Becoming current vis 61.57...

Coloradobluesky, you're mistaken on several points as to the rules.
There are definitely situations where you cannot legally have the right seat act as PIC to solve this problem.

I recently had to explain to my safety pilot why he couldn't log PIC in a CAP 182.

1. He didn't have a high performance endorsement, which prohibits acting as PIC (not logging it, though, but I'd question the wisdom of that).
2. He was not permitted to act as PIC by CAP without a Form 5 checkride (though acting as non-PIC safety pilot is allowed as long as he wears a uniform).

#2 is more serious than people seem to think here. Acting as PIC when not authorized is stealing an airplane. And it's nearly universal that flying clubs, FBOs, etc. specify who is allowed to be PIC.
Don't confuse legality with following some personal "rule" that you or an FBO or the CAP or an insurance company makes up. If I own an airplane I can make it a rule that only red headed pilots can act as PIC. Doesn't. make it illegal for a bald man to act as PIC, it just violates a stupid rule.
 
There are definitely situations where you cannot legally have the right seat act as PIC to solve this problem.

I recently had to explain to my safety pilot why he couldn't log PIC in a CAP 182.

1. He didn't have a high performance endorsement, which prohibits acting as PIC (not logging it, though, but I'd question the wisdom of that).
2. He was not permitted to act as PIC by CAP without a Form 5 checkride (though acting as non-PIC safety pilot is allowed as long as he wears a uniform).

#2 is more serious than people seem to think here. Acting as PIC when not authorized is stealing an airplane. And it's nearly universal that flying clubs, FBOs, etc. specify who is allowed to be PIC.

This is just being dramatic. Just because CAP says he isn't supposed to ACT as PIC doesn't mean he can't, it just means you're violating your agreement with CAP by allowing him to do so. It doesn't make him acting as PIC invalid or illegal. And suggesting that "acting as PIC when not authorized is stealing an airplane" is just nonsense.
 
#2 is more serious than people seem to think here. Acting as PIC when not authorized is stealing an airplane. And it's nearly universal that flying clubs, FBOs, etc. specify who is allowed to be PIC.

Talk to a lawyer, because I am not one, but from my very limited understanding, the theft claim is incorrect. Theft/larceny/"stealing" varies by jurisdiction, but traditional common law definitions require (1) trespassory taking and (2) carrying away of (3) the tangible personal property (4) of another (5) with the intent to deprive the owner of its possession permanently. I believe most of these elements remain in most modern statutory definitions. (This is one reason the UK had to introduce a "taking without permission" statute -- car thieves who were going on joyrides and dumping the car were going free by arguing that they weren't depriving anyone of their car permanently, and had a reasonable expectation that it would be returned to the owner if left in a public place.)

The point is, just because "Acting as PIC when not authorized is stealing an airplane" sounds great doesn't make it true. Apologies for the tirade; maybe my tolerance for sounds-great-but-not-true statements is just low in the current political season.
 
There are definitely situations where you cannot legally have the right seat act as PIC to solve this problem.

I recently had to explain to my safety pilot why he couldn't log PIC in a CAP 182.

1. He didn't have a high performance endorsement, which prohibits acting as PIC (not logging it, though, but I'd question the wisdom of that).
2. He was not permitted to act as PIC by CAP without a Form 5 checkride (though acting as non-PIC safety pilot is allowed as long as he wears a uniform).

#2 is more serious than people seem to think here. Acting as PIC when not authorized is stealing an airplane. And it's nearly universal that flying clubs, FBOs, etc. specify who is allowed to be PIC.
He cannot log PIC, but not for any of the reasons you list. He has no basis for logging PIC because he is not manipulating controls, nor is he the acting PIC and meeting the other requirements for logging PIC (ATP operation, PIC in training, CFI, etc.). He may, however, log SIC under 61.51(F)(2). If he was manipulating the controls, he may log that time as PIC, regardless of the endorsement or who is acting as the PIC or who is Form 5 current.
 
The way I understand a pilot can log PIC if
1. He is acting as PIC (he is in charge of the flight)
2. He is manipulating the controls (and is rated etc for that aircraft)
3. He is an instructor
and probably some other ways

The problem I have is arbitrarily handing off acting as PIC (in charge of the flight) to someone else if I own the airplane, I rented it or I borrowed it just so they can log PIC??? I'm not going to do and I'm not even sure I can do that, unless somehow we are "equals" in those ownership, rental or borrowing agreements. Regardless if the FAA rules say I can. Just because I can doesnt mean I have to. Not if IT'S MY AIRPLANE!

