Log PIC as a private pilot in IFR?
- Thread starter Fly_Unity
- Start date
desertdog71
Girthy Member
Yes
desertdog71
Girthy Member
61.51 is the reg. Sole Manipulator rule applies on that one.
desertdog71
Girthy Member
Not surprised. Its amazing what they come up with sometimes.
flyguy
Well-Known Member
I agree. 61.51 says nothing about the operations under which the flight was conducted, only category and class of aircraft applies. Now, the student cannot act as PIC, but 61.51 alows the logging of PIC, to meet the PIC requirements for further certificates or ratings. You do not have to be fully qualified to act as PIC to log PIC.
PanJet
Well-Known Member
I've actually had a FSDO tell me that anytime the flight was under IFR that a Private Pilot cannot log PIC even with a CFII. I disagree however. Just like all of the above say, 61.51 says you can. I believe the person at the FSDO was confused at the difference between logging and acting. Seemed like a fairly new person working there at the time.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
[ahh... this conversation again]
Dont confuse the difference between "logging PIC" and "acting as PIC".
We "log" PIC for rating requirements generally. A PPL w/ no instrument rating isnt necessarily "acting as PIC" when flying in IMC w/ a CFII.
The II would be "acting" as the PIC.
(Midlife in 5...4...3...2...1..)
Dont confuse the difference between "logging PIC" and "acting as PIC".
We "log" PIC for rating requirements generally. A PPL w/ no instrument rating isnt necessarily "acting as PIC" when flying in IMC w/ a CFII.
The II would be "acting" as the PIC.
(Midlife in 5...4...3...2...1..)
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
FSDOs have been known to really mess up the FAR. Usually they are the rantings of one person. But sometimes being wrong takes on quasi-official status. My two favorites are:
1. I was in SF on business about 2 months before a wine country vacation so, during some free time headed up to Sonoma to take care of a checkout in advance. The big topic of conversation was a meeting with FSDO reps who came up with the idea that when a private pilot took a lesson from a CFI, only one of them was allowed to log PIC (which one was up to them).
2. 2-3 years ago, the Buffalo FSDO published on their website that, in order to log a cross country for the private certificate, every =leg= had to be more than 50 NM.
The one you mentioned was one of the specific examples of when a private pilot was =allowed= to log PIC in the granddaddy of all FAA Legal opinions on the subject, more than 25 years ago.
PanJet
Well-Known Member
Ok, so this is a bit off topic, but I have another question. Can a private pilot log actual instrument time while flying IFR with just a CFI and not a II?
I know the topic of single I's teaching instrument stuff has been beat down here before, but I *think* this is a bit different. I've always been told that you have to be with a II and I guess I never really bothered to look otherwise.
I know the topic of single I's teaching instrument stuff has been beat down here before, but I *think* this is a bit different. I've always been told that you have to be with a II and I guess I never really bothered to look otherwise.
desertdog71
Girthy Member
Yes they can log it as actual instrument time. Again sole manipulator rule applies. If the CFI is not giving instruction specific to getting an instrument rating then there is nothing wrong with this at all. 61.51 also states the following.
(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.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Really? I have to disagree. If a PPL is flying with a CFI (no II), I'd say that it wasn't legal for him to be "acting" as PIC in the first place when flying in conditions less than VFR. The CFI would be acting PIC in such an instance.
This goes back to logging actual when you're not instrument rated. You legally cant log "dual given" in you book and actual instrument time if the CFI is not a II.
The CFI cant be giving dual instruction when flying IFR in actual IFR as he/she is not an "authorized instructor" for the type of flying being done.
Dont discount the "authorized instructor" wording in the regs. A CFI is not a CFII and therefore can not give actual or instrument instruction. A CFI giving "hood training" must log it as "flight by reference to instruments" and not "simulated instrument". Now obviously, if you'd like to log the CFI as your safety pilot, then you can log "simulated instrument" time but for instructional purposes, it is completely different.
This goes back to logging actual when you're not instrument rated. You legally cant log "dual given" in you book and actual instrument time if the CFI is not a II.
The CFI cant be giving dual instruction when flying IFR in actual IFR as he/she is not an "authorized instructor" for the type of flying being done.
Dont discount the "authorized instructor" wording in the regs. A CFI is not a CFII and therefore can not give actual or instrument instruction. A CFI giving "hood training" must log it as "flight by reference to instruments" and not "simulated instrument". Now obviously, if you'd like to log the CFI as your safety pilot, then you can log "simulated instrument" time but for instructional purposes, it is completely different.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I disagree with you and I agree with everything desertdog said in his post.
