Flight Review - Logging PIC

[Douglas]

Send 'em over! Ill make sure they get every hour they pay for!

Mt. Molehill.

-----


Anyway, this is what has been going around all the guys that I know and we end up with, "I don't know".

We understand that, yes the pilot has the physical ratings and certificates to be a pilot on that aircraft in which the flight review took place and he was the sole manipulator of the flight controls. We all know that those certificates do not expire, but for lack of a better word, are not valid if a flight review is not done with in 24 months. If a flight review has not been done and the certificates are not vaild, are you still "appropriately rated".

Recap: We understand what you are saying about "logging" and not "acting" PIC and that is all good, great and grand with us, but are you rated for that aircraft if you have a certificate that is useless?
Are you forever rated?

I think I will just call the FSDO, and see what they have to say.

If you respond to my question, I request something other than opinion.
I am a master of conjecture, I don't need anymore.

I will admit that for a long time, I didn't give my expired BFR guys PIC, but since reading forums I have since changed that. My opinion on this matter has switched sides a few times while I wrote this post.

 

[Matt13C]

Ian J, I strongly disagree. As a gold seal CFI, I've certainly read 61.189.

61.51(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.

As I read 61.51, a person may log instrument time, they aren't required to. And if I make a condition of my instruction that they cannot act as PIC in actual conditions, then I would say I can dictate how and what they put in their logbook for a given flight that I sign off. Otherwise I didn't instruct them. They're still getting a good bang for the buck, logging total time and logging actual.

Besides, if something happens during one of these instructional flights, be it a deviation or god forbid worse, they won't be coming to look and see if the student was "the sole manipulator of the controls." The only reason the aircraft was in actual conditions was because it was permitted by my instrument rating. If that isn't pilot-in-command responsibility I don't know what is.

Thank you for all the responses btw, this is a very interesting discussion and one of the reasons I joined this forum.

You ARE the acting PIC the entire duration of the flight. It does not matter if that flight takes place in IMC of VMC, if you are on an Instrument flight plan, you and you alone are the ACTING PIC.

However, as has been pointed out and is supported by FAA interpretations, acting and logging PIC are two different things and can be logged simultaneously. Your student, being rated for airplane, single engine land is allowed to log ALL time they are the sole manipulator of the controls. There is no stipulation for weather conditions and your opinion on the matter does not supersede the regulations.

You are stealing hours from your student and passing on incorrect information. What if that time in IMC also happened to be on a 50+ mile XC, you say they cant log that time as PIC so now they have to fly an additional flight, spending the extra money to do so, to meet the 50 hour XC requirement.

 

[AviatorGator]

You're still confusing the concepts of acting as PIC with logging PIC. Go back up and read Alchemy's post.

You're wrong on this issue and it's your job as instructor to be right.

Sorry, I typed that too quickly. I know there can be and is a difference between acting and logging PIC. I would imagine all of us have used and abused this fact. I already admitted earlier that my interpretation of logging PIC instrument time was not correct. But I stand by the fact that they are not required to log PIC time, and if I'm going to instruct them I don't want them to log PIC during instrument training in actual conditions.

Matt13C, I'm not stealing anything. They still log the total time and still log the actual. Just not PIC. If they are really concerned about money, they should do their instrument training Part 141.

 

[tgrayson]

and if I'm going to instruct them I don't want them to log PIC during instrument training in actual conditions.

By even making this requirement, you're miseducating them. In reality, how they log the PIC time is none of your business, and I find it puzzling that you would even insert yourself into the issue.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

As I read 61.51, a person may log instrument time, they aren't required to. And if I make a condition of my instruction that they cannot act as PIC in actual conditions, then I would say I can dictate how and what they put in their logbook for a given flight that I sign off.

Assuming you meant "log" instead of "act" I agree with you, under the following conditions:

• You have explained to your student that it is perfectly legitimate to log the time as PIC and that this is your own personal rule.
• You have explained to your student they are free, once they are finished with you, to go back into their logbook and make the correction if they wish.
• If the student could have used the time to, say the 50 hours of cross country PIC time for the IR, you have explained that they will be paying the additional rental charges to make up the difference.

 

[Ian_J]

I will admit that for a long time, I didn't give my expired BFR guys PIC, but since reading forums I have since changed that. My opinion on this matter has switched sides a few times while I wrote this post.

While I think it's great you changed your mind on that issue, the wording is still telling. You don't "give" anyone PIC. The individual pilot logs time as allowed by the regulations.

As an example (and not specifically to you, Douglas), take off your flight instructor hats and put yourself in the other seat as the pilot receiving the BFR. At the end of the flight your logbook gets away from you and to your horror the CFI not only signs off the training but starts filling in the numbers. He jots down 1.2 dual recieved and leaves the PIC column blank. For me, a simple fix. First I professionally ask the instructor to never do anything to my logbook except to endorse me or sign off training, and then I fill in that PIC column.

