Logging PIC in a Tail Wheel without endorsement.

Inverted

Inverted

mmmmmm wine
So I have never put any time in a students logbook under PIC unless they are endorsed or have time before 1991 or whatever. I have never had anyone question me on it, but another CFI said he always logs PIC in a students logbook for tail wheel, complex, high performance etc etc.

I thought I remember coming across something in the FAR's that specifically said you cannot log or act as PIC unless endorsed. But as far as logging vs acting, since you cannot act as PIC yet, but you are certificated airplane single engine land, you can log it. I was just curious what you guys do with your students?
 
During my commercial pilot checkride I asked my DPE about it-he said no PIC before the endorsement...


I just got my tailwheel sign off..and my CFI logged it as PIC....so I guess it depends...
 
Log it so long as you have the Category, class, and type (if needed) for the aircraft and you are the sole manipulator of the flight controls.

Read the letter posted above as it is from the FAA chief counsel and agrees with what I have said.
 
When I did both my commercial and tailwheel training years back my instructor logged it all as PIC since I had my SEL. The letter of interpretation spells it out very well.
 
Humm.. Seems my work here is done. I shall find other good citizens trapped in the desperate grip of regulation questions!
batman-smiley-batman-bat-superhero-smiley-emoticon-000136-large.gif
 
mxaexm said:
During my commercial pilot checkride I asked my DPE about it-he said no PIC before the endorsement...


I just got my tailwheel sign off..and my CFI logged it as PIC....so I guess it depends...
Click to expand...
It does depend.

It depends on whether the person knows the rules or not. Your CFI did; your DPE didn't.
 
I've only flown a taildragger once. I didn't log it as PIC because 61.31 makes it clear that I couldn't.


(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane...

So even though I was rated in SEL, I couldn't be the PIC...Not that the 1hr of PIC I didn't log is going to help me get another job anyway...
 
Chief Captain said:
I've only flown a taildragger once. I didn't log it as PIC because 61.31 makes it clear that I couldn't.


(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane...

So even though I was rated in SEL, I couldn't be the PIC...Not that the 1hr of PIC I didn't log is going to help me get another job anyway...
Click to expand...

Act as PIC, it says nothing about logging it. I refer you back to what was already posted:
http://forums.jetcareers.com/attach...pic-comp-hi-perf-w-o-endorsements-herman-.pdf

Here's the relavent bit:

FAA said:
There is a distinction between logging PIC time and acting as a PIC. For a pilot to log PIC
time (i.e., the sole manipulator of the controls), a pilot must be properly rated in the aircraft
by having the appropriate category, class, and type ratings. For a pilot to act as a PIC (i.e.,
the pilot who has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight),
a pilot must be properly rated in the aircraft and be properly rated and authorized to conduct
the flight. In your example, being properly rated and authorized would include having the
endorsements for complex and high-performance airplanes as required by sections 61.31 (e)
and (t). Accordingly, in your examples, the pilot may log PIC time if that pilot is properly
rated for the aircraft flown even though that pilot does not have the required endorsements to
act as a PIC.
Click to expand...
 
Its amazing how people can't figure out the difference between acting PIC and logging PIC, and thus when they can and cannot log PIC time. Perhaps this is something that needs to be taught early on in the process now, rather than just taking some random CFI/DPE's personal opinion.
 
Chief Captain said:
I've only flown a taildragger once. I didn't log it as PIC because 61.31 makes it clear that I couldn't.
Click to expand...
Can you find the part of 61.31 that talks about logging? I see all sorts of stuff about acting as PIC in that reg but nothing about how to log it.

OTOH, I see where 61.51 talks about nothing but logging and makes it pretty clear that you can. Of course it helps to have the 30 years of FAA Chief Counsel interpretations that say so to help.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Its amazing how people can't figure out the difference between acting PIC and logging PIC,
Click to expand...
Unfortunately "PIC doesn't really mean PIC" is not that intuitive and, until the October 2009 Part 61 revision not even complely clear from reading the FAR alone. Even for those who understand it in concept, some of the details can still be confusing.