To me, acting as PIC in the airplane means taking on the responsibility of captain of the airplane and liability for the flight. To some extent, I can't assign that. Not sure I'd want to even if I could. The two go hand in hand. Maybe not everyone agrees with that, but I bet a substantial majority of pilots that own the airplane would if they thought about it.

The other issue is, for this flight, I dont see that the pilot that has the night currency is a required crew member. The other pilot the could just tell him to sit at the airport and watch as he makes the required three landings solo and he could get current that way. Jury rigging it to make him a required crew member, that smacks of too much like instruction. I don't buy it.

That sort of swapping acting as PIC works for one pilot under the hood and the other a safety pilot if they work out the details. Not working IMO for night currency situation, IMO. But like I say, who really knows. Therefore, I'm entitled to my opinion.
 
Last edited:
The way I understand a pilot can log PIC if
1. He is acting as PIC (he is in charge of the flight) in an operation requiring multiple crew members, OR
2. He is manipulating the controls (and is rated for that aircraft), OR
3. He is an instructor providing instruction

Modified as above, that's pretty accurate for most of the cases we encounter. A few provisions for ATP and students notwithstanding.
 
The way I understand a pilot can log PIC if
1. He is acting as PIC (he is in charge of the flight)
2. He is manipulating the controls (and is rated etc for that aircraft)
3. He is an instructor
I'm presuming you mean if ANY of those is true.

Anyhow, your answer is still wrong.

The logging rules mean what they literally say in 61.51 The FAA has confirmed this many times (thankfully, I hate it when they confirm they don't mean what they say). FOR THE ONE HUNDREDTH TIME: BEING PILOT IN COMMAND IS NOT A NECESSARY NOR SUFFICIENT CONDITION TO LOG PIC TIME.

#1 above is completely wrong. You can't log PIC just because you are PIC. #3 is wrong that you can't log PIC time just because you are an instructor.

Let's look at each line in 61.51(e) Logging PIC time:

(1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;

This means that if you are the sole manipulator of the controls (which includes the autopilot if you want to split that hair), and you are rated appropriately above (again, currency, 61.31 endorsements, etc... do not count as ratings) you may log it. Note this includes time you are not legally allowed to actually be the pilot in command. In that case, there had better be a legal PIC along other than you.

(ii) When the pilot is the sole occupant in the aircraft


This is a bone to the student adding a new category/class rating (see the student pilot rule below) where they technically couldn't log the time as PIC only SOLO before.

(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted; or

This is the one that gets people. This is one time where being pilot in command gets you PART of the way. But you have to also meet the requirement that the regs (the intention of this was for things like part 135 crewing, but the FAA has confirmed simulated instrument flight qualifies by the letter of the reg) or the airplane requires multiple pilots by it's certification.

(iv) When the pilot performs the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a qualified pilot in command provided—...

This one is another relatively recent addition. It allows you to have a flight instructor "dummy" along in the right seat. This was a replacement for certain requirements that were previously required to be done SOLO. It was found that it's harder to get multiengine and the like planes that the insurer will allow someone to fly solo.

(2) If rated to act as pilot in command of the aircraft, an airline transport pilot may log all flight time while acting as pilot in command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.

ATP's get to log PIC in ATP-requiring operations just by virtue of being in command. Even if they're not in the cockpit. This was revised fairly recently as well to require it to actually be an ATP-requiring operation. Before, if you had an ATP you could be in the command of your buddies Bonanza flight and log it. This used in the "how many people can log PIC at the same time in a small aircraft" game.

(3) A certificated flight instructor may log pilot in command flight time for all flight time while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation if the instructor is rated to act as pilot in command of that aircraft.

Note that the key word here is that you must be serving as an instructor, not just flying in the plane (this is why your #3 is wrong). The FAA strung up a pair of instructors not too long ago for what they perceived as double logging. Note there's a revision here as well. They've added the "if the instructer is rated..." though I'm pretty sure that even before this change was made, the reg was in place that limited instructors to providing instruction in planes for which they held ratings.

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 solo flight endorsement as required under §61.87 of this part; and
(iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating.

