2-pilot crew ("dual Captains") - logging "Signing" PIC vs "sole manipulator" PIC - Part 91/135

Tarheelpilot said:
well. That’s a fun day
Click to expand...
Yeah, fortunately I think his business partner got hold of it and talked him into actually doing checklists rather than just running his finger down the page and saying “checklist complete.” Also fortunately I was in the habit of making a final control check as I pulled onto the runway, so I did catch the control lock. But I inherited my stubbornness and lack of tact from both him and my maternal grandfather, so I probably said something inappropriate about it.
 
Because it ridiculously seems to matter once in a while, I now log the following:

Pt 121 PIC (verifiable via releases)
Pt 121 SIC (when I’m in the right seat)
Pt 91 PIC (this and pt 191 SIC can happen at the same time)

Dual given
Instrument dual given (a 141 thing!)

Low level time (fire fighter thing)
Formation (CAF thing)
Flight wearing green socks (Dr Seuss thing)

Among a million other nutty details depending on the question.

Spoiler alert… honestly I just kinda SWAG nearly all these things… ya never know what the next guy is gonna ask. I do try to jot some notes so I can reverse engineer when necessary.

Caveat… most of my early 121 SIC is not loggable as 91 pic since I wasn’t type rated in those days.
 
If I'm in the left seat and I'm making all the decisions, I'm logging PIC regardless of the paperwork.
 
Big difference between CA PIC time and Stick-Wiggling from right seat PIC time, but airlines today are uber desperate.
 
By this point in a flying career, wouldn’t it be a bit embarrassing to log PIC just for sole manipulator?? You may be legal, but also laughed at.
Sheesh… you are a pro now.

Regardless of the regs, PIC is the decision making end of the stick. The other pilot may be sole manipulator, but he’s truly nothing more than an autopilot (other than CRM issues). You can turn off the autopilot (assume controls) anytime you wish.

Log it any way you want, but there is only one way that makes logical sense.
 
And I’m SOOOO glad “signed for the plane” has now been established.
Years ago I got more than raked over the coals because nobody understood that.

For those that still don’t know, in a 121 operation the captain must sign a release that states the airplane & flightplan can be operated safely.
 
Kritchlow said:
By this point in a flying career, wouldn’t it be a bit embarrassing to log PIC just for sole manipulator?? You may be legal, but also laughed at.
Sheesh… you are a pro now.

Regardless of the regs, PIC is the decision making end of the stick. The other pilot may be sole manipulator, but he’s truly nothing more than an autopilot (other than CRM issues). You can turn off the autopilot (assume controls) anytime you wish.

Log it any way you want, but there is only one way that makes logical sense.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective, clearly coming from someone who has spent most of his career in a two-pilot operation.

But that's not me, nor do I share your viewpoint on logging things accurately. I find no embarrassment in correctly logging time as detailed in 61.51. Especially because, for me, most of my previous PIC time is single-pilot, doing both stick-wiggling and "signing".

I just did some quick logbook math. Approximately 88% of my pilot time so far has been in single-pilot airplanes. So, to me, "logging PIC" is essentially synonymous with "stick wiggling PIC", i.e. 61.51e(1)(i). The remaining, and most recent, 12% is in a 2-pilot crew where the issue of signing PIC (61.51e(1)(iii)) vs stick wiggling PIC comes up.

In other words, like everyone, my opinions and viewpoint have been shaped by my experience, and to me, the main factor in logging "PIC" is "who flew the plane". I can't imagine I'm alone in this. In fact, as that definition is listed first in 61.51, it seems to be the primary factor regulatorily as well.

For someone like you, who spent most of his career in a two-pilot operation, it's clear that you consider the primary factor for logging "PIC" as "who was responsible for the plane".

Your derisive wording aside, I am of the opinion that both viewpoints are perfectly valid and supported by 61.51, and again, I find nothing embarrassing or laughable about following the regulations. I'd expect a "pro" to know the regulations.
 
Last edited:
RussR said:
Interesting perspective, clearly coming from someone who has spent most of his career in a two-pilot operation.

But that's not me, nor do I share your viewpoint on logging things accurately. I find no embarrassment in correctly logging time as detailed in 61.51. Especially because, for me, most of my previous PIC time is single-pilot, doing both stick-wiggling and "signing".

