Another logging question non-PIC non-Dual

[Larry in TN]

You know, I'm betting they're not even aware of the logging rules to the extent people here are. In my whole life I've never heard of anyone in tune as you are here.
I'm betting it's just expected that one logs pic when they are pic. Of course I'm guessing, as I'm not an airline recruiter...

The airlines are very clear on this. That's why they specifically say on their applications that they only want you to count time when you were acting as PIC as PIC time.

What's this signing for an airplane? Over 2K hours and don't recall ever doing that. Appear to have a pretty narrow mind.

I think the term came from the military. It just means the pilot who is responsible for the airplane.

 

[Palmpilot]

The airlines are very clear on this. That's why they specifically say on their applications that they only want you to count time when you were acting as PIC as PIC time...

If that's the case at Southwest, it sounds like the guy they blackballed must have failed to follow directions.

 

[Kritchlow]

So, you're saying that because airline recruiters don't know the regs, you should make up your own definition of PIC time?

Huh? Where did I say that??

 

[Kritchlow]

I don't think very many people in general aviation uses that expression which is why you are getting these comments. I have flown 135 for many years and have never "signed" for an airplane either, if that means putting my signature somewhere. I have never even heard that expression at work. We are "assigned" to be PIC or SIC.

Shucks... That expression has been around for as long as I can remember. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

 

[Kritchlow]

The airlines are very clear on this. That's why they specifically say on their applications that they only want you to count time when you were acting as PIC as PIC time.

That very well could be the way it's worded.

I think the term came from the military. It just means the pilot who is responsible for the airplane.

Again, likely correct.

Just thought everyone knew that expression. I have also signed for rental cars and such...

 

[Kritchlow]

If that's the case at Southwest, it sounds like the guy they blackballed must have failed to follow directions.

The way I understand it is he tried to pass off SIC time as PIC time (in the literal, acting sense. Not to be confused with the legal log rule).

 

[Everskyward]

Just thought everyone knew that expression. I have also signed for rental cars and such...

Dunno, I have never used the expression "signed for the rental car" even though in that case I usually sign the rental agreement unless they already have my info on file and that is good enough. I say I rented the car.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Huh? You're addressing whether acting as PIC is a necessary condition. Of course there's no ambiguity about that. I was (very clearly) talking about whether it's a sufficient condition.

Just as clear.

61.51 has a series of boxes you must fit in order to log PIC. Not one of them says simply by "acting as PIC."

IOW there wouldn't even be a reg that said

==============================
When the pilot .. 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;
==============================

if

==============================
When the pilot .. acts as pilot in command of an aircraft
==============================

was a sufficient condition.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just thought everyone knew that expression. I have also signed for rental cars and such...

I think they're busting your chops. I've heard this euphemism for acting as PIC for decades.

 

[acrophile]

Just as clear.

61.51 has a series of boxes you must fit in order to log PIC.

Again, my point is that 61.51(e) does NOT say that you MUST meet one of the there-enumerated conditions in order to log PIC time.

IOW there wouldn't even be a reg that said [...]

Well, that's not IOW--rather, it's an entirely distinct point. But it's a valid one. You're right that if being-PIC were an implicitly sufficient condition for logging PIC time, then 61.51(e)(iii) would be redundant--which indirectly suggests, but does not clearly state, that being-PIC is insufficient.

The situation is further muddled by the FAA's apparent stance that you CAN log PIC time when your non-pilot passenger is the sole manipulator, or when a rated-pilot passenger is sole manipulator but chooses not to log PIC time.

Neither of those situations is covered by any of the boxes in 61.51(e).

 

[midlifeflyer]

The situation is further muddled by the FAA's apparent stance that you CAN log PIC time when your non-pilot passenger is the sole manipulator

On the former, I think it's a "who gives a crap" rather than a stance. Beane is an unpublished and unverified opinion that has been passed on but is found in no official or quasi-official source, including the $500+ multi-volume set used as a reference by lawyers in the field.

or when a rated-pilot passenger is sole manipulator but chooses not to log PIC time

There's no "apparent stance" anywhere, not even in unverified FAA documents, I've ever seen suggesting that.

 

[acrophile]

Mark, you're probably right about logging PIC time when the rated-pilot sole-manipulator chooses not to. But most pilots I know assume that has the same legal status as logging PIC time when your non-pilot passenger is the sole manipulator.

So let's summarize. Ordinarily, there is a default assumption that you can log whatever is truthful, unless some regulation says otherwise. And there is no regulation that says that being PIC is not sufficient for truthfully logging time as PIC.

But there is, as you point out, a clause of 61.51(e) that would be superfluous in that case, which indirectly suggests that being PIC does not suffice.

