Ask P&P, The monthly Q&A

[Greg Bockelman]

Anybody get Plane and Pilot? In the latest issue there is a question asked about a pilot that does not have a High Performance endorsement logging PIC as long as there was a pilot on board who could act as legal PIC. JC Boylls answered the question. In a nutshell, he said yes, the non HP endorsed pilot could log PIC, but he went on to say that the HP endorsed pilot could also log it as PIC. I wrote him a note asking him to justify his position. He said that there was a legal interpretation(s) that said that this was permissible, but that his source was copywrited and he could not quote it.

I think he is mis interpreting what he is reading. He sited a couple of 61 FAQs that made reference to safety pilots, but that does not relate to this instance. He has an FAA type that says if it isn't prohibited, then do it. He is using that as partial justification for his view.

Questions. Anybody know where I can find a list of legal interpretations for questions like this? I know he is wrong, but until I can find a list of legal interpretations, I can't really prove it to his satisfaction.

 

[Brian Austin]

Copyrighted material can be quoted if he credits the source. His justification for not quoting is off-base. If nothing else, he can give you the source itself and tell you where to find it.

I read the same thing and walked away confused.

 

[BruceAir]

AOPA has an excellent page in its members section with links to many articles and references about logging flight time:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/sftyplt.html

You may also want to visit:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/logbooks.html


If you want to get answers directly from an FAA lawyer (but wade through a lot of questions and answers), download the Word document at: FAQ 14 CFR, Part 61, which is one of the many resources available at the FAA's Regulatory Support Division Web site: http://afs600.faa.gov/AFS640.htm

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Anybody get Plane and Pilot? In the latest issue there is a question asked about a pilot that does not have a High Performance endorsement logging PIC as long as there was a pilot on board who could act as legal PIC. JC Boylls answered the question. In a nutshell, he said yes, the non HP endorsed pilot could log PIC, but he went on to say that the HP endorsed pilot could also log it as PIC. I wrote him a note asking him to justify his position. He said that there was a legal interpretation(s) that said that this was permissible, but that his source was copywrited and he could not quote it.

I think he is mis interpreting what he is reading. He sited a couple of 61 FAQs that made reference to safety pilots, but that does not relate to this instance. He has an FAA type that says if it isn't prohibited, then do it. He is using that as partial justification for his view.

Questions. Anybody know where I can find a list of legal interpretations for questions like this? I know he is wrong, but until I can find a list of legal interpretations, I can't really prove it to his satisfaction.

That's been bounced around lots. The FAA basically left a loophole, tried to close it and then overruled itself. As things now stand you can log PIC if you're rated in category and class and are sole manipulator of the controls. That means, for example, a PP-ASEL can log PIC time when working on an endorsement in ASEL, such as tailwheel, complex, or high performance. He cannot act as legal PIC because he doesn't yet have the endorsement, but he can log the time as PIC time. Go figure...

 

[JohnL]

Logging PIC

61.51(e)(1)

Fairly cut and dried. We have the same issue with people transitioning into Robinson helicopters. Per SFAR73, you can't act as PIC until you have 10 hours of training and an endorsement, but you can log PIC as long as you currently hold a rotorcraft-helicopter rating.

I guess it comes down to rating vs. endorsement. Anything requiring a FAA checkride is a rating, and precludes logging PIC (Catagory/Class).
Endorsements are "augmentations" to a class rating.

Of course, the Instrument rating is the "grey" area (it's a rating, but you can log PIC while you pursue it - appropriate, I guess, since we often do IFR training in VMC, flying aircraft which aren't certified for IFR...

 

[gibbons]

...In a nutshell, he said yes, the non HP endorsed pilot could log PIC, but he went on to say that the HP endorsed pilot could also log it as PIC.

The first part of the statement is in line with my own understanding. Bruce provided links to some good material on the AOPA site that addresses this.

What I'm confused about is how the HP endorsed pilot could also log the time, since he/she isn't the sole manipulator of the controls and there is no requirement for additional crew.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Anybody get Plane and Pilot?

I don't. IMO, the editorial accuracy of "Plane & Pilot" is very, very poor.