Were I a private pilot taking instrument instruction and we had flown through clouds while I was sole manipulating, the same thing would happen.

 

[Ian_J]

Assuming you meant "log" instead of "act" I agree with you, under the following conditions:

• You have explained to your student that it is perfectly legitimate to log the time as PIC and that this is your own personal rule.
• You have explained to your student they are free, once they are finished with you, to go back into their logbook and make the correction if they wish.
• If the student could have used the time to, say the 50 hours of cross country PIC time for the IR, you have explained that they will be paying the additional rental charges to make up the difference.

Exactly. Excellent points.

 

[Douglas]

While I think it's great you changed your mind on that issue, the wording is still telling. You don't "give" anyone PIC. The individual pilot logs time as allowed by the regulations.

I used "give" for brevity.

 

[Ian_J]

I used "give" for brevity.

I gotchya... I just used it as a springboard for opining.

 

[Sisson2011]

As I read 61.51, a person may log instrument time, they aren't required to. And if I make a condition of my instruction that they cannot act as PIC in actual conditions, then I would say I can dictate how and what they put in their logbook for a given flight that I sign off. Otherwise I didn't instruct them. They're still getting a good bang for the buck, logging total time and logging actual.

At the University that I received my instrument rating it is their policy that I log PIC time, even in actual, before I have my IFR certificate. I have a good feeling that they know what they are doing too.

That said, I wouldn't sign off a flight for a student that logged PIC with instrument time concurrently unless they were instrument rated. I've got no problem with someone logging PIC without a complex or high performance endorsement, but without me they can't take that single engine airplane into IMC if they don't already have an instrument rating.

Also, they could not take up a single engine complex aircraft without you in the plane either, but you would let them log PIC, but IFR is different?

 

[Sisson2011]

When I was getting my private certificate I did not log PIC, unless I was solo. After getting my private certificate I have since logged everything with an instructor as PIC. Once I go to get my multi, i won't get to log PIC until I receive that certificate.

We understand what you are saying about "logging" and not "acting" PIC and that is all good, great and grand with us, but are you rated for that aircraft if you have a certificate that is useless?
Are you forever rated?

I would think you would log the review as PIC time. The reason I would think that is because you're certificate never "expires". However, the FAR does specifically state that a person cannot operate PIC without the biennial review. Also, though, during the review the are acting as sole manipulator of the aircraft in which they have a certificate (not worthless because of the fact it doesn't expire, just can't be PIC) for. I would say log it PIC because they are the "sole manipulator". But it does go back to the argument PIC as sole manipulator, or PIC as commander and chief of the ship.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Recap: We understand what you are saying about "logging" and not "acting" PIC and that is all good, great and grand with us, but are you rated for that aircraft if you have a certificate that is useless?
Are you forever rated?

How is it useless?

Without a FR, you may not act as PIC. You still have a valid pilot certificate. You can be a safety pilot. Heck, you can be a "real" SIC in a 2-pilot required aircraft. You can go for many, many years without a FR, take a couple of lessons and be signed off, instead of starting from the beginning as a student pilot.

Pilot certificates don't expire. And neither do the ratings listed on the back.

But it does go back to the argument PIC as sole manipulator, or PIC as commander and chief of the ship.

Which is like arguing about whether 2+2 equals 4 or 11.

 

[Douglas]

How is it useless?

So you are saying that you are forever appropriately rated.
I can dig that.

I didn't say that the certificate expires, in fact I said the opposite. If you can not operate an aircraft with the privileges the FAA affords you as a holder of a Pilot certificate, for lack of a better word in my mind, that certificate is void. Those privileges too are void until those privileges are reinstated by a BFR.

You brought up safety pilot, a safety pilot also goes back needing to be appropriately rated.

So my question still stands, what does it mean to be appropriately rated?
Where is the definition?
I would like one.

And yes, my amps do go to 11.

 

[Douglas]

I gotchya... I just used it as a springboard for opining.

ah, I see and message received.

 

[nosehair]

I would say I can dictate how and what they put in their logbook for a given flight that I sign off.

I'm with you on this.

Before I came to these forums, I also thought you had to be able to act as PIC to log it. And I don't mean in the legal sense - but in the moral sense. In the old days before complex and high performance endorsement requirements, when I would do a "check-out" in a complex, or any new type aircraft, I would let the student start logging PIC when he was actually solo proficient in the airplane. Period.

Now that I have re-programed my brain to accept logging and acting as 2 seperate entities, I still can maintain a semblence of common sense by allowing the student to log PIC for sole manipulator time, which is almost the same as before. It is when the student is sole driver, runs the show, makes all control movement necessary to get the airplane cranked, up in the air, and back safely on the ground. That's sole manipulator.

