Question about logging right seat King Air time

P&H

P&H

Well-Known Member
I'm a CFI and have a potential opportunity to get some right seat King Air time with a pilot who flies someone around under p.91. The aircraft does not require an SIC, but if the PIC has an MEI (I do, too, so I am properly rated), how could/should I log it? I thought I could probably log it as dual recieved when he's flying the client around, is that something interviewers may see as suspicious?
 
Yes, it will be suspicious. I would log about 10 - 20 hours of dual received, while actually getting instruction, and then only log the time you are sole manipulator of the controls. Make sure you actually KNOW the systems, emergencies, etc...

From the gouges I have read, they will ask you about systems on the most complex A/C you have flown.
 
So if they just let me fly the airplane most of the time, I can just log that as purely legitimate PIC with no real problems?

I'm not worried about being asked about systems. I can study the manuals.

But if I can bypass having to scrap and save for baron time and just sit right seat and fly a King Air from the right seat for free and log it as PIC time, studying systems is a relatively small price to pay.
 
P&H said:
So if they just let me fly the airplane most of the time, I can just log that as purely legitimate PIC with no real problems?
Click to expand...

Depends on the King Air. If it is under 12,500, then yes, you can legally log PIC as long as you are the sole manipulator of the controls. To make it look legit, I would get some real instruction from the guy and not just pad the logbook.
 
Personal opinion only.

I would suggest against walking into an interview with a large percentage of your multi-engine time in a part-91 king air.

Questions I'd ask if I were the interviewer:

"Who paid for the gas? Did you compensate him for expenses?"

"Where did you fly and why?"

"Who owned the airplane?"

But that's just me though.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Personal opinion only.

I would suggest against walking into an interview with a large percentage of your multi-engine time in a part-91 king air.

Questions I'd ask if I were the interviewer:

"Who paid for the gas? Did you compensate him for expenses?"

"Where did you fly and why?"

"Who owned the airplane?"

But that's just me though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I would keep in mind that the airlines have the right to throw out that time if they don't like it. Legal as far as the FAA goes doesn't mean they have to accept it. I would just explain that the owner liked having a 2 pilot crew, and that once you got instruction in the plane, you alternated legs, and I would actually fly like that. If it is 135 at all, you can't log the time until you are certified to do so. Make sure it is 91 only.
 
Yeah I'm trying to avoid any complications like those aforementioned by you guys. Looks like I should continue scraping for Baron time =P

Thanks for the quick responses, btw.
 
P&H said:
Yeah I'm trying to avoid any complications like those aforementioned by you guys. Looks like I should continue scraping for Baron time =P

Thanks for the quick responses, btw.
Click to expand...

I would do it anyways. If they throw it out, so be it. It will be a good experience to fly a turboprop, learn Hi charts, and get used to CRM.
 
Just because there is a loophole in the regs which allows you to log it (and I am not convinced that there is, but that is a different argument), it doesn't mean that you have to log it or that you should log it. I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Pilot in Command means something. It means you are assuming complete and sole responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and its occupants. If an emergency should arise while you are flying it, I highly doubt that the owner of this aircraft is going to let you retain control of the aircraft. He (or she) is going to take over. That being the case, you are not, nor ever were, the pilot in command.
 
skydog said:
Just because there is a loophole in the regs which allows you to log it (and I am not convinced that there is, but that is a different argument), it doesn't mean that you have to log it or that you should log it. I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Pilot in Command means something. It means you are assuming complete and sole responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and its occupants. If an emergency should arise while you are flying it, I highly doubt that the owner of this aircraft is going to let you retain control of the aircraft. He (or she) is going to take over. That being the case, you are not, nor ever were, the pilot in command.
Click to expand...

Using that line of logic, instrument students flying with an experienced instructor shouldn't log PIC time either. Nor should anybody who is getting checked out to rent a plane from an FBO. Those are times when the instructor would definitely take over if something serious went wrong.

There are plenty of times when a person is not the final authority for the flight, yet they still can (and should) log PIC time.

I'll quote the applicable section of Part 61.51 here:

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A 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;

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

(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

(2) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.

