Dual logging of PIC, round ? With a twist....

[T Bone]

Not sure how much this aspect has been covered here. I know alot of you came over from the AOPA board (never cared for the format, just didn't "feel" right). I've been hanging over at Marco's place the last year (and know a few of you from there), and have spread my roots a bit...

So, presumeably we all know about the ability to log time as PIC as safety pilot in the airplane while the other pilot under the hood is also logging PIC. This is something I'm reasonably certain has been well covered.

The twist...
This has to do with logging PIC as above, for Xc requirements. I got thinking, if a landing is required for Xc, only one pilot lands, how can the other log Xc? I phoned AOPA for their interpretation, and on the phone, without giving any real thought to it, "they" responded yes, both log Xc. This individual likened it to the presence of a flight instructor, who would also be logging PIC (not the same IMHO, the safety pilot here is NOT a CFI).

So, I pondered. I thought "wait, the safety pilot only gets to log the time the other pilot is under the hood. The other pilot isn't landing under the hood". After reading an issue of epilot, I clicked the link for pilot assistance. A day or so later, I got a response. A couple weeks later, I got another (not sure why, but the two were nearly identical). Here's the text of their response, my question below it....

Mr. XxXxxxxx,

Thank you for your email to AOPA. You are correct about the pilots being able to log PIC, but logging time as cross-country depends on who has what ratings.

FAR 61.1 defines cross-country time. For the purposes of obtaining the private, commercial, and instrument rating, the flight must include a landing 50 miles from the point of departure. Since only one person lands the plane, then that is the person who logs cross-country.

For the purpose of the ATP rating, the flight merely includes a flight of more than 50 miles straight-line distance. So, if the person not doing the flying is gaining hours for the ATP rating, that person may log cross-country.

I hope this clarifies things for you. Thank you again for the email, Mr. XxXxxxxx. If you need further assistance with this or any other aviation related matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards,

Marc C. Hutcheson
CFI, CFII, MEI
Aviation Technical Specialist
Aviation Services Department
800-872-2672 (USA-AOPA)
301-695-2375 (FAX)
www.aopa.org

--- Original Message Below ---

If one pilot is logging PIC as sole manipulater of the controls (while
under the hood) and a second pilot is logging PIC as a safety pilot, and
the flight is to a point in excess of 50NM from point of origin, can
both pilots log the time as cross country (assuming the aircraft lands
at the distant point)?

Thanks in advance for your answer,
Regards, Terrell XxXxxxxx
AOPA #xxxxxxxx

I've been told by some instrument students that they're logging PIC Xc as safety pilot. So, what do you all think....

 

[poadeleted20]

This question was specifically asked and answered by AFS-800. While I think they are wrong in their interpretation, the official Flight Standards Service position is that other than a non-flying co-pilot required by Part 121, 135, or the aircraft type certificate, only the sole manipulator is permitted to log the time as XC, i.e., safety pilots for hooded pilots cannot log XC time. This is what the FAA enforcement system will use as its standard unless/until the FAA Chief Counsel rules otherwise.

 

[jdwatson]

Unless they are the 'official' PIC (right seat) and the sole manipulator is in the left seat, correct ?

For example, a CFII on an instrument student's long IFR X-C is the PIC and the student our "manipulator" both can log the X-C time, yes ?

 

[BruceAir]

Sec. 61.51 - Pilot logbooks
...


(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in- command time only for that flight time during which that person --

(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated;

(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or

(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

(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.

(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 current solo flight endorsement as required under §61.87 of this part; and

(iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating.

 

[poadeleted20]

Unless they are the 'official' PIC (right seat) and the sole manipulator is in the left seat, correct ?

For example, a CFII on an instrument student's long IFR X-C is the PIC and the student our "manipulator" both can log the X-C time, yes ?

AFAIK, yes. The earlier-referenced FAA policy statement was only about an SIC safety pilot.

 

[gismo]

Re: Dual logging of PIC, round ? More twists...

Unless they are the 'official' PIC (right seat) and the sole manipulator is in the left seat, correct ?

For example, a CFII on an instrument student's long IFR X-C is the PIC and the student our "manipulator" both can log the X-C time, yes ?