I just did some quick logbook math. Approximately 88% of my pilot time so far has been in single-pilot airplanes. So, to me, "logging PIC" is essentially synonymous with "stick wiggling PIC", i.e. 61.51e(1)(i). The remaining, and most recent, 12% is in a 2-pilot crew where the issue of signing PIC (61.51e(1)(iii)) vs stick wiggling PIC comes up.

In other words, like everyone, my opinions and viewpoint have been shaped by my experience, and to me, the main factor in logging "PIC" is "who flew the plane". I can't imagine I'm alone in this. In fact, as that definition is listed first in 61.51, it seems to be the primary factor regulatorily as well.

For someone like you, who spent most of his career in a two-pilot operation, it's clear that you consider the primary factor for logging "PIC" as "who was responsible for the plane".

Your derisive wording aside, I am of the opinion that both viewpoints are perfectly valid and supported by 61.51, and again, I find nothing embarrassing or laughable about following the regulations. I'd expect a "pro" to know the regulations.
Click to expand...
Okay. I didn’t see anything derisive, but some like chocolate and some like vanilla.

You asked what we did in the fractional world, and I responded

Personally I feel it’s a not safe to swap seats as co-captains. I feel there should be one defined leader.

I know you don’t care for me much, and that’s fine. But I do have a great deal of experience in the 91k/135/121 world.
 
RussR said:
Interesting perspective, clearly coming from someone who has spent most of his career in a two-pilot operation.

But that's not me, nor do I share your viewpoint on logging things accurately. I find no embarrassment in correctly logging time as detailed in 61.51. Especially because, for me, most of my previous PIC time is single-pilot, doing both stick-wiggling and "signing".

I just did some quick logbook math. Approximately 88% of my pilot time so far has been in single-pilot airplanes. So, to me, "logging PIC" is essentially synonymous with "stick wiggling PIC", i.e. 61.51e(1)(i). The remaining, and most recent, 12% is in a 2-pilot crew where the issue of signing PIC (61.51e(1)(iii)) vs stick wiggling PIC comes up.

In other words, like everyone, my opinions and viewpoint have been shaped by my experience, and to me, the main factor in logging "PIC" is "who flew the plane". I can't imagine I'm alone in this. In fact, as that definition is listed first in 61.51, it seems to be the primary factor regulatorily as well.

For someone like you, who spent most of his career in a two-pilot operation, it's clear that you consider the primary factor for logging "PIC" as "who was responsible for the plane".

Your derisive wording aside, I am of the opinion that both viewpoints are perfectly valid and supported by 61.51, and again, I find nothing embarrassing or laughable about following the regulations. I'd expect a "pro" to know the regulations.
Click to expand...
No one is saying you can’t log the time Russ.

It’s just a friendly reminder that if you decide to work anywhere else you need to make sure you answer the application questions accurately. Every airline and one of the two 135 operations I worked at specifically excluded sole manipulator PIC as eligible for the “PIC Turbine” category on the application. If you don’t keep track of when you were actually the captain vs 61.51 “PIC” time you could be causing yourself some grief down the line.

Whether or not you like it is irrelevant. That’s just how it is in the industry. You put all that sole manipulation PIC time down on the application and if it’s ever discovered you will be treated as though you lied on the application with some employers. So once again. As a piece of advice from someone that’s been doing this a lot longer than you I would recommend keeping track of captain time in addition to your current PIC column. I would also recommend that you verify how any future employers define PIC for the purposes of application processes.

Or not. Your choice.
 
Easy solution is to just make separate columns in your logbook. “Signing for airplane PIC” and sole manipulator PIC. That way if you’re ever applying for a job that only wants you to count, “signing for airplane PIC” it will be easy
 
“Signing for airplane PIC” has no FAA definition.

Would “PIC” and “Sole Manipulator PIC” be enough? After all, PIC in a Cessna 172 logs the same as PIC in a 777. Wouldn’t it be good to have a third column for multi-pilot PIC? For that matter, why not a PIC column for each plane requiring a multi crew?

One could take this to absurd extremes.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
“Signing for airplane PIC” has no FAA definition.

Would “PIC” and “Sole Manipulator PIC” be enough? After all, PIC in a Cessna 172 logs the same as PIC in a 777. Wouldn’t it be good to have a third column for multi-pilot PIC? For that matter, why not a PIC column for each plane requiring a multi crew?

