Actual on Instrument training

cebu66

cebu66

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
2
Location
Midwest
Display Name
Display name:
s63
Quick question. I'm on instrument training, and did an actual. Can I log it as PIC?
 
Read 14 CFR 61.51(e). Were you the sole manipulator of the controls? Are you rated for the aircraft you flew?
 
The key to this question is that LOG & ACT are two different verbs.
 
MAKG1 said:
Read 14 CFR 61.51(e). Were you the sole manipulator of the controls? Are you rated for the aircraft you flew?
Click to expand...
Exactly. If you're a PP-ASEL and training for IR in a single, you can log it as PIC time. If you're a PP-ASEL and training simultaneously for IR and ME in a twin, you cannot, since you are not "rated".
 
Tell me there was an instructor or someone with an IR in the airplane . . .
 
Thanks for all the replies. My instructor also told me too, just like what "Cory" said, "Acting" and "Logging" as PIC are 2 different things.

Thanks again, you all answered my question.
 
comanchepilot said:
Tell me there was an instructor or someone with an IR in the airplane . . .
Click to expand...



cebu66 said:
Thanks for all the replies. My instructor also told me too, just like what "Cory" said, "Acting" and "Logging" as PIC are 2 different things.

Thanks again, you all answered my question.
Click to expand...

a direct yes or no to the question would have been courteous
 
Jaybird180 said:
a direct yes or no to the question would have been courteous
Click to expand...

The way the question was posed a yes or no would not have necessarily been correct.

What if he got his private in a single engine seaplane, and is now doing IR training in a single engine land airplane? He could not log PIC time as he is not rated in the aircraft.

Now, had his question been posited with "I got my SEL private in a 172, and am doing IR training in the same plane...."
 
Last edited:
cebu66 said:
Quick question. I'm on instrument training, and did an actual. Can I log it as PIC?
Click to expand...

The most important thing is that you flew in actual IMC conditions. It's really what the rating is all about. Good for you and keep your instructor. Too many CFII won't venture out into the clouds.
 
During IFR training, my instructor was always taking me into actual. I never logged it as PIC. Here's the reason why. If you decide to continue your training to an ATP and then fly for the airlines. At some point some one will take a real close look at your logs. If they have a problem with you logging actual without the rating, will they accept it, even if they do they will probably look even harder at all the other entries until they find something wrong (and they will).

Now, on the practical side, how much difference will a few hours make in the big picture (nothing).
 
Garthur said:
During IFR training, my instructor was always taking me into actual. I never logged it as PIC. Here's the reason why. If you decide to continue your training to an ATP and then fly for the airlines. At some point some one will take a real close look at your logs. If they have a problem with you logging actual without the rating, will they accept it, even if they do they will probably look even harder at all the other entries until they find something wrong (and they will).

Now, on the practical side, how much difference will a few hours make in the big picture (nothing).
Click to expand...

If they have a problem with it, they need to take it up with the FAA and get them to rewrite 61.51.
 
EdFred said:
If they have a problem with it, they need to take it up with the FAA and get them to rewrite 61.51.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Just remember to fill out their application form according to their desires. I cannot imagine an air carrier becoming upset because you completed your pilot logbook as 61.51 says as long as you do the application they way they say to do it. What upsets them is when you claim stuff you didn't really do.
 
Ron Levy said:
Agreed. Just remember to fill out their application form according to their desires. I cannot imagine an air carrier becoming upset because you completed your pilot logbook as 61.51 says as long as you do the application they way they say to do it. What upsets them is when you claim stuff you didn't really do.
Click to expand...
It's surprising how many people seem to miss that. 61.51 tells you how the FAA wants you to count numbers for the purpose of showing qualification for FAA certificates, FAA qualifications and FAA currency. Their certificates and ratings, their currency, their rules of how to count. It's not a dictate to anyone else to count it the same way.

If Alpha Airlines only wants you to only list time spent actually in command of an amphibious 3-engine airplane flown on alternate Tuesday nights as "PIC" for the purpose of their application, that's what you give them, but it's a bit silly to limit your logbook in that way.

I used to use a Part 135 example but with the new ATP/1500 hour rules, I can just envision someone whom an airline wants to give a job to but the pilot doesn't qualify because the pilot kept his or her logbook to only record time "for the airlines."
 
EdFred said:
If they have a problem with it, they need to take it up with the FAA and get them to rewrite 61.51.
Click to expand...

I always go with common sense. FAA regulations have multiple interpretations depending on the bias of the reader, so does the FAA inspector that reads the same law.

Anyone that have dealt with the FAA will understand this.
 
Garthur said:
I always go with common sense. FAA regulations have multiple interpretations depending on the bias of the reader, so does the FAA inspector that reads the same law.
Click to expand...
However, the only interpretation which counts is the one issued by the FAA Chief Counsel's office, and on this issue, that interpretation has been clearly and repeatedly stated in writing. Any FAA Inspector who attempts to advance his/her own personal interpretation not consistent with the Chief Counsel's is going to get spanked by the Regional Counsel if s/he submits an enforcement action based on that erroneous personal interpretation.
 
Ron Levy said:
However, the only interpretation which counts is the one issued by the FAA Chief Counsel's office, and on this issue, that interpretation has been clearly and repeatedly stated in writing. Any FAA Inspector who attempts to advance his/her own personal interpretation not consistent with the Chief Counsel's is going to get spanked by the Regional Counsel if s/he submits an enforcement action based on that erroneous personal interpretation.
Click to expand...

No "spanking" will happen, only the EIR will be returned citing why it will not be accepted by the RA. It will then be up to the FSDO Office manager and the FLM to decide whether it's worth continuing or closed out.

And believe it or not, in cases where there are questions about regulations, interpretations and violations the Inspector can just pick up the phone and call the RA and discuss. With the amount of paperwork involved most Inspectors will call, discuss before proceeding with the EIR. It's not just submit and see what happens next.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top