Logging time under Part 91
- Thread starter lineguy
- Start date
GreenDayPilot
Well-Known Member
I did it and I'm pretty sure it was all legal. I had my MEI, High Alt and High Performance endorsement, and about 2 hours of training.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
King Air B200 or smaller, yep!
High Performance, High Altitude - and you're set. What do 3 takeoffs and landings have to do with it?
High Performance, High Altitude - and you're set. What do 3 takeoffs and landings have to do with it?
VicariousLiving
New Member
lineguy said:
mtsu_av8er said:
High performance and high altitude have as much to do with it as 3 take-offs and landings might...
VicariousLiving
New Member
DrBenny said:
For logging legality purposes you don't need complex or high performance, either.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
VicariousLiving said:
Well, if you're going to act as PIC, you need both of those. If you're just going to log it as a right seat bi^$%-boy, then you do not - assuming that the other person that you're flying with is a current CFI.
Come with it, Vicarious!
zerouniform
Well-Known Member
The other person does not need to be a CFI, but the acting PIC must be appropriately rated for the aircraft (P/C MEL, with complex, high performance, and high altitude).
You don't need the endorsements to log PIC from what I can remember (hint: you can log PIC as sole manipulator if you are rated for the category and class of aircraft -- how good would it look in your logbook if you were a 30 hour student pilot, or even an 80 hour private pilot?).
You don't need the endorsements to log PIC from what I can remember (hint: you can log PIC as sole manipulator if you are rated for the category and class of aircraft -- how good would it look in your logbook if you were a 30 hour student pilot, or even an 80 hour private pilot?).
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Good question.CFIse said:
Log PIC under 61.51(e)(1) for a pilot with a recreational or higher certificate:
o appropriate aircraft category and class (and type if applicable) ratings
o only person on the flight controls
Nope. I don't see the CFI either.
BTW, Zero,
I think it would look great, so long as you don't try to pass it off as "experience" for a job.
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
I always love the "But I was sole manipulator of the controls!" argument. To me, it seems paper-thin. If you ask me, logging PIC should be a record of when you're acting as PIC. Not some loophole where you were the only one sitting at the controls of the 747 for 5 minutes while flying as a passenger visiting the cockpit. There's "the law" and then there's "the spirit of the law" and some people seem to discard the latter.
Of course, there are a few exceptions where sole manipulator truly is PIC (because of insurance, I think multis with "supervised solo" or whatever), but why does everyone try to rack up as many columns of time as quickly as possible? Why not just have fun, and when the times add up, move on?
Of course, there are a few exceptions where sole manipulator truly is PIC (because of insurance, I think multis with "supervised solo" or whatever), but why does everyone try to rack up as many columns of time as quickly as possible? Why not just have fun, and when the times add up, move on?
roundout
VNAV monitor
Chris_Ford said:
one possible reason: insurance. i have to log some PIC in the 414 before i can fly it solo, due to the way the insurance policy is written. i log all the time i fly from the right seat (sole manipulator) while someone else who is NOT a CFI logs nothing but acts as PIC to satisfy the insurance requirements.
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
roundout said:
Right, that would fall under the "insurance exception" I was talking about (although I didn't hit your example explicitly)...
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
jonnyb said:
What? According to the "sole manipulator" you'd be able to log it. I want an extra .1 of turbine time, so I'm going to do it!
(See how stupid it sounds? Now just replace 747 with the type of aircraft that people are doing this with and it sounds even dumber)
jonnyb
Well-Known Member
Chris, your arrogance and lack of knowledge frustrate me. I'm not "attacking" you, I'm just stating my observations and opinions. Maybe you should read 61.51(e)(1) again. This rule is very necessary and there are many instances when it becomes very useful. Since you lack character, in my opinion, and do not display any of the qualities of a person in which I would give any more of my time or knowledge (experience), I will not bore you with any further examples.
ColMustard
New Member
lineguy said:
PIC = sole manipulator of controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges
For the King Air all you need is a private multi-engine rating, with high altitude and high performance endorsements. The whole CFI thing in the right seat is for the time you are receiving the training toward that endorsement. But just like adding a commercial cert. to your Multi-engine rating, all the training time can be counted toward PIC.
I don't believe the King Air (any model) requires a type rating. A little refresher for the type ratings, generically speaking, are large aircraft (12,500 lbs or greater), or turbojet equipped aircraft (not turboprops). The adminstrator, however, can slap a type rating on any aircraft he/she feels requires one (i.e. B-747, A-320, etc.)
In the end, if you only have one or two flights in a King Air, and it doesn't greatly impact your TT or Multi time, why not put it in there? Kind of a nice memory to have in your logbook.
Again, not sure on the type rating deal for the King Air. Anyone know for sure what the max. cert. t/o weight is for the King Air?
(BTW, for those of you keeping score, my sources include FAR 61.31 and 61.51)
-ColM