Can I or can I not log PIC?

fiveoboy01

fiveoboy01

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,321
Location
Madison, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Dirty B
Scenario. I'm an IFR student. I do a training flight in which we file IFR. Since I can't legally do that, the IFR filing is on behalf of the instructor.

Can I log PIC in this instance? One of my instructors said yes because I'm the sole manipulator of the controls, the other said no because it's an actual IFR clearance. I don't particularly care if I can or can't, but would like my logbook to be correct.

As long as I'm at it, can I use foreflight to file IFR as long as my instructor will be along, or am I not allowed to file using my own name?
 
The first instructor is correct, the second instructor needs some remedial training in the FARs.
 
Yes you can log PIC - I agree with the previous assessment.
You can file in your name - I tell my students: in the comments enter: "CFII - <your instructor's name>".
You can file anything, it is accepting the clearance that requires the proper rating :rolleyes:
 
Thanks guys. It appears FAR61.51(e)(specifically (iv, A B and C)) covers this? I'd like to show the applicable section to the instructor.
 
Show him my flow chart, and fire the instructor that said you can't.
 
DGlaeser said:
Yes you can log PIC - I agree with the previous assessment.
You can file in your name - I tell my students: in the comments enter: "CFII - <your instructor's name>".
You can file anything, it is accepting the clearance that requires the proper rating :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't think that is the case. A non-instrument rated pilot cannot file an IFR flight plan. I've been told by ATC that you can file for VFR flight following using an IFR flight plan file, however if only a VFR pilot, you still cannot file the IFR flight plan (for VFR flight following) because legally you cannot file the IFR flight plan.

Now if you are carrying a CFII, that's a different story.
 
ahkahn said:
I don't think that is the case. A non-instrument rated pilot cannot file an IFR flight plan. I've been told by ATC that you can file for VFR flight following using an IFR flight plan file, however if only a VFR pilot, you still cannot file the IFR flight plan because legally you cannot file the IFR flight plan.

Now if you are carrying a CFII, that's a different story.
Click to expand...

You can file anything. There is nothing in 14CFR that says you can't file. Dispatchers file plans all the time, and they aren't necessarily pilots.

It's being PIC on an IFR flight that requires you be be rated and current.
 
Thanks guys. I appreciate it. This kid is very smart and practically has the FARs memorized so I'm surprised he got this one wrong. I'll bring it up with him when we fly again. Certainly not going to fire him over it:)
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Thanks guys. I appreciate it. This kid is very smart and practically has the FARs memorized so I'm surprised he got this one wrong. I'll bring it up with him when we fly again. Certainly not going to fire him over it:)
Click to expand...

I think the confusion is due to the fact that (as non IFR-rated pilot) you may not act as (or "be") PIC on an IFR flight, but you may log it as PIC as long as you are the sole manipulator.
 
ahkahn said:
I don't think that is the case. A non-instrument rated pilot cannot file an IFR flight plan.
Click to expand...

You can file all the flight plans you want. You don't even need to be a pilot. The problem is that the pilot in command's name needs to be listed on the form. This is not a problem when filing with FSS but DUAT fills in the name of the account holder when filing.
 
So one more question. I read the legal interpretation cited in post #8. It's pretty clear there that I can log PIC time under foggles with the CFII in the right seat when I'm manipulating the controls. However, that particular interpretation uses two private pilots(one being instrument rated) as an example.

Does it change with a CFII in the right seat, in that he can also log PIC time?
 
You can log PIC time when you're giving (legal) instruction regardless of whether you touch the controls or not.

As a private pilot filling a required role (safety pilot, or SIC if the type requires a SIC), you can only log PIC if you either operate the controls or you act as PIC. The right seat can fulfill the latter as a private pilot.

A private pilot acting as safety pilot can log PIC if he is acting as PIC. You can always log PIC as the sole manipulator of the controls, in a category and class for which you are rated (you couldn't if you did this in a twin, unless you were AMEL rated). Yes, that's two people at the same time. Note that it ONLY applies when the safety pilot is required by regulation. That is, when you have your foggles on. PIC time never applies to the whole flight for a safety pilot; it's generally the same as your simulated IMC time. Though airplane, night, day, and total time are the same for both of you.

