Logging IFR PIC without an Instrument Rating...

[Clocks]

Moderator Comment

These posts were moved from the ATP forum to continue the logging discussion here. Originally these were in the "Don't Attend ATP" thread. SteveC

Originally Posted by meyers9163

Well to be quite honest I call the PIC time in which Private students log in actual while having a CFI in the right seat ILLEGAL.

What the hell are you talking about?

You are really getting ridiculous if you think that a PPL who is going to start instrument training in a week logging a few hours of actual with a II sitting next to them during cross country time building is illegal. Find a single FSDO that agrees with you.

[turbomax97]

Originally Posted by Clocks

What the hell are you talking about?

You are really getting ridiculous if you think that a PPL who is going to start instrument training in a week logging a few hours of actual with a II sitting next to them during cross country time building is illegal. Find a single FSDO that agrees with you.

Yeah, Paul I'm sorry but you're completely wrong. I'm sorry you feel that way but it is 100% legal. The FARs are straight forward on this subject - and the answer is that you absolutely can and should log it as PIC as long as you are appropriatly rated for that particular category/class/type if needed.

[meyers9163]

Originally Posted by Clocks

What the hell are you talking about?

You are really getting ridiculous if you think that a PPL who is going to start instrument training in a week logging a few hours of actual with a II sitting next to them during cross country time building is illegal. Find a single FSDO that agrees with you.

Indianapolis FSDO. During my IRA I had to redo my logbook. They stated that until you hold the rating yourself you are not allowed to log actual instrument time as PIC. Period. Feel free to call them if you want to argue. And if you read the FARs it does support their stance on it as well.

You find a spot in which the FARs say that a Private who is not holding an instrument rating can log actual instrument time as PIC when a CFII is in the plane? There isnt one just FYI. The exact smart ass comment I got from the FSDO this morning. Finally going back to just a simple definition of Pilot In Command Authority. The CFII is ultimately the person who is filing the IFR flight plan and thus has the final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of flight. Thus the student at that point does not and cannot log PIC. Again you are more then welcome to call the Indianapolis FSDO. You asked for one FSDO that has that viewpoint and that's the one I have personal experience with.

Lastly you can go with the 2nd part of PIC. Has been designate as the pilot in command before or during the flight. At which point is the student who does not hold an instrument rating allowed to fly into actual by themselves? Oh that's right they arent. Thus ultimately until they hold the rating they cannot do that. Again thus by Indianapolis FSDO stance you cannot log it as PIC until you can personally put your name on that flight plan. Ultimately by the first definition of PIC they do not have the final authority of the flight when in actual conditions and thus cannot log it.

Moreover Indianapolis FSDO left the conversation with me as their stance goes back to the FAR's do not say you can. However you can also argue the FAR's do not say that you CANNOT boldy. However they associate this arguement with the one in which one goes for their CMEL and are logging for a requirement. They compare this argument with the whole "acting as PIC." In the end yes the student is the sole manipulator of the controls however the CFII ultimately is the PIC. Again its a round about argument. However you simply asked for a FSDO that does not accept this and Indianapolis is one of many in which wont accept this.

[meyers9163]

Originally Posted by turbomax97

Yeah, Paul I'm sorry but you're completely wrong. I'm sorry you feel that way but it is 100% legal. The FARs are straight forward on this subject - and the answer is that you absolutely can and should log it as PIC as long as you are appropriatly rated for that particular category/class/type if needed.

No turbo you are absolutely incorrect. Indianapolis FSDO will not accept it period. however you are right Orlando and the DPEs in which ATP does use will. You can call the Director of the Purdue program and call him a Liar if you want. His name is Larry. He's in charge of one of the best programs in the US as far as aviation goes and also a DPE. We had about a 1 hour discussion with the Indianapolis FSDO about 2 years ago about this issue.

Until you hold the IRA yourself even with a CFII you are not able to log it. Period. That's their stance and they still have it. I called today and spoke with them again. Their stance is also you can be rated in the airplane and that's fine, however until you hold the rating yourself you would not be able to log it. Thus when you are a private student even with a CFI next to you, you are not logging it as PIC until you have the rating. Thus they will not and just do not accept it. But thanks again for saying I'm wrong with this when I know of a FSDO that does have this stance.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by meyers9163

No turbo you are absolutely incorrect. Indianapolis FSDO will not accept it period. however you are right Orlando and the DPEs in which ATP does use will. You can call the Director of the Purdue program and call him a Liar if you want. His name is Larry. He's in charge of one of the best programs in the US as far as aviation goes and also a DPE. We had about a 1 hour discussion with the Indianapolis FSDO about 2 years ago about this issue.