In the latest issue there is a question asked about a pilot that does not have a High Performance endorsement logging PIC as long as there was a pilot on board who could act as legal PIC. JC Boylls answered the question. In a nutshell, he said yes, the non HP endorsed pilot could log PIC,

Correct. 61.51(e)(1)(i). Rated means category, class, and type.

but he went on to say that the HP endorsed pilot could also log it as PIC.

This is an excellent example of what I meant by "the editorial accuracy of "Plane & Pilot" is very, very poor".

There is but one possible weasel hole, but I believe it is plugged. There is an FAA chief counsel (?) letter, old & dated, but still valid, which states that the PIC may log PIC time when a non-pilot manipulates the controls. The letter routinely appears on the AOPA webboard (Mark Kolber?) and may even appear in the Part 61 FAQ file in one of the few answers there that actually has legal basis.

Depending on how that letter is written, it might be possible to become confused and think it applies in this case. It doesn't. In this case there is a pilot qualified to log PIC, which is not the case in the letter, and therefor the legal PIC is out of luck.

I wrote him a note asking him to justify his position. He said that there was a legal interpretation(s) that said that this was permissible, but that his source was copywrited and he could not quote it.

If it is an FAA interpretation it isn't copyrighted. The material which quoted the opinion may be copyrighted, but the opinion itself is not. He could send you only the text of the opinion regardless if his source is copyrighted or not. OTHO, if it isn't an FAA legal opinion it isn't worth copyrighting.

I think he is mis interpreting what he is reading.

I agree.

He sited a couple of 61 FAQs that made reference to safety pilots, but that does not relate to this instance. He has an FAA type that says if it isn't prohibited, then do it. He is using that as partial justification for his view.

The 61.51(e) is rather definitive. If it isn't allowed within that section it isn't legal.

Questions. Anybody know where I can find a list of legal interpretations for questions like this? I know he is wrong, but until I can find a list of legal interpretations, I can't really prove it to his satisfaction.

Other than the missing letter, I really can't offer more than what you obviously already have.

Ed Guthrie

 

[Greg Bockelman]

What JC Boylls believes is that if it isn't specifically prohibited, then it is permissible. In otherwords, since the FARs don't specifically prohibit both pilots from logging PIC in this case, then it is permitted. I think that is a "Creative" interpretation of 61.51(e) to say the very least.

 

[bbchien]

What JC Boylls believes is that if it isn't specifically prohibited, then it is permissible. In otherwords, since the FARs don't specifically prohibit both pilots from logging PIC in this case, then it is permitted. I think that is a "Creative" interpretation of 61.51(e) to say the very least.

Ed's as close as we're gong to get. The rated HP pilot logging PIC-legal is created because someone has to be legal PIC; the un-endorsed airman cannot. This then falls under the "pilot required by the operation" FAR, which is not in my hand....I'm in the office. So the rated airman has to have a medical and currency.

No matter what you think of the faq61 page that BruceAir gave, and the fact that it's not being maintained anymore, that's the last written anything we have. I am not impressed that J.C.Boylls couldn't quote his source. That sort of CFI passed from the scene long ago.

QUESTION: Question about logging of pilot-in-command time. You asked whether a pilot needs to have the appropriate 14 CFR § 61.31 endorsements before he or she can properly log pilot-in-command time under 14 CFR § 61.51(e) when that pilot holds a private pilot certificate with a single-engine land rating and is receiving training in a single-engine land airplane that is also a complex or high performance airplane. Can this person log the time he or she manipulated the controls as pilot-in-command time.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.51(e)(1)(i); § 61.51(e) governs the logging of pilot-in-command time. This section provides, in pertinent part, that a private pilot may log pilot-in-command flight time for that flight time during which that person is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated. (Emphasis added: “aircraft for which the pilot is rated”). The term “rated,” as used under 14 CFR § 61.51(e), refers to the pilot holding the appropriate aircraft ratings (category, class, and type, if a type rating is required). These ratings are listed under § 61.5 and are placed on the pilot certificate.

Therefore, based on the scenario given, a private pilot may log pilot-in-command time, in a complex or high performance airplane, for those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls because the aircraft being operated is single-engine land and the private pilot holds a single-engine land rating.

