Becoming current vis 61.57...

Alas there are FAA chief counsel opinions for other regs that read crap into them that is not in the literal text.
 
flyingron said:
I have never seen an FAA counsel definition on 61.51 that didn't affirm the regulations mean exactly what they say.
Click to expand...
A safety pilot acting as PIC is a pilot acting as PIC in an operation that requires more than one pilot. Really? So a pilot without a current medical can't fly under the hood with a private pilot as PIC because he's a required crewmember who must meet medical requirements? And you certainly can't put your 14 year old niece under the hood to practice what he learned on MSFS because she's not a pilot at all?

A student pilot is always a passenger with respect to an instructor during an instructional flight and therefore the CFI needs to meet landing currency requirements. Oh, that's right, a student pilot is not a passenger with respect to an instructor during an instructional flight and therefore the CFI does not need to meet landing currency requirements. :D Yep, there are legal interpretations saying both.
 
Hey Mark, why don't you read what I wrote before you go off on a rant. I said in the case of 61.51...

If you want to argue if medicals are required for safety pilots or whether CFI's need to meet landing currency, you're going to have to argue some other regulation other than 61.51 because 61.51 only addresses LOGBOOKS.

I even pointed out that this was REFRESHING because the FAA isn't consistent with a literal reading of the rules elsewhere in the opinions.
 
flyingron said:
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.

...

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.
Click to expand...

This stuff above makes a mess of us old-timer's logbooks that have it logged the old way when these rules change. ****es me off. I'm not going to go back and change this crap in mine, since it was logged the legal way back when it happened, but I've had at least one instructor look at it and say, "that could have been logged differently", and I have to explain that back THEN, it could not.

BellyUpFish said:
I've submitted a letter to the FAA interps department on this question. We will see...
Click to expand...
BellyUpFish said:
What do you believe this is going to cause?
Click to expand...
flyingron said:
Alas there are FAA chief counsel opinions for other regs that read crap into them that is not in the literal text.
Click to expand...

^^^ that. Quit writing letters asking lawyers to make up crap. It often ends up going a way that nobody expected.

Why doesn't someone just post Ed's flowchart? Sheesh. These threads get old.
 
Tired of the thread yet bumps it with a rant.. Well played, Denver, well played.
 
Last edited:
BellyUpFish said:
Tired of the thread yet bumps it with a rant.. Well played, Denver, well played.
Click to expand...

Haha. Wouldn't say tired of it, just "already covered a jillion times, complete with flowchart created, use the search function".
 
denverpilot said:
This stuff above makes a mess of us old-timer's logbooks that have it logged the old way when these rules change. ****es me off. I'm not going to go back and change this crap in mine, since it was logged the legal way back when it happened, but I've had at least one instructor look at it and say, "that could have been logged differently", and I have to explain that back THEN, it could not.
Click to expand...
Not sure why any "old timers" would care about this. Does anyone need the extra +-20 hours that they logged as "solo" only to also be "PIC"?
 
Everskyward said:
Not sure why any "old timers" would care about this. Does anyone need the extra +-20 hours that they logged as "solo" only to also be "PIC"?
Click to expand...

Maybe - depends on what they'd be needing PIC time for. Insurance, whatever. Different places and businesses use the numbers for things the FAA never cared about, but they do affect people. Even if it's minor.

If you're one that keeps an electronic logbook in addition to paper, sometimes those are built with logic that attempts to check such things (by current rules) and whines about stuff it thinks is logged incorrectly, too. Especially if you're entering old stuff to create an electronic version.

Plus, one should ask: Why would modern pilots need to be "thrown that bone" anyway? What's the point of changing logging rules like that, other than bureaucratic nonsense?

It's not like it fixed any particular safety or operational problem. Just fiddling to be fiddling. Waste of time and frankly, money, since regs don't change themselves without a freaking boatload of people involved.

Especially worthless if you consider your opinion on it. Number of people * X number of days of work on it, for what real purpose?