But there is an unpublished but widely circulated FAA opinion stating that the actual PIC may log PIC time when a non-pilot passenger is sole manipulator, even though the 61.51(e) conditions do not then apply.

And that opinion is what corresponds to actual practice, in that it's what many or most pilots do, and the FAA, as far as I know, has never challenged it.

And as far as I know, many or most pilots also extend that policy to time when a sole-manipulator passenger could log PIC time, but chooses not to--again, without challenge from the FAA.

This is not a situation to which I would apply the term "clarity".

 

[JimNtexas]

I don't sign for my airplane. How do I log my time in fantasyland?

I have not finished my flowchart, but the only real PIC time is defined essentially on the first page of the 14CFR Part 1:

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.

In military and commercial operations they usually ask the pilot in command to sign a dispatch form or otherwise acknowlege that he or she is the PIC.

If you've never been asked to do that, I hope while you were in the airplane you at least knew which pilot had the final say in how the airplane is to be operated.

If you're not sure if you were in charge of the airplane or not, log it as fake PIC.

 

[JimNtexas]

So, you're saying that because airline recruiters don't know the regs, you should make up your own definition of PIC time?

No, he's saying that airline recruiters DO know the regs, and specifically they know how ridiculous the "being/logging" distinction between FAR 1 and FAR 65 are.

I'm pretty sure that when most airlines ask an applicant for their "PIC" time, they mean that as defined by FAR 1, not the nonsensical FAR 65.

Just at random I looked at Southwest Airlines page on pilot qualifications:

Flight Experience: 2,500 hours total or 1,500 hours Turbine total. Additionally, a minimum of 1,000 hours in Turbine aircraft as the Pilot in Command is required2.

Footnote 2:

2 PIC for this purpose is defined as Captain/Aircraft Commander of record, not simply the sole manipulator of the controls.

This is pretty typical.

 

[poadeleted20]

Huh? You're addressing whether acting as PIC is a necessary condition. Of course there's no ambiguity about that. I was (very clearly) talking about whether it's a sufficient condition.

The regulation spells out all the conditions which are sufficient for logging PIC time. Merely being PIC isn't on the list. What more do you want?

 

[poadeleted20]

Again, my point is that 61.51(e) does NOT say that you MUST meet one of the there-enumerated conditions in order to log PIC time.

I think you need to read 61.51 again, and then read 14 CFR 1.1(c).

 

[poadeleted20]

I have not finished my flowchart, but the only real PIC time is defined essentially on the first page of the 14CFR Part 1:

I don't see the words "time" or "logging" anywhere in that definition of the term "pilot in command", but I do see "pilot in command time" clearly defined in totally a different manner in 14 CFR 51.51(e). So why are you trying to apply the definition for one term to a different term with its own definition?

 

[Everskyward]

No, he's saying that airline recruiters DO know the regs, and specifically they know how ridiculous the "being/logging" distinction between FAR 1 and FAR 65 are.

I'm pretty sure that when most airlines ask an applicant for their "PIC" time, they mean that as defined by FAR 1, not the nonsensical FAR 65.

Just at random I looked at Southwest Airlines page on pilot qualifications:



Footnote 2:



This is pretty typical.

So if the applicant was "busted", it was because he or she didn't fill out the application correctly. That doesn't mean that people can't log time according to the FAA definitions.

 

[Larry in TN]

If that's the case at Southwest, ...

That is the case with every US airline (of any size).

So if the applicant was "busted", it was because he or she didn't fill out the application correctly. That doesn't mean that people can't log time according to the FAA definitions.

It means that people can't fill out a SWA application contrary to the rules listed on the application and expect to be hired.

 

[poadeleted20]

TIt means that people can't fill out a SWA application contrary to the rules listed on the application and expect to be hired.

Like maybe that SWA doesn't want pilots who aren't smart enough to be able to read the form and fill it out according to the instructions? Doesn't sound to me like a bad criterion. Reminds me a lot of the FAA's attitude towards folks who don't follow the instructions on the medical application.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I think I'm actually dumber now from reading this thread.

 

[Everskyward]

It means that people can't fill out a SWA application contrary to the rules listed on the application and expect to be hired.

Right, so the applicant didn't follow the instructions. That has nothing to do with the FAA logging rules.

 

[Larry in TN]

Right, so the applicant didn't follow the instructions. That has nothing to do with the FAA logging rules.

Only to show why a person, who intends to pursue an airline career, needs to log time in a way that he can satisfy both 61.51 and the requirements of potential future employers.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Only to show why a person, who intends to pursue an airline career, needs to log time in a way that he can satisfy both 61.51 and the requirements of potential future employers.

