PNF logging actual?

B767Driver said:
He wasn't at all sarcastic towards me in the sister thread?
Click to expand...
The sister thread is Here... At least that's the post I think you are referring to. There was no sarcasm involved or intended... it was (what I thought at the time) a valid question regarding your "interpretation" of logging. Any debator would jump on what he/she sees as an inconsistancy in another's arguement...

You answered the question fine...

I'm not trying to call you out... I'm not trying to put you down... I'm just in it for a hardy debate based on my interpretation vs. yours. That's all... It's actually good and appreciated that you do get "involved in this junk", so that other's can learn (including myself). If everyone just listened to one person... well then... the world wouldn't be so fun... and... besides... I could be wrong. ;)

Regardless... what Chris said is definately true:

Chris_Ford said:
Regardless, Bob could be silenced with a flat out source that proves him wrong
Click to expand...

Bob
 
Captain_Bob said:
The sister thread is Here... At least that's the post I think you are referring to. There was no sarcasm involved or intended... it was (what I thought at the time) a valid question regarding your "interpretation" of logging. Any debator would jump on what he/she sees as an inconsistancy in another's arguement...

You answered the question fine...

I'm not trying to call you out... I'm not trying to put you down... I'm just in it for a hardy debate based on my interpretation vs. yours. That's all... It's actually good and appreciated that you do get "involved in this junk", so that other's can learn (including myself). If everyone just listened to one person... well then... the world wouldn't be so fun... and... besides... I could be wrong. ;)

Regardless... what Chris said is definately true:



Bob
Click to expand...



No problem. And my intent was not a put-down, as Chris Ford surmised, but a statement of what I believe to be a difficult to defend line of questioning in regards to the integrity of the logbook in an interview situation. Granted, I don't see it a realistic line of questioning...but should it arise, I would definitely want an authorization letter from the FAA to help in my defense.

Another interesting bit that was brought up somewhere...is that your SIC instrument time does not count towards the 75 hours required for the ATP....but counts for total time only. This does not make much sense to me...and in reviewing dozens of logbooks for ATP/type rating applicants...I not once remember the FAA digging deep into that line item. Of course, the applicants had been hired with the airline mostly with over 2000hours and were a couple of years to upgrade. So there were not many "minimum hours" upgrade applicants and the FAA did not spend much time with a logbook review.
 
It's not so much that I disagree with the "interpetation" of a reg as I'm giving my opinion on how to log time. It just seems dumb to me for the NFP to log actual. It could be quite legal, but I still think it's a silly idea that no one here has given me a good explaination for other than "it's legal".

"It's legal" doesn't always cut it with me.
 
DE727UPS said:
It's not so much that I disagree with the "interpetation" of a reg as I'm giving my opinion on how to log time. It just seems dumb to me for the NFP to log actual. It could be quite legal, but I still think it's a silly idea that no one here has given me a good explaination for other than "it's legal".
Click to expand...
OK... I can definately see where you are coming from...

I'm willing to bet that this desire to ensure that one logs the legal time that is afforded to him/her comes from the "scratch and claw" your way to the top of your profession mentality.

For example: When you are a CFII... you'd be begging for some "actual" to go shoot some real approaches with your student... thus allowing your student to become more comfortable and proficient... but also to log your more "actual" time for yourself as well.

I remember instructing out in PHX/IWA and whenever there was a cloud layer moving into the area... which wasn't often... then it always seemed like there was a "mad rush" of instrument pilots and instructors filing IFR plans and going flying to get their "actual" numbers up.

Fast forward... to 2-7 years at a regional... where that time no longer becomes an issue... there is no "Actual" requirement for a Major... and it is "assumed" that if you spent that long in any 121 environment then you most likely have at least the 10% "rule of thumb" numbers... and well... you just tend to stop logging that specific column, since it's not a "needed" item for you to advance.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

If so... then I would have to offer up a couple of possible reasons why folks still log it... habits are hard to break... some still enjoy logging time and seeing their accomplishments on paper... some are "anal" when it comes to numbers...etc.

But I'm sure there will be a day... at least I hope there will be... that I too do not feel the need to log "any" more of my time since I'm at the job that will take me to retirement. Until then... well... I still have 2 little red books that I need to transfer into my nice big Jepp logbook. Quite frankly... I'm not looking forward to doing it... but I am looking forward to getting it done. ;)

Bob
 
DE727UPS said:
It's not so much that I disagree with the "interpetation" of a reg as I'm giving my opinion on how to log time. It just seems dumb to me for the NFP to log actual. It could be quite legal, but I still think it's a silly idea that no one here has given me a good explaination for other than "it's legal".

