) on the subject of "operation" of an aircraft. We apologize that other matters have delayed our answer until now.

We will briefly state your question. A ground crewmember, who was directing an air carrier aircraft by providing taxi guidance, caused the aircraft to have a collision. The pilot relied on the ground crewmember's guidance. Can the ground crewmember be charged under FAR 91.13 with careless or reckless operation of an aircraft and assessed a civil penalty?

We assume here that the aircraft was taxiing out to fly, "for the purpose of air navigation", so that FAR 91.13(a) applies.


Section 101(31) of the FAAct defines "operation of aircraft":

"Operation of aircraft" or "operate aircraft" means the use of aircraft, for the purpose of air navigation and includes the navigation of aircraft. Any person who causes or authorizes the operation of aircraft, whether with or without the right of legal control (in the capacity of owner, lessee, or otherwise) of the aircraft, shall be deemed to be engaged in the operation of aircraft within the meaning of this Act.

The second sentence of the definition includes possessory control situations and proprietary control situations for operations that are commercial in nature. This leaves the first sentence as more apposite to the facts under discussion.

The FAAct, section 101(30) defines "navigation of aircraft":

"Navigation of aircraft" or "navigate aircraft" includes the piloting of aircraft.

FAR 1.1 defines "Pilot in command" (PIC) as:

"the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.

FAR 1.1 defines flight time as:

"the time from the moment the aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight until the moment it comes to rest at the next point of landing. ("Block-to-block" time.)

From these definitions it is evident that under the facts given, the PIC operated the aircraft within the meaning of FAR 91.13, whether or not the controls were actually manipulated. Any operation of the aircraft by a ground crewmember, then, was coincident with operation by the PIC. Is this possible?

NTSB decisions make it clear that a PIC may reasonably rely on information given by any member of the ground or flight crews, when the PIC has no reason or basis to look behind or question the crewmember's performance. Administrator v. Lusk, 2 NTSB 480, 482 (1973); Administrator v. Thomas, 3 NTSB 349 (1977); Administrator v. Bass, EA-3507 (1992). This is because the complexity of large air carrier aircraft operations make it impossible for one person to do everything required. Nonetheless, all who supply information to the PIC, and all who perform duties on the aircraft, are not, in every circumstance, "operating" or "causing" the operation of an aircraft within the definition given.

By the same reasoning, the ground crewmember who guides the aircraft during taxi is merely another source of information to the PIC. The information supplied is no more vital than that supplied by the person who computed the weight and balance, or the person who signed the maintenance release, for example.

This is not to say that only the PIC can "operate" an aircraft. Past interpretations of this division have held that a second in command (SIC) is deemed to be operating the aircraft, whether or not the SIC is actually manipulating the controls. The SIC is, to some extent, both "causing" the operation of, and "piloting" the aircraft in his duties. Likewise, the flight engineer, by the nature of his duties, engages in the operation of an aircraft.

Quoting an earlier interpretation issued by the General Counsel in March, 1967, and signed by Nathaniel N. Goodrich:

Few would contest the fact that modern air carrier operations are of a complex nature, demanding the time and energies of a highly skilled crew. Each member of this crew performs delegated functions that the pilot in command of a less complex aircraft would himself carry out. Thus, they are all engaged in varying phases of the operation and each necessarily performs a portion of the total operation. To eliminate any member from his function would leave a gap in the "operating" team. If the pilot in command of the aircraft would be responsible as an "operator" for some misconduct leading to careless or reckless operation of the aircraft, other misconduct, if attributed to a flight engineer, must be part of "operation" as well. Just as it is not necessary for the pilot to be manipulating the controls of the aircraft, it is not necessary for the flight engineer to be manipulating the controls at the time of his misconduct. If his actions create a hazard to the flight, he must be held accountable under the definition of "operating".

This definition of "operating" appears to be limited to flightcrew members. In Administrator v Hart, 2 NTSB 1110, 1111 (1974), the Board wrote:

...the term "operate" should logically be given a broader construction to include those required flight crewmembers whose participation in the operation of an aircraft is essential to the safety of flight.

A flight crew engages in "piloting" an aircraft. A ground crew member does not engage in "piloting" aircraft and, in the circumstance presented here, did not "cause" the operation of the aircraft.

We do not interpret the actions of the ground crew taxi guide as "operation" of an aircraft in the circumstances presented.

This interpretation was prepared by Arthur E. Jacobson, Attorney, Operations Law Branch; Joseph A. Conte, Manager, and has been coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Service at FAA Headquarters. We hope this answers your question.

Donald P. Byrne NOTE TO READERS:
Byrne was the acting Chief Counsel