Logging PIC in a Tail Wheel without endorsement.

nosehair said:
Wait a minute! Are all you guys ganging up and saying you believe that the term 'sole manipulator' means something like, "as long as I don't have to take the controls to avoid a crash",..is that what you are inferring?

Is there an official LOI that says that? Did I miss that, too. (or forget?)
Click to expand...
Nah. it just means the only human being with his or hands doing performing the movements of the controls.

If you help out with the student's landing, adding your inputs to his or hers, neither are you are sole manipulator. If you are demonstrating that tailwind landing, you are, not your student. If you let your student do the landing, hovering and ready to catch an error with a physical input, sorry, your internal fears that the student might screw up doesn't make you a joint manipulator. And nether does your decision that he's not ready for solo privileges in that airplane.

Nothing magical that requires psychic powers and higher truth (or even a Chief Counsel opinion). Just English. I guess education had it own problems back in your day.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Nah. it just means the only human being with his or hands doing performing the movements of the controls.
Click to expand...

Mark, in all honesty, isn't that your personal opinion?..or interpretation?
Really, is there an LOI that specifically says that?
Nothing magical that requires psychic powers and higher truth (or even a Chief Counsel opinion). Just English. I guess education had it own problems back in your day.
Click to expand...
Just English isn't good enough in the area of regulations.
"Just English" would define "rated" as fully capable of acting as PIC. It is the technical definition which adds the technical knowledge that the meaning does not include the qualification to act as rated that makes regulations not behave in accordance with "just English".

Just English would make FAR 1.1 the operative definition.

We both know that changing regulations causes a domino effect. Each regulatory change creates a slight shift in meanings of related regulations, and this is an excellent example of that phenomena.

...and I don't really have a problem with your definition, as long as the instructor makes that determination.

Inferring that a student, a certificated pilot, who is learning a new airplane or procedure, can call himself sole manipulator when the instructor says he isn't, is against basic teaching principles.

Of course, this line of reasoning only works when the instructor is making the judgments for the good of the student.

Allowing 100% PIC time when the instructor is significantly helping is not in the best interest of the student.

The student needs to know precisely what he is doing and what he is not doing. And that needs to be reflected in the logging of his training.

Employers need to know this too. Recent accidents have focused our attention on the fact that multiple checkride failures are an indicator of potential hazardous pilots.

There is much to be improved in our training/logging system to better reflect training proficiency and knowledge.

We don't do real stalls and spins, and we don't test knowledge.

We do a rote approach to a partial stall with a rote recovery procedure.
That doesn't prepare a pilot to encounter a real stall in a weird situation.

We teach the knowledge test. Back in the day, we studied all the FAA books, the AFH, the PHAK, the AIM, and the FAR's, and we took a test on those subjects. We didn't have the test questions to memorize.

That's why the knowledge test has become a joke.

And so has the concept of logging PIC, if you let joe pilot wiggle the sticks in your Superhummer 409 with no knowledge of what he's doing other than keeping it level, and log PIC, ..ok, a couple hours of that is ok, ..because a couple/few of the initial hours can be just orientation, or 'getting the feel'.

But my problem is the guy who logs 20 - 30 or more of these hours towards a certificate or rating.

After the Commercial with IR, it doesn't really matter. But the minimum hours required for certification are minimum training standards, and I think the CFI has some responsibility to mentor and supervise the conduct of the training.

Of course, teachers and students are all different. The bottom line here is that the teacher and student agree, at least in principle, on the course and conduct of his/her training.

One of the subjects (way down on the list, but still there) is the logging of time. I always teach the FAR 61.51 logging PIC, and we always have an agreement on when the student is sole manipulator.

Way back, before aircraft endorsements were invented, I used the concept of sole manipulator to decide when to let the student log PIC. And quite frankly, when endorsements became a regulation, I and my peers thought the endorsement was a part of the meaning of the word "rated", so we thought that the endorsement was a regulatory requirement to log PIC.