Until you hold the IRA yourself even with a CFII you are not able to log it. Period. That's their stance and they still have it. I called today and spoke with them again. Their stance is also you can be rated in the airplane and that's fine, however until you hold the rating yourself you would not be able to log it. Thus when you are a private student even with a CFI next to you, you are not logging it as PIC until you have the rating. Thus they will not and just do not accept it. But thanks again for saying I'm wrong with this when I know of a FSDO that does have this stance.

Originally Posted by meyers9163

Indianapolis FSDO. During my IRA I had to redo my logbook. They stated that until you hold the rating yourself you are not allowed to log actual instrument time as PIC. Period. Feel free to call them if you want to argue. And if you read the FARs it does support their stance on it as well.

You find a spot in which the FARs say that a Private who is not holding an instrument rating can log actual instrument time as PIC when a CFII is in the plane? There isnt one just FYI. The exact smart ass comment I got from the FSDO this morning. Finally going back to just a simple definition of Pilot In Command Authority. The CFII is ultimately the person who is filing the IFR flight plan and thus has the final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of flight. Thus the student at that point does not and cannot log PIC. Again you are more then welcome to call the Indianapolis FSDO. You asked for one FSDO that has that viewpoint and that's the one I have personal experience with.

Lastly you can go with the 2nd part of PIC. Has been designate as the pilot in command before or during the flight. At which point is the student who does not hold an instrument rating allowed to fly into actual by themselves? Oh that's right they arent. Thus ultimately until they hold the rating they cannot do that. Again thus by Indianapolis FSDO stance you cannot log it as PIC until you can personally put your name on that flight plan. Ultimately by the first definition of PIC they do not have the final authority of the flight when in actual conditions and thus cannot log it.

Moreover Indianapolis FSDO left the conversation with me as their stance goes back to the FAR's do not say you can. However you can also argue the FAR's do not say that you CANNOT boldy. However they associate this arguement with the one in which one goes for their CMEL and are logging for a requirement. They compare this argument with the whole "acting as PIC." In the end yes the student is the sole manipulator of the controls however the CFII ultimately is the PIC. Again its a round about argument. However you simply asked for a FSDO that does not accept this and Indianapolis is one of many in which wont accept this.

Unfortunately then, those people in the Indianapolis FSDO are wrong. It isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. (I am personally aware of some instances in our local FSDO regarding 135 interpretations that are completely wrong as well.)

For one of the easiest to understand explanations of why, I recommend this FAQ from one of our own members: http://www.midlifeflight.com/faq/faq.php?s=1

Here is a pertinent clip from that page:

The "golden key" to understanding the rules of logging PIC is to always keep in mind that the FAA treats "acting as pilot in command" and "logging pilot in command time" under FAR 61.51 as completely different concepts. It's the difference between (1) having final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of a flight (commonly referred to as "acting as PIC") and (2) writing numbers in columns on a piece of paper while sitting at a desk with a beer in your hand. They never mean the same thing and they have completely different rules. A pilot can be responsible for a flight and not be permitted to write those numbers down. A pilot can be technically nothing but a passenger in the FAA's eyes and be permitted to write time in that PIC column. In some circumstances, two pilots may sit at that desk and write numbers in their logbooks, even though, quite obviously, only one can bear the ultimate responsibility for a flight.

The known universe of rules for logging to show qualification for certificates, ratings and currency is contained in FAR 61.51. Unless 61.51 specifically directs you to it, answering a logging question by including the word "acting" or pointing to any other FAR is always a mistake. This is a simplified version of the rules of Part 61 PIC logging as they have been written in the FAR and repeatedly and consistently interpreted by the FAA Legal Counsel since at least 1980. It's limited to student, recreational, private, and commercial pilots. CFIs and ATPs can fend for themselves. If they don't know the rules, tough.

Rule 1. If you are a recreational, private or commercial pilot, you may log PIC any time you are the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft you are rated for. [61.51(e)(1)(i)] "Rated" means the category and class (and type, if a type rating is necessary for the aircraft) that is listed on the back of your pilot certificate. Nothing else matters. Not instrument ratings. Not endorsements for high performance, complex, or tailwheel aircraft. Not medical currency. Not flight reviews. Not night currency. Nothing. There are no known exceptions. Note that the rule is different for sport pilots who have endorsed "privileges" for aircraft in their logbooks insetad of ratings on their pilot certifciates.

Right now I'm thinking that this particular discussion should be pruned out of the original ATP thread, so when I get a minute I'll come back and take the posts out of here and start a new discussion over in the CFI forum...

[SteveC]

Moderator Comment

This discussion was running off-topic in a thread in the ATP forum, so I am pulling out some of those posts and moving them here for further review. Reference all posts above this one were from that thread...

[Clocks]

I left a message with the Cleveland FSDO asking for clarification. Maybe they'll lay siege to the Indianapolis FSDO office.