Just to be as clear as possible here Jeff, which seat is occupied by which pilot has little bearing on who can log what assuming there are flight controls at both positions. Also while the current official intrepretation of the rules allow a safety pilot that's acting as PIC to log PIC time, that clearly doesn't apply to X/C time.

I'm not clear on whether a CFI giving instruction is allowed to log X/C time unless he makes (or at least assists with) the takeoff and landing. If the CFI does make or assist with either, then the "student" may not be able to log the landing or x/c since he obviously wasn't the "sole manipulator"

So, Ron or anyone in the know, is a CFI allowed to log x/c when giving instruction on an otherwise qualified x/c flight if he never touches the controls during the takeoff and landing? Does the type of instruction matter E.G. if the instructor was teaching instrument flying to a PPL holder would it count the same as if he were instructing about landing?

 

[Ed Guthrie]

This is what the FAA enforcement system will use as its standard unless/until the FAA Chief Counsel rules otherwise.

I am surprised to see such an erroneous statement. The FAQ file is perhaps a standard for the FSDO inspectors ("perhaps" being the most accurate qualifier since the FSDOs don't seem to pay it much heed), but the FAQ file is hardly the standard for enforcement. Enforcement starts at the FSDO level but for enforcement purposes the FARs are interpreted by the FAA legal department and enforcement is implemented only with their approval. FAA legal isn't about to push an enforcement based on an incorrect FAR interpretation created by John Lynch. No way, no how. Given the disclaimer at the front of the FAQ file it should be apparent to any reader that the FAA legal department sets the interpretations and the enforcement standards--not John Lynch nor the FAQ file. Furthermore, the FAA legal department has and will continue to base their interpretation on the FARs, not the FAQ file.

As a side note, given the one FAA legal interpretation I have in hand which states that the interpretation was coordinated with Flight Standards Division (the folks John Lynch supposedly represents), and given that the interpretation directly contradicts a written opinion posted by John Lynch and referenced as an extended source within the FAQ file, I seriously doubt that John Lynch nor his FAQ file carry much weight within either FAA legal nor the Flight Standards division. IOW, when FAA legal "coordinates with Flight Standards" it obviously isn't John Lynch (nor his FAQ file) who FAA legal consults.

Call FAA legal, mention the FAQ file & John Lynch and listen carefully: "John who?" The guy is an unreliable source. Get over it. Find another reference.

 

[EdFred]

This question was specifically asked and answered by AFS-800. While I think they are wrong in their interpretation, the official Flight Standards Service position is that other than a non-flying co-pilot required by Part 121, 135, or the aircraft type certificate, only the sole manipulator is permitted to log the time as XC, i.e., safety pilots for hooded pilots cannot log XC time. This is what the FAA enforcement system will use as its standard unless/until the FAA Chief Counsel rules otherwise.

What if this happens in this exact order:
(Both pilots are current, etc and the unhooded pilot will act as PIC while the other wears the hood)


Pilot A takes off from Airport X
Pilot B performs a T'n'G and puts on the hood and continues to fly the plane
Pilot A reads all charts while pilot B tunes the radios for the next 70 miles
Pilot A takes control of the airplane and performs a T'n'G
Pilot B takes control of the airplane and lands the plane

Each pilot performed a take off, and each pilot performed a landing. Can both log PIC XC for the entire flight (minus 3 minutes of pattern) ?

 

[gismo]

What if this happens in this exact order:
(Both pilots are current, etc and the unhooded pilot will act as PIC while the other wears the hood)


Pilot A takes off from Airport X
Pilot B performs a T'n'G and puts on the hood and continues to fly the plane
Pilot A reads all charts while pilot B tunes the radios for the next 70 miles
Pilot A takes control of the airplane and performs a T'n'G
Pilot B takes control of the airplane and lands the plane

Each pilot performed a take off, and each pilot performed a landing. Can both log PIC XC for the entire flight (minus 3 minutes of pattern) ?

From a purely legal perspective it seems to me that both pilots have met all the requirements for a cross country flight, but that doesn't mean the FAA would interpret it that way. Keep in mind that there's nothing in the FAR's themselves that directly says a pilot must be the sole manipulator during the landing and takeoff of a cross country flight in order to log it as such, that comes in the form of an interpretation.