Note, while the private pilot may log this time as pilot-in-command time in accordance with § 61.51(e), he or she may not act as the pilot in command unless he or she has the appropriate endorsement as required under § 61.31. There is a distinction between acting as pilot in command and logging pilot-in-command time. In order to act as pilot in command, the pilot who has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight, a person must be properly rated in the aircraft and be properly rated and authorized to conduct the flight. § 61.31 requires a person to have an endorsement from an authorized instructor before he or she may act as pilot in command of certain aircraft (a complex airplane, a high performance airplane, a pressurized airplane capable of operating at high altitudes, or a tailwheel airplane). These endorsements are not required to log pilot-in-command time under § 61.51(e). In order to log pilot-in-command time, a person who is the sole manipulator of the controls only needs to be properly rated in the aircraft. {Q&A-288}

Now the history is as Ed Guthrie points out, that FAA didn't want it this way. But the General Counsel ruled that the regs says just this!

And, last but not least, Welcome to Ed Guthrie!

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Ed's as close as we're gong to get. The rated HP pilot logging PIC-legal is created because someone has to be legal PIC

;

But that does not mean he can log it as PIC in this scenario, does it?

the un-endorsed airman cannot.

Understood.

This then falls under the "pilot required by the operation" FAR, which is not in my hand....I'm in the office.

But does that really apply here? I can see that in the case of a safety pilot and someone under the hood, but I think it might be a stretch to apply it to this case. Can I be enlightened?

So the rated airman has to have a medical and currency.

Understood.

No matter what you think of the faq61 page that BruceAir gave, and the fact that it's not being maintained anymore, that's the last written anything we have.

Granted.

I am not impressed that J.C.Boylls couldn't quote his source. That sort of CFI passed from the scene long ago.

That sort of distresses me, too.

I am deleting the FAQ at this point. I have no quarrel with what it is saying. I just don't see how it applies to a HP qualified pilot logging PIC at the same time that the non HP qualified pilot is sole manipulator. I can see the sole manipulator part but not the guy riding along to make the flight legal. If that falls under "the regulation under which the flight is conducted" then there is a case, but it remains to be proven in my opinion.

Now the history is as Ed Guthrie points out, that FAA didn't want it this way. But the General Counsel ruled that the regs says just this!

Good ol' FAA.

And, last but not least, Welcome to Ed Guthrie!

Ditto.

Thanks for the input, Bruce.

 

[BruceAir]

Nothing like a "logging time" thread to liven up a pilot forum, is there?

I'll flog this horse with one other point. As far as I know, there are only two basic situations where, regardless of who is ACTING as PIC, a pilot who is NOT wiggling the controls may log PIC time while another appropriately rated and legally current pilot IS manipulating the controls of an aircraft that does not require more than crew member--FAR 61.51(e)(2) and (e)(3):

(2) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.

(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.

As a side note, a CFI isn't always the legal PIC. For example, at the Wings Weekend events we have up here in the Northwest, CFIs donate their time to folk who want to get dual as part of the Wings program. During the flights with CFIs, the participating pilots must agree to act as PIC. That means that they also must have at least a private pilot certificate, a current medical, flight review, 3 landings in 90 days, appropriate ratings and endorsements, etc.

But per 61.51 above, the CFIs may log all the flight time as PIC time while they're giving instruction.

Another example is a CFI who doesn't have a current medical. Such a CFI can give flight instruction to a current pilot (see above) who agrees to and is legally able to ACT as PIC during the instruction. And the CFI can log that time as PIC time, even though he or she can't legally ACT as PIC.

 

[poadeleted20]

;

But that does not mean he can log it as PIC in this scenario, does it?

The actual PIC who is not flying the airplane cannot log the time while the non-HP pilot is manipulating the controls. However, he must be fully qualified as PIC, including medical, landing currency, 61.31 endorsement, etc. The only exceptions allowing him to log the time would be if the manipulator is under the hood (PIC while two pilots required) or if the PIC is an authorized flight instructor giving instruction.