(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.

(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.

--------------------------------------

So, to address your specific argument...yes, "Pilot in command" does mean something. It means the person who is the final authority for the flight *or* it means the sole manipulator of the controls. This is not a "loophole." This is the way the regs are written.

What you're referring to is an "old school" way of viewing PIC time, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that very well might be how an interviewer will view PIC time, so it's good to make up and coming pilots aware of what to expect. However, there is nothing inherently wrong or illegal about logging PIC time when not the final authority for a flight.
 
I wouldn't log it. It's just suspicious time IMO--especially if you don't have a high-altitude endorsement.

I'd definately still fly the thing, though--it would be great experience and probably a lot of fun.
 
jrh said:
Using that line of logic, instrument students flying with an experienced instructor shouldn't log PIC time either. Nor should anybody who is getting checked out to rent a plane from an FBO. Those are times when the instructor would definitely take over if something serious went wrong.

There are plenty of times when a person is not the final authority for the flight, yet they still can (and should) log PIC time.

I'll quote the applicable section of Part 61.51 here:

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A 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;

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

(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

(2) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.

(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.

(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.

--------------------------------------

So, to address your specific argument...yes, "Pilot in command" does mean something. It means the person who is the final authority for the flight *or* it means the sole manipulator of the controls. This is not a "loophole." This is the way the regs are written.

What you're referring to is an "old school" way of viewing PIC time, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that very well might be how an interviewer will view PIC time, so it's good to make up and coming pilots aware of what to expect. However, there is nothing inherently wrong or illegal about logging PIC time when not the final authority for a flight.
Click to expand...



Several years ago I had the opportunity to fly a Northwest Airlines DC9 flight simulator with an authorized instructor. I spent about half an hour in it. By all rights I could have put that time in my book. However, I did not, because I knew this was not a training session. I could not have answered a single technical question about the DC9 correctly. We were just having a little bit of fun.

As all regulations do, Part 61 has a purpose. The heading says it all: Certification of Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors. Everything in it has to do training and certification of pilots. These regulations are meant to be applied in a training environment. Bopping around the sky in the right seat of a King Air because you were invited along a is not a training envirnment. Yes, under the strict terms of the regulation our friend with the King Air can log all that time. But that is not the intended purpose of the regulation.

Part of being a professional is upholding professional standards. Logging time in an airplane you have no ongoing and/or professional association with is, in my opinion, not appropriate.
 
Heres a question that sorta goes with this situation. The FBO i work for recently purchased an F90 to fly around execs for our parent company. Its single pilot operated. I was wondering what the requirments were to just "ride" in the right seat. I wouldn't log any time at all but more or less just be going along for the fun. Would this be legal?
 
mojo6911 said:
I would do it anyways. If they throw it out, so be it. It will be a good experience to fly a turboprop, learn Hi charts, and get used to CRM.
Click to expand...

i'd be more concerned about them throwing him out of the interview more than not counting the time. When i interviewed there was a guy there with some shady king air time and he was asked to leave when his logbook was reviewed. Granted i think his issue was logging SIC in a 135 operation where he wasnt authorized (no SIC check among other things) or a single pilot part 91 deal (i forget the details) but its something to think about.
 
skydog said:
Part of being a professional is upholding professional standards. Logging time in an airplane you have no ongoing and/or professional association with is, in my opinion, not appropriate.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. In fact, although I probably didn't come across like this in my first post, I completely agree with you.

I was just trying to make the point that there is nothing illegal about logging the time. There is the "traditional" definition of PIC time, which you were stressing (and most interviewers probably use), and there is the "legal" definition of PIC time, which I was stressing.

If it were me, I'd probably log the King Air time as dual received, with no PIC, and chalk it up to a learning experience. It still counts for total time and multi time, even if it's not PIC. I don't think anybody could criticize doing it that way.
 
I had about 40 hours of dual logged in a King Air. Not as PIC, just dual received. They didn't ask any questions about it during the interview, they basically just saw it as training. Since it wasn't logged as PIC they didn't ask any questions about emergencies or systems. Just my personal experience though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top