So, I would usually make the endorsement on or after the first flight in an airplane that required an endorsement, so the student could log PIC, just as I did before the endorsement requirement.

Nothing really changed; I just thought the regulatory endorsement was the FAA way of making every instructor do a more complete check-out by signing an 'endorsement' for that student.

It has been the internet, where I see "I logged all my T/W time as PIC" that tells me the privilege of logging PIC has become diluted like our knowledge tests and a dozen other training requirements.

Mark, consider this: If you owned a T/W, and wanted to hire a pilot to fly it, and you knew from experience that you wanted a pilot with 10 hours of PIC T/W time because you know it takes 10 hours of sole manipulator time on the stick and rudder doing landings, wouldn't you really rather have a pilot who logs real sole manipulator time as authorized by his reputable instructor than the guy who has been sturggling to keep it straight, and getting a little help from his cfi in the back seat but he doesn't know it, or doesn't want to acknowledge it, 'cause he has been told on the internet that he can make the call, not his instructor?

Or the guy who flew a 5 hour trip and back keeping it level on course, but only 2 landings.

Talk to me about application, not rote FAR speak.
.
.
.
.
.I love this stuff...:D
keep'em coming..
 
nosehair said:
"Just English" would define "rated" as fully capable of acting as PIC. It is the technical definition which adds the technical knowledge that the meaning does not include the qualification to act as rated that makes regulations not behave in accordance with "just English"...
Click to expand...

I don't quite see how this is helping the point you're trying to argue.

From the LOI that was previously referenced, it's clear that the FAA defines "rated" differently than you do. It's also clear that they intend it to be that way. Plain english.

I'm gonna go revise my logbook and add in some t/w PIC! :D
 
nosehair said:
Wait a minute! Are all you guys ganging up and saying you believe that the term 'sole manipulator' means something like, "as long as I don't have to take the controls to avoid a crash",..is that what you are inferring?

Is there an official LOI that says that? Did I miss that, too. (or forget?)
Click to expand...

Sole manipulator is pretty cut and dry. If you are on the controls, and have the proper category and class rating you can log PIC.

I really appreciate all the responses. Like I said the logic is there but the problem is its up to interpretation by higher officials on whether you can count it or not. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something between the lines.

It sucks because my instructor for complex, high performance and tailwheel didnt count that as PIC time, here I am years later with probably 20 hours of PIC I could have counted. Does it matter? Not really, but it wasn't 100% correct.
 
I've always logged very conservatively since I started in '85. Granted these days I don't need the time for anything, but even when I did, I wanted (and still want) my logbook(s) to be as accurate a reflection of my flight times as they can be. None of my pre PPL solo time is logged as PIC (wasn't allowed to be back then) and I've never corrected it to this day. I don't log time when I taxi out, have a problem, taxi back and shut down. When I went to the USAF in pilot training, none of my pilot training time in the T-37 or T-38 did I count as PIC even when I was sole manipulator, as (to me) they were turbojets that I wasn't type rated in (even though a type doesn't exist) but I didn't have military rated orders in since I didn't have my mil wings yet. I logged it as dual, and as solo when I was solo (to log consistent with how my logbook has been). Have I missed out on some hours of flight time in my career? Yes, probably a good few. But thats how I wanted my logbook to be, in order for me to feel its an accurate reflection of my career both civilian and military.

I log very conservatively. Others may or may not.
 
nosehair said:
Mark, in all honesty, isn't that your personal opinion?..or interpretation?
Really, is there an LOI that specifically says that?
Just English isn't good enough in the area of regulations.
"Just English" would define "rated" as fully capable of acting as PIC. It is the technical definition which adds the technical knowledge that the meaning does not include the qualification to act as rated that makes regulations not behave in accordance with "just English".

Just English would make FAR 1.1 the operative definition.

We both know that changing regulations causes a domino effect. Each regulatory change creates a slight shift in meanings of related regulations, and this is an excellent example of that phenomena.