The unendorsed but "rated" (i.e., category/class) pilot (who is not acting as PIC) actually flying the plane can always log the time in the PIC column under the sole manipulator clause whether the actual PIC can log the time or not. And since that unendorsed non-PIC is not a required pilot crewmember, he need only have a pilot certificate with appropriate category/class -- no medical, no currency, no nothing else.

And this is all straight out of 14 CFR 61.51.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Nothing like a "logging time" thread to liven up a pilot forum, is there?

I'll flog this horse with one other point. As far as I know, there are only two basic situations where, regardless of who is ACTING as PIC, a pilot who is NOT wiggling the controls may log PIC time while another appropriately rated and legally current pilot IS manipulating the controls of an aircraft that does not require more than crew member--FAR 61.51(e)(2) and (e)(3):

The following offered as humorous nit picking.

You stated two (2) provisos:

1. Regardless of who is acting as PIC
2. Pilot not flying may log PIC.

If those are your stated conditions, then AFAIK, there is only one (1) condition under which this is true (your CFI example) since your first example:

(2) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.

violates proviso #1. IOW, the ATP may only log PIC if s/he is acting as legal PIC, ergo, the determination as to whether or not the ATP may log PIC is not made regardless of who is acting as PIC.

If we release proviso #1 then your first example is true, but there arises a third basic situation which is the safety pilot who is acting as legal PIC.

Ed Guthrie

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The actual PIC who is not flying the airplane cannot log the time while the non-HP pilot is manipulating the controls. However, he must be fully qualified as PIC, including medical, landing currency, 61.31 endorsement, etc. The only exceptions allowing him to log the time would be if the manipulator is under the hood (PIC while two pilots required) or if the PIC is an authorized flight instructor giving instruction.

The unendorsed but "rated" (i.e., category/class) pilot (who is not acting as PIC) actually flying the plane can always log the time in the PIC column under the sole manipulator clause whether the actual PIC can log the time or not. And since that unendorsed non-PIC is not a required pilot crewmember, he need only have a pilot certificate with appropriate category/class -- no medical, no currency, no nothing else.

And this is all straight out of 14 CFR 61.51.

I agree with this and it was my arguement with Mr. Boylls. But his comeback was, in effect, that 61.51(e) says "A recreatonal . . . pilot may log PIC...". It does not say that the legal PIC but non flying pilot may not log PIC. He has several references that he will not quote directly that supposedly supports his position. The two that I can find reference safety pilot issues, which he says also applies. He's full of crap, but I can't convince him of that.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

My latest from JC Boylls. Please pick it apart. Its a bit long, and it is a blend of two notes, so I hope it isn't too confusing.

Hi, Greg ...

Sorry I took so long to get back, it's been a busy week. Not including tax time, I mean! (I interleaved my responses below.)
----- Original Message -----
From: MBOCKELM@aol.com
To: jcboylls@planeandpilotmag.com
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: Logging of PIC


Hi Again, JC.

Anyway, the regs actually do back this up, albeit in a back-door way: they don't say you can't.

OK, Let me ask you this. 61.51(e) covers logging of PIC. Sub part 1 is the relevant part for our discussion.

(1)(i) covers Sole Manipulator for aircraft for which one is rated. We agree that the pilot without the High Performance endorsement can log PIC in this case as long as there is a legal PIC on board.

(1)(ii) says sole occupant. This obviously does not apply.

(1)(iii) covers an airplane that requires more than one pilot, either by the regs under which the aircraft is being operated, or the aircraft requires it by type certificate. This does not apply either.

Given that these are the only three ways a pilot can log PIC in this case, how can it be justified that the Legal PIC can also log PIC? None of the three ways in which a pilot can log PIC applies in this case. In my mind, he can't.

Actually, there are two sets of rules that apply. The part 1/part 91 actual PIC and the 61.51 for the other person -- the 61.51 is the three ways you mention. The two really aren't related (in a regulatory sense, I mean). This's what I meant by being more permissive in the interpretation of what the regs say ... and this, in turn, is backed up by FAA Legal's interpretation.