Oh well, normal human resource waste. Should be used to it by now, but I never will be.
 
denverpilot said:
Maybe - depends on what they'd be needing PIC time for. Insurance, whatever. Different places and businesses use the numbers for things the FAA never cared about, but they do affect people. Even if it's minor.
Click to expand...
Really? How long ago did that rule change? Presumably anyone who was affected would have logged enough PIC hours since then that the extra 20 hours is just background noise.
 
BellyUpFish said:
That's a nifty flow chart, however the question at hand has little almost nothing to do with "can I log PIC.."

It's more about "can one guy be acting PIC while another guy manipulates the controls for a portion of the flight."
Click to expand...

That's what it turned into. No one has refuted or really bothered with the original question. Just how to log it.

Everskyward said:
Really? How long ago did that rule change? Presumably anyone who was affected would have logged enough PIC hours since then that the extra 20 hours is just background noise.
Click to expand...

Now. How about the year it changed?

Greg Bockelman said:
Speaking for me . . .

NO!!!
Click to expand...

Which question are you answering? :)

Although, "no" is usually a good start on most questions posed. Hahaha.

"Do you want to..."
"No!"
"Alrighty then..." :)
 
denverpilot said:
Now. How about the year it changed?
Click to expand...
I am tempted to use R&W's favorite smiley...

If this was the year after it happened the person wouldn't be an "old timer" and would have corrected their logbook if they decided it was necessary.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
That's what it turned into. No one has refuted or really bothered with the original question.
Click to expand...
Really? In all these posts someone must have tossed out the simple "Yes" that answers the original question.

Edit: Waitaminit. I did! Back in post #5. I'm sure there had to be others.
 
I will say it as well, with feeling. The acting PIC can allow another person to manipulate the controls.
 
Everskyward said:
I am tempted to use R&W's favorite smiley...

If this was the year after it happened the person wouldn't be an "old timer" and would have corrected their logbook if they decided it was necessary.
Click to expand...

Technically one can't "correct" something that wasn't wrong when it was logged. What's to "correct"?

But you've done a nice job trying to change the subject I brought up, which was that changing the rule served no purpose other than bureaucratic masturbation, AFAICT. Like I said, I should be used to it, but I'm not. Ha.

As far as the smiley, well, if you want to take up the mantle of useless rude sarcastic smileys, feel free. :)

midlifeflyer said:
Really? In all these posts someone must have tossed out the simple "Yes" that answers the original question.

Edit: Waitaminit. I did! Back in post #5. I'm sure there had to be others.
Click to expand...

Haha. True.

Once that was up, the thread went downhill and only needed Ed's chart after that to stop the rest of the 30th or 40th copy of this standard logging thread train wreck. :)

Heh.
 
denverpilot said:
Here you go. Follow @EdFred flowchart, be happy.

http://webpages.charter.net/edfred/LoggingPIC.pdf
Click to expand...

This misses the currency question. Let's say I am PIC I could in theory allow someone to fly the plane from take off to landing who is a great pilot (Bob Hoover for the sake of argument) but not current to carry passengers due to no landings in the last 90 days . They could not legally log PIC because that would in theory make me the passenger and they can't carry passengers. Although nothing about the flight as described is technically illegal.
 
denverpilot said:
But you've done a nice job trying to change the subject I brought up, which was that changing the rule served no purpose other than bureaucratic masturbation, AFAICT. Like I said, I should be used to it, but I'm not. Ha.
Click to expand...
Speaking of changing the subject, you went from complaining that "old timers" would need to make corrections to, "What if it was last year?" If it was last year, people who needed the time would probably make the correction in their logbook without complaint. In fact they would probably be happy that the change in regs gave them the opportunity.
 