Read the regs. They are actually pretty clear as long as you get out of your head that logging PIC and acting PIC are related. It would have been better if they had different names.
 
Ok thank you for that explanation. There was also some dispute that my friend(IFR rated but not a CFI) could only log SIC time. But when he and I fly, he always files so I give him the nod to be the boss even though I'm the one doing all the flying. We subtract a few tenths for takeoff and landing/taxi and he logs the rest as PIC time as well.

And yeah once I realized the differentiation between the two, it's not so hard to interpret now:)
 
Last edited:
Can you give me the details of the flight? I would like to log it as well.
 
Sure. Take off from KMSN, direct DLL, then the VOR-A approach circling to KDLL 19 then the miss into the LOC/DME KDLL 01, published miss and a lap around the hold then direct KMSN and vectors to the ILS21.

1.7:)
 
Looking back at my logbook and my IFR x countries, my CFI put PIC time in my logbook. I was able to log PIC time due to being the sole manipulator, however he was still acting as PIC because he is appropriately rated and filed the flight plan.
 
Kinda of related. So insturment instructor files ifr and you (instrument student) are flying under the foggels because it is cavu day. So you can log pic in simulated time.
Am I correct in thinking that even if the weather were ceilings at ils minimums in the same scenario above you can log pic in actual time?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 
That's correct. As long as the instrument rated pilot (CFII, in this case) accepts the IFR clearance, you can fly and log any time you were sole manipulator as PIC (and actual, if conditions are such).
 
fiveoboy01 said:
So one more question. I read the legal interpretation cited in post #8. It's pretty clear there that I can log PIC time under foggles with the CFII in the right seat when I'm manipulating the controls. However, that particular interpretation uses two private pilots(one being instrument rated) as an example.

Does it change with a CFII in the right seat, in that he can also log PIC time?
Click to expand...

There is a Chief Counsel interpretation going back to 1980 that deals with the student and CFI both logging PIC in various instructional scenarios that uses exactly the same analysis as the one you read. What it comes down to is that each person in the airplane independently looks at 61.51 to see if his or her own activity fits into one of the "boxes" for logging PIC. If it fits, the person may log it. If it doesn't fit, the person may not log it. It doesn't matter whether or not someone else may also log it.

Yes, 90% of the logging PIC questions we ask today we're answered 35 years ago.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes, 90% of the logging PIC questions we ask today we're answered 35 years ago.
Click to expand...

Cool so then maybe there's an answer to this one(sorry for the bump)!

I have been going up with an instrument rated friend. He pays me for half my gas, and in exchange he gets to log time while I'm using foggles. Benefit for me is he goes above and beyond a regular private pilot in the right seat, because he helps me with approaches and holds while I'm learning.

If conditions are IMC and we file, do an XC flight IFR and some approaches IFR, would I log this the same as I would if it was a CFI(I)? We were discussing this after a long XC yesterday. The weather was clear, but today it looks like it won't be. He thought that maybe because he isn't an instructor, it might change the way we would be able to log the time in actual instrument conditions. Obviously he's responsible for the flight being that he would file and it's IMC. Just not sure about the proper or legal way to log this, if it's different than flying with a double I.
 
First of all if he's not an instructor, you obviously can't log it as instruction.

You may log PIC time when you are the sole manipulator of an aircraft for which you are rated. It matters NOT who is the actual pilot in command nor what the conditions of flight are.

Now, for HIS logging purposes, he can not log time for sitting in the seat not flying in actual. Of course if you were wearing foggles in actual, it's arguably legitimate.
 
flyingron said:
Now, for HIS logging purposes, he can not log time for sitting in the seat not flying in actual. Of course if you were wearing foggles in actual, it's arguably legitimate.
Click to expand...

I've never heard this argument before and off the top of my head I can't think of a reason it wouldn't be legal... even if not quite in the spirit of the law lol
 
mkosmo said:
I've never heard this argument before and off the top of my head I can't think of a reason it wouldn't be legal... even if not quite in the spirit of the law lol
Click to expand...
That's the problem with "top of the head" when it comes to written rules :).