 

[poadeleted20]

Quote:
Originally Posted by N2212R
What if this happens in this exact order:
(Both pilots are current, etc and the unhooded pilot will act as PIC while the other wears the hood)


Pilot A takes off from Airport X
Pilot B performs a T'n'G and puts on the hood and continues to fly the plane
Pilot A reads all charts while pilot B tunes the radios for the next 70 miles
Pilot A takes control of the airplane and performs a T'n'G
Pilot B takes control of the airplane and lands the plane

Each pilot performed a take off, and each pilot performed a landing. Can both log PIC XC for the entire flight (minus 3 minutes of pattern) ?

From a purely legal perspective it seems to me that both pilots have met all the requirements for a cross country flight, but that doesn't mean the FAA would interpret it that way. Keep in mind that there's nothing in the FAR's themselves that directly says a pilot must be the sole manipulator during the landing and takeoff of a cross country flight in order to log it as such, that comes in the form of an interpretation.

I think the FAA won't agree, and the reason they'll give is that two pilots were required only during the portion of the flight when the manipulating pilot was hooded. I think they'll say that only the hooded pilot can log the time as XC. That does NOT mean I agree with the FAA, just that I think that's what they'll say, and while I know many of you think highly of my opinions, my disagreement with their policy will not be an availing defense at an enforcement hearing.

 

[gismo]

Quote:
I think the FAA won't agree, and the reason they'll give is that two pilots were required only during the portion of the flight when the manipulating pilot was hooded. I think they'll say that only the hooded pilot can log the time as XC. That does NOT mean I agree with the FAA, just that I think that's what they'll say, and while I know many of you think highly of my opinions, my disagreement with their policy will not be an availing defense at an enforcement hearing.

FWIW, I think your right about how the FAA would look at it. I suspect that in general, they will frown on most any attempt to shortchange them on any experience requirements.

 

[poadeleted20]

I am surprised to see such an erroneous statement. The FAQ file is perhaps a standard for the FSDO inspectors ("perhaps" being the most accurate qualifier since the FSDOs don't seem to pay it much heed), but the FAQ file is hardly the standard for enforcement.

Let me quote the Chief of the FAA Flight Standards Service in his memorandum of June 3, 2004:


"There is a disclaimer statement at the beginning of each of these websites that state the answers provided are not legal interpretations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel provide legal interpretations. However, it is important our personnel be aware of these websites. I want it understood that the answers and information provided on these websites are official FAA Flight Standards Service policy about Part 61, Part 141, and Part 142." {emphasis added}


Since, as Ed notes, "Enforcement starts at the FSDO level," you'd better be ready to try arguing with the Regional Counsel that you are right and AFS is wrong if you go against what is written in these FAQ's, because that's the first level where you get to make that argument -- AFTER you have already gotten that registered letter proposing sanctions and AFTER you've had to hire a lawyer to help you avoid contracting a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease.


While Ed is correct that the Chief and Regional Counsels can overrule AFS on an interpretation, and there have been a few notable cases where that's happened, it doesn't happen very often. Choose wisely, and I most strongly advise that if you want to challenge the rules, get an FAA Counsel opinion before you do what AFS says not to. It's free and easy to get that interpretation (just write a letter or send an email to the RC's office, addresses being availale on the AFS Region websites), and I've done so in the past, but in almost every case the Counsel has backed the AFS policy, and in one case where the RC agreed with me, the Chief Counsel's office reversed the RC.

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: Dual logging of PIC, round ? More twists...

Just to be as clear as possible here Jeff, which seat is occupied by which pilot has little bearing on who can log what assuming there are flight controls at both positions. Also while the current official intrepretation of the rules allow a safety pilot that's acting as PIC to log PIC time, that clearly doesn't apply to X/C time.

I'm not sure about that. The opinion I got was ONLY about an SIC safety pilot, and Mr. Lynch very clearly couched it as being only about SIC's. I think a PIC able to log the time can log XC time no matter who's flying the plane, and that would include "a CFI giving instruction" since the opinion I got did not include that case. So unless and until someone in AFS says otherwise, I will continue to log XC time when giving flight training and during the flight we land somewhere other than where we took off (already having my ATP, only the basic XC definition matters for me, not the 50-mile rule).

