Logging time under Part 91

[Chris_Ford]

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.

I know what the regulation says. And again, I'll say it, that the "reg" and the "spirit of the reg" are two different things. The spirit of the reg is to allow people like previously mentioned who need to build up PIC in their own airplane for insurance minimums and things along that line. It is not so Joe Schmoe can get to the right seat of a CRJ faster. (e)(1)(i) has led to so many debates on this site that it's not really worth going through the effort to explain. Technically, I could go into any airplane that I'm rated in (single and multi engine land) and be touching the controls alone and that would be loggable. So if I decided to fly on a foreign carrier from, say, Cape Town to Sydney Australia, and the relief pilot invited me up, and I got to put my hands on the controls for .1 of an hour, I could go home and log it... Or do you disagree? Because if you disagree, then people doing the same thing (flying in an airplane in which they're technically "rated for" but not "legal to [insurance or otherwise] fly" are violating the reg as well. That is my point. And I can do it without the namecalling. But maybe that spurns from my lack of character :whatever:

 

[Chris_Ford]

Col. Mustard - King Air 200s are 12,500 t/o weight exactly. The heavier ones require types, but for a 200 or smaller, it's fine without a type.

 

[ColMustard]

Thanks Chris! That would be an awesome aircraft to be typed in.

And as for the name calling, what kind of barometer does this forum really measure in the character from the folks that post replys!? A worthless post by jonnyb IMHO. Lets stick to the subject at hand.

-ColM

 

[skydog]

You can't just cherry pick the parts of the reg that suit your needs. You need to look at the regulation in its entirety.

§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.

(a) Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:

(1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part.

(2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

(c) Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be used to:

(1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part or a privilege authorized under this part; or

(2) Satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

(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—

(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges;

(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or

(4) A student pilot may log pilot-in-command time only when the student pilot—

(i) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft or is performing the duties of pilot of command of an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember;

(ii) Has a current solo flight endorsement as required under §61.87 of this part; and

(iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating.

All throughout the regulation there are references to training and training events. It seems pretty clear to me what the point of this reg is.

So if you flew that King Air because you were getting qualified on it, then go ahead and log it. If you just happened to be aboard and got a little stick time, then leave it be.

Pilot in Command is more than just a column in a logbook. It carries with it ultimate responsibility and final authority. If you are not willing to assume that when you take the controls of an airplane, you are not the pilot in command.

 

[VicariousLiving]

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

Yeah, great example Chris. Thanks for that.:whatever:

Unfortunate as it might be for the example's credibility, absent a 747 type rating the visiting passenger couldn't legally log the time...

 

[Chris_Ford]

Yeah, but if I were to get my private in a multi (from the start), I couldn't solo, but I could do "supervised solo" which because I was sole manipulator, I could log it. Wouldn't the same rule apply?

 

[aloft]

Hey Sean--from personal experience, let me tell ya that Chris F. makes a wonderful addition to any "Ignore User" list! I've never enjoyed JC as much as I have since banning him to iggy-land! :nana2:

 

[VicariousLiving]

Well, if you're going to act as PIC, you need both of those.

Does your school allow you to rewrite the test questions so as to match the answers you provided? The question quite clearly regards logging PIC, not acting as PIC. With respect to the question asked your answer (complex/high performance required) is incorrect.

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.

Incorrect again. No CFI presence required.

 

[Chris_Ford]

Hey Sean--from personal experience, let me tell ya that Chris F. makes a wonderful addition to any "Ignore User" list! I've never enjoyed JC as much as I have since banning him to iggy-land! :nana2:

Except that you haven't ignored me, since on numerous occasions you've responded to my posts. But hey, I know you like making up things. Of course, if I were you, I'd have to make up things to be satisfied with my life too.

 

[roundout]

Yeah, but if I were to get my private in a multi (from the start), I couldn't solo, but I could do "supervised solo" which because I was sole manipulator, I could log it. Wouldn't the same rule apply?

if you were a student learning in a multi, the CFI (MEI, in this case) would simply endorse the back of your student pilot certificate for whatever make and model you were flying. if you don't solo, you don't get a private certificate.