It's not proper logging under the rules for a very simple reason - there is no 61.51 PIC or SIC box it fits in. Can you find one that you think fits?

The Chief Counsel site functionality seems to be momentarily down but when you have a chance, if I recall correctly, it is discussed in the 2011 Walker letter.
 
mkosmo said:
I've never heard this argument before and off the top of my head I can't think of a reason it wouldn't be legal... even if not quite in the spirit of the law lol
Click to expand...

The problem is "SIMULATED INSTRUMENT FLIGHT" is not defined. My argument is that if you're wearing a view limiting device it is simulated instrument flight, even if conducted in actual conditions. You don't know you've not entered visual conditions and need a safety pilot. It's sort of a Schrodinger's cat thing.
 
Assuming that logging PIC is a private pilot only, and the "acting" PIC is instrument rated, the non-IR private pilot solely manipulating the controls shoots an approach. Can/should he/she log the approach, in addition to the PIC/Actual Instrument time? Or, for that matter, if they are under the hood, can they log the approach? I would assume so.
 
ahkahn said:
Assuming that logging PIC is a private pilot only, and the "acting" PIC is instrument rated, the non-IR private pilot solely manipulating the controls shoots an approach. Can/should he/she log the approach, in addition to the PIC/Actual Instrument time? Or, for that matter, if they are under the hood, can they log the approach? I would assume so.
Click to expand...
I'm shortening your question to makes sure I understand it:

Can/should the non-IR pilot log the approach (in either actual or simulated conditions)?

It doesn't matter. The purpose of logging approaches under the regs is to show instrument currency. The non-IR pilot has no currency to maintain, so it's irrelevant and means nothing from a regulatory standpoint. Whether the non-IR pilot wants to point to it to say, "look! I flew an approach with a friend this day" is up to the pilot.

I think the better question is, if in actual, may the IR pilot log the approach technically flown by his friend even though the IR pilot can't log the flight time itself.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm shortening your question to makes sure I understand it:

Can/should the non-IR pilot log the approach (in either actual or simulated conditions)?

It doesn't matter. The purpose of logging approaches under the regs is to show instrument currency. The non-IR pilot has no currency to maintain, so it's irrelevant and means nothing from a regulatory standpoint. Whether the non-IR pilot wants to point to it to say, "look! I flew an approach with a friend this day" is up to the pilot.

I think the better question is, if in actual, may the IR pilot log the approach technically flown by his friend even though the IR pilot can't log the flight time itself.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Mark. You nailed the essence of the question, but not the reasoning. Now that my wife has her PPL, per the regs, she can meet 25 of the 40 hours of training without a CFII. If I train her on flying approaches under the hood, can she log those approaches in addition to the hood time?
 
ahkahn said:
Thanks, Mark. You nailed the essence of the question, but not the reasoning. Now that my wife has her PPL, per the regs, she can meet 25 of the 40 hours of training without a CFII. If I train her on flying approaches under the hood, can she log those approaches in addition to the hood time?
Click to expand...

Have you ever tried to teach your wife anything similar? I've seen this fail several times just due to relationship dynamics. Also getting between the student and instructor can cause trouble too. Not saying it can't work but take care everyone is on the same page.
 
ejensen said:
Have you ever tried to teach your wife anything similar? I've seen this fail several times just due to relationship dynamics. Also getting between the student and instructor can cause trouble too. Not saying it can't work but take care everyone is on the same page.
Click to expand...

Lol... Yes, you have a very valid point. Short answer, I have. I helped her prep for her private (not with in-air training, but on the ground). I did prep her in the air in our plane sitting right seat for her high-performance and complex endorsements. We flew about 10 hours and then I turned her over to our instructor for the sign-off. Not gonna lie, we had a few moments, but overall we work very well together. We own/run a business together, too, so we are used to the dynamics.
 
ahkahn said:
Thanks, Mark. You nailed the essence of the question, but not the reasoning. Now that my wife has her PPL, per the regs, she can meet 25 of the 40 hours of training without a CFII. If I train her on flying approaches under the hood, can she log those approaches in addition to the hood time?
Click to expand...
Same answer. Can she? Sure. Same reason. Doesn't matter since it doesn't count for anything regulatory.

