Question on PIC out of currency Class Aircraft

dasleben said:
Because he doesn't sign for the airplane.

SteveC, meeting insurance minimums may be a valid reason to log sole-manipulator PIC, but it's still rather disingenuous, IMO. Regardless of the legality of logging it, it's still not time flown as the person signing for the aircraft.
Click to expand...

So, what other regulations do you not follow because you don't like them? Sounds like a classic case of anti-authority to me
 
Dugie8 said:
That's a bit over the line. This reg doesn't require you to log PIC when you are sole manipulator, it allows for it.
Click to expand...

But to tell people they can't log PIC time which the regulations allow them to is just as crazy. Perhaps I should have put the sarcasm tag on it but still. To advise people that 121 carriers don't like a certain way things are logged without knowing the person or their career goals, is irresponsible, IMO.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
But to tell people they can't log PIC time which the regulations allow them to is just as crazy. Perhaps I should have put the sarcasm tag on it but still. To advise people that 121 carriers don't like a certain way things are logged without knowing the person or their career goals, is irresponsible, IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't think he his saying "can't" he is saying "shouldn't". An important distinction.
 
dasleben said:
Suffice to say, if I showed up to an interview with 767 PIC time, despite not having received a Fed observation and Captain's OE, I'd be laughed right out.
Click to expand...

In the case of satisfying the insurance company I personally deal with, sole manipulator time is what they care about. They could care less who was the acting PIC at the time.

For purposes of satisfying the Feds for experience towards a rating, it is 100% legal according to their regs. If they wanted the FARs to say something else, they would change them.

For purposes of employers, they generally care about ACTING PIC time, whether or not it is something you can legally log or not.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
For purposes of employers, they generally care about ACTING PIC time, whether or not it is something you can legally log or not.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And so that's what you give them.

I agree with the anti-authority statement: "Don't log this legitimate time even if you don't count it for us as PIC time because we will hold it against you." is definitely a position that says "we don't care about the rules and will ding you if you follow them."

I had a discussion over dinner with an enforcement attorney for the FAA a few years ago. In preparation for a pilot seminar I was doing, I asked him for a short list of hot enforcement issues he was seeing on his side of the table. The top one was pilots who follow employers rules (usually out of fear of losing their jobs) and violate regs. Problem is, the pilots get dinged while there's no evidence other than their word that it was just following company policy.

Admittedly, violating an operating reg is quite different than the choice of what legitimate time to enter in a logbook. But it does seem to reflect the same company attitude.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Exactly. And so that's what you give them.

I agree with the anti-authority statement: "Don't log this legitimate time even if you don't count it for us as PIC time because we will hold it against you." is definitely a position that says "we don't care about the rules and will ding you if you follow them."
Click to expand...
Hear, hear.
I had a discussion over dinner with an enforcement attorney for the FAA a few years ago. In preparation for a pilot seminar I was doing, I asked him for a short list of hot enforcement issues he was seeing on his side of the table. The top one was pilots who follow employers rules (usually out of fear of losing their jobs) and violate regs. Problem is, the pilots get dinged while there's no evidence other than their word that it was just following company policy.
Click to expand...
*nods*
Admittedly, violating an operating reg is quite different than the choice of what legitimate time to enter in a logbook. But it does seem to reflect the same company attitude.
Click to expand...
Falsification of a record submitted to the FAA is grounds for suspension or revocation of your airman's certificates too, and tends to cast doubt on the "good moral character" that airline transport pilots are required to maintain.
 
Hammertime said:
I am aware. I understand the regs. IMO logging PiC when you are not acting as such follows the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it. However that wasn't my point. My point is what I said. Based on my supposition, he carried a passenger without being current to carry passengers. This would be illegal per 61.57
Click to expand...


61.57 governs who may ACT as PIC. It has nothing to do with who may log PIC.

(a) General experience.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as a pilot in command...
Click to expand...


Most of my PIC time logged as a flight instructor has been with me NOT acting as PIC. I am pretty sure most people count dual given as PIC time regardless of who acted PIC. I do not believe employers make any distinction in this case. (But I could be wrong, airline folks please speak up)
 
dasleben said:
Because he doesn't sign for the airplane.

SteveC, meeting insurance minimums may be a valid reason to log sole-manipulator PIC, but it's still rather disingenuous, IMO. Regardless of the legality of logging it, it's still not time flown as the person signing for the aircraft.
Click to expand...

For this area I use three columns instead of two in my logbook. Each flight gets logged under one and only one of these three columns; "PIC", "SIC", or "61 PIC". The 61 PIC column is used for logging sole manipulator PIC time. When the insurance company asks for my PIC time I add "61 PIC" time to "PIC" time and give them the number. When an airline asks me for PIC time I give them the number in the "PIC" column only.

Still disingenuous?
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Falsification of a record submitted to the FAA is grounds for suspension or revocation of your airman's certificates too, and tends to cast doubt on the "good moral character" that airline transport pilots are required to maintain.
Click to expand...
True, but to be fair, we're not talking about falsification here; just choosing not entering time one is entitled to enter.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
61.57 governs who may ACT as PIC. It has nothing to do with who may log PIC.




Most of my PIC time logged as a flight instructor has been with me NOT acting as PIC. I am pretty sure most people count dual given as PIC time regardless of who acted PIC. I do not believe employers make any distinction in this case. (But I could be wrong, airline folks please speak up)
Click to expand...