...and I don't really have a problem with your definition, as long as the instructor makes that determination.

Inferring that a student, a certificated pilot, who is learning a new airplane or procedure, can call himself sole manipulator when the instructor says he isn't, is against basic teaching principles.

Of course, this line of reasoning only works when the instructor is making the judgments for the good of the student.

Allowing 100% PIC time when the instructor is significantly helping is not in the best interest of the student.

The student needs to know precisely what he is doing and what he is not doing. And that needs to be reflected in the logging of his training.

Employers need to know this too. Recent accidents have focused our attention on the fact that multiple checkride failures are an indicator of potential hazardous pilots.

There is much to be improved in our training/logging system to better reflect training proficiency and knowledge.

We don't do real stalls and spins, and we don't test knowledge.

We do a rote approach to a partial stall with a rote recovery procedure.
That doesn't prepare a pilot to encounter a real stall in a weird situation.

We teach the knowledge test. Back in the day, we studied all the FAA books, the AFH, the PHAK, the AIM, and the FAR's, and we took a test on those subjects. We didn't have the test questions to memorize.

That's why the knowledge test has become a joke.

And so has the concept of logging PIC, if you let joe pilot wiggle the sticks in your Superhummer 409 with no knowledge of what he's doing other than keeping it level, and log PIC, ..ok, a couple hours of that is ok, ..because a couple/few of the initial hours can be just orientation, or 'getting the feel'.

But my problem is the guy who logs 20 - 30 or more of these hours towards a certificate or rating.

After the Commercial with IR, it doesn't really matter. But the minimum hours required for certification are minimum training standards, and I think the CFI has some responsibility to mentor and supervise the conduct of the training.

Of course, teachers and students are all different. The bottom line here is that the teacher and student agree, at least in principle, on the course and conduct of his/her training.

One of the subjects (way down on the list, but still there) is the logging of time. I always teach the FAR 61.51 logging PIC, and we always have an agreement on when the student is sole manipulator.

Way back, before aircraft endorsements were invented, I used the concept of sole manipulator to decide when to let the student log PIC. And quite frankly, when endorsements became a regulation, I and my peers thought the endorsement was a part of the meaning of the word "rated", so we thought that the endorsement was a regulatory requirement to log PIC.

So, I would usually make the endorsement on or after the first flight in an airplane that required an endorsement, so the student could log PIC, just as I did before the endorsement requirement.

Nothing really changed; I just thought the regulatory endorsement was the FAA way of making every instructor do a more complete check-out by signing an 'endorsement' for that student.

It has been the internet, where I see "I logged all my T/W time as PIC" that tells me the privilege of logging PIC has become diluted like our knowledge tests and a dozen other training requirements.

Mark, consider this: If you owned a T/W, and wanted to hire a pilot to fly it, and you knew from experience that you wanted a pilot with 10 hours of PIC T/W time because you know it takes 10 hours of sole manipulator time on the stick and rudder doing landings, wouldn't you really rather have a pilot who logs real sole manipulator time as authorized by his reputable instructor than the guy who has been sturggling to keep it straight, and getting a little help from his cfi in the back seat but he doesn't know it, or doesn't want to acknowledge it, 'cause he has been told on the internet that he can make the call, not his instructor?

Or the guy who flew a 5 hour trip and back keeping it level on course, but only 2 landings.

Talk to me about application, not rote FAR speak.
.
.
.
.
.I love this stuff...:D
keep'em coming..
Click to expand...

Speaking of application, there a hypothesis used by attorneys that goes something like, the longer and more convoluted the explanation/justification, the less likely it is to be accurate. Add to that the 100% subjective, "he's only touched the controls if the all-knowing and all-powerful pilot whisperer said he did", and you've got a fantasy, not an interpretation.
...and I don't really have a problem with your definition, as long as the instructor makes that determination.
Click to expand...
Exactly the point. "My" definition doesn't need an interpretation. It's an objective test - either he's the only human being with his hands and feet on the controls or he's not.