There is nothing in the regulations that says, for example, that a one-I can't take a student pilot into actuial instrument conditions as part of the training on flight solely by reference to instruments, or can't participate in an instrument training program by givng some of the instruction. Those flights are both "actual" and "dual" and loggable as such.
The =only= restriction on a one-I giving instuction on instrument flight is that none of it =counts= toward any "instrument training" requirement for any certificate or rating.
As you said, don't discount the regulations. 61.195(c) says "A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating" must have a II, not "A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training" must have an II.
That issue aside, re-read your first sentence. Since when does logging PIC have anything to do with who is acting as PIC?
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
I have to disagree that a CFI can take a non-IR student into the clouds and then have them log it as actual and dual received. The CFI is not a II and therefore not authorized to give instruction under actual instrument conditions.
I have no problem with a CFI (no II) going into the clouds and getting a IR student some experience. But you explain it how it was logged as actual and dual rec'd when you're not IR and he is not authorized to provide IR training.
Like I said, I take this back to logging actual without an IR. The CFI cant provide instrument instruction so how can they log it as such?
My real issue is them logging as instrument instruction.
I have no problem with a CFI (no II) going into the clouds and getting a IR student some experience. But you explain it how it was logged as actual and dual rec'd when you're not IR and he is not authorized to provide IR training.
Like I said, I take this back to logging actual without an IR. The CFI cant provide instrument instruction so how can they log it as such?
My real issue is them logging as instrument instruction.
roundout
VNAV monitor
this is 100% wrong. where in the regs does it say that one must hold a CFII certificate to teach while in actual? hint - it doesn't. it specifies the type of training one can give (flight by reference to instruments vs. instrument training), not VMC vs. IMC.
i used to do this whenever able with my student pilots before i had my CFII. the only thing i ever heard from chief pilots and examiners was "good idea, i wish more instructors would do this."
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
You'll have to show us a reg or official FAA interpretation that says that. The one reg I know of that covers the situation, quoted above, doesn't say what you want it to. But that's okay. We're allowed to disagree.
You can log dual given in IMC if you are a CFI and the Pvt is flying in actual. The Pvt can log dual recd, PIC, inst, night (if app), x-c, whatever. This is all even though s/he is not IR. There is not regulation or interpretation (FAA counsel) that says you cannot log this time as such. There is also none prohibiting a CFI without the instrument from teaching in the clouds.
You really want to bend your brain? Try figuring out why a CFI without the Multi-instructor rating can give instruction in a seminole in the clouds. It can be done legally, although it may not be safe.
You really want to bend your brain? Try figuring out why a CFI without the Multi-instructor rating can give instruction in a seminole in the clouds. It can be done legally, although it may not be safe.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Hmmm? I don't think so.
Instructors can only teach in the category and class of aircraft listed on their instructor's certificate.
It's like how a person who does their CFII as their initial can teach in a sim, but not in an actual plane until they add on either a single engine or multi engine rating to their CFII ticket.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I don't see it.
==============================
61.195 (c) Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided.
==============================
Now, if it said, "...must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate, and a pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided." I'd see the point.
Of course, you'd still have to deal with the fact that you don't see "Notwithstanding subparagraph (b)" in (c), or "Except as provided in subparagraph (c)..." in (b), or one of the other common phrases the FAR uses in other sections to let us know that something, like (b) doesn't count anymore. And, of course, (b) very clearly tells us
==============================
Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:
(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and
(2) If appropriate, a type rating.
==============================
But...
There is no doubt that the FAA has applied 61.195(c) as though the extra words and provisions were there. The now-defunct Part 61 FAQ even specifically said it was okay.
The issue almost came to a head in 2004. The FAA Eastern Regional Legal Counsel issued an opinion that said, no, you =do= have to have the applicable aircraft ratings on both the CFI and Commercial certificates. Someone pointing out the Opinion to John Lynch, who wrote the FAQ, got a response that said in part, "Looking at § 61.195(c), I now believe my answer is wrong and Ms. Alkalay's (the legal counsel) answer is correct."
There was even a certificate action begun on the west coast (not Alkalay's territory) against a CFII for a violation. Fortunately, at least in part because of the confusion on the issue caused by the FAQ, the certificate action was terminated. I don't know whether the two are related, but the termination of the FAQ came not long after that.
The bad news is that the FAA still hasn't formally resolved the inconsistency.
Now =that's= what I call gray. Gray enough that I'd want a written opinion from the FAA before I'd do it.