Sort of as an aside, and I don't mean to sound like name-dropping or "gee, I'm better than you" ('cuz I'm not), but this's the same interpretation the FAA uses in (1) Airmen Records, (2) the Pilot Examiner Standardization Section, and (3) numerous CFI workshops and safety meetings I did under the aegis of the San Diego and Riverside FSDOs before moving to where I live now (northern New Mexico). I'm also familiar with the Detroit and Las Vegas (NV) FSDOs' interpretations since I did some programs there, too.
Something else this same ever-patient FAA Inspector explained to me was that not allowing the actual PIC to log the time -- regardless of the circumstances -- would be ... umm ... well, silly.

Well, just between you and me and the four walls, I agree. But I cannot justify that position legally yet.

Then too, FAA Legal Interpretations (letters) carry the weight of FARs, since they come from the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel.

I agree with that. I will have to do some more research. But so far, I haven't found any legal interpretation to back it up.

Well, at the risk of sounding 'flip', you could write them a letter at FAA HQ (800 Independence Avenue) in Washington DC. This has the advantage of you having something official, in writing. The downside -- if this is one, actually -- is that it takes a while for them to respond. Ultimately, they will -- FAA policy is to respond officially to written requests -- but as we used to joke, "some things take a little while, some things take quite a little while." There's no liability here, such as "omygawd, now I've attracted their attention ..."

How do you find out about or read them?

Well, I can't quote my source directly since they're copyrighted, but you can go there and for a sufficient amount of silver, you can read them too:

http://www.summitaviation.com/

Well, yeah, I suppose so. But they had to get them from somewhere. What I want to know is where that may be. Frankly, I am not in a position to get Summit's CD at this time.

For me, this service is tax-deductable and that helps. <heh> My understanding is that they acquired them through a third party who'd contracted with the FAA to provide these documents to the public thru some obscure governmental mechanism that quite frankly I don't recall (if I ever knew, let alone understood).
I did rummage around faa.gov for a while but didn't find any of the interpretation letters but maybe I didn't look (1) enough, (2) in the right places, (3) etc.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I don't want you to get mad at me. I am just looking for verification. But (4) may be that it doesn't exist. I will look further when I get some free time.

Neither mad, nor frustrated, nor irked. You can't do that to me, I won't let you! <g> I don't mind, either.

If you do decide to write the FAA, ask them for (among whatever else you ask) copies of earlier interpretations as well ... see what happens.
Between you'n'me, I don't know how they keep all this stuff straight themselves.

Me either. But, unfortunately, they sometimes get it wrong. That should not happen, but I have first hand experience where an inspector gave me an answer to a regulation question that I knew was wrong.

So've I, truth be told. Howsomever, the people within the FAA I've talked to on this are people I trust for other reasons, especially in some situations where I could've been badly burned by a wrong or dishonest answer, in the certification (I was a DPE for 14 years), enforcement, and accident investigation areas.
Now, about the FAQ references being with someone under the hood or whatever ... well, in this case, the regs don't say much of anything about the conditions of flight, whether someone's taking instruction or not, whether they're under the hood or not, etc., and all three Q&As cited are situations analagous to that described in the original question (i.e., the one in P&P).

Well, JC, with all due respect, I disagree. I think it is pretty clear, by the question and the answer just exactly what is being discussed, and I don't think it at all relates. Sorry.

We can agree to disagree, then? The only advice I can offer is don't read more into the regs than is actually there, and then write to the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel (I think that's who it'd be, check the FAA.gov web site). If need be, phrase your question in terms of something like you're working on an additional certificate and you need to know how you should count your flight times since assorted people have given you different interpretations and you want to get it right. Oh, and ask for some of the historical documents, too (they should do that ... your tax dollars at work).

Here's my reasoning:

1. Both pilots are rated SEL, one has the high performance endorsement.
2. The pilot with the hi-perf endorsement must be the actual PIC (rated, current, etc.) for the flight.
3. The other is flying (hands on).

OK so far.

4. The actual PIC may log the entire flight (he's responsible for everything and is the one who'll get hung out to dry if anything goes wrong).

Well, this is where I still have a problem. Like I said, I will continue to research when I get a chance.

5. The other may log such time as he flew, since a logbook endorsement is not a rating, and the airplane is SEL. The hi-perf part doesn't enter into this consideration.

Agreed.

