'Can I log this?" -(help please)

gomntwins said:
He told me I should know every airplane I'm checked out to fly inside and out- not a philosophy I agree with- but an attitude I did run into. Just something to think about.
Click to expand...

You can't make your decisions based on what you perceive other people will think. I did a flight review with a guy in his Mooney 2 years ago that I logged PIC, per 61.51. If anyone ever questions me, I will offer to show them the regulation that allows it. If they don't like it, oh well.
 
Boris Badenov said:
No one did. I asked, mojo posited that even if it were a 135 leg, it could be logged. I responded to that (legitimate) assertion. I am agnostic on the question of whether it was a 135 leg or not, since the OP hasn't responded.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. One would think that most 135 PIC's would be on top of things enough to advise a ride-along not to log the time but I guess we can't assume anything these days.
 
mojo6911 said:
You can't make your decisions based on what you perceive other people will think. I did a flight review with a guy in his Mooney 2 years ago that I logged PIC, per 61.51. If anyone ever questions me, I will offer to show them the regulation that allows it. If they don't like it, oh well.
Click to expand...


I agree. But, for that interview, I would have prefered to not have logged my 1.1 hours. I wanted to log it to so I could get the high performance signoff, but the interviewer didn't like my lack of knowledge. I'm not saying that was the sole reason I was not offered that job, but it didn't help that every systems question I was asked was on an airplane I had logged less than 2 hours in.

Attitudes change over the years. At that time in my life I wanted every hour possible in my logbook, and I probably would have logged an hour of caravan time. Now, I really don't care... I don't log all of my flight time anymore- i only log my turbine PIC in the Metroliner. Anything else I really don't care about (I hardly fly anything but the Metro anyways).
 
Joe Gremlin said:
Fair enough. One would think that most 135 PIC's would be on top of things enough to advise a ride-along not to log the time but I guess we can't assume anything these days.
Click to expand...

It wasn't my job as PIC to tell a potential passenger what they could/could not do in the privacy of their own home. If they know they aren't 135 qualified and they log it anyways thats their business.

Besides, how did this thread degenerate into a 135 pissing contest? The guy flew a common airplane.
 
BajtheJino said:
Yes.
I have flown many airplanes. Could I tell you all the garbage I'm supposed to know from a plane I haven't flown in 3-5 years?




NO!
Click to expand...
I agree. This whole business about not logging PIC time unless you know all about the systems of that specific airplane is absolutely bogus. This kind of thing is what really bothers me about the aviation community. I'm sure if you ask that interviewer guy mentioned in the thread earlier to explain why he holds the belief that its a bad thing to have PIC time logged in an aircraft that you don't know in detail, you'll get nothing. I'm sure he holds that opinion simply because he read it on the internet, by someone who heard it themselves on the internet, and so forth and so forth.

I see the same thing with CFI's who say things like "I'll never never never let my students use the GPS because that makes you a bad pilot. All my students will use VOR's and NDBs". Then they do their students a disservice by never teaching them how to use a GPS and they fail their checkride because the examiner throws them something that using the GPS would have been easy to solve. The instructor doesn't have this belief because it's something they've come to by reaearch or analysis on their part. No, they feel this way somply because they read it in a forum post written by some old curmudgeny fellow.

Anyways, my personal policy was to log anything I could when I was doing my training. I got to fly from southern Ohio to Kansas in a C-152, back when I was doing my instrument, which added like 15 hours to my total time. I wasn't the sole manipulator, but I did get to do the navigation (old school navigation, this plane didn't have a GPS), and the sole manipulator was a CFI, so I logged it as dual-given. Now-a-days I only log it if it's PIC time, or in any way adding to currency.

Also, one more thing. Once you've entered the airline stage in your career, the rules of logging PIC time as laid out by the FAA go out the window. If you're the captain, you log the time as PIC, regardless of whether you're sole manipulator or whatever. If you're not captain, then you don't log PIC time, even though technically you could if you're sole manipulator and type-rated. The reason for this is because for the FAA's purposes, once you get 250 hours of FAR-worthy PIC time (as required for the ATP), the FAA could care less about whether you're logging time correctly or not. The only ones who care are the employers who will be hiring you based on your experiences. They don't give a if you're sole manipulator. Obviously if you're an airline FO you're going to be sole manipulator at times. They want to know how much time you have as the acting final authority. When you get into situations where a captain is doing IOE it gets kind of murky because it's kind of ambigous as to who's the one thats really operating as captain. In my opinion, I'd say they both can log PIC time, but it's up to individual interpretation.
 
nbv4 said:
Also, one more thing. Once you've entered the airline stage in your career, the rules of logging PIC time as laid out by the FAA go out the window. If you're the captain, you log the time as PIC, regardless of whether you're sole manipulator or whatever..
Click to expand...

That just isn't true. Look at 61.51. The ATP acting as PIC is allowed to log the entire flight as PIC, whether they are the sole manipulator, or not. Just because it is 135/121 doesn't mean that 61.51 does not apply.
 
nbv4 said:
Also, one more thing. Once you've entered the airline stage in your career, the rules of logging PIC time as laid out by the FAA go out the window. If you're the captain, you log the time as PIC, regardless of whether you're sole manipulator or whatever. If you're not captain, then you don't log PIC time, even though technically you could if you're sole manipulator and type-rated. The reason for this is because for the FAA's purposes, once you get 250 hours of FAR-worthy PIC time (as required for the ATP), the FAA could care less about whether you're logging time correctly or not. The only ones who care are the employers who will be hiring you based on your experiences. They don't give a if you're sole manipulator. Obviously if you're an airline FO you're going to be sole manipulator at times. They want to know how much time you have as the acting final authority.
Click to expand...

While I understand the spirit of what you are saying, I must disagree with the details. It is still perfectly acceptable to log "sole manipulator" PIC time, but it is wise to understand it's limitations in the employer's eyes and adjust your logging habits to suit.

I've often said that most or all airlines won't accept "sole manipulator" PIC time, and this can be verified by the way that they word their application forms. They will specifically ask for ACTING PIC time, although they will word it differently. BUT, that's no reason not to log sole manipulator PIC time if you are fully typed in the aircraft. I usually recommend that people use a separate column for that kind of time just so it's easier to sort out later (I used "Part 61 PIC" as the column title). Believe it or not there are some instances, mostly in the 135 world, where PIC time is PIC time is PIC time. No sense in shorting yourself unnecessarily, and by keeping track in a different column you can easily include sole manipulator time when they allow it. By keeping it clearly separate from Part 1 PIC time you won't be accused of trying to slip something past anyone, either. It's honest, it's straightforward, and it's legal.
 
Killtron2000 said:
Is there a distinction between logging PIC and being PIC? He can't actually be the PIC if it is under 135.
Click to expand...

This is just a reg. that i hate. So lets assume I am an SIC, flying the leg, only me, ...should/could i log that as PIC?

As i posted on another thread, if it's gray, i take white or black...

Just my opinion and interpretation


C ya


TI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top