Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by VWGhiaBob, Oct 7, 2017.
I agree. But where does it say that?
It's a direct reading of the reg. If Levy was here, he'd certainly dig up a FAA counsel letter. The FAA search engine for such is busted big time but if you can find it, Gebhart (2009) is probably a good explanation.
Here is the literal regulation:
(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, 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; or
Note the emboldened portions. It's not sufficient to have a multipilot operation. You must be in an operation that requires two pilots under the regulations (or the type certificate).
As I stated, I'm sure when they wrote that section, they were thinking about the commercial operators (Part 121/135), but the FAA has affirmed as far back as the 1980's that simulated instrument flight also fits the definition and they have chosen to do nothing to change that.
The part of my post that you didn't quote, which is almost all of it, explains it.
Actually I didn't quote that because it didn't provide a reference. It just reiterated what we all already know.
I'm not disagreeing. I'm asking what the reference is, other than some guy on the internet.
The reference is 14 CFR 61.51 and 14 CFR 91.
91.109(c) to be specific
Yes, I'm aware of 61.51, I quoted it earlier. But I see nothing in there or in the entirety of part 91 that tells us what we know. I don't think there is a reference, I think this is just one of those things that everyone knows to be true.
I'm having trouble parsing the words...."No person may operate a civil aircraft that is being used for a flight test for an airline transport pilot certificate or a class or type rating on that certificate, or for a part 121 proficiency flight test"
Nobody can operate the controls when it is a
1) flight test for ATP
2) a class or type rating on "that" certificate
3) Part 1212 Proficiency flight
unless there's a fully qualified pilot at the other controls.
I believe "that certificate" refers to class or type ratings for an ATP. I don't think it's relevant.
You are quoting 14 CFR 91.109(d). That isn't relevent. 14 CFR 91.109(c)(1) is the key.
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
This is the regulation which requires the second pilot when the pilot-flying is using view-limiting device.
14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(iii) allows the person ACTING as pilot-in-command to log PIC time when more than one pilot is required by the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.
(1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-
(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, 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;
When the pilot-flying is operating with a view-limiting device (hood), 91.109(c)(1) requires a second pilot--the safety pilot. If the safety pilot is operating as the pilot-in-command, 61.51(e)(1)(iii) allows him to log the time that two pilots are required (the flying-pilot's hood time) as PIC even though he isn't manipulating the controls.
When the flying-pilot takes off the hood, only the pilot manipulating the controls can log PIC time, regardless of who is ACTING as PIC, because 91.109(c)(1) no longer requires a second pilot.
What a convoluted bunch of manure.
Why do new captains in the carriers need 100 hrs pic to get off high mins? There must be something in the wording, seeing as though the FO's (now PIC typed) can log pic in the big jet as long as they are the flying pilot.
Are we still discussing the scenario of an IFR flight where the only person who is qualified to be pilot-in-command is not the one who is handling the controls, and the pilot handling the controls is not under the hood? If so, the reference appears to be the Walker interpretation that was cited by Mark in Post #50. The FAA appears to have restructured their URLs since he posted it, and as FlyingRon noted, the Chief Counsel interpretation search feature is currently INOP, but I managed to figure out the new structure. Hopefully this link will work for a while:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/Interpretations/data/interps/2011/walker - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf
It is appropriate to address in this interpretation the logging of flight time by Pilot A, which was also addressed in the 2009 Speranza Interpretation. The Speranza Interpretation states in pertinent part:
However, Pilot A may not log PIC time for the portion of the flight during which Pilot B is the sole manipulator ofthe controls, and is logging PIC time, because there is no provision for this logging in § 61.51 (e). Section 61.51 (e)(1 )(iii) allows the pilot acting as PIC to log PIC time only if more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted, and only one pilot is required for the flight in your example. Although Pilot B properly may log PIC time for a portion of the flight as discussed previously, Pilot B could not act as PIC and was not a required flight crewmember for any portion of the flight under the aircraft's type certificate or the regulations under which the flight was conducted.
So while there doesn't appear to be a regulation that unambiguously says you can't do it, at least the FAA has gone on record about it.
By the way, here is a link to the Speranza letter quoted above:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/Interpretations/data/interps/2009/speranza - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf
Read part 91 and enumerate the operations requiring two pilots. Combine that with 61.51. Those are your references.
That's not 91.109(c). You are either not trying, or you are trying too hard to be ignorant.
I am astounded at the amount of responses here. The answer is basic, and you'd better know it before your checkride.
And as per Captain Ron's advice, do NOT try to ******** the examiner.
I have pretty consistently said that I agree the second pilot cannot log PIC. What I cannot figure out is why his presence is not required - by the regulations, the flight could not happen without him, so he seems to be required. And then questioning, if he is required to be then, then is what we all know right?
What I quoted was paraphrased from 91.109(c) in less technical language. I don't believe it is relevant because it seem to apply to a qualified pilot for ATP testing. That doesn't make me ignorant, nor not trying. If you've descended to slinging insults, we should stop.
You are correct that the second (PIC-qualified) pilot is required by the FAA. What you're missing is that the first (non-PIC-qualified) pilot is NOT required by the FAA. If you disagree, can you explain why?
No. What you quoted was from 91.109(d).
You did not read my explanation. I will copy and paste it here verbatim:
"In the scenario in question, the acting PIC is the only pilot required. The pilot operating the controls (i.e., the sole manipulator) is not required."
