Logging PIC and actual IMC time with insurance restrictions

[Wolfgang Bardorf]

Hello,

I am wondering whether anyone has a view on logging flight time and IMC time for the following situation which took place on one single flight in a SEP (i.e. only one pilot required as per type certificate):

1. I flew a couple of approaches in actual IMC and simulated IMC with a safety pilot.

Pretty straightforward, I can log PIC time and IMC time

2. The safety pilot (CPL with IR) then flew a couple of approaches in actual IMC from the right seat. Although he was appropriately rated, as my insurance did not allow him to act as PIC on the flight due to lack of type experience, we agreed that I would continue to act as PIC.

a) As I was the designated PIC, I am planning to log this time as PIC (whereas he doesn't log the time as PIC).
b) Then I started wondering whether I can log IMC time and the approaches flown.

Re a), do you think I can log this time as PIC? What about b)?

14CFR 61.51 (e)(1)(i) (sole manipulator) does not apply.
14CFR 61.51 (e)(1)(ii) (sole occupant) does not apply.
14CFR 61.51 (e)(1)(iii) says "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;"

61.51 (e)(1)(iii) technically wouldn't apply either as of course the aircraft does not require more than one pilot and the regulations would have allowed him to fly the aircraft and fly the approaches except that the insurance restrictions didn't allow him to do so which I continued to take on the PIC responsibility for the flight with all the responsibilities that come with it, including being responsible for airspace violations etc.

So what is your view whether I can log this time as PIC? Similarly, what about him? If I didn't log the time as PIC, could he really do so given the insurance restriction and us explicitly agreeing that I would act as PIC? We can't end up having a situation where neither of us logs PIC - that would imply that no one had responsibility for the flight!

What about then IMC time and logging the approaches?

I have plenty of PIC, IMC time and approaches in my logbook so I am not in any desperate need of either but want to ensure that both of us log our flight times correctly!

 

[Sundancer]

Insurance doesn't enter into it - the FAA isn't concerned about your civil liability/insurance situation. And, you're over thinking it. Real world? Log it when you flew and he was safety, log it when he flew and you were safety. Same-same for him. Nobody really cares, and the FAA has bigger issues than parsing logs for GA pilots for every flight and distribution of PIC time. . .

 

[Rgbeard]

It's your logs. Write what you choose.

There's two schools of thought that you're trying to merge into one. Separate the insurance from the FARs and the picture becomes clearer.

 

[EdFred]

Insurance companies can go pound sand when it comes to logging. Logging is between you and the FAA and none of the insurance company's business.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I understand your concern, but we are sort of dealing with applies and oranges, so, let's get down to basics.

Logging flight time per the FAR is for the purpose of meeting qualifications for FAA certificates and ratings, and to show legal currency.

Insurance is a contract between the insurance company and the policyholder regarding what the company will cover in case of an incident which causes damage.

And a basic premise most are familiar with: acting as PIC and logging PIC flight time are two separate and unrelated concepts. For example, the FAR permit one who is not acting as PIC to log it. And vice versa.

When an insurance company places a restriction on who may act as pilot in command, it is typically talking about "acting" as PIC - being in charge of the flight. not how you log it.

One place where they do intersect is the safety pilot situation. Remember that the FAA rule says that in order to log PIC flight time as a safety pilot, one must be acting as PIC. So, if the insurance restriction is on who may act as PIC, logging it as a safety pilot would violate the restriction.

But bear in mind the language is not uniform in even using the term "pilot in command". I have seen a variety of terms used, including terms which equate roughly to "flying the airplane," so you need to look at the specific policy and the specific restriction.

Personally, I do not log PIC when I act as a safety pilot in an aircraft I am not qualified to fly myself due to a failure to meet insurance minimums, FBO rental agreements, etc. I don't want to create a situation in which the insurer can tell the owner to pound sand in case of a claim.