First, you are technically incorrect. All "training" time must be with a CFII. 25 of the 40 hours of "actual or simulated time" (not training time) may be done without a CFII.

Aside from that and without getting into the question of how much hood time without a CFI is wise, the time she spends flying under the hood with you counts toward the FAR 61.65 requirement for "Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time." So there is a regulatory reason to log it.

But there is no requirement in 61.65 to log certain number of approaches or, indeed, any approaches at all except to show they were covered in training (with a CFII) and to meet the requirement to do an instrument approach at each airport during the dual (with a CFI) cross country.

So it doesn't matter, except for your wife's own records of what she has done. From a regulatory standpoint, nothing requires her to log any of them and nothing prevents her from doing so.

Personally, if I were the CFII in the hypothetical, I would prefer she log the approaches. Just as I would want to know what maneuvers a primary student is doing during her local solo flights, I want to know what my instrument student is working on during her practice sessions with a safety pilot (I generally view those flights as the instrument student version of solo). There's a definite training benefit to me as an instructor and, I think to the student, to record those items, even if not required by regulation (and so long as they can't be confused with something that does meet a regulatory requirement).
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Same answer. Can she? Sure. Same reason. Doesn't matter since it doesn't count for anything regulatory.

First, you are technically incorrect. All "training" time must be with a CFII. 25 of the 40 hours of "actual or simulated time" (not training time) may be done without a CFII.

Aside from that and without getting into the question of how much hood time without a CFI is wise, the time she spends flying under the hood with you counts toward the FAR 61.65 requirement for "Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time." So there is a regulatory reason to log it.

But there is no requirement in 61.65 to log certain number of approaches or, indeed, any approaches at all except to show they were covered in training (with a CFII) and to meet the requirement to do an instrument approach at each airport during the dual (with a CFI) cross country.

So it doesn't matter, except for your wife's own records of what she has done. From a regulatory standpoint, nothing requires her to log any of them and nothing prevents her from doing so.

Personally, if I were the CFII in the hypothetical, I would prefer she log the approaches. Just as I would want to know what maneuvers a primary student is doing during her local solo flights, I want to know what my instrument student is working on during her practice sessions with a safety pilot (I generally view those flights as the instrument student version of solo). There's a definite training benefit to me as an instructor and, I think to the student, to record those items, even if not required by regulation (and so long as they can't be confused with something that does meet a regulatory requirement).
Click to expand...

Thanks! I appreciate it!
 
ahkahn said:
Lol... Yes, you have a very valid point. Short answer, I have. I helped her prep for her private (not with in-air training, but on the ground). I did prep her in the air in our plane sitting right seat for her high-performance and complex endorsements. We flew about 10 hours and then I turned her over to our instructor for the sign-off. Not gonna lie, we had a few moments, but overall we work very well together. We own/run a business together, too, so we are used to the dynamics.
Click to expand...

You've worked through it. Many folks assume since you sleep with someone you'll automatically be able to work, teach, train with no problems. Usually ends badly.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You are welcome.

But the real question is, how come your signature says Piper Lance and your photo shows a high-wing Cessna? :goofy:
Click to expand...

Ha! I've been asked that before... the short answer is: I've not changed my pic yet! I'll work on that... :lol:
 
ejensen said:
You've worked through it. Many folks assume since you sleep with someone you'll automatically be able to work, teach, train with no problems. Usually ends badly.
Click to expand...

I totally agree on that. I'm very fortunate to have a wife who is also my best friend, and that we have a lot of mutual respect for each other. I'm very lucky!
 
I had this debate with both my CFII and the DPE. Here is the answer and no, I didn't read every post in this thread so I'm sorry if this has already been answered.
 

Attachments

  • walker - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf
    42.4 KB · Views: 8
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top