You draw the wrong conclusion because you started with the wrong premise (that the sole manipulator is required and the acting PIC is not required).
You did not quote 91.109(c). You did not paraphrase 91.109(c). As other members have pointed out.
I'm not missing that. No, he isn't legally required to be there, but he is and he is logging PIC. The ambiguity comes from the legal PIC logging time. This keeps coming up because nobody can really explain why.
The best I have is similar to yours, that he isn't a required second crewmember, except that there is a legitimate argument that in the context of this flight, he is.
I see. I used an outdated reference, my mistake. I still don't think (c) is relevant because it isn't simulated instrument flight. The section is talking about requirements for a safety pilot.
91.109(c) is the reg that makes the second pilot required. 61.51(e) or (f) is the reg that allows you to log it.
Apparently we are operating under a false scenario. Please restate it so we are all on the same page.
When the non-PIC-qualified pilot is at the controls and not under the hood, the PIC-qualified pilot is not a second required crewmember, he's the ONLY required crewmember.
The FAR refers to “the regulations under which the flight is conducted.” Which regulation requires the non-rated pilot? That is the regulation that needs a reference for this discussion not to be the open-and-shut case that it is under all of the regulations cited, repeatedly, above.
In this case it is part 91.
The rest of us are talking about the situation where the flying-pilot is under the hood. In that case, the second pilot is a required crewmember under 91.109(c) and they can both log the time. The flying-pilot logs PIC as the sole manipulator of the controls. The non-flying pilot logs either SIC or PIC depending on which one of them is ACTING as PIC.
If the flight is in actual, instead of simulated, instrument conditions then there is no regulatory requirement for a second pilot so the only pilot who can log the time is the pilot who is sole-manipulator of the controls. If the instrument-rated pilot who is ACTING as PIC allows someone else to fly the airplane then the instrument-rated PIC can not log the time that he is not the flying-pilot because a second pilot is not required under the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
Not sure how to create a link to a specific post, but it was #62 in this thread (you linked to #55). That said, I suspect he really meant what he said in #55, but his wording in #62 struck me as funny. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.
(Unless, of course, he was getting at some fine point of the regulation that I'm not familiar with. Which is entirely possible.)
If the pilot is under the hood then it is simulated IFR and unquestionably a safety pilot can log time.
The original question was about an IFR rated pilot being PIC for a non IFR rated private pilot and flying in the IFR system. We all agree that the answer is he cannot log PIC, but struggling to fit it into the regulatations as to why.
The question keeps coming up because it is not clear. The best That i have heard is that he is not a second required pilot, he is the first and only required pilot for flying inside the system.
I think this comes up from time to time because if he was the only pilot then he would be PIC and be logging PIC. So then you add someone else to the plane to merely operate the controls and suddenly he cannot log the time. Of course being and logging are different.
For your own purposes, you can log whatever you want. For the FAA's purposes, you can log what the regs allow you to log. So what reg would allow the non-flying pilot to log PIC time in your scenario?
Almost like a single pilot IFR and turning on the AP.
None of them. The whole discussion has been why.
For Mr. Flynn, you answer that question and you have your ultimate answer.
And for what it is worth, it sounds like you are confusing acting as PIC with logging PIC. This has been discussed adnauseum on this and other forums.
Not exactly. In this case the "autopilot" can log PIC.
The autopilot is a control. The FAA has stated that staring at the automated controls is as good as being the sole manipulator (provided there's no other HUMAN pilot working things).
I understand that. My point is it's the same difference from an operational standpoint.
Because that's how they wrote the regulations.
Remember that the ONLY reason for logging, in the FAA's mind, is to meet the requirements for currency and certificates and ratings issued under part 61. 61.51 details what flight time they will accept for meeting those requirements. If you're trying to make it "make sense" beyond that limited scope you are destined to be both wrong and frustrated. If 61.51 said that you can log up to five hours of PIC for watching King Schools video courses then you can log up to five hours of PIC for doing so. Don't overthink it.
This is why I'm constantly trying to source answers to questions raised in the forum back to the original source documents; FAR, AIM, P/CG, etc. Some stuff is intuitive, other stuff is not. Know the source. Use the official sources when looking for an answer to a question.
14 CFR 61.51
(a) Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:
(1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part.
(2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part.
It comes up periodically because pilots are only interested in filling their logbooks, and are unwilling to accept that they can't.
Well actually, it's more like how they didn't write the regulations. Weird things happen and people don't understand why.
Whatever....I'm convinced that the answer isn't actually in any source document except through it's absence.
I've spelled it out for you, with regulations cited, a couple of times.
To log PIC when you are not the sole manipulator of the controls you have to be ACTING as PIC in a situation where a second pilot is required by the regulations under which the flight is conducted. So, when there is a regulation which requires a second pilot [91.109(c)] you have a situations where the ACTING PIC can log PIC without being the flying-pilot. When there is NOT a regulation requiring two pilots (flying IMC) then you can't log ACTING PIC time. That's pretty clear, isn't it?
There are no regulations which tell you when you CAN'T log something. There are only regulations which tell you when you can.
Can you find a regulation which requires a second pilot for an operation where the ACTING PIC allows another person/pilot to fly the airplane? If not, it can't be logged.
It has been explained to him, any further comment is futile.