Last edited:
DFH65 said:
This misses the currency question. Let's say I am PIC I could in theory allow someone to fly the plane from take off to landing who is a great pilot (Bob Hoover for the sake of argument) but not current to carry passengers due to no landings in the last 90 days . They could not legally log PIC because that would in theory make me the passenger and they can't carry passengers. Although nothing about the flight as described is technically illegal.
Click to expand...
Why couldn't they log pic?
 
DFH65 said:
This misses the currency question. Let's say I am PIC I could in theory allow someone to fly the plane from take off to landing who is a great pilot (Bob Hoover for the sake of argument) but not current to carry passengers due to no landings in the last 90 days . They could not legally log PIC because that would in theory make me the passenger and they can't carry passengers. Although nothing about the flight as described is technically illegal.
Click to expand...
Except it is totally wrong. Currency has nothing to do with logging of the time. It only applies to acting as PIC. Two totally different things.
 
DFH65 said:
This misses the currency question. Let's say I am PIC I could in theory allow someone to fly the plane from take off to landing who is a great pilot (Bob Hoover for the sake of argument) but not current to carry passengers due to no landings in the last 90 days . They could not legally log PIC because that would in theory make me the passenger and they can't carry passengers. Although nothing about the flight as described is technically illegal.
Click to expand...
What currency question? How does logging make you a passenger in theory?
Acting PIC acts. Manipulating pilot logs. Two different things, and in this case, two different people. You don't have to be the acting PIC to be logging. And, logging does not make you the acting PIC.
 
I'm sure what's giving some people heartburn is that they can be acting as PIC but in some cases (the other pilot logging PIC due to the fact that they are manipulating), can't log it.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
What currency question? How does logging make you a passenger in theory?
Acting PIC acts. Manipulating pilot logs. Two different things, and in this case, two different people. You don't have to be the acting PIC to be logging. And, logging does not make you the acting PIC.
Click to expand...

Correct however you can not act as PIC and carry passengers if you are not current so in the case I stated Bob Hoover could not act as PIC. I suppose he could log it as sole manipulator but not as PIC. The question then becomes do those landings count for currency? The two CFIs I talked to today said no.
 
The two CFIs are wrong. And for what it is worth, I am a CFI and others here are CFIs saying the same thing I am.
 
Everskyward said:
Speaking of changing the subject, you went from complaining that "old timers" would need to make corrections to, "What if it was last year?" If it was last year, people who needed the time would probably make the correction in their logbook without complaint.
Click to expand...

You keep saying they could make a correction. They could NOT, since it was legal to log it that way when they made the initial entry and they can't change it to the new way, just because they want to.

Where do you find guidance that one is allowed to go back and "correct" a legally accurate log from yesteryear that the rules changed on? I see nowhere that allows that.

I've certainly had to tell people to leave my totals and entries the hell alone, who WANTED to mess with them, though.

If one never has to deal with a future "authority figure" wanting to jack with their logbook, the unnecessary changes seem less important.

The PIC change has no redeeming qualities to it. Just a bureaucrat making changes for no particular reason.
 
And Yea Bob Hoover could IN FACT log it as PIC. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE LEGAL TO ACT AS PIC TO LOG PIC.
 
DFH65 said:
Correct however you can not act as PIC and carry passengers if you are not current so in the case I stated Bob Hoover could not act as PIC. I suppose he could log it as sole manipulator but not as PIC. The question then becomes do those landings count for currency? The two CFIs I talked to today said no.
Click to expand...

Acting... Logging... Not the same thing...

I'm a CFI, I say yes.
My FSDO says yes.

A CFI I spoke with today says no, she also said a CFI needs to be night current in order to give instruction at night, which has already been shown to be incorrect.
 
BellyUpFish said:
Acting... Logging... Not the same thing...

I'm a CFI, I say yes.
My FSDO says yes.

A CFI I spoke with today says no, she also said a CFI needs to be night current in order to give instruction at night, which has already been shown to be incorrect.
Click to expand...
Agree with CFIs Greg and BUF. FWIW, I have a bunch of letters after my name with a CFI (EIEIO), and a handful of type ratings, but none of that means diddly. If you're right, you're right. When you're not, you're wrong.
 