One could take this to absurd extremes.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t have a definition but some companies even 135 like @Tarheelpilot mentioned don’t want you recording TPIC if you didn’t “sign for the airplane.” So although it doesn’t have a definition, it may be wise to log it in such a way so it makes it easier for you when you apply to these companies. Not saying you can’t/shouldn’t log PIC in accordance with the regs but making a separate column for “signing for plane PIC” takes almost no extra work and could make things easier down the road when potential companies have specific instructions on their application about what they count as TPIC time. I think we are all in agreement, we’re just talking past each other.
 
I’m beyond caring. It hasn’t been an issue for me for 34 years.

Just go digital. Solves the whole issue.

What does the T mean in TPIC?
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
I’m beyond caring. It hasn’t been an issue for me for 34 years.

What does the T mean in TPIC?
Click to expand...
It hasn’t been an issue for you for 34 years probably because your companies didn’t specify if they wanted you to put down your 61.51 PIC time vs your captain TPIC time on their applications and you probably didn’t care about time once you got your destination airline. Many operators only care about your “signing for airplane PIC” time. We’re probably going around in circles but the OP asked a question and he got good answers. Easiest way is to put separate columns in the logbook. We’re arguing semantics at this point. Signing for airplane PIC isn’t an FAA definition, we all know that. Companies are free to restrict and put whatever requirements they want on their application.

Turbine PIC.
 
If I’m wearing these, I’m logging PIC time




054a9ec8059d08fac8ad74613aaf7cd2.jpg
 
Thanks all, good discussion.

I do use an online logbook, myflightbook, and what I have been doing is logging PIC by the 61.51 definition, with an added column (property in MFB-speak) of "Acting PIC". This way I can easily determine one from the other if it ever came up. As a result, for my current job, about 75% is logged as PIC, but 50% as Acting PIC.

I think this will serve me well, and is what some here recommend.

Other notes - I have no desire or plan to go to the airlines. Those application requirements are mostly irrelevant to me. But at least this way I can filter it if I need to.

The most likely place I would have to report PIC numbers in the next 10 years or so is on insurance paperwork for any contract work I do. And on those, I have never seen them differentiate between the types of PIC. They ask for PIC in type with no clarification, so the 61.51 number is what they will get.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I’m beyond caring. It hasn’t been an issue for me for 34 years.

Just go digital. Solves the whole issue.

What does the T mean in TPIC?
Click to expand...
Digital solves nothing other than math errors. It’s still dependent on the user to log time in a way that’s useful and still compliant with regs.

Glad to hear it doesn’t affect you.
 
Last edited:
RussR said:
Thanks all, good discussion.

I do use an online logbook, myflightbook, and what I have been doing is logging PIC by the 61.51 definition, with an added column (property in MFB-speak) of "Acting PIC". This way I can easily determine one from the other if it ever came up. As a result, for my current job, about 75% is logged as PIC, but 50% as Acting PIC.

I think this will serve me well, and is what some here recommend.

Other notes - I have no desire or plan to go to the airlines. Those application requirements are mostly irrelevant to me. But at least this way I can filter it if I need to.

The most likely place I would have to report PIC numbers in the next 10 years or so is on insurance paperwork for any contract work I do. And on those, I have never seen them differentiate between the types of PIC. They ask for PIC in type with no clarification, so the 61.51 number is what they will get.
Click to expand...
So. You knew exactly what we were talking about when you started the thread…

Dude. You troll at God level. Gotta hand it to you, I don’t think I’ll ever be that good.
 
RussR said:
Thanks all, good discussion.

I do use an online logbook, myflightbook, and what I have been doing is logging PIC by the 61.51 definition, with an added column (property in MFB-speak) of "Acting PIC". This way I can easily determine one from the other if it ever came up. As a result, for my current job, about 75% is logged as PIC, but 50% as Acting PIC.

I think this will serve me well, and is what some here recommend.

Other notes - I have no desire or plan to go to the airlines. Those application requirements are mostly irrelevant to me. But at least this way I can filter it if I need to.

The most likely place I would have to report PIC numbers in the next 10 years or so is on insurance paperwork for any contract work I do. And on those, I have never seen them differentiate between the types of PIC. They ask for PIC in type with no clarification, so the 61.51 number is what they will get.
Click to expand...
I recall discussions on using separate "Part 1 PIC" column for employment applications for at least 20 years. The other one that seemed to be used was "point to point cross country" to meet Part 135 minimum requirements, although that was less common since reaching the numbers with >50nm ones wasn't that difficult. I never worried about that one, although I can give you that number with a simple query.

And yes, unless whatever document you are preparing defines a term for you, it's the FAA's usage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top