"It's legal" doesn't always cut it with me.
Click to expand...

I'm just a "NOOB" and even though my local FSDO's said it's legal to log it I don't. At my next interview I'm pretty sure they will be looking at the PIC turbine more than anything else.
 
DE727UPS said:
It's not so much that I disagree with the "interpetation" of a reg as I'm giving my opinion on how to log time. It just seems dumb to me for the NFP to log actual. It could be quite legal, but I still think it's a silly idea that no one here has given me a good explaination for other than "it's legal".

"It's legal" doesn't always cut it with me.
Click to expand...

With everything I've seen in this thread from guys "in the know," (despite some generally snottery here and there), I think I'm inclined to change my view on this. I guess since it does you no real good to log it, and it could cause trouble down the road, I think I see the point now.
 
Captain_Bob said:
I'm wide open to what the FAA says in a few days... and as a result I could very well be adjusting my log book...
Bob
Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want, but I would suggest not making a correction to what you've already logged in regards to this issue. I think it would make a mess of your logbook and potentially bring to light an issue that would otherwise not be questioned.
 
B767Driver said:
You can do whatever you want, but I would suggest not making a correction to what you've already logged in regards to this issue. I think it would make a mess of your logbook and potentially bring to light an issue that would otherwise not be questioned.
Click to expand...

Well... fortunately... or unfortuantely... depending on how you look at it:

Captain_Bob said:
...I still have 2 little red books that I need to transfer into my nice big Jepp logbook. Quite frankly... I'm not looking forward to doing it... but I am looking forward to getting it done. ;)
Click to expand...
That's all my time from my 121 flying. I'll be using my FMLA time off to force myself to do it. So in effect... I'll have a clean slate to start with.

Thanks for the heads up though. I appreciate it.

Bob
 
Little late in joining the discussion here but I do not log it. Unfortunately I have no official FAA guidance to point to back me up. However, I do have a highlighted line in my notes from way back in ground school that specifically said to not log actual when PNF. I remember our ground instructors saying it was a big no-no.
 
Captain_Bob said:
Well... fortunately... or unfortuantely... depending on how you look at it:

That's all my time from my 121 flying. I'll be using my FMLA time off to force myself to do it. So in effect... I'll have a clean slate to start with.

Thanks for the heads up though. I appreciate it.

Bob
Click to expand...

Let me know what the FAA tells you. Bottom line, I think you should log the time as you feel best represents your flying experience. Obviously, the time logged off of the controls can't be counted for recency or experience requirements (if you already have an ATP it doesn't matter anyway. If you don't have an ATP, you'd technically need a way to log time on the controls separately from conditions of flight. And the way I understand, instrument time logged as SIC doesn't count towards the ATP requirement anyway. Like I stated before...I've not seen the FAA nitpick over that line item). When I look at instrument time...that's what it's telling me...time a person's been on the controls in the wx. If you want it to represent a condition of flight...such as night or day...that's another issue. I suppose you could log it as such...but what does it mean?
 
Okay, we've got guys saying that they log night time when they're PNF, but not actual. To me, it's still a "condition of flight." So, by those definations, you shouldn't be logging night time either unless you're PF. I don't log the landings when I'm PNF since it specifically says you must be the manipulator of controls. What needs to happen is the FAA needs to define the word "operate" in the realm of two-pilot flight decks. I'm with Bob on this one. When I'm PNF, I still OPERATE the flaps, gear, anti-ice, altitude pre-select, APU, lights and any other switches that need flipped.

For the record, I'm not trying to get some extra actual time by skirting a rule. I had plenty of it before I got to this level thanks to Florida summer weather. This is just how I interpret the rule. I'm not discounting the guys with more experience, either. I just feel I haven't been shown any hard evidence from official sources that I'm out and out wrong in this. If something comes down from the FAA that says something to the degree of "only the pilot flying (or sole manipulator of the controls) can log actual," then I'll change my tune.
 