 

[gismo]

Re: Dual logging of PIC, round ? More twists...

I'm not sure about that. The opinion I got was ONLY about an SIC safety pilot, and Mr. Lynch very clearly couched it as being only about SIC's. I think a PIC able to log the time can log XC time no matter who's flying the plane, and that would include "a CFI giving instruction" since the opinion I got did not include that case. So unless and until someone in AFS says otherwise, I will continue to log XC time when giving flight training and during the flight we land somewhere other than where we took off (already having my ATP, only the basic XC definition matters for me, not the 50-mile rule).

I thought the FAA was pretty clear that whenever x/c rules require a landing, only the pilot who made the takeoff and landing (CFI giving instruction being a probable exception) would get to log the flight as x/c. In addition unless the PIC/safety pilot is the sole manipulator during the takeoff and landing, he wouldn't be able to log that part of the flight which would seem to preclude logging the x/c.

Have I got this all wrong?

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Since, as Ed notes, "Enforcement starts at the FSDO level," you'd better be ready to try arguing with the Regional Counsel that you are right and AFS is wrong

Ron, this statement and the verbage that followed is all well and good, but it completely ignores the erroneous statement you made. You claimed that the FAQ file is the end all be all of enforcement actions. It is not. You implied that FARs and legal reality don't matter--all that matters is what the FAQ file states. Your statement is about as incorrect as can be. We can wander around the perimeter all you want, but the topic at hand is that your previous statement is flat wrong.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, this statement and the verbage that followed is all well and good, but it completely ignores the erroneous statement you made. You claimed that the FAQ file is the end all be all of enforcement actions. It is not. You implied that FARs and legal reality don't matter--all that matters is what the FAQ file states. Your statement is about as incorrect as can be. We can wander around the perimeter all you want, but the topic at hand is that your previous statement is flat wrong.

Please re-read one more time exactly what I said:

"[The FAQ file] is what the FAA enforcement system will use as its standard unless/until the FAA Chief Counsel rules otherwise."

What about that particular statement (other than, perhaps, to include Regional along with Chief) do you find erroneous? Remember, the enforcement system starts in AFS, not AGC, and only when it gets to AGC (FAA Counsel) can there be an overturn of the AFS policy -- which is what I believe I said. And by that time, you will be up to your eyeballs in FAA legal paper and your own lawyer's bills.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Please re-read one more time exactly what I said:

"[The FAQ file] is what the FAA enforcement system will use as its standard unless/until the FAA Chief Counsel rules otherwise."

What about that particular statement (other than, perhaps, to include Regional along with Chief) do you find erroneous?

Well, for openers that would be one point, but that is but a minor flaw.

Remember, the enforcement system starts in AFS, not AGC, and only when it gets to AGC (FAA Counsel) can there be an overturn of the AFS policy -- which is what I believe I said. And by that time, you will be up to your eyeballs in FAA legal paper and your own lawyer's bills.

And this would be another. By the time as you phrase it, "...you are up to your eyeballs in FAA legal paper and your own lawyer's bills" the FAA legal folks have already bought off on the interpretation. I was too tired the other night to go into details, but you made this statement before and I should have made a note then:

Since, as Ed notes, "Enforcement starts at the FSDO level," you'd better be ready to try arguing with the Regional Counsel that you are right and AFS is wrong if you go against what is written in these FAQ's, because that's the first level where you get to make that argument -- AFTER you have already gotten that registered letter proposing sanctions and AFTER you've had to hire a lawyer to help you avoid contracting a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease.

The logic error in your statement above is that at the point of argument you suggest (pilot arguing in front of an FAA lawyer and the FSDO inspector regarding whether or not the FSDO inspector's interpretation is correct) in actuality the pilot will not be arguing to convince the regional counsel that the FSDO inspector's interpretation is incorrect--at that point the pilot will actually be trying to convince the regional counsel that the regional counsel's interpretation is incorrect. IOW, if you get to the point of arguing with the regional counsel, the regional counsel has read the FAR has has determined that the FSDO inspector (or FAQ file, or whatever source) is in his/her determination correct and properly applied. You don't need to convince counsel that the FSDO is incorrect--you need to convince counsel that counsel is incorrect.