Perhaps this is something that needs to be taught early on in the process now, rather than just taking some random CFI/DPE's personal opinion.
Click to expand...
It's being taught more. And really, online forums have been instrumental in "spreading the word." A post like Chief Captain's is becoming more and more rare and is often the result of simply not having been expose to it before.

The problem comes up when the reaction is, "No. It's not and I won't accept it." No amount of education can overcome a belief.
 
By definition you can log it, but from what I have heard it can depend on your local FSDO. Here in Salt Lake none of the DPEs will count it as such, and from what I have heard this goes for a lot of airlines as well. The example used was when an applicant had logged time in an aircraft that required a high altitude endorsement, airlines started to ask question about their multi time. Sometimes better to err on the safe side.
 
R Banger said:
Here in Salt Lake none of the DPEs will count it as such, and from what I have heard this goes for a lot of airlines as well.
Click to expand...
Go Salt Lake Boys! ...Glad to hear there are still some die hard true believers out there.

My question to all who believe that logging PIC in an aircraft that requires an endorsement to ACT as PIC: Why don't you have the endorsement if you are the 'sole manipulator'?

If you are the sole manipulator, then you should have an endorsement.

I know,..you can get around that rule because of the way the internet lawyers have made the interpretation of 61.51, but,...

...still, any person (agency, entity) who wants a certain amount of PIC time means actual acting as PIC. That is the meaning and purpose of the term.

Insurance agencies, employment companies, any person in the street will think that PIC means ..duh..PIC. NOT just wiggling the sticks under direct supervision and direction of another PIC or instructor.

The ONLY agency that accepts PIC while not rated to BE the PIC is the FAA. ...and that's your federal government. Wanna take a chance on them?
 
nosehair said:
Go Salt Lake Boys! ...Glad to hear there are still some die hard true believers out there.

My question to all who believe that logging PIC in an aircraft that requires an endorsement to ACT as PIC: Why don't you have the endorsement if you are the 'sole manipulator'?

If you are the sole manipulator, then you should have an endorsement.

I know,..you can get around that rule because of the way the internet lawyers have made the interpretation of 61.51, but,...

...still, any person (agency, entity) who wants a certain amount of PIC time means actual acting as PIC. That is the meaning and purpose of the term.

Insurance agencies, employment companies, any person in the street will think that PIC means ..duh..PIC. NOT just wiggling the sticks under direct supervision and direction of another PIC or instructor.

The ONLY agency that accepts PIC while not rated to BE the PIC is the FAA. ...and that's your federal government. Wanna take a chance on them?
Click to expand...
Where you not sole manipulator of the controls when working on your high performance endorsement? Your logic becomes very circular. If you are sole manipulator then you need the endorsement...you can't get the endorsement without some training that includes time with you as sole manipulator....but again you can't be sole manipulator without the endorsement. One ring to rule them all. See circular.

The internet lawyers didn't make the interpretation. The FAA did. Are we not to believe the FAA on their interpretation of their own rules?

The meaning of the term is moot. If a job requires "500 hours PIC" then i am going to say I have 500 hours in my PIC column. If they want more than that they need to specify..."500 hours as the direct authority of an aircraft in flight."
 
nosehair said:
Go Salt Lake Boys! ...Glad to hear there are still some die hard true believers out there.

My question to all who believe that logging PIC in an aircraft that requires an endorsement to ACT as PIC: Why don't you have the endorsement if you are the 'sole manipulator'?

If you are the sole manipulator, then you should have an endorsement.

I know,..you can get around that rule because of the way the internet lawyers have made the interpretation of 61.51, but,...

...still, any person (agency, entity) who wants a certain amount of PIC time means actual acting as PIC. That is the meaning and purpose of the term.

Insurance agencies, employment companies, any person in the street will think that PIC means ..duh..PIC. NOT just wiggling the sticks under direct supervision and direction of another PIC or instructor.

The ONLY agency that accepts PIC while not rated to BE the PIC is the FAA. ...and that's your federal government. Wanna take a chance on them?
Click to expand...

Wow. The FAA accepts it, but I don't know if we can trust them. Listen to yourself. LMFAO! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: They even put out documents saying you can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top