Can a CFII log instrument experience in a simulator by himself?

kitcon

kitcon

Active Member
14 CFR 61.57 (c) "Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR only if:
Use of a flight simulator or flight training device for maintaining instrument experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in a flight simulator or flight training device, provided the flight simulator or flight training device represents the category of aircraft for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained and involves having performed the following -
(i) Six instrument approaches.
(ii) Holding procedures and tasks.
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems."

14 CFR 61.51 (g) "Logging instrument time. (4) A person can use time in a flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate, rating, or instrument recency experience, provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session."

I know that an instructor cannot conduct a BFR or an IPC for himself, but I'm less certain when it comes to recency experience.

Thanks for any insight.
 
how do you plan to "observe yourself" while you are flying the sim plus I am pretty sure (like 100%) there is a restriction on self-endorsing (AKA signing your own logbook) as a CFI.
 
I do understand the "observing yourself" question. As far as "self-endorsing", 61.195 (i) "Prohibition against self-endorsements. A flight instructor shall not make any self-endorsement for a certificate, rating, flight review, authorization, operating privilege, practical test, or knowledge test that is required by this part."

I don't want to argue, just seeking clarification. Would signing one's own logbook for the sake of recency experience fall under the "operating privilege" referred to in the above reg?
 
kitcon said:
14 CFR 61.51 (g) "Logging instrument time. (4) A person can use time in a flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate, rating, or instrument recency experience, provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session."

I know that an instructor cannot conduct a BFR or an IPC for himself, but I'm less certain when it comes to recency experience.
Click to expand...

In quoting the reg you answered your own question. If there isn't another CFII present willing to sign your logbook as to the content of the sim session, you cannot log it and use it to prove recency of experience as that would be a pretty good example of a self endorsement.
 
Can a Private Pilot with an Instrument Rating log time in an approved simulator making his/her own entries in their log book.

Yes.

Why is this any different?
 
It can be logged certainly, but when wanting to prove that you are instrument current only that time endorsed by an authorized instructor can be used.

For example, the school I teach at requires that a daily check must be performed on each sim prior to being used for instruction. When I have to perform these checks i usually set it up and fly an instrument approach to near minimums. There's no reason I cannot log that time. However, without another instructor present to watch I cannot, per 61.51(g) use that time towards my required six approaches/holds/tracking and intercepting in 6 months to maintain my instrument currency.
 
fholbert said:
Can a Private Pilot with an Instrument Rating log time in an approved simulator making his/her own entries in their log book.

Yes.

Why is this any different?
Click to expand...
It's not. A private pilot with an instrument rating can not log time in an approved simulator making his/her own entries in their log book. 61.51(g) is pretty clear on the subject.

I'm assuming you are using "can" in the "may to count it for an official FAR reason" sense, not in the "physically able to even if it counts for nothing" sense of logging time when sitting in Seat 23C

Are you referring to the FAA's mistake in intending to change that but never in fact changing it?
 
kitcon said:
I don't want to argue, just seeking clarification. Would signing one's own logbook for the sake of recency experience fall under the "operating privilege" referred to in the above reg?
Click to expand...
Do you considering being permitted to act as PIC in the system to be an "operating privilege?" I'd be willing to bet the FAA does.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
It's not. A private pilot with an instrument rating can not log time in an approved simulator making his/her own entries in their log book. 61.51(g) is pretty clear on the subject.
Click to expand...

Saved me a post. Oh crap, I'm making a post anyway...

To the OP: You cannot self-endorse. That's pretty much the end of it.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
It's not. A private pilot with an instrument rating can not log time in an approved simulator making his/her own entries in their log book. 61.51(g) is pretty clear on the subject.

I'm assuming you are using "can" in the "may to count it for an official FAR reason" sense, not in the "physically able to even if it counts for nothing" sense of logging time when sitting in Seat 23C

Are you referring to the FAA's mistake in intending to change that but never in fact changing it?
Click to expand...

You can log anything you want. Whether it counts for anything is another deal completely.
 
mshunter said:
You can log anything you want. Whether it counts for anything is another deal completely.
Click to expand...
Even that's not completely accurate. The FAA generally treats a logbook as a formal record of flight time to show qualification and currency. If the issue comes up it will typically look at an entry and, unless it is clear it is not being counted for something, assume it is. That's where 61.59 comes into play. Lots of arguments can be made back and forth if falsification is claimed by the FAA but win or lose ("lose" for the pilot typically means revocation of all certificates and ratings) it's nasty.

My favorite falsification case is the guy who was applying for a Westwind type rating. Overstated his actual flight time in the application and supporting records (reconstructed logbook). He admitted the records were false but came up with a dynamite argument:

==============================
his appeal is in effect limited to an argument that it does not matter that he lied about some of his flight experience on his certificate application and reconstructed flight time records (for a logbook claimed to have been lost), because he still had enough legitimate flight time to qualify
==============================

There's the "it didn't count" argument in a nutshell. To see how well that worked for him... FAA v Gonzalez.