[tgrayson]

Like the proverbial bump in the rug. Here's an LOI on the issue:

Logging PIC in Instrument Conditions.PDF

[USMCmech]

Actually I counted four LOIs all saying the same thing.

Yes a non IFR pilot may log actuall durring dual training flights.

[aloft]

...and may log it as PIC, provided they are rated for the aircraft and sole manipulator of the controls. They are not, and cannot be, the actual, legal PIC for the flight; the CFII is.

Yeah, the Indy FSDO is on crack.

[meyers9163]

Who knows... its all government run. So I guess we get what we pay for? Oh if I cared I'd go back and change my log book apparently. But I couldnt care enough about it. Someone who has a FSDO who will take a stance on it let me know. Thus I would enjoy talking to them and see if they would mind taking it up with Indy.

[turbomax97]

Originally Posted by meyers9163

Who knows... its all government run. So I guess we get what we pay for? Oh if I cared I'd go back and change my log book apparently. But I couldnt care enough about it. Someone who has a FSDO who will take a stance on it let me know. Thus I would enjoy talking to them and see if they would mind taking it up with Indy.

See, we were having a civilized discussion before about this - not sure why you're taking jabs about it in the original thread. Let's keep it this way! I've got nothing personal against ya!

Personally - I've clarified this with Dallas FSDO, Ft. Worth FSDO, as well as OKC. You're right - you've got enough time to where it's probably negligible, but it makes a big difference when you're training a student and say indy fsdo says the hours that you logged as pic xc, say towards the 50 hours pic xc required for the Instrument rating are worthless. Hence why I was critical about your prior statement.

Interesting this came up though - there's been many issues like this I've taken up with the FSDO, and on several of them, Dallas FSDO vs Ft. Worth had 2 different views.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by Clocks

I left a message with the Cleveland FSDO asking for clarification. Maybe they'll lay siege to the Indianapolis FSDO office.

The FSDO is the last place I'd turn for clarification of a FAR.

[Clocks]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

The FSDO is the last place I'd turn for clarification of a FAR.

Ha yeah I figured that out. The guy that returned my call had no idea and came to the conclusion that an argument could be made for either case (in his defense he is a 121 inspector). Since Indy apparently has such a militant view of this issue I was curious to see what the local FSDO thought, oh well.

[OUemt]

Ok, so I'm definitely no expert here(I'm still working on my Private), but after reading an article in the July 2008 AOPA Pilot, Who's in command? (link for those of you with access), it seems that the NTSB/FAA have some pretty interesting definitions of PIC.

a quote I found interesting:
"...[The] case put pilots on notice that if a nonflying pilot is on board a dual-control aircraft with another pilot who is flying the aircraft and acting as pilot in command, and for some legitimate reason the nonflying pilot temporarily manipulates the controls, even under compelling circumstances, the nonflying pilot is in jeopart of being considered to be the pilot in command for purposes of finding regulatory violations."

That's an interpretation of something the NTSB or FAA came out with if I'm reading this correctly.

Now I know this is not an exact parallel to the situation being discussed, but if you can be held responsible for your actions in these cases (there *is* a case discussed where a CFI was held responsible for a fully qualified pilot's mistake when the CFI "demonstrated a landing" after the other pilot entered Class D airspace w/o 2-way comm or clearance), shouldn't you be allowed to log it as PIC?

Weak link maybe, but it seems kind of like a double standard to me. I'd like to hear what anyone thinks about this?
-Chip

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by OUemt

Weak link maybe, but it seems kind of like a double standard to me. I'd like to hear what anyone thinks about this?

I think most people would agree with you in that, intuitively, one should only be able to log PIC when acting PIC, and any time you're acting PIC, you should be able to log it so.

Unfortunately, that's not the way the law reads, or the interpretations thereof. Maybe it was that way at one time and they started "stretching" the regulation in the sense of perceived fairness. Now, the "acting" vs "logging" are almost completely separate.

[flyinguitar]

A related question is whether a pilot who is rated ASEL can log PIC while receiving training for their tailwheel, complex, high performance, or high altitude endorsements. They don't currently have the endorsement, but they are rated - which I understand to mean category, class, and type, if required. (Endorsements aren't part of being "rated.") Therefore, although the FARs say no one may act as PIC of such aircraft until they get their endorsement, you can still log PIC as sole manipulator of an aircraft for which you are "rated" while you are receiving training towards the endorsement.

You folks agree?

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by flyinguitar

You folks agree?

Yes.

[bdhill1979]

Originally Posted by flyinguitar

A related question is whether a pilot who is rated ASEL can log PIC while receiving training for their tailwheel, complex, high performance, or high altitude endorsements. They don't currently have the endorsement, but they are rated - which I understand to mean category, class, and type, if required. (Endorsements aren't part of being "rated.") Therefore, although the FARs say no one may act as PIC of such aircraft until they get their endorsement, you can still log PIC as sole manipulator of an aircraft for which you are "rated" while you are receiving training towards the endorsement.