Sorry. I thought I made it clear. I WAS referring to the fact that he shouldn't be acting PiC. I've already been through this logging argument at least once, and I'm steering clear! :-P
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
So, what other regulations do you not follow because you don't like them? Sounds like a classic case of anti-authority to me
Click to expand...

Huh? I don't log sole-manipulator PIC because I have a couple thousand hours of real, I-sign-the-logbook PIC. If you don't have enough Part 1 PIC to meet insurance mins, fine, do what you need, but my simple advice is to not group sole-manipulator PIC into Part 1 PIC. The way SteveC does it sounds like a good idea.

But like it or not, if I show up at a Delta interview with 1000 hours of 767 PIC time because I'm a fully typed F/O, I will be sent home. You can argue the log/act case with them if you'd like, but you would be sent home as well. Just the nature of it. Part 1 PIC is king.

rframe said:
Contrast that with a CFI who sits in the right seat with an experienced pilot, never touches a thing and is half asleep for most of the flight, and logs that as PIC dual given... yet somehow that's more legitimate in most people's minds?
Click to expand...
Because as the CFI, you're responsible for the aircraft. At least when I was a CFI, if my student bent something, it was on me. YMMV with your operation, but the test for me is if metal gets bent, who is the FAA going to come after?

It's your logbook, by the way. Log what you want. I know the rules between sole-manipulator and Part 1 PIC, so I don't need convincing. I simply choose not to log sole-manipulator PIC because, like it or not, sole-manipulator PIC is generally frowned upon at competitive jobs.

Let's ask the peanut gallery (other fully-typed FOs):

Polar742 Derg Alchemy

Do you boys log sole-manipulator PIC, if you even keep a logbook? :)
 
dasleben said:
Let's ask the peanut gallery (other fully-typed FOs):

Polar742 Derg Alchemy

Do you boys log sole-manipulator PIC, if you even keep a logbook? :)
Click to expand...

I've got nothing earth shattering to add, but I typed out this ridiculously long post so I might as well hit "reply to thread". I do keep a logbook and just spent two hours updating it from July due to my laptop bricking itself. However, they didn't even ask to see it at my last interview, even though I went to all the trouble of printing it out on green paper and putting in a binder, but I digress.

I don't log PIC on any flight unless I was the captain who signed the flight release during preflight. I might be the senior, PIC type-rated F/O on a 4 pilot crew while the only captain on board is 20 feet behind the flight deck sleeping, and I might've even signed in on the Flight Release stating I'm currently acting as PIC while the captain is asleep, but the whole flight is still going as SIC time in my logbook.

Do I care what other people log as PIC? Nope. Not unless I'm recommending them for a job and they show up to the interview having claimed their "sole manipulator" time as F/O as "acting PIC" time. We're both going to look pretty bad in short order. If you want to put your "sole manipulator" faux-pic time ( :p calm down) in a separate column, I see no problem. It might be "the thing to do" and an accepted practice in business/corporate aviation circles for all I know, or logging time in this manner may have insurance benefits (no idea). I guess I did it too when I was a private pilot and logged PIC during my instrument/commercial training with a CFI aboard.

It would be pretty easy for me to go back and add up my "sole manipulator" PIC time if I wanted to for some reason. I'd just need to note every flight where I logged a landing and put the duration of that flight in the new column. However in heavy crew operations are your really the "sole manipulator" anymore when you went back and took nap for 6 hours during the middle of the flight ;) ?

I struggle a bit with the ethics of the scenario in the original post on this thread but will reluctantly agree that it's legal as long as the chief pilot didn't log any of the time. I could see the FAA deciding to look at him as a passenger if something happened, especially if there wasn't some sort of paper trail declaring him as "acting PIC".
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I had a discussion over dinner with an enforcement attorney for the FAA a few years ago. In preparation for a pilot seminar I was doing, I asked him for a short list of hot enforcement issues he was seeing on his side of the table. The top one was pilots who follow employers rules (usually out of fear of losing their jobs) and violate regs. Problem is, the pilots get dinged while there's no evidence other than their word that it was just following company policy.
Click to expand...

He must've been referring primarily to part 91 situations. Just about every rule 121 pilots operate under is outlined in a manual that's been scrutinized and sanctioned by someone from the FAA. Even the union collective bargaining agreement is referenced as the legal limit for daily duty time limitations. If a pilot is penalized for complying with a document that the FAA signed off on, it would seem to be a pretty easy case to defend.
 
↑ yeah that. I was tagged so I thought I should respond, but Alchemy beat me to it.

Can I second his post? Is that in Robert's Rules of Order?
 
Alchemy said:
He must've been referring primarily to part 91 situations. Just about every rule 121 pilots operate under is outlined in a manual that's been scrutinized and sanctioned by someone from the FAA. Even the union collective bargaining agreement is referenced as the legal limit for daily duty time limitations. If a pilot is penalized for complying with a document that the FAA signed off on, it would seem to be a pretty easy case to defend.
Click to expand...
He was specifically referring to Part 135. Sorry I didn't mention that originally.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
He was specifically referring to Part 135. Sorry I didn't mention that originally.
Click to expand...

I would guess the leg the OP flew was operated part 91 - don't know of any 135 operations that would allow anyone not employed there to touch the controls.

But the original question had nothing to do with SICs logging anything, it was obviously about a single pilot aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top