You were obviously flying before the PTS but think it was a really bad idea since it's primary purpose was an attempt to reign in all-knowing and all-seeing DPEs and try to impose some objective standards on them.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
You were obviously flying before the PTS but think it was a really bad idea since it's primary purpose was an attempt to reign in all-knowing and all-seeing DPEs and try to impose some objective standards on them.
Click to expand...
You're right there. I remember the horror stories of 'madmen' FAA Inspectors, and DPEs. Back then, FAA Inspectors gave most of the checkrides.

A Flight Instructor's first 5 students recommended had to be with an FAA Inspector. The new instructor was issued an 'LFI", a Limited Flight Instructor Certificate, which was changed to 'CFI' after successfully completing 5 students. The Checkride could be any maneuver in the AFH, and more of the ride was scenario based, ie., x/c enroute emergencies which led to more realistic short or soft field landings, which demonstrated in-flight decision making, and on and on.

Of course, this led to way too much Power,..and corruption, so Iwas glad when the PTS concept first came out with a more standardized way of testing. It was intended to be a 'sampling' of a larger syllabus of training presented in the AFH, PHAK, and the FAR/AIM.

...and if we instructors and schools had kept teaching the whole book and the scenario based methods of ADM, instead of just teaching the test, the PTS would have been a good thing.

But I would rather go back to teaching the whole thing and hoping the xaminer doesn't make the student lose it.

Checkrides, Final Certification Checkrides, by the way, should be stressful.

Flying can be stressful, and there should be a test of it.

But there should be step-up checkrides along the way, which are not stressful at all at first, but increasing in stress as the level of responsibility, authority and complexity increase to a final level which demonstrates ability to carry pax in extreme stressful conditions.

The "Standardized PTS" has become a rote demonstration of performing rote maneuvers and procedures, canned emergency procedures, and so on.

I'm not happy with what our current system of training has become. All the checkrides were not with crazy men.

They had high expectations. We all were proud to go up against some old crusty cigar smokin' gray haired Inspector that scared the bejesus outta you, and come back and have him give you a big grin and a handshake after a whole flight of complainin and cussin.

We were more concerned with proficiency (aka savin' my bacon), than with cost. We didn't want taxi time to be counted as flight time. Whaddaya, crazy? Of course we weren't paying for taxi time on the airplane either.

So, interpretations have changed according to changing times and conditions. And locations. And will continue to do so, long after you and I have beat this to death.
 
nosehair said:
You're right there. I remember the horror stories of 'madmen' FAA Inspectors, and DPEs. Back then, FAA Inspectors gave most of the checkrides.

A Flight Instructor's first 5 students recommended had to be with an FAA Inspector. The new instructor was issued an 'LFI", a Limited Flight Instructor Certificate, which was changed to 'CFI' after successfully completing 5 students. The Checkride could be any maneuver in the AFH, and more of the ride was scenario based, ie., x/c enroute emergencies which led to more realistic short or soft field landings, which demonstrated in-flight decision making, and on and on.

Of course, this led to way too much Power,..and corruption, so Iwas glad when the PTS concept first came out with a more standardized way of testing. It was intended to be a 'sampling' of a larger syllabus of training presented in the AFH, PHAK, and the FAR/AIM.

...and if we instructors and schools had kept teaching the whole book and the scenario based methods of ADM, instead of just teaching the test, the PTS would have been a good thing.

But I would rather go back to teaching the whole thing and hoping the xaminer doesn't make the student lose it.

Checkrides, Final Certification Checkrides, by the way, should be stressful.

Flying can be stressful, and there should be a test of it.

But there should be step-up checkrides along the way, which are not stressful at all at first, but increasing in stress as the level of responsibility, authority and complexity increase to a final level which demonstrates ability to carry pax in extreme stressful conditions.

The "Standardized PTS" has become a rote demonstration of performing rote maneuvers and procedures, canned emergency procedures, and so on.

