Brick Wall

Not even close.

Here's 61.47, in case you can't find it..

61.47 Status of an examiner who is authorized by the Administrator to conduct practical tests.
(a) An examiner represents the Administrator for the purpose of conducting practical tests for certificates and ratings issued under this part and to observe an applicant's ability to perform the areas of operation on the practical test.
(b) The examiner is not the pilot in command of the aircraft during the practical test unless the examiner agrees to act in that capacity for the flight or for a portion of the flight by prior arrangement with:
(1) The applicant; or
(2) A person who would otherwise act as pilot in command of the flight or for a portion of the flight.
(c) Notwithstanding the type of aircraft used during the practical test, the applicant and the examiner (and any other occupants authorized to be on board by the examiner) are not subject to the requirements or limitations for the carriage of passengers that are specified in this chapter.



If the examiner is not the PIC, who is?
 
If the examiner is not the PIC, who is?

You're missing the point.

Acting as PIC has pretty much nothing to do with logging PIC time, so you're not even looking in the right section. To figure out how to log your time, you need to look at 61.51.

You will find paragraphs scattered throughout Part 61 that has to do with various requirements to act as PIC, but, logging issues are solely contained within 61.51, with paragraph (e) devoted to PIC time.
 
Would you agree then if there was an accident during a checkride there would be nobody to blame since nobody was actually the PIC? Just one guy pretending to be and another guy watching? If the applicant is serving the duties as PIC he damn well better be logging it because nobody else can!

BTW, the FAA is hiring inspectors. It may be just the job for you tgray...
 
Would you agree then if there was an accident during a checkride there would be nobody to blame since nobody was actually the PIC?
Easy, Guy...He's just making the point that LOGGING and BEING the PIC are not necessarily the same.

The applicant is the PIC. The same as a PP taking a non-pilot friend up in a 172 and letting his friend 'manipulate the controls'. That friend cannot log because he does not fit into anything in 61.51(e).

Neither can the PP who is the PIC. He is still PIC, but cannot log any time he is not 'manipulating the controls', or actually, the 'sole manipulator'.

Only the 'sole manipulator of an aircraft for which you are rated' can log PIC, unless it's a 2-pilot aircraft.

If the applicant has a solo endorsement for the aircraft, then he is legal to carry an "Examiner passenger", and can log it as PIC under that exemption,...I think.

But not from 61.51(e). That reg has too many holes in it.
 
Would you agree then if there was an accident during a checkride there would be nobody to blame since nobody was actually the PIC? Just one guy pretending to be and another guy watching? If the applicant is serving the duties as PIC he damn well better be logging it because nobody else can!

None of that is still relevant. The regulation you want to exist is one that says 'any time you act as PIC you can log it as PIC.' I also think this regulation should exist, but it doesn't.

This is why people have a hard time understanding the regulation; they rely on intuition rather than reading the law and applying it in a mechanical fashion. I can write it on the whiteboard and they still can't apply it.

Whatever mechanism in your brain that is deciding whether something can be logged as PIC or not needs to be unplugged and replaced with 61.51(e). It takes a bit of willpower at first, but it starts functioning on its own after a while.

I had one of my CFI candidates read the entire body of Part 61 FAQ's, many of which deal with this issue. He said by page 200, he started to get it. ;)


BTW, the FAA is hiring inspectors. It may be just the job for you tgray...
Hmmmm....big pay cut and no flying. How can I resist that?
 
I miss those 5 page arguments between tgrayson and midlifeflyer. I have learned more about the 'correct' interpretation of the regs by reading through those disputes over the past year than I ever have by picking up any aviation magazine that writes articles explaining the regs.

I really miss those. Any chance of some of the coming back? I am convinced that tgrayson has google desktop on his computer and that is how he pulls some of those emails to/from the FSDO out to trump any attempt at logic on a situation that has many disagreements.
 
arguments between tgrayson and midlifeflyer...Any chance of some of the coming back?

Midlifeflyer and I probably agree on most things, in spite of what it may seem. For the most part, we're looking that the same set of information and any disagreements are usually based on drawing different conclusions when the data is inconclusive. The value of the conclusions are debatable, since the general counsel or a judge can eviscerate them with the stroke of a pen.;)
 
John Smith (CPMEL), Captain, and Rick Jones, First Officer, depart in a Navajo for a three-hour flight. After takeoff, JS punches the NAV button on the autopilot; he says to Rick, "put 10,000 in the altitude hold and arm it, will you?"

Three hours later, these pilots land and go into the office to fill out their logbooks.

If I have understood the message of this thread, here's what has to happen by the regs. Since John Smith was not the _sole_ manipulator of the controls for most of this flight (both pilots having pressed the autopilot buttons governing different axes of flight control), John logs as PIC time only those minutes he spent during the departure and arrival phases of flight.

Or, have I missed something?
 
John Smith (CPMEL), Captain, and Rick Jones, First Officer, depart in a Navajo for a three-hour flight. After takeoff, JS punches the NAV button on the autopilot; he says to Rick, "put 10,000 in the altitude hold and arm it, will you?"

Three hours later, these pilots land and go into the office to fill out their logbooks.

If I have understood the message of this thread, here's what has to happen by the regs. Since John Smith was not the _sole_ manipulator of the controls for most of this flight (both pilots having pressed the autopilot buttons governing different axes of flight control), John logs as PIC time only those minutes he spent during the departure and arrival phases of flight.

Or, have I missed something?

All I am going to say is that a Navajo isn't a 2 man crew. Now, I will let the others have a go at this one. If this were true scArebus pilots could only log about .2 for each flight. HEHE
 
Actually I was thinking about 135 (otherwise the Navajo wouldn't need two pilots), but the information was already out there; I just hadn't looked. Sorry to disturb. :(

"As you can see, there are two ways to log pilot in command flight time that are pertinent to your question. The first is as the pilot responsible for the safety and operation of an aircraft during flight time. If a pilot is designated as PIC for a flight by the certificate holder, as required by FAR 135.109, that person is pilot in command for the entire flight, no matter who is actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft, because that pilot is responsible for the safety and operation of the aircraft."

From an FAA letter, 1992.
 
"As you can see, there are two ways to log pilot in command flight time that are pertinent to your question. The first is as the pilot responsible for the safety and operation of an aircraft during flight time. If a pilot is designated as PIC for a flight by the certificate holder, as required by FAR 135.109, that person is pilot in command for the entire flight, no matter who is actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft, because that pilot is responsible for the safety and operation of the aircraft."

From an FAA letter, 1992.

So thus the "designated PIC by the certificate holder" could log PIC even though he wasnt the sole manipulator of the controls? I don't know much about 135 regs yet but is that what the letter is saying?

And if it was part 91 then no one could log PIC unless they were the sole manipulator of the controls.
 
So thus the "designated PIC by the certificate holder" could log PIC even though he wasnt the sole manipulator of the controls?

Logging PIC time is always governed by 61.51(e), regardless of whether it's a Part 91, 121, or 135 operation. However, that section provides two ways for the acting PIC to log the time as PIC:


61.51(e)(1)(iii)
A...commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person—is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.


Or 61.51(e)(2)
An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.
 
Back
Top