This one also changed. A student pilot was previously never allowed to log PIC even when they were PIC (which they indeed are when soloing). They only could log SOLO time. This change allowed students to accumulate solo time during the studies Like the previous section, there's more redundency here as you can't legally solo as a student without the endorsement and you can't get the endorsement without being in training, but I'm sure some beancounter at the FAA decided this needed repeating.
 
Last edited:
The problem I have is arbitrarily handing off acting as PIC (in charge of the flight) to someone else if I own the airplane, I rented it or I borrowed it just so they can log PIC???
Who said anything about "arbitrarily handing off acting as PIC (in charge of the flight)"?
There is no rule that says the person logging PIC is the person acting as PIC.

Go back to your original scenario - night currency - X is current and is acting as PIC (perhaps X owns the airplane), Y is wiggling the stick and makes three takeoffs landings.
If X could log those TO/LDGs, then X would extend his/her currency for another 90 days without actually flying the airplane. Keep doing that over and over and now X is still night current but hasn't actually flown an airplane for years. Would you send your kids up for a ride with X at night with no other pilot in the airplane? Does this make sense?

Now, consider that logging does not (usually) require acting - like the regulations specify. X sits on his/her hands, but still remains acting PIC and is available to bail Y's ass out if Y gets in over their head (or if X just feels like flying his own airplane). Y gets some practice with takeoffs and landings in yea olde darke, logs the same, and is now night current. If X want's to extend his/her night currency, then X needs to get off his/her hands and actually fly the airplane. There is no arbitrary handing off the acting as PIC. Y does not "take over" someone else's airplane by pulling out a pen. X be acting. Y be logging. That's how it works.
 
Talk to a lawyer, because I am not one, but from my very limited understanding, the theft claim is incorrect. Theft/larceny/"stealing" varies by jurisdiction, but traditional common law definitions require (1) trespassory taking and (2) carrying away of (3) the tangible personal property (4) of another (5) with the intent to deprive the owner of its possession permanently. I believe most of these elements remain in most modern statutory definitions. (This is one reason the UK had to introduce a "taking without permission" statute -- car thieves who were going on joyrides and dumping the car were going free by arguing that they weren't depriving anyone of their car permanently, and had a reasonable expectation that it would be returned to the owner if left in a public place.)

The point is, just because "Acting as PIC when not authorized is stealing an airplane" sounds great doesn't make it true. Apologies for the tirade; maybe my tolerance for sounds-great-but-not-true statements is just low in the current political season.
Damn that was good! Yeah US joyriding statutes were created for the same reason.

But theft offenses have been expanded beyond the common law definition of "larceny" (if you want to get technical) in most states to remove the "permanent" requirement. And, since aircraft is hardly a common law term, many states have enacted statutes specific to them. In some cases, statutes will even say things like
Taking of aircraft made crime of larceny.
Any person who, under circumstances not constituting larceny shall, without the consent of​
the owner, take, use or operate or cause to be taken, used or operated, an airplane or other aircraft
or its equipment, for his own profit, purpose or pleasure, steals the same, is guilty of a Class H
felony.​

So, MAKG is is probably not wrong.

Might as well pay attention in the thread to the misunderstanding of the FAR distinction between between "acting" and "logging" and what they mean, which unfortunately is beginning to look more like a firm conviction in one's belief in what the rules say than what they in fact say.
 
The way I understand a pilot can log PIC if
1. He is acting as PIC (he is in charge of the flight)
2. He is manipulating the controls (and is rated etc for that aircraft)
3. He is an instructor
and probably some other ways
I'd suggest reading the rules rather than relying on your understanding of them.
 
A rule of thumb, that while not always "legal, will probably serve a GA pilot just fine:

1. If you are flying the airplane, log it.

If you aren't building time for a rating or a job, nobody is gonna much care. And even if you are building time, that 2.5 you logged in 2013 that didn't technically qualify, under Part XYZ, Subpart Q, Silly A@@ Rule III, is not gonna trip you up, unless you have a bunch of those, or make a habit of fudging your logbook to the point it catches someone's interest.
 
A rule of thumb, that while not always "legal, will probably serve a GA pilot just fine:

1. If you are flying the airplane, log it.

My AF buddy describes it this way.

File what you want.
Fly what you get.
Log what you need.
 