I'm not happy with what our current system of training has become. All the checkrides were not with crazy men.

They had high expectations. We all were proud to go up against some old crusty cigar smokin' gray haired Inspector that scared the bejesus outta you, and come back and have him give you a big grin and a handshake after a whole flight of complainin and cussin.

We were more concerned with proficiency (aka savin' my bacon), than with cost. We didn't want taxi time to be counted as flight time. Whaddaya, crazy? Of course we weren't paying for taxi time on the airplane either.

So, interpretations have changed according to changing times and conditions. And locations. And will continue to do so, long after you and I have beat this to death.
Click to expand...

That is a problem with instructors, not the PTS. I hear the same complaints about standardized testing in schools- "Wah. We have to teach the test." No, you don't have to teach the test. Teach the kids what they need to know and they will do well on the tests. How do I know this? My kids go to a school with this philosophy and... the kids exceed the national average. They only spend 1/2 a day "teaching the test" so the kids have an idea of how the questions will be presented.
It's the same with flying. There is a PTS and I make sure the students are familiar with the PTS, but I don't "teach" it. If there are manuevers or techniques that I feel pilots should know, then I cover them. For example, there is not a published NDB approach for 100's of miles from my home airport, yet every pilot who trains in an aircraft with an ADF finishes each instrument lesson after BI with an NDB circling approach to our home airport.
Yet even though I feel a pilot should be trained to be safe and not just to pass a checkride I still teach them the FAA way when it comes to regulations.
 
MikeD said:
I log very conservatively. Others may or may not.
Click to expand...

I just guess. "Yeah, that felt like two hours ;)"

A serious question though, logging time in A/C with just tach time. I write down wheels up and wheels down (habit, I want to know how much fuel I've got, since I don't trust the gauges). This ranges anywhere from 1.2x tach to 1.8x tach. Do you log the actual time, or the tach x 1.2 ???

And I just realized, I have more tailwheel landings than tricycle now. Didn't take long!
 
beagle.

Practically speaking, I'm not sure it matters that much. I've know a number of rental FBOs and flight schools that used the 1.2 X tach convention in no-Hobbs aircraft as roughly equivalent to what a Hobbs would register on a typical flight lesson. Once you actually go somewhere, it's just not that accurate, depending as it does on the power settings you use for cruise. But even then, it sorta works and I wouldn't sweat it.

Want to be really accurate? Start timing when you leave the blocks. After all, you use =some= fuel duing taxi and run-up and, since you don't trust the gauges, why not err on the side of thinking you've use a little more fuel rather than less?
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I just guess. "Yeah, that felt like two hours ;)"

A serious question though, logging time in A/C with just tach time. I write down wheels up and wheels down (habit, I want to know how much fuel I've got, since I don't trust the gauges). This ranges anywhere from 1.2x tach to 1.8x tach. Do you log the actual time, or the tach x 1.2 ???

And I just realized, I have more tailwheel landings than tricycle now. Didn't take long!
Click to expand...

I log the clock time, not Tach time for just that reason.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Time out and time in, on airplanes that don't have Hobbs meters, for logging flight time.
Click to expand...

In gliders, I log 6 minutes per 1,000' towed, if there is no lift to be found. If there is lift, I look at the tow pilot's log after returning ;) Obviously, I'm not terribly worried about fuel consumption...
 
Mike H said:
I'll call BS on the "airplanes that don't have Hobbs meters" thing. I've never seen one. Never seen a unicorn either.
Click to expand...

None of the military ones I flew did. Hence use of the Mk1 wristwatch or even the sweep-hand clock that was installed, which was used for approach timing too.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I haven't seen a unicorn but I have flown airplanes without Hobbs meters, Horatio.
Click to expand...
Me too. Many of them. Neither airplane that I owned had a hobbs meter. Fly a Cessna 140 on a regular basis that does not have one. None of the gliders I flew had 'em. None of the helicopters I flew in the military had one. Airliners don't have them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top