That's true. Whether it be "Part 1 PIC" for potential employers, retract time for insurers or any other non-regulatory category, it's about bookeeping in a way that allows easy retrieval of the relevant data.

Probably the single best thing about electronic logbooks.

 

[Kritchlow]

Only to show why a person, who intends to pursue an airline career, needs to log time in a way that he can satisfy both 61.51 and the requirements of potential future employers.

That's true. Whether it be "Part 1 PIC" for potential employers, retract time for insurers or any other non-regulatory category, it's about bookeeping in a way that allows easy retrieval of the relevant data.

Probably the single best thing about electronic logbooks.

I think these two posts sum up everything I've been trying to say.

 

[JimNtexas]

I don't see the words "time" or "logging" anywhere in that definition of the term "pilot in command", but I do see "pilot in command time" clearly defined in totally a different manner in 14 CFR 51.51(e). So why are you trying to apply the definition for one term to a different term with its own definition?

Because Ron, I live the actual real world called 'planet earth'.

So you are saying that what FAR 1 calls 'pilot in command' is somehow unrelated to what you log in the PIC column of your logbook.

Sadly, you're correct. You certainly can fill any airplane, including an A380, completely full of 'pilots in command'. Or no pilots. Or any number in between.


It's true that the FARs are so badly written that they create this twisty turny maze of tiny twisty passages that lead to a regulatory world where airplanes can have zero to several hundred 'pilots' logging what they laughingly call 'PIC Time'.

If you want to live in regulatory crazy town, knock yourself out.

Meanwhile, back in the present quantum reality the 'acting/logging' business is, in reality, somewhere between silly and fraudulent when used for any purpose related to determining the actual type and quality of experience of an actual human pilot.

Log whatever you want, that logbook is your property. I'm just telling you that if you are not in charge of the darn airplane then don't try to claim that you were the PIC of an airplane.

Log it in a 'fake PIC' column, where it can make you feel better about yourself without misleading those of us who live in the actual real world, as opposed to FAR crazy town.

Strong message follows.

 

[EdFred]

Nobody is trying to claim that because you log PIC that you are PIC. At least not those that understand how to read.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Because Ron, I live the actual real world called 'planet earth'.

It's a matter of perspective.

If the "real world" is one in which the purpose of logging flight time is to have a personal record of the times in which one was in command - given operation control of an aircraft - then I guess the logging rules in 61.51 don't make much sense, and are in fact idiotic.

OTOH, if the "real wold" is one in which an organization hands out certificate, ratings and authorizations (whether the FAA, a state licensing authority for contractors or hairdressers, or whatever) is perfectly entitled to decide on what kinds of activities will count toward them and which ones don't, and to call it whatever the heck they want, I don't have a problem with them deciding that, for example "sole manipulator" time counts and they call it "logged PIC").

The FAA probably would have been wiser to call it something else (the CAA did at one time lost in memory, but on the Planet Earth where I live, it is so inconsequential that, the quasi-religious yelling and screaming and gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands about how awful and fraudulent (and I guess morally reprehensible and steps on the way to Hell too) is is far more absurd than any of the rules.

 

[Kritchlow]

Because Ron, I live the actual real world called 'planet earth'.

So you are saying that what FAR 1 calls 'pilot in command' is somehow unrelated to what you log in the PIC column of your logbook.

Sadly, you're correct. You certainly can fill any airplane, including an A380, completely full of 'pilots in command'. Or no pilots. Or any number in between.


It's true that the FARs are so badly written that they create this twisty turny maze of tiny twisty passages that lead to a regulatory world where airplanes can have zero to several hundred 'pilots' logging what they laughingly call 'PIC Time'.

If you want to live in regulatory crazy town, knock yourself out.

Meanwhile, back in the present quantum reality the 'acting/logging' business is, in reality, somewhere between silly and fraudulent when used for any purpose related to determining the actual type and quality of experience of an actual human pilot.

Log whatever you want, that logbook is your property. I'm just telling you that if you are not in charge of the darn airplane then don't try to claim that you were the PIC of an airplane.

Log it in a 'fake PIC' column, where it can make you feel better about yourself without misleading those of us who live in the actual real world, as opposed to FAR crazy town.

Strong message follows.

Excellent post. I agree 100%.

 

[Kritchlow]

Nobody is trying to claim that because you log PIC that you are PIC. At least not those that understand how to read.

Meh.. not so sure. I'm betting many pilots themselves walk with their chests out a little further because they have more "fake pic time" in their book.

 

[Kritchlow]

It's a matter of perspective.