OTOH, I have no issue with logging PIC as sole manipulator while the qualified pilot is acting as PIC.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Btw, you are correct that under the FAR, if you were the acting PIC in instrument conditions, but were not the sole manipulator (your friend was flying), your friend was the only one authorized to log PIC (or for that matter, any) flight time at all. Here's the FAA Chief Counsel opinion dealing with that scenario.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...2011/Walker - (2011) Legal Interpretation.pdf

 

[dmspilot]

Hello,

I am wondering whether anyone has a view on logging flight time and IMC time for the following situation which took place on one single flight in a SEP (i.e. only one pilot required as per type certificate):

1. I flew a couple of approaches in actual IMC and simulated IMC with a safety pilot.

Pretty straightforward, I can log PIC time and IMC time

2. The safety pilot (CPL with IR) then flew a couple of approaches in actual IMC from the right seat. Although he was appropriately rated, as my insurance did not allow him to act as PIC on the flight due to lack of type experience, we agreed that I would continue to act as PIC.

a) As I was the designated PIC, I am planning to log this time as PIC (whereas he doesn't log the time as PIC).
b) Then I started wondering whether I can log IMC time and the approaches flown.

Re a), do you think I can log this time as PIC? What about b)?

14CFR 61.51 (e)(1)(i) (sole manipulator) does not apply.
14CFR 61.51 (e)(1)(ii) (sole occupant) does not apply.
14CFR 61.51 (e)(1)(iii) says "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;"

61.51 (e)(1)(iii) technically wouldn't apply either as of course the aircraft does not require more than one pilot and the regulations would have allowed him to fly the aircraft and fly the approaches except that the insurance restrictions didn't allow him to do so which I continued to take on the PIC responsibility for the flight with all the responsibilities that come with it, including being responsible for airspace violations etc.

So what is your view whether I can log this time as PIC? Similarly, what about him? If I didn't log the time as PIC, could he really do so given the insurance restriction and us explicitly agreeing that I would act as PIC? We can't end up having a situation where neither of us logs PIC - that would imply that no one had responsibility for the flight!

What about then IMC time and logging the approaches?

I have plenty of PIC, IMC time and approaches in my logbook so I am not in any desperate need of either but want to ensure that both of us log our flight times correctly!

You cannot log time when you are not sole manipulator unless you're a CFI or the other pilot was wearing a view limiting device. The sole manipulator logs PIC regardless of who is acting as the pilot in command.

 

[flyingron]

You cannot PIC log time when you are not sole manipulator unless you're a CFI or the other pilot was wearing a view limiting device. The sole manipulator logs PIC regardless of who is acting as the pilot in command.

Clarified that for you (since he also asked about instrument time). You can log instrument time any time you are flying by instruments in simulated or actual flight conditions. You don't necessarily need to meet the requirements for PIC logging to log instrument time (for instance, I could fly a twin in the soup and log instrument time even though I'm not multirated).

 

[dmspilot]

You don't necessarily need to meet the requirements for PIC logging to log instrument time (for instance, I could fly a twin in the soup and log instrument time even though I'm not multirated).

You can't log instrument time by itself. It has to be something, e.g., PIC, SIC, or dual received.

 

[Initial Fix]

Isn’t the insurance restriction really about who can take the plane solo? Basically I’m not tossing the keys to my multi thousand hour pilot friend since he doesn’t have the min time in type for the insurance to be valid.

I’m not going to rehash the logging vs acting as pic discussion. If you have an appropriately certificated person in the other seat as a safety pilot, log it accordingly. Folks like to way overthink this.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ogram/media/LOGGING PILOT-IN-COMMAND TIME.pdf

 

[midlifeflyer]

You can't log instrument time by itself. It has to be something, e.g., PIC, SIC, or dual received.

If you look at the regulation for logging instrument time and compare it with other 61.51 rules, Ron is correct in theory. Might even have some minimal practical value.

 

[dmspilot]

If you look at the regulation for logging instrument time and compare it with other 61.51 rules, Ron is correct in theory. Might even have some minimal practical value.

Type of pilot experience or training—
(i) Solo.
(ii) Pilot in command.
(iii) Second in command.
(iv) Flight and ground training received from an authorized instructor.
(v) Training received in a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device from an authorized instructor.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. It has to be one of the above. Otherwise if I'm sitting in seat 23B on a Southwest flight and we enter the clouds, I can write instrument time in my logbook?

 

[Rgbeard]

Otherwise if I'm sitting in seat 23B on a Southwest flight and we enter the clouds, I can write instrument time in my logbook?

You mean.... you don't?

 

[alfadog]

Of course you CANNOT log time as PIC if another pilot is flying the a/c and only one pilot is required. Sheesh.

 

[flyingron]

You can't log instrument time by itself. It has to be something, e.g., PIC, SIC, or dual received.

I disagree. First off, the above is an incorrect paraphrase of the requirements for PILOT TIME.

But if you ban all-time logging