 

[Grabo172]

blah blah blah... PIC logging arguement again... blah blah blah... :insane:

 

[VicariousLiving]

if you were a student learning in a multi, the CFI (MEI, in this case) would simply endorse the back of your student pilot certificate for whatever make and model you were flying. if you don't solo, you don't get a private certificate.

The insurance companies wouldn't go for that one, so the FAA wrote 61.109 accordingly. If you read 61.109(b)(5) you'll find that the initial private/AMEL canditate needs 10 hours solo logged "...in an aircraft..."; IOW, that solo time may be obtained in an ASEL, a situation the insurance companies much prefer.

 

[jonnyb]

Unfortunate as it might be for the example's credibility, absent a 747 type rating the visiting passenger couldn't legally log the time...

Exactly what I was talking about. Thanks.

Hey Sean--from personal experience, let me tell ya that Chris F. makes a wonderful addition to any "Ignore User" list! I've never enjoyed JC as much as I have since banning him to iggy-land! :nana2:

Unfortunately he's his own worst enemy. I've seen it a few times and it never turns out well.

Except that you haven't ignored me, since on numerous occasions you've responded to my posts. But hey, I know you like making up things. Of course, if I were you, I'd have to make up things to be satisfied with my life too.

Chris, Matt (aloft) has been a respected and well liked member here at JC for a long time. You have absolutely NO credibility and have created a negative effect and a poor reputation. I look forward to the day in which you see the errors of your ways, humble yourself and start showing some respect and TRUE wisdom.

I apologize for the thread hijack.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

blah blah blah... PIC logging arguement again... blah blah blah... :insane:

I stopped a long time ago - I already got mine . . .

 

[derg]

If you're a low-time pilot and you've got a fistful of King Air time you've logged as PIC, be prepared to answer systems questions at any potential interview.

Not things like MGTOW or how much horsepower, things like describing how you start the engine, what the sequence is like, etc. Like if someone claims to have flown the MD-90, I'll know what questions to ask in order to determine if he's actually flown it for a period of time or not pretty easily.

 

[roundout]

The insurance companies wouldn't go for that one, so the FAA wrote 61.109 accordingly. If you read 61.109(b)(5) you'll find that the initial private/AMEL canditate needs 10 hours solo logged "...in an aircraft..."; IOW, that solo time may be obtained in an ASEL, a situation the insurance companies much prefer.

good catch. i never realized that.

 

[VicariousLiving]

good catch. i never realized that.

Too bad I typo'd; the FAR reads "...in an airplane...", not "...in an aircraft...", but the gist is that an AMEL student can obtain the 10 hours solo in an ASEL, which the insurance companies will tolerate (for now).

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I know what the regulation says. And again, I'll say it, that the "reg" and the "spirit of the reg" are two different things. The spirit of the reg is to allow people like previously mentioned who need to build up PIC in their own airplane for insurance minimums and things along that line. It is not so Joe Schmoe can get to the right seat of a CRJ faster.

I'll disagree with you on the "spirit" issue, Chris.

As far as I can tell, the "spirit" of 61.51 is simply to allow pilots to put into their official FAA-required record of flight experience, numbers that the FAA has decided it wants to count for the purposes of showing that they qualify for a group of FAA-ordained privileges.

The only problem is that the FAA chose to use the term PIC for it instead of something else. And "PIC" also means things that have nothing to do with being the sole manipulator of an airplane you know nothing about.

But the "spirit" goes way back. The same "spirit" is found in the CAR for the 1940's, with a significant difference. They didn't use the term PIC for it; they used "solo" to mean sole manipulator (which I am sure caused it's own set of problems being confused with "solo" meaning sole occupant).

The "spirit" is the same; the words are different.

BTW, I wouldn't worry about the CRJ. "Sole manipulator time" in a high performance aircraft you know nothing about is about as likely to get you into that seat as working the register at McDonald's is likely to get you behind the CFO desk of a Fortune 500 company.