You folks agree?

That is how I have always understood it. Whenever I am doing complex or high performance endorsements I am writing PIC down in their logbooks before ever giving an endorsement. They were the sole manipulator with Category and class ratings (I have never flown anything requiring a type so... meh). The reg does not require endorsements to log PIC.

[surreal1221]

ASEL/AMEL (cat and class) right? Sole manipulator? Excellent. . .

PIC then. . .simple really.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Maybe it was that way at one time and they started "stretching" the regulation in the sense of perceived fairness. Now, the "acting" vs "logging" are almost completely separate.

FWIW, here is a post I did some time ago on another forum. Obviously not a thorough historical treatment, but...



A friend and I were corresponding about some old versions of the current FAR. He came across a hard copy of the 1926 Air Commerce Regulations, and I've seen some later ones. We were going back and forth on the different ways the FAA counted time toward certificates and ratings.

As far as I've been able to tell, the counting of "LOGGED PIC" time is a child of the FAR and didn't exist in the CAR ("Civil Air Regulations") or the ACR before that. What was counted in the ACR was something called "solo flying" which did not mean "sole occupant." Here's the 1929 version:

==============================
Sec. 61. Meaning of Solo Flying.
As used in these regulations, a person is engaged in solo flying when he is the sole operator of the controls and is in command of aircraft in flight.
==============================

Notice that at least as early as 1929, we have the "sole manipulator" as a concept of how to count flight hours toward certificates and ratings and that back then they were looking for two conditions. - sole manipulator =and= actually in command.

Something analogous to the current version of the rule, still using "solo" instead of PIC ("solo" meaning "sole occupant" shows up in the 1950s) while dropping the need to actually be in command seems to make its first appearance in a 1942 revision to Part 20 of the CAR, adding a new rule on logging:

==============================
20.673 Logging of pilot flight time.

***

(b) The holder of a pilot certificate, other than a student pilot certificate, may log as solo flight time that portion of any flight during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls: Provided, That he may log as solo flight time only 50 percent of any flight time during which a certificated instructor or a certificated airline transport pilot is in the aircraft serving as an instructor for the purpose of reviewing or increasing such pilot's skill;
==============================

Change "solo flight time" to "pilot in command" and, except for removing the instruction debit and adding some more requirements, and it looks like we have had the same rule for the past 65 years. You count sole manipulator time toward certificates and ratings without regard to whether you are in command of a flight.

PS - I know. Time for me to get a life.




Wouldn't it be funny if they decide to use "PIC" instead of "solo" to make it less confusing.

[meyers9163]

Originally Posted by turbomax97

See, we were having a civilized discussion before about this - not sure why you're taking jabs about it in the original thread. Let's keep it this way! I've got nothing personal against ya!

Personally - I've clarified this with Dallas FSDO, Ft. Worth FSDO, as well as OKC. You're right - you've got enough time to where it's probably negligible, but it makes a big difference when you're training a student and say indy fsdo says the hours that you logged as pic xc, say towards the 50 hours pic xc required for the Instrument rating are worthless. Hence why I was critical about your prior statement.

Interesting this came up though - there's been many issues like this I've taken up with the FSDO, and on several of them, Dallas FSDO vs Ft. Worth had 2 different views.

Understandable! However I dont even know how this subject got brought up! But its good discussion. I appologize if I upset ya with it! However its one of many issues I found with ATP in which they are tip toeing on a fine line. Just the amount of thing lines they were tip toeing drove me crazy.

[turbomax97]

Originally Posted by meyers9163

Understandable! However I dont even know how this subject got brought up! But its good discussion. I appologize if I upset ya with it! However its one of many issues I found with ATP in which they are tip toeing on a fine line. Just the amount of thing lines they were tip toeing drove me crazy.

Don't worry I know exactly where you're coming from. You definately do NOT take anything for granted. I was a living/ breathing FAR just to make sure my ass didn't get in trouble because of the way that business was run. "We have FSDO's that agree with us" was not an acceptable reason for me - simply because of this very example in this thread. My favorite is overflying 100 hours up to 10 over for training instead of using it to return the a/c to a maintenance facility to get inspected.

One that I thought was really fishy was logging actual as a safety pilot, and logging safety pilot time period when the aircraft is in imc... Discuss?...

[Clocks]

Originally Posted by turbomax97

One that I thought was really fishy was logging actual as a safety pilot, and logging safety pilot time period when the aircraft is in imc... Discuss?...

Its pretty straight forward that if you are in IMC then a safety pilot isn't needed, meaning the safety pilot can't log it.