If a PP takes a non pilot friend on a flight and lets him manipulate the controls, apparently nobody can log flight time?
 
If a PP takes a non pilot friend on a flight and lets him manipulate the controls, apparently nobody can log flight time?
Allegedly there is an old chief counsel ruling that no one has a copy of that says at least one person gets to log.

[URL='http://www.examograms.com/articles/kolber01.htm']http://www.examograms.com/articles/kolber01.htm said:
[/URL]
Based on a unpublished and (so far) unverifiable 1977 Chief Counsel opinion, you may log PIC if you are acting as PIC and you are the only person on board with the necessary aircraft ratings. In other words, if no one else on board may log PIC time, the person acting as PIC may. Note that there is nothing whatsoever in 61.51 to support this interpretation. Although I received a copy from a source that I trust (sort of), there is some reasonable disagreement on whether it’s any good or even really exists. But it does answer the silly question: “Can I log PIC while I let my four year old niece fly the airplane?” Frankly, I can’t imagine that the FAA gives a hoot about this one way or another.

And here is the alleged text of said alleged opinion (Good luck finding an original)
June 22, 1977

Mr. Thomas Beane

Dear Mr. Beane:

This letter is in response to your recent letters to the FAA Flight Standards Service and to the Chief Counsel inquiring about the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time by an airman whenever he is not the sole manipulator of the controls.


Section 1.1 of the Federal Aviation Regulations defines Pilot in Command as:

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; (2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and (3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

Section 61.51(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations provides, in pertinent part:

(2) Pilot-in-Command flight time.

(I) A private or commercial pilot may log as pilot in command time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts 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.

A pilot may log PIC time in accordance with Section 61.51(c)(2)(I) when he is not actually "flying the airplane", if the airplane is one on which more than one pilot is required under its type certificate or under the regulations under which the flight is conducted and he is acting as PIC. Also, a pilot, rated in category and class (e.g. airplane single-engine) could, as the pilot who "Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight" log PIC time if another pilot, not appropriately rated, was actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft.

It should be noted that more than one pilot may log PIC time for the same flight time. For example, one pilot receiving instruction may log PIC time in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(I) for the time he is designated PIC, and another pilot may log PIC time in accordance with (c)(2)(iii) for the same time during which he is actually giving flight instruction.

We hope that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry on the proper logging of PIC time.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY EDWARD P. FABERMAN
 
Last edited:
My AF buddy describes it this way.

File what you want.
Fly what you get.
Log what you need.

I've seen pilots dismissed from the airline I flew at for false documentation and similar personal history issues. FWIW. If you fudge, keep it to yourself. Life has a strange way of coming back to bite you. (ex wife, old buddy etc)
 
If a PP takes a non pilot friend on a flight and lets him manipulate the controls, apparently nobody can log flight time?

Exactly.... Where in the regs does it say PIC must manipulate the controls for the duration of the flight?

I've submitted a letter to the FAA interps department on this question. We will see...
 
Exactly.... Where in the regs does it say PIC must manipulate the controls for the duration of the flight?

I've submitted a letter to the FAA interps department on this question. We will see...
Now why did you have to go and do that?!?
 
Exactly.... Where in the regs does it say PIC must manipulate the controls for the duration of the flight?

I've submitted a letter to the FAA interps department on this question. We will see...
It doesn't. However, that is a separate question from logging pic.
 
Now why did you have to go and do that?!?

Because even with all the interpretations out there, most people do what they want regardless.

"Fly what you want, log what you need.."

At the end of the day, it's the honor system, and there is very little method of anyone proving who was PIC, who wasn't, etc..

I know many a guy who has pencil whipped whatever they needed to get where they wanted to go..

It doesn't. However, that is a separate question from logging pic.

It is, but few seem to be able to distinguish the difference.

And like I said in the above post, if someone wants to "violate" the logging honor system, they're not going to care what they log.
 
The problem I have is arbitrarily handing off acting as PIC (in charge of the flight) to someone else if I own the airplane, I rented it or I borrowed it just so they can log PIC??? I'm not going to do and I'm not even sure I can do that, unless somehow we are "equals" in those ownership, rental or borrowing agreements. Regardless if the FAA rules say I can. Just because I can doesnt mean I have to. Not if IT'S MY AIRPLANE!
You don't need to allow it, and neither does insurance, the CAP (see above example), or an FBO renting an airplane. However, that doesn't mean the FAA forbids it. If some other owner wants to allow another pilot to act as PIC, they're free to do so.
 