A suggestion might be to change one's viewpoint about how at least the "operational" FARs -- parts 61 and 91, for example -- should be read. That is to say, consider them permissive unless something's specifically prohibited.

Well, ok, but in this case, I think it is more cut and dried than that.

Y'know, I thought that at one time, too. But I've seen the light! <g>
A second thing here is that to answer FAR questions, quite often one has to look in more than one place; determining who is the actual PIC, for example, requires looking in FARs 1 and 91.

Yeah, I found that out a long time ago. It can get quite frustrating.

Indeed.

Would you believe, tho', that it's much better now than it was, say, 10 years ago?
In this case, be sure to differentiate between who may log PIC time (61.51) and the actual PIC -- who can always log the time. That was the reason for quoting that Legal Interpretation paragraph.

Well, yeah. But I haven't found the Legal Interpretation yet. That is my hangup at this point.

See the excerpt from that legal interpretation letter. It's real, really it is.
Is this any help?
JC

Well, sort of. What I really need is a link to the legal interpretations. Summit had to get them from somewhere.

Anyway, thanks for your time and help. I will let you know if I find what I am looking for.

By the way, did you know John Lynch has retired and the Part 61 FAQ file is basically an orphan now? I have mixed feelings about that, but it is worth supporting.

The last time I saw John was at the National Air Transportation Association (NATA)'s Flight Training Committee meeting in the summer of 2002. I knew he was getting ready to retire but didn't know he had, finally. That probably explains why the most recent revision of the FAQ is dated last October ...

I don't know if you knew him, but he really was one of the good guys in the FAA. He oversaw the FAR 61/141/142 rewrites (as well as maintaining the FAQ) starting in the late '70s and I liked him a lot. He'll be missed, not only for his work but also for his sense of humor!

Cheers
Greg

I'd be interested in what else you find out, so thanks in advance ... C ya ...!
JC

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Greg, he's obvioulsy referring to the FAA Chief Counsel letter which allowed a non-flying but acting as legal PIC pilot to log the time if no other pilot was in the aircraft (i.e. my 12-year old son is doing the flying). That letter however applied to non-pilots flying the aircraft. That is not the case in this example.

He's also being a major BS artist or he just flat doesn't understand copyrights. There is no way that Summit Aviation can legally copyright an FAA legal interpretation. The FAA author would hold the copyright unless granted (released) to Summit, and there is no way the FAA would release a copyright.

Best of luck. I do believe it was Mark Kolber that posted a copy of the particluar legal letter you want back on the AOPA webboard.

BTW, ask him this hypothetical: Two pilots, both legally qualified and current in the particular aircraft go flying together. Pilot A & B both agree that Pilot A will be acting legal PIC for the entire flight. Pilot B is the sole manipulator of the controls for the entire flight. By his twisted logic both may log PIC time. Pilot A logging PIC as the legal PIC--"otherwise would be silly" I believe he wrote; Pilot B logging PIC as the sole manipulator. We both know this isn't possible. We also know that if it were possible, every time building sleaze bag flight school in the US would be advertising the option to death.

Ed Guthrie

*******************************************************

Later edit--



Ignore my comment about copyrights. Turns out the FAA did grant copyright licenses with respect to previously unpublished legal interpretations. Turns out the FAA allowed several firms unfettered access to the FAA legal interpretation vaults. The companies agreed to make the material available "for a reasonable fee". Wow.



Learn something new every day.



Please pass the A-1 sauce--hope it makes this crow more palatable

Ed Guthrie

 

[bbchien]

He's also being a major BS artist or he just flat doesn't understand copyrights. There is no way that Summit Aviation can legally copyright an FAA legal interpretation. The FAA author would hold the copyright unless granted (released) to Summit, and there is no way the FAA would release a copyright.

Best of luck. I do believe it was Mark Kolber that posted a copy of the particluar legal letter you want back on the AOPA webboard.

I agree that the time for such posturing without written source material has long passed. The time for such CFIs, DPE, and OInsps. has passed.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ask Mr. Boylls if he's familiar with the case of Administrator v. Pearson and Crow, NTSB Order EA-4008. He can find it at http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4008.PDF. After reading that, he may change his mind. When there are two rated pilots in the plane, and only one pilot is required, only one is permitted to log the time unless he meets one of the two exceptions to that rule (instructor instructing or ATP commanding ATP-required flight). The Chief Counsel opinion is, as Ed noted, clearly limited to the case of only one rated pilot aboard.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Thanks Ron.

