Flight Review - Logging PIC

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.
=Only= those privileges that involve acting as PIC.
So my question still stands, what does it mean to be appropriately rated?
Where is the definition?
I would like one.
FAR 1.1: "Rating means a statement that, as a part of a certificate, sets forth special conditions, privileges, or limitations."

FAA Legal: "'Rating' as used in that section [refering to 61.51] refers to the rating in categories, classes, and types, as listed in Section 61.5, which are placed on pilot certificates."

I'm still not sure why you're so insistent that a temporary inablilty to perform PIC duties equals a void certificate.
 
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.
I'm really not sure how, "I don't like the rules that benefit you and harm no one, and I will make sure you don't follow them either" is a "moral" position.
 
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.

Actually you can log it as PIC. You cannot ACT as PIC, but you can LOG it as PIC. Same argument that applies to 91 flying applies to 135 flying. As I always tell people though, most employers will stipulate that they want to know how much PIC time you have ACTED as PIC, not just how much PIC time you have LOGGED. As long as you can tell the difference come interview time (I use a seperate column labeled "PART 61 PIC"), why not log the PIC time to which you are entitled?

I havent' looked in a loooooong time, but I'm not aware of anything in Part 135 that says anything about LOGGING PIC time. Lots of stuff about who and how to qualify to ACT as PIC, but nothing about LOGGING PIC. 61.51 is the only rule that I know of that dictates what you can put in your logbook.
 
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.

Yes, they do, but as I am sure you are aware, part of the requirements for taking the instrument check ride is 50 hours XC time as PIC. In Florida you may have a majority VFR days, in the Northeast, we are lucky enough to experience actual on a regular basis. I am working towards my IR rating and have been in actual, on 50+ XC flights for about 6 hours so far. Under your rules, I would need to fly an additional 6 hours to take the check ride, which would cost me over $700.
 
Yes, they do, but as I am sure you are aware, part of the requirements for taking the instrument check ride is 50 hours XC time as PIC. In Florida you may have a majority VFR days, in the Northeast, we are lucky enough to experience actual on a regular basis. I am working towards my IR rating and have been in actual, on 50+ XC flights for about 6 hours so far. Under your rules, I would need to fly an additional 6 hours to take the check ride, which would cost me over $700.
Yeah, but forcing you to spend that $700 is a higher "morality" than allowing you to follow the rules :rolleyes:

I guess morality is in the eye of the beholder, huh?

You probably think it would be more moral for the CFI who insists on not "letting you" log the time properly to offer to reduce his own fees by that $700.

Silly you. ;)
 
Interesting discussion - see what I've started? ;)

Looking back through my logbook, I noticed my then-instructor did not fill in PIC time while I was working on my tailwheel endorsement, except for the lesson that she signed me off.

I guess I can go back and fill in that column then?
 
I'm really not sure how, "I don't like the rules that benefit you and harm no one, and I will make sure you don't follow them either" is a "moral" position.
...aah, but it does cause harm, Mark. Otherwise, I wouldn't be caring a whit about this particular abberation of time logging regulations.

The harm is in the guy who gets a Private with a minimum of 5 solo hours going around a triangle of 3 airports of which only one is 50 miles away.
Now he rides 50 hours in his Uncle's Piper Mirage (ASEL) while it's on autopilot and GPS and logs 50 hrs PIC X/C. Worse yet, his Uncle is a sorry flight instructor and endorses him for complex/HP so he can log PIC in the Piper Mirage, even though his uncle would never let him even taxi, much less fly, his airplane solo. And the guy wouldn't want to. He knows he isn't qualified, he only wants to fill the blocks with "regulatory required" time.

Why does the FAA require PIC time? To show time that the person acted as PIC.
This guy is not getting the experience that the PIC hours are supposed to reflect.

Admittedly, this is a very small number of cases. With most everybody, the difference between 'earned' PIC time, and 'logged-when-not-capable' PIC time would be negligible, but in some cases, such as I have described, the instructor is responsible to insure the student is not logging PIC time when he is incapable of performing the flight, proficiency-wise.

..and it is all legal. I'm not bending the rules, I am using them as intended to log approprate PIC time, as sole manipulator.

The typical Private Pilot going for an IR in a 172 is going to log all the time as PIC - he should. Unless his instructor does an unusual amount of demonstrating approaches.

But a private pilot who took 100 hours to get to private - because he is slow -who rides along in a machine in which he is essentially a passenger, and 'maneuvers' himself into positions of logging legal time without the experience it is supposed to represent in certification, and he eventually gets a commercial certificate - well, do you want your daughter to fly with him?

The flight instructor has a responsibility to insure any flight he signs off on represents precisely what happened. If the student was not sole manipulator, the instructor is falsifying and signing a legal document if he allows the student to log PIC.

...and I believe the FAA will agree that the instructor is the one who determines 'sole manipulator', not the student.
 
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

Fly_Unity himself!

The man that first set me straight on Acting and Logging PIC, last spring, in a far far away place.

How is your winter going out there?

=Only= those privileges that involve acting as PIC.
FAR 1.1: "Rating means a statement that, as a part of a certificate, sets forth special conditions, privileges, or limitations."

FAA Legal: "'Rating' as used in that section [refering to 61.51] refers to the rating in categories, classes, and types, as listed in Section 61.5, which are placed on pilot certificates."

I'm still not sure why you're so insistent that a temporary inablilty to perform PIC duties equals a void certificate.

Midlife thanks for the reply. When I first read your post, I was cured.
Now though, I have mulled it over and I am still torn.
I'm not trying to be stuck in the mud, but some times I'm as stubborn as a missouri mule.

That letter about BFRs and PiC is confirmation that it is the legal thing to put PIC in the log book of tardy BFR person. (just for you I refrianed from saying void :D)

In the end, I do what I am supposed to do but I will always think, "but are you appropriately rated". Maybe someday the FAA will say something about it. I'm holding my breath.
 
Why does the FAA require PIC time? To show time that the person acted as PIC.
This guy is not getting the experience that the PIC hours are supposed to reflect.
You seem to make the assumption that after more than 30 years of consistent interpretation, the FAA couldn't change the rule if it wanted to.
...and I believe the FAA will agree that the instructor is the one who determines 'sole manipulator', not the student.
We'll continue to disagree on that. Two definition of sole manipulator:

1. Objective test: the person whose hands and feet are on the flight controls wit no one else actively moving them.

2. Nosehairs's test: the person who nosehair or "Uncle sorry flight instructor" decides based on arbitrary personal standards.

You seem convinced that the FAA will choose #2. Sorry. I disagree.
 
I don't mean to give a hard time to folks who are already getting a hard time from others, but I must say that I've never seen a case on JC quite like this one of people refusing to see the light on such a clear-cut black-and-white issue.

This isn't a question like "are unions good for airlines?" or "is it a bad idea for people to skip flight instruction and move directly from commercial checkride to [insert non-CFI flying job]?"

You can log PIC when you are sole manipulator of an aircraft for which you are rated. Rated means category, class, and type, if required.

You can act as PIC when you meet all the other requirements pertinent to the flight - e.g. a tailwheel endorsement for taildraggers, 90-day currency for carrying passengers, or being instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan and fly in the clouds. (I know, I'm not being very technical here. Others have already stated the argument with appropriate citations.)

The two are different. (Again, nothing new in this thread - it's just that this is such basic stuff!)

The student is certainly not required to log such time as PIC if he/she doesn't want to, as long as he/she doesn't then use the PIC time to meet recent experience requirements or the flight experience required for any certificate or rating. But if he/she wants to, it's his/her decision.

A flight instructor has many privileges and responsibilities, but authority over how anyone logs time or discretion to reinterpret regulations are not among them.

If there was ever any issue over who was PIC during a flight under IFR, I think the pilot whose name was on the flight plan would be the first place the feds would look, rather than how the time was logged (because they would fully expect both pilots to have logged PIC for the entire flight).

If you believe I am wrong, please let me know. :)
 
Funny I was just pondering the same thing. My instructor said he wasn't sure but thought I should be able to. Much the way you get to log PIC on your checkride for private license.

My BFR was about 4 yrs overdue, so the training I did while brushing up to prepare for it is not loggable as PIC right? Only the actual time for the BFR?
 
Actually you can log it as PIC. You cannot ACT as PIC, but you can LOG it as PIC. Same argument that applies to 91 flying applies to 135 flying. As I always tell people though, most employers will stipulate that they want to know how much PIC time you have ACTED as PIC, not just how much PIC time you have LOGGED. As long as you can tell the difference come interview time (I use a seperate column labeled "PART 61 PIC"), why not log the PIC time to which you are entitled?

I havent' looked in a loooooong time, but I'm not aware of anything in Part 135 that says anything about LOGGING PIC time. Lots of stuff about who and how to qualify to ACT as PIC, but nothing about LOGGING PIC. 61.51 is the only rule that I know of that dictates what you can put in your logbook.

Thanks Steve! Im putting that column in my logbook as I type this...
 
My BFR was about 4 yrs overdue, so the training I did while brushing up to prepare for it is not loggable as PIC right? Only the actual time for the BFR?

A flight review is, in essence, "training". Its not really a checkride ending in an endorsement for 2 more years of certificate privilege. I would compare it more to a high performance or complex endorsement instead of a checkride for a new rating. Just like the HP/complex check out, you can log PIC on all "training" flights with your CFI leading up to him giving you the flight review endorsement.
 
Funny I was just pondering the same thing. My instructor said he wasn't sure but thought I should be able to. Much the way you get to log PIC on your checkride for private license.

My BFR was about 4 yrs overdue, so the training I did while brushing up to prepare for it is not loggable as PIC right? Only the actual time for the BFR?
Yes.

About the checkride. Actually, if you look, the regs are not clear about logging PIC during the checkride. It's just a practice that has gained acceptance through the years. OTOH, it's been clear for decades that the rated sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft fits firmly into one of the 61.51 boxes for logging PIC time.
 
I don't mean to give a hard time to folks who are already getting a hard time from others, but I must say that I've never seen a case on JC quite like this one of people refusing to see the light on such a clear-cut black-and-white issue.
I think you're missing the point. You're dealing with belief vs reality. The folks who won't accept the rules as they are firmly believe that the rules are wrong, that they know the one true way, and will look for any way they can around it.

So, for example, you have nosehair's concept of what it really means to be "sole manipulator" - if the pilot is performing the functions, but the instructor is prompting or advising, the pilot is not the sole manipulator. And, like a pure true believer, he even gets to decide whether the definition he created has been met.
 
Back
Top