Dang. I guess all those CAP and ROTC "orientation rides," plus Young Eagles must all be illegal due to having unrated PICs.... Jeez.

I got six of them scheduled for the weekend after next.
 
Allegedly there is an old chief counsel ruling that no one has a copy of that says at least one person gets to log.
Wow, didn't remember my FAQ was picked up by Examograms!

Yeah, the Beane opinion can't be located. The story is that it was in a collection of papers of a former FAA inspector. That where I first heard about it and obtained a copy (from that inspector; you can probably find that thread in a Google Grouos search of the Usenet rec.aviation groups). But it can't be located in any official or semi-official record available publicly, including the multi-volume/subscription database used by aviation lawyers.

I once tried to verify it by writing to Ed Faberman. He said he didn't remember it but, "it sounds like me."
 
Last edited:
See what you st
Wow, didn't remember my FAQ was picked up by Examograms!
."

Examograms, rings a bell. Were those the old Acme booklets with test questions before the FAA published the master list?
 
Who believes that?
The history of discussions and the existence of more than 30 years of FAA Chief Counsel opinions* saying the exact same thing on the subject of logging PIC reflect many people that cannot or, more likely, will not, understand the distinction, let alone (to use the infamous higher level of learning), apply it or correlate it.

[*The earliest I've seen is from 1980; the latest at the end of 2013]
 
Examograms, rings a bell. Were those the old Acme booklets with test questions before the FAA published the master list?
They were a series of FAA-published recurrent training tests back in the 1970s. One website that has collected them is http://www.birdbird.org/aviation/examogram/
41AkyzuB%2BtL._AC_SX75_CR,0,0,75,75_.jpg


But the site where the one from my FAQ is re-published (original is on my website) is http://www.examograms.com/ one of the product of the online Gold Seal flight school. I was asked if it was ok since it is operated by a friend of mine but forgot all about it.
 
OK, I recall Exam-O-Grams too now. Thanks for the link, brought back memories, or nightmares. I guess the Acme books were a bit earlier, I used them in 1974 I think when I was working on my PPC. I believe the way Acme books worked was people who took the written exam would send Acme questions they had on the tests. This of course was before the FAA published them.
 
OK, I recall Exam-O-Grams too now. Thanks for the link, brought back memories, or nightmares. I guess the Acme books were a bit earlier, I used them in 1974 I think when I was working on my PPC. I believe the way Acme books worked was people who took the written exam would send Acme questions they had on the tests. This of course was before the FAA published them.
I worked in a public library in high school. Acme did this for a whole lot of government exams. There was a whole reference section in my library dedicated to them and there were usually a few people there studying for Civil Service exams.

I think even companies like Gleim got started by making inquiries from folks who took the FAA tests. They've probably gone back to that system as the FAA reduced the number of sample questions available for fears people were simply memorizing the answers.
 
I worked in a public library in high school. Acme did this for a whole lot of government exams. There was a whole reference section in my library dedicated to them and there were usually a few people there studying for Civil Service exams.

I think even companies like Gleim got started by making inquiries from folks who took the FAA tests. They've probably gone back to that system as the FAA reduced the number of sample questions available for fears people were simply memorizing the answers.

Interesting. And people memorizing the answers! I can't imagine (tic)...:rolleyes:
 
:D It was a big deal to the FAA when it realized people were walking our of the ATP written in 15-20 minutes.

Yeah I guess so! When they started publishing the questions I wondered about that.
 
I have never seen an FAA counsel definition on 61.51 that didn't affirm the regulations mean exactly what they say.

There was some obfuscation caused when John Lynch in AFS-100 published his completely unapproved, unofficial, and in most cases contradictory FAQ on part 61. It has been officially erased from FAA memory.
 
Last edited:
I have never seen an FAA counsel definition on 61.51 that didn't affirm the logs mean exactly what they say.

There was some obfuscation caused when John Lynch in AFS-100 published his completely unapproved, unofficial, and in most cases contradictory FAQ on part 61. It has been officially erased from FAA memory.

Wouldn't it be something if people just read the regs for what the words right there in black and white said?
 
Back
Top