"It's your logbook" (and the implicit, "you can log anything you want." is #4 in my list of four "Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths."
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Even that's not completely accurate. The FAA generally treats a logbook as a formal record of flight time to show qualification and currency. If the issue comes up it will typically look at an entry and, unless it is clear it is not being counted for something, assume it is. That's where 61.59 comes into play. Lots of arguments can be made back and forth if falsification is claimed by the FAA but win or lose ("lose" for the pilot typically means revocation of all certificates and ratings) it's nasty.

My favorite falsification case is the guy who was applying for a Westwind type rating. Overstated his actual flight time in the application and supporting records (reconstructed logbook). He admitted the records were false but came up with a dynamite argument:

==============================
his appeal is in effect limited to an argument that it does not matter that he lied about some of his flight experience on his certificate application and reconstructed flight time records (for a logbook claimed to have been lost), because he still had enough legitimate flight time to qualify
==============================

There's the "it didn't count" argument in a nutshell. To see how well that worked for him... FAA v Gonzalez.

"It's your logbook" (and the implicit, "you can log anything you want." is #4 in my list of four "Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths."
Click to expand...

If you are legal because of the things in there that actually matter, I see no problem with "Took a flight in a B17 today. It was awesome! .6." From a guy who has no multi rating. The point you are bringing up shows that he lied. Which is basically what I getting at. You can put whatever you want it. It's yours, it's mine, it's his. It's not the FAA's. But that doesn't mean you won't be held accountable for what's in it, especially if your going to try and lie to a Fed about it.
 
mshunter said:
If you are legal because of the things in there that actually matter, I see no problem with "Took a flight in a B17 today. It was awesome! .6." From a guy who has no multi rating.
Click to expand...
Neither do I if you read what I wrote.
The point you are bringing up shows that he lied. Which is basically what I getting at. You can put whatever you want it. It's yours, it's mine, it's his. It's not the FAA's. But that doesn't mean you won't be held accountable for what's in it, especially if your going to try and lie to a Fed about it.
Click to expand...
...which is exactly why I refer to it as a legal half-truth. It's misleading and meaningless to say "you can put whatever you want in your logbook" when one has to add, "but you could get your certificates or ratings revoked for it." It's jailhouse lawyering (not to use the four-letter version of the phrase).

Yep, you surely can jump off a 1,000 foot cliff without a parachute.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Neither do I if you read what I wrote.

...which is exactly why I refer to it as a legal half-truth. It's misleading and meaningless to say "you can put whatever you want in your logbook" when one has to add, "but you could get your certificates or ratings revoked for it." It's jailhouse lawyering (not to use the four-letter version of the phrase).

Yep, you surely can jump off a 1,000 foot cliff without a parachute.
Click to expand...

"What's this .6 of B17 time?"

"Oh, I went for a ride in one, and they let me sit in the right seat for a few minutes. If you look at my times, it's not counted for any certificate, rating, recency, or anything like that. Just something I wanted to remember as really cool."

The FAA isn't out to lynch anyone unless you give them the excuse.
 
mshunter said:
"What's this .6 of B17 time?"

"Oh, I went for a ride in one, and they let me sit in the right seat for a few minutes. If you look at my times, it's not counted for any certificate, rating, recency, or anything like that. Just something I wanted to remember as really cool."

The FAA isn't out to lynch anyone unless you give them the excuse.
Click to expand...
And there's the rub. Everyone who takes that view gives the most innocent rationales. Problem is that If the FAA is looking at your logbook with for the purpose of looking for problems, it usually means they already think you did something wrong and are more than willing to pile it on.

And I disagree about explanations. If you are in the situation where the FAA is looking, the entry needs to stand on its own. If it's pretty obvious from the entry itself that it doesn't count for anything, great. No problem at all.

But I would never even remotely suggest to anyone, with banal platitudes like "you can write anything; it's your logbook" that it's a good idea to play that game. I just don't see "logbook as scrapbook" being important enough.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
And there's the rub. Everyone who takes that view gives the most innocent rationales. Problem is that If the FAA is looking at your logbook with for the purpose of looking for problems, it usually means they already think you did something wrong and are more than willing to pile it on.

And I disagree about explanations. If you are in the situation where the FAA is looking, the entry needs to stand on its own. If it's pretty obvious from the entry itself that it doesn't count for anything, great. No problem at all.

But I would never even remotely suggest to anyone, with banal platitudes like "you can write anything; it's your logbook" that it's a good idea to play that game. I just don't see "logbook as scrapbook" being important enough.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you need to give them a reason. If an NTSB judge AND a Fed takes issue with anything you have in your log book, you probably deserve everything that happens to you. Just like in the case you pointed out. He lied. Never ever ever, under any circumstances, EVER lie to a Fed. When not if you are found out, the punishment will be 100 times harsher than one could have ever imagined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top