I don't know why I get involved in these things.

Greg

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Ask Mr. Boylls if he's familiar with the case of Administrator v. Pearson and Crow, NTSB Order EA-4008. He can find it at http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4008.PDF. After reading that, he may change his mind. When there are two rated pilots in the plane, and only one pilot is required, only one is permitted to log the time unless he meets one of the two exceptions to that rule (instructor instructing or ATP commanding ATP-required flight). The Chief Counsel opinion is, as Ed noted, clearly limited to the case of only one rated pilot aboard.

Here's JC's reply to that.

Hibackatcha ...

Hey, thanks for the link (in your other e-mail) about the logbook falsification issue. I wasn't familiar with that one and upon reading it thru, I agree with the conclusions.

However, that situation is not the same, neither is it analogous to the one we've been discussing. Here's why: both pilots were both SEL and MEL rated, so two pilots weren't required for any of the flights. The Law Judge also determined that they really weren't giving/receiving dual instruction, either in the Mooney or the Apache. This means that only one could be logging PIC at a time. (I don't know why they were running the Apache at a low power setting since those things are so slow they'd get plenty of MEL time anyway! A true 120 MPH (not knots) twin ... I had a friend who called 'em flight simulators. But I digress. <sigh>)

In the high performance case we've been discussing, there's a difference between the two pilots: one is high-perf endorsed, the other isn't, even tho' both are ASEL rated. This means the high-perf pilot has to be there (is required for the flight to be the PIC) ... and he can log the time. The other pilot, w/o the endorsement, can also log the time he's flying hands-on, since he's ASEL.

And I don't believe I've made erroneous assumptions or taken liberties. I originally held the opinion you do but was convinced otherwise. As kind of another aside, I know David Reid (he was also an examiner in San Diego but has since moved to Germany) and I recall him discussing his letter and the response at one of our DPE meetings.

Re the copyright laws, well, the issue they address in this situation is the one about "fair use". Being an author who's been plagiarized, I'm kind of sensitive to that. Now, having said that, I won't tell if you won't so as soon as I find the letter again, I'll send it off. (Really.)

Finally, if you get a letter back from the FAA's Chief Counsel stating that my take is wrong (it doesn't need to be phrased that way), I'll be the first to shout "I'M WRONG" and get it into the magazine. Just send me a copy and I'll do it.

Good discussion! Don't let me off the hook ... c ya!
JC

 

[Henning]

Ask Mr. Boylls if he's familiar with the case of Administrator v. Pearson and Crow, NTSB Order EA-4008. He can find it at http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4008.PDF. After reading that, he may change his mind. When there are two rated pilots in the plane, and only one pilot is required, only one is permitted to log the time unless he meets one of the two exceptions to that rule (instructor instructing or ATP commanding ATP-required flight). The Chief Counsel opinion is, as Ed noted, clearly limited to the case of only one rated pilot aboard.

Yeah, but that's different. The second pilot wasn't required. In the scenario being discussed here, the pilot NF is required for that flight since pilot flying isn't properly endorsed for Acting PIC the aircraft, although he is properly rated for logging PIC as sole manipulator. I personally think you're right, but an arguement for the otherside could be made under FAR 1.1.

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's JC's reply to that.

Finally, if you get a letter back from the FAA's Chief Counsel stating that my take is wrong (it doesn't need to be phrased that way), I'll be the first to shout "I'M WRONG" and get it into the magazine. Just send me a copy and I'll do it.

There are STILL two "rated pilots" in the airplane. So who's going to send a copy of the article to Don Byrne at AGC-200? You got that for action, Greg?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

There are STILL two "rated pilots" in the airplane. So who's going to send a copy of the article to Don Byrne at AGC-200? You got that for action, Greg?

I just sent him and everybody else I could think of a letter asking for clarification on this. I didn't think to send him the article. You think that would help?

You have a good address other than 800 Independence Ave.?