Which brings me back to why your original statement is toast: It doesn't matter what the FAQ file says or doesn't say. It doesn't matter what the FSDO inspector believes or doesn't believe. All that matters is what the regional counsel believes because if the regional counsel doesn't buy the suggestion that you busted an FAR then you aren't going to get that nasty infraction letter, and you aren't going to be arguing your case in front of the regional counsel & FSDO inspector. IOW, if the regional counsel doesn't buy the infraction interpretation then the case is dead. The previous obviously ignoring that FSDO may escalate to Chief Counsel, in which case FAA legal may have a player substitution but if the argument occurs then the argument roles will still be the same--you are now trying to convince Chief Counsel that his/her interpretation is incorrect.

So, in summary, it doesn't matter what John Lynch thinks or writes in the FAQ file (incorrect and sometimes self-contradictory as it often is), and it doesn't matter what kind of bureaucratic supporting letters from his boss John Lynch appends to the FAQ file. The most accurate statement in the entire FAQ file is the disclaimer stating that the FAQ file should not be used for definitive legal interpretations unless the Chief Counsel concurred. IOW, FAA legal is the enforcement determining entity--not AFS, the FSDO, the FAQ file, nor John Lynch. They collectively or individually may suggest a witch hunt be convened, but only FAA legal will determine if the witch hunt will proceed.

 

[bbchien]

Well, whatever FAA decides to do....it decides to do. John Lynch was an FAA guy who attempted to do good. He was in fact, personally, a great guy.

Many of us miss him.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ed:

Your treatise on the process is accurate and informative. However, please cite a case in which an RC did not accept a FSDO inspector's quotation of AFS policy in evaluating an enforcement action sent up by the FSDO for sanctions -- I don't think you can.

I'm not talking about cases in which someone asked for an interpretation of a regulation outside the enforcement process, but rather a case in which the FSDO initiated the enforcement action IAW the FAQ and the RC sent it back saying, "Nope -- you're misinterpreting the reg." Nor am I talking about a case in which the RC changed his mind after hearing the respondant's argument at an "informal conference" after the letter was sent. I'm specifically asking about an enforcement action based on an FAQ interpretation being shortstopped by the RC based on the RC's contrary opinion before the letter was sent.

Again, if you don't like what it says in the FAQ, get an FAA Counsel's interpretation before you do something different from what it says in the FAQ. It's free, easy, and definitive, and can save you much grief and money.

Ron

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Ed:

Your treatise on the process is accurate and informative. However, please cite a case in which an RC did not accept a FSDO inspector's quotation of AFS policy in evaluating an enforcement action sent up by the FSDO for sanctions -- I don't think you can.

I'm sorry to say this, but what a BS question. Who would have such a record? If it existed you actually think you or I, mere mortals in the FAA world, would have access to the record?

Read your favorite FAA legal advice book. The RC is the gate keeper.

Better yet, just think about it for a minute.

I have two instances where FAQ file said one thing and RC said another. If a FSDO sent a case to RC using the contrary FAQ file interpretation you really believe the RC is going to roll over and beg for embarrassment? Even absent a prior interpretation request from me, if the RC reviews the FAQ file based case and disagrees, you really believe the RC is a glutton for punishment? Remember, please, that if your premise is correct then the RC may end up in front of a judge defending an interpretation the RC doesn't believe is legally corrrect. Puullleazze. RCs are like the rest of us--respect is a commodity that should not be squandered--and what you propose is a recipe for destroying all possible respect the judge might have had. "Well, yea, judge, I really can't argue with your ruling, after all, I really didn't buy the FSDO interpretation at all--it seemed flawed from the start."

Again, if you don't like what it says in the FAQ, get an FAA Counsel's interpretation before you do something different from what it says in the FAQ. It's free, easy, and definitive, and can save you much grief and money.

Remember, we started this conversation because you erroneously stated that the FAQ file rules supreme. In that case, why bother with an RC's opinion? Even if the RC agrees with you, the FAQ file will trash your life. Remember?