Do you have any documentation that confirms this? You can do it solo that has already been covered, you cannot log PIC in a multi without a multi certificate. This endorsement cannot be applied to that, unless you have some documentation I, and I suspect most of us here, have not seen. It would seem stupid to have an "acting as PIC" stipulation in the regulations for the purposes of multi training if you could just use this endorsement, wouldn't you think?
Logging PIC time during Instrument training
- Thread starter FlyingOfficer
- Start date
Do you have any documentation that confirms this? You can do it solo that has already been covered, you cannot log PIC in a multi without a multi certificate. This endorsement cannot be applied to that, unless you have some documentation I, and I suspect most of us here, have not seen. It would seem stupid to have an "acting as PIC" stipulation in the regulations for the purposes of multi training if you could just use this endorsement, wouldn't you think?
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
If you have an insurance company that will insure you, and an MEI that will sign off on it, go for it (the lack of both of these generally makes it moot).
tgrayson
New Member
The "acting as PIC" exists solely because the FAA realizes that insurance companies are unlikely to insure a non-rated pilot. With the proper endorsement, a multi student can indeed solo a twin.
I give up, go ahead give that endorsement to your multi applicant, let them log multi PIC w/o their rating, and let us know how that turns out.
floridaCFII
Well-Known Member
61.51 allows any pilot to log PIC when they are the sole occupant of the aircraft. How would solo time in a twin ever not be PIC?
Like the previous poster mentioned, good luck finding an MEI who will solo you in a twin, but if you can, and your insurance agrees, then more power to you.
I know, I was pointing it out to show that even other regulations support the inability to using the PIC endorsement to log multi PIC unless you are rated. If it could be applied for this application than there would be no need for "acting PIC," just give the PIC endorsement and you would be set, which you cannot do.
Damn those insurance companies.
floridaCFII
Well-Known Member
tgrayson
New Member
If you have the solo endorsement, then you can fly solo. If you can fly solo, then you can log the flight time as PIC.
I referred to the PIC endorsement, not the solo endorsement, what are you talking about?
We have been talking about the PIC endorsement, as was mentioned in post 59 when I quoted the endorsement under discussion, not the solo endorsement.
tgrayson
New Member
That's what I'm talking about.
Then what was the point of mentioning the solo endorsement above? You have totally lost me bud, I can only hope you're just screwing around.
tgrayson
New Member
The PIC endorsement is functionally equivalent to the solo endorsement for a student pilot. It allows a post-student certificated pilot to act as PIC for an aircraft for which he lacks a class or category rating.
Is there an FAA documentation agreeing with this? It would seem unlikely as it wouldn't cover any sections of 61.87 required for solo in the actual endorsement and it lacks the "permitted to fly solo" wording. I would find that a questionable statement without backing.
tgrayson
New Member
Here's an FAQ that is somewhat related:
QUESTION: A commercial pilot with an airplane single-engine land rating is now seeking to add a helicopter rating onto his commercial pilot certificate. How can the applicant obtain and log the PIC flight time in a helicopter to show 35 hours of PIC flight time in helicopters as required per § 61.129(c)(2)(i)?
ANSWER: Ref. § 61.51(e) or § 61.31(d); The PIC flight time would have to be obtained:
- Already hold a helicopter rating at the private pilot level. Then PIC flight time can be logged while flying solo and / or while manipulating the control as per § 61.51(e)(1)(i) when the flight instructor is on board; or
- Be the sole occupant of the aircraft and have a current solo endorsement in accordance with § 61.31(d)(3).
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I gotta admit that I'm getting confused.
Assuming we're talking about solo flight by a certificated pilot in an aircraft category or class he is not rated for, 61.51(e)(1)(ii) is pretty clear:
==============================
61.51(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.
(1) A sport, recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person--
(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft;
==============================
Sport or higher pilot certificate + sole occupant = logable PIC.
Are we talking about that or something else?
Assuming we're talking about solo flight by a certificated pilot in an aircraft category or class he is not rated for, 61.51(e)(1)(ii) is pretty clear:
==============================
61.51(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.
(1) A sport, recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person--
(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft;
==============================
Sport or higher pilot certificate + sole occupant = logable PIC.
Are we talking about that or something else?
Right now I am trying to see how one could use the PIC endorsement in place of or as the equivalent of a solo endorsement. Tgray quoted that above as a close FAQ but still nothing definitive.
To me it would seem the solo endorsement is used for pre private (non-rated) training to allow solo where as a PIC endorsement is used to allow solo for rated pilots.
OK, lets say a guy is getting his initial pilot training for PPL (student pilot now, no previous certificates) in a multi-engine. His goal is to be a PP/AMEL only. The same solo endorsement you give for a pre-PPL (student pilot) in an ASEL would be the same as this one. And both can now (post-1997) log it as PIC time too.
tgrayson
New Member
The FAQ is identical in substance. You have a certificated pilot without an appropriate category rating who is able to log PIC time during solo flight. Note that the regulation requiring a class/category rating at all is this same regulation, so it's fitting that it denote exceptions. If you want something definitive, the regulation is it.