That's the FAA's old original meaning of solo - sole manipulator.

So, as an instructor, you do have the authority to say how much time was sole manipulator time.

 

[Fly_Unity]

I'm with you on this.

Before I came to these forums, I also thought you had to be able to act as PIC to log it. And I don't mean in the legal sense - but in the moral sense. In the old days before complex and high performance endorsement requirements, when I would do a "check-out" in a complex, or any new type aircraft, I would let the student start logging PIC when he was actually solo proficient in the airplane. Period.

Now that I have re-programed my brain to accept logging and acting as 2 seperate entities, I still can maintain a semblence of common sense by allowing the student to log PIC for sole manipulator time, which is almost the same as before. It is when the student is sole driver, runs the show, makes all control movement necessary to get the airplane cranked, up in the air, and back safely on the ground. That's sole manipulator.

That's the FAA's old original meaning of solo - sole manipulator.

So, as an instructor, you do have the authority to say how much time was sole manipulator time.

When I was getting my tail wheel endorsement, my instructor would not let me log it as PIC, so after he gave me the endorsement and left, I went back through and marked it all PIC :nana2: The FAA is with me, my local FSDO agrees with me, and I can prove it to anyone with a FAR that I have the right to log it.

I really dont understand why there is still a debate about this single topic EVERY month in these forums. The FAR makes it very clear

 

[SIUav8er]

[*]If the student could have used the time to, say the 50 hours of cross country PIC time for the IR, you have explained that they will be paying the additional rental charges to make up the difference.
[/list]

Bingo! I hope this guys students know that they are getting hosed. With rental rates what they are now, ever hour should fill each and every column in the logbood for which it qualifies. Whether or not the CFI "feels" that he agrees with the regs is BS

 

[Fly_Unity]

So you are saying that you are forever appropriately rated.
I can dig that.

I didn't say that the certificate expires, in fact I said the opposite. If you can not operate an aircraft with the privileges the FAA affords you as a holder of a Pilot certificate, for lack of a better word in my mind, that certificate is void. Those privileges too are void until those privileges are reinstated by a BFR.

You brought up safety pilot, a safety pilot also goes back needing to be appropriately rated.

So my question still stands, what does it mean to be appropriately rated?
Where is the definition?
I would like one.

And yes, my amps do go to 11.

The difference is ACT vs LOG, and somewhere the FAA defines appropriately rated as Category and Class and type if required. Cant remember where it is at the moment though. Its late

And I remember reading a LOI somewhere that said that even if you need a Bi-annual, that PIC can be logged if you are the sole manipulator.

Where people gets confused is, is that some major airline companies has a minimum ACTING PIC time requirement. This prevents FO's from getting a type rating and logging PIC time as a FO, then going directly to a Major airline bypassing becoming a captain at a regional level.

 

[SIUav8er]

Where people gets confused is, is that some major airline companies has a minimum ACTING PIC time requirement. This prevents FO's from getting a type rating and logging PIC time as a FO, then going directly to a Major airline bypassing becoming a captain at a regional level.

I deal with this as an FO for a 135 outfit. I am typed in the aircraft that I fly and even though i am sole manipulator, I cannot log PIC for flights conducted under 135. Part 91 flights though (such as re-positioning flights) I log it as PIC.

This isnt company regs however, it is spelled out in part 135. To be PIC you have to be appropriately trained and checked as a captain which includes:

Instrument Proficiency (6 months): 135.297
Line check (12 months): 135.299
Initial / Recurrent training: 135.297

As SIC, all you need is the 135.297 every 12 months.

Part 121 has very similar, if not the same training and checking requirements, thus typed FO's cant log PIC under the regs, not just company policy.

 

[AviatorGator]

Bingo! I hope this guys students know that they are getting hosed. With rental rates what they are now, ever hour should fill each and every column in the logbood for which it qualifies. Whether or not the CFI "feels" that he agrees with the regs is BS

You're getting awfully worked up. From a couple posts previous to this one, nosehair's "moral" argument is a good example of how I feel logging PIC and actual correlate with a non-instrument rated student.

Most of my past students were primary or multi-initials; only a handful of instrument. One happens to be a CFI now with the company that we both work for; the other is a plane detailer for the same company. I have afforded both of them and others many hours of safety pilot or dual instruction free of charge to log PIC and as well as actual instrument time on cargo runs (among other things). Also, in Florida we are generally blessed with VFR weather which makes it difficult to put a student in actual, especially during the times I was a full-time instructor with these students. From one fellow citation pilot to another, I suggest you get to know the entire situation before making remarks that I'm "hosing" my students.