I am cornfused. So I hope that this is the case.

Scenario
Pilot 1: TW endorsed not current with landings to carry passengers. Therefor can not be PIC with a passenger on board.
Pilot 2: Mr. Very Experienced pilot. PIC agreed upon by both parties


Pilot 1 is sole manipulator for the entire flight from start to finish including 3 full stop landings. So you are saying pilot 1 can log the time but not fill in the PIC box and is now passenger current?

Is there an FAA written opinion on this to refer to or is this just parsing the rules(which I am fine with by the way)?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
And Yea Bob Hoover could IN FACT log it as PIC. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE LEGAL TO ACT AS PIC TO LOG PIC.
Click to expand...
And as an example, nearly everyone logs PIC during an initial complex checkout, even though it is not legal to act as PIC prior to the endorsement. If you aren't sole manipulator during a checkout, someone is doing it wrong.

Heck, I logged PIC during my IFR cross country (why not?) but it sure as heck wasn't legal for me to act as PIC under IFR at the time.
 
DFH65 said:
I am cornfused. So I hope that this is the case.

Scenario
Pilot 1: TW endorsed not current with landings to carry passengers. Therefor can not be PIC with a passenger on board.
Pilot 2: Mr. Very Experienced pilot. PIC agreed upon by both parties


Pilot 1 is sole manipulator for the entire flight from start to finish including 3 full stop landings. So you are saying pilot 1 can log the time but not fill in the PIC box and is now passenger current?

Is there an FAA written opinion on this to refer to or is this just parsing the rules(which I am fine with by the way)?
Click to expand...

Pilot 1 logs it as pic and becomes current. This is straight up sole manipulator. Probably an interpretation on it somewhere.
 
So if I am understanding this Pilot 1 can LOG the PIC time because they are the sole manipulator and rated in the Aircraft. Pilot 2 can not log the time because although they are acting as PIC in this case for the flight someone who is rated is acting as sole manipulator. Clear as mud.
 
DFH65 said:
So if I am understanding this Pilot 1 can LOG the PIC time because they are the sole manipulator and rated in the Aircraft. Pilot 2 can not log the time because although they are acting as PIC in this case for the flight someone who is rated is acting as sole manipulator. Clear as mud.
Click to expand...
Seems like you got most of it, other than a comma here and there.
 
whattauser said:
Seems like you got most of it, other than a comma here and there.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is not the fact that someone who is rated is the sole manipulator that the acting pic cannot log it. It is because he has no basis in 61.51 for doing so.
 
whattauser said:
Pilot 1 logs it as pic and becomes current. This is straight up sole manipulator. Probably an interpretation on it somewhere.
Click to expand...
That's the thing. There's not an interpretation, only ones for how it works with a CFI. Latest one I can find is in 2006 regarding whether a CFI or student becomes a "passenger". And some other ancillary ones.

But if someone goes and asks, it's probably a 50/50 chance of coming back something so stupid and convoluted that only a lawyer could nod and agree with it. And it'll be all screwed up. That's been a pattern for a long time.
 
denverpilot said:
But if someone goes and asks, it's probably a 50/50 chance of coming back something so stupid and convoluted that only a lawyer could nod and agree with it. And it'll be all screwed up. That's been a pattern for a long time.
Click to expand...

Someone went and asked. Get that old timer whiteout ready, they comin' for your logbooks! ;)
 
denverpilot said:
You keep saying they could make a correction. They could NOT, since it was legal to log it that way when they made the initial entry and they can't change it to the new way, just because they want to.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that back in the day, people were told that they could count their old "solo" time as PIC. But I didn't care about it one way or another. Can you provide some documentation saying that people are unable to correct their logbooks in this manner, or simply count it as PIC when filling in any appropriate form?

Who is even looking at what you logged when you got your private? Wasn't that a long time ago?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top