NJA_Capt said:
TT: both log it
Multi: both log it
x/c: both log it
Four stripes: PIC
3 stripes or junior captain: SIC
t/o, landing, IMC, night: PF
Click to expand...
That's the way I log it. If I'm PNF, I do not log actual. If I'm PF, I log it. Pretty simple and at the end of the day, I don't worry whether or not I'm doing something untoward.
 
kellwolf said:
What needs to happen is the FAA needs to define the word "operate" in the realm of two-pilot flight decks. I'm with Bob on this one. When I'm PNF, I still OPERATE the flaps, gear, anti-ice, altitude pre-select, APU, lights and any other switches that need flipped.
Click to expand...
Kell, yes you are operating the aircraft, but you are not "operating" the approach. The gear, flaps, lights and A/I have nothing to do with keeping the needles centered on the ILS. Only the person controlling the direction of flight is responsible.

Operator time is covered under the SIC and TT columns, night/landings/IMC/approaches are "accepted" as FP time. The last thing we need is more regulation (other than the airlines). Maybe the "fast track" thinking today is partly to blame. Regs look different after more years of looking at them and more years to understand them. Learning FAA tests by rote and a quickie RJ course don't really help digest many things in the business. I seem to hear a lot of "it doesn't say I can't, so that means I can" on this site. That's just not the case.
 
NJA_Capt said:
Kell, yes you are operating the aircraft, but you are not "operating" the approach. The gear, flaps, lights and A/I have nothing to do with keeping the needles centered on the ILS. Only the person controlling the direction of flight is responsible.
Click to expand...
At least you agree that the PNF is "operating". Kell's discussion points have nothing to do with logging the "approach". It's been covered ad nauseum with pretty much 100% agreement that the PNF does not log the approach. We can all agree though, that "actual" happens in more places that the approach... right?

Here the way I (perhaps overly) simplify it... using an example of a night flight passing through a few storms cells from IAH-RDU with an approach to mins.

As the PNF did I...

Operate the flight as the SIC? Yes
Operate the Takeoff? No
Operate a Multi-Engine Turbine Aircraft? Yes
Operate the aircraft in night-time conditions? Yes
Operate the aircraft in Instrument Meteorlogical Conditions? Yes
Operate the approach? No
Operate the landing? No
Operate the aircraft XC? Yes

Appropriate columns filled or not filled in for the Yes's and No's.

NJA_Capt said:
I seem to hear a lot of "it doesn't say I can't, so that means I can" on this site.
Click to expand...
I've also seen "it doesn't say you can... so that means you can't" on this site too...

Everything in moderation I suppose. :)

Bob
 
I'd just like to point out that this thread has been 4 pages of fairly respectable discussion. So to my critics who say I don't ever add any value to the site, I say ":p" :)
 
I log all of it. I figured damned if you do damned if you don't, depending on the interviewer. Besides, I'm usually so behind on my logbook it's more of a best guess anyway.

If I really wanted to log ONLY the time that represented my flight experience, I wouldn't log anything in cruise.
 
I take a fairly conservative view of logging instrument time. I will only log the time I am pilot flying in instrument conditions under actual instrument. I do this because I am manipulating the controls. I do log night at all times when it is night, however. When it comes to landings, I will log each landing I do, unless it was especially bad, then I tell the FO that he or she can log it if they like.

To be honest, I am a captain for a 121 airline, so I think any job I apply for from now on will not exactly care how much instrument time I have compared to total time, or how many landings I have, or how much night time I have. They know the skill is there, and they hire for attitude. If I get turned down for a job because my actual instrument is only 7% of my total time and not 10%, then I'd rather not work at that company anyways. I want a company to hire me because I bring a lot to the table in terms of attitude, work ethic and integrity, not actual instrument.

Look at it this way: As a captain now, there have been times where I've had to take the controls for an FO. I don't log that time as actual. There are times when the FO will get up to use the restroom for ten minutes while we are cruising through a layer at FL330. I don't log that as actual. When we pass through a 2000 foot thick stratus layer, I don't log 0.1 or 0.2 actual. The only time I'll really log actual and the landing during the FOs leg is when we need to do a CAT II approach.

This is all just a rough estimate anyways. We don't really know how long we were in actual.

What I really would like to know is, can I log dual given on those legs that I spend teaching the entire flight? I've had a few of them lately. (Not because the FO was bad, but because they wanted to learn.)

I'm kidding about the dual. Before this goes three more pages. :cool:
 
Captain_Bob said:
Dugie... actually you did need to log the actual in order for your student to have logged it. Time and conditions logged for an instrument student should mirror the instructor logbook.

My book is exactly the same... about the only funky thing I've done is highlight my first solo and the day I took my wife up for the first time. :)

Bob
Click to expand...

That one you will have to point out a reg for me??


im too lazy to look
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top