If the "real world" is one in which the purpose of logging flight time is to have a personal record of the times in which one was in command - given operation control of an aircraft - then I guess the logging rules in 61.51 don't make much sense, and are in fact idiotic.

OTOH, if the "real wold" is one in which an organization hands out certificate, ratings and authorizations (whether the FAA, a state licensing authority for contractors or hairdressers, or whatever) is perfectly entitled to decide on what kinds of activities will count toward them and which ones don't, and to call it whatever the heck they want, I don't have a problem with them deciding that, for example "sole manipulator" time counts and they call it "logged PIC").

The FAA probably would have been wiser to call it something else (the CAA did at one time lost in memory, but on the Planet Earth where I live, it is so inconsequential that, the quasi-religious yelling and screaming and gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands about how awful and fraudulent (and I guess morally reprehensible and steps on the way to Hell too) is is far more absurd than any of the rules.

I agree with this for the most part, but I'm not sure it's totally inconsequential. For the masses it is, but for the professional...??

I lived the 91K/135 life for 20 years prior to my current 121. All our FO's were typed in the airplane. If during the 5 years prior to upgrade they logged 2000 hours PIC is not inconsequential IMO (5 years, 800hrs/yr, 1/2 time sole manipulator). Airlines even more so. 10 years SIC at the controls of a 747 at 1000 hrs a year... You get the picture.
Again, most guys don't do this to that extent so I agree in most circumstances it is indeed inconsequential.

 

[JeffDG]

Meh.. not so sure. I'm betting many pilots themselves walk with their chests out a little further because they have more "fake pic time" in their book.

Honestly, the only folks in aviation I've seen measuring the size of their dicks logbooks are professional pilots who like to spend their time looking down on others.

 

[Kritchlow]

Honestly, the only folks in aviation I've seen measuring the size of their dicks logbooks are professional pilots who like to spend their time looking down on others.

Whatever. I havent seen that personally. Just speaking for myself and the people I have worked with, we try to help and be friendly when we can. Sometimes it's truly rough though... I've been in the hotel van on the way to the airport and have tried to field questions such as "can I get an aisle seat for my flight to Los Cabos?" (Keep in mind I'm headed to Chicago.)
We try very hard to be courteous, but there are times the traveling public needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[EdFred]

Meh.. not so sure. I'm betting many pilots themselves walk with their chests out a little further because they have more "fake pic time" in their book.

I have less than 50hrs of "fake" PIC time. In fact, I may have less than 40hrs of "fake" PIC time. My safety pilots have never been qualified to act as PIC, and I never safety-pilot for anyone.

 

[JeffDG]

I have less than 50hrs of "fake" PIC time. In fact, I may have less than 40hrs of "fake" PIC time. My safety pilots have never been qualified to act as PIC, and I never safety-pilot for anyone.

Define "fake" PIC time.

Because if someone "signed for the plane" and logs PIC, while another pilot flew the plane, the FAA considers that fake PIC time for logging purposes.

But these guys think their definition of PIC logging takes precedence over the FAAs. I would classify their insistence on their interpretation borderline anti-authority.

 

[Everskyward]

Define "fake" PIC time.

Because if someone "signed for the plane" and logs PIC, while another pilot flew the plane, the FAA considers that fake PIC time for logging purposes.

In a two pilot airplane that happens frequently and legally. The person who "signed for the plane" can log PIC without ever manipulating the controls. The other person who is manipulating the controls can also log PIC.

 

[EdFred]

Define "fake" PIC time.

Because if someone "signed for the plane" and logs PIC, while another pilot flew the plane, the FAA considers that fake PIC time for logging purposes.

But these guys think their definition of PIC logging takes precedence over the FAAs. I would classify their insistence on their interpretation borderline anti-authority.

I'm guessing the "fake" PIC time I would have in my logbook, is when I was getting my instrument rating on clearances and complex add on. However, in both cases, I was the one that "signed for the plane" even though the CFI was the only one legal to be PIC.

So I guess maybe I have 0 "fake" PIC time since I was always the one "signing for the plane."

 

[Greg Bockelman]

There is no such thing as "fake" PIC.

 

[EdFred]

Not according to our 91K/121 expert. It seems all us piston have is fake PIC.

 

[JeffDG]

So I guess maybe I have 0 "fake" PIC time since I was always the one "signing for the plane."

I'll let you know when I sign for a plane.

I guess that's what's stopping me from getting my instrument. I can't find a place that makes me "sign for the plane", so I can't get my 50 h of XC PIC time.

(Actually it's that I'm sick of dealing with TSA and am going to wait until I naturalize)