Logging of PIC during instrument training?
- Thread starter mshunter
- Start date
Inverted25
Well-Known Member
Yes. They are rated in category and class
aviatorx43
Well-Known Member
Yes. Because 61.51 says so.
inigo88
Composite-lover
Yes. As long as he's "sole manipulator of the flight controls," he's rated in the Category (airplane) and Class (Single Engine Land, Multi-Engine Land, etc) and the aircraft is less than 12,500 lbs and thus doesn't require a type rating, he can log PIC and Dual Received concurrently.
Shiftace
s***posting with decency. trolling with integrity.
What about the long XC flight with the instructor? Does that count towards the 50 hours for PIC XC time? You have to file a flight plan, and since you are not yet instrument rated... my former instructor said you cannot log that as PIC time.
tlewis95
I drive planes
No difference. CFI is still 'acting' PIC (flight plan should be in his name) while the pilot-rated student is logging PIC as sole-manipulator.
z987k
Well-Known Member
Shiftace
s***posting with decency. trolling with integrity.
His reasoning was this - "you could not do that flight without the instructor because you are not rated in the plane while it is IFR. I could be wrong on that point but I know that if you are in actual IFR conditions then you could not log pic."
Where do they get this from? Beats me.
pete2800
'Member?
They get this from the perpetual idea that PIC time is something other than what the FAA has defined it as... Like all of these airlines requiring "1,000 Turbine PIC." Well, I would argue that I can log legitimate PIC time from my FO seat in a Q400 based on the 'sole manipulator' clause, and because I'm appropriately rated in the airplane. Essentially... all of these airlines that have that requirement have mis-worded their minimums. I get what they're after, why their after it, and why my theoretical PIC-from-right-seat doesn't fill that requirement. What they should have listed for their requirements is "1,000 hours spent acting as Captain in a turbine powered aircraft."
For what it's worth, I really see no difference between an FO logging PIC time, and an instrument student logging PIC concurrently with dual given. It's legit in the case of the student, but everyone in the above situations knows that the student or FO are not the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft.
Say what you mean, mean what you say. That's all I'm saying.
thevideographer
Well-Known Member
I've brought this topic up once before in the Collegiate forum because UND does not allow students to log PIC if an instructor is onboard. Consequently, most of the students (and instructors) don't realize that it is legal. When I brought it up at UND I got an answer of "well, the airlines won't count PIC that you logged at the same time as dual". I don't know if that's true, but luckily the number of hours most people log that way is pretty insignificant compared to airline hiring requirements.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
They get this from the perpetual idea that PIC time is something other than what the FAA has defined it as... Like all of these airlines requiring "1,000 Turbine PIC." Well, I would argue that I can log legitimate PIC time from my FO seat in a Q400 based on the 'sole manipulator' clause, and because I'm appropriately rated in the airplane. Essentially... all of these airlines that have that requirement have mis-worded their minimums. I get what they're after, why their after it, and why my theoretical PIC-from-right-seat doesn't fill that requirement. What they should have listed for their requirements is "1,000 hours spent acting as Captain in a turbine powered aircraft."
For what it's worth, I really see no difference between an FO logging PIC time, and an instrument student logging PIC concurrently with dual given. It's legit in the case of the student, but everyone in the above situations knows that the student or FO are not the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft.
Say what you mean, mean what you say. That's all I'm saying.
Logging sole-manipulator PIC as a typed FO in a 121 environment is legal based on FAA letters of interpretation. It's simply frowned upon in the industry. Nobody cares about guys logging sole-manipulator PIC in training, though.
z987k
Well-Known Member
They're full of crap. Last I checked the regional airlines want ATP mins and last I checked since the FAA counts the PIC while dual is being received, it counts toward the ATP rating.
Also you can tell anyone to go pound sand when they tell you what to do with YOUR logbook. The phase "does not allow students to log PIC" I can't get over that. Not only is it dishonest it's not their call to begin with.
pete2800
'Member?
I agree. Thus my beef with how the phrase "Turbine PIC" is often used.
Absolutely. Firstly, the airline I work for didn't blink an eye regarding my PIC/Dual received time. Secondly, I can write that I washed my car yesterday in my logbook. It's just a book, that belongs to me.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
I instruct at UND and all records says when I turn in a logbook where the student has requested that I log PIC is "that's fine, just remember that some airlines might not want you to count that toward their minimums" which of course I advise the student.
z987k
Well-Known Member
The students don't keep their own logbooks?
And is that all UND thinks it's for - making pilots for the airlines?
Screaming_Emu
Well-Known Member
I will however note that (if that person wants to go 121) while I was filling out an application on airline apps they didn't want that time to be counted. YMMV.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
They do, but at the end of every flight course, records department takes them and verifies them against their flight records and notes any discrepancies that must be corrected before the final stage check is allowed.