'Can I log this?" -(help please)

CFmike

Well-Known Member
Hello everyone,

I have a question about logging time in a Cessna Caravan. I flew a leg being the sole manipulator of the controls take off to landing.

My question is, is it legal for me to log this time where I am flying?

I have my commercial and instrument single/multi. CFI is in progress.
I also have a high performance endorsement.

About the plane... I loved it. It is such a cool plane and flew really nicely. This was my first time flying a plane this large and turbine, don't laugh:).
 
1. You are the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated (if you are flying a Cessna 172 and you have an airplane, single engine land rating, then you can log this time as PIC. Of course, some folks want to know if this still applies when the airplane is being flown by the autopilot. The answer to this question is: Don't ask that question and don't brag about using the autopilot, either. Just log the time as PIC and be happy.);
2. You are the sole occupant of the aircraft (if you are the only one in the airplane then there's a very good chance that you're the only one flying it, so log the time as PIC. How do you log this if you have a split personality? I suppose you'll need to get a twin rating);
3.You are acting as pilot in command on an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification or the regulations under which the flight is conducted (this one needs a bit of explanation)
 
As far as I know a caravan doesn't require a type just a high performance endorsement but you're not qualified to be PIC, SIC or whatever for that company.
 
He doesn't have to be qualified to act as PIC in order to log PIC.
Right.

The Caravan is a single engine land airplane that AFAIK does not require a type rating. If Mike has at least a private pilot certificate and, in the back under "ratings" it says "Airplane Single Engine Land," he can log PIC for the time he is the sole manipulator of the controls.

Basic 61.51(e)(1)(i)
 
Log it. But make sure you can explain something about it someday if the question arises, i.e. systems, speeds, emergency procedures, etc. You don't need to write the book on it but an "uhhh?" when being asked probably won't look good. Technically yes you can log it, but like I said try to at least learn something about it, it is and will feel a little more legit.
 
Log it. But make sure you can explain something about it someday if the question arises, i.e. systems, speeds, emergency procedures, etc. You don't need to write the book on it but an "uhhh?" when being asked probably won't look good. Technically yes you can log it, but like I said try to at least learn something about it, it is and will feel a little more legit.

Another fear myth?
 
For the company and the pilot, but not for the guy flying the airplane. He can still log it.

Perhaps you're right, legally. I purposefully avoid being too well versed in legal matters. I would not, however, want to be the guy trying to explain how I was flying a 135 leg without an 8410 to a hiring board. For example, I flew at least a month in the Moo at my current job with a line captain scanning the overhead next to me before I took the 135 PIC checkride. I was properly certificated and qualified to operate the airplane, but did not have a 135 signoff. I was told in extremely certain terms that if I knew what was good for me, I'd best not be logging it.
 
Another fear myth?

I'm referring to interviews, it won't look too good to your interviewer if you are just logging time controlling an aircraft. You should be able to probably describe how something works, apart from pulling back makes you go up.
 
Perhaps you're right, legally. I purposefully avoid being too well versed in legal matters. I would not, however, want to be the guy trying to explain how I was flying a 135 leg without an 8410 to a hiring board. For example, I flew at least a month in the Moo at my current job with a line captain scanning the overhead next to me before I took the 135 PIC checkride. I was properly certificated and qualified to operate the airplane, but did not have a 135 signoff. I was told in extremely certain terms that if I knew what was good for me, I'd best not be logging it.

The thread says "Can I log this?", to which the answer is yes. If he posted "should I log this?", the answer may be different.
 
As others have said, you can log it. You may want to abstain from doing so though unless you're prepared to answer some questions on it in an interview though. When I was going through and getting my ratings I did a 1.1 hour checkout/signoff in a high performance T182T. I ended up having an interview for a flight instructing spot a number of months after that and the interviewer decided we should find out how much I knew about that airplane. I didn't know much (it had been a quite awhile since I'd been in one) I could answer questions left and right on the seminole at that time but he fixated on that turbo 182. Needless to say, I did not get the job. He told me I should know every airplane I'm checked out to fly inside and out- not a philosophy I agree with- but an attitude I did run into. Just something to think about.
 
can you be more specific on the flight and conditions of you flying it? there is usually a gray area about a "91 leg" in a 135 airplane, that was just on a 135 flight. like stated above, it just may get you into a hard situation later in life, but then again, if you could do it a few times and build some time then it may help get a job. If it is just one flight, i would say log it, as total time if you want, but leave the PIC out of it...
 
I have a question about logging time in a Cessna Caravan. I flew a leg being the sole manipulator of the controls take off to landing.

My question is, is it legal for me to log this time where I am flying?

I have my commercial and instrument single/multi. CFI is in progress.
I also have a high performance endorsement.
This has already been answered but since you're working on your CFI cert, I would encourage you to find out why the correct answer which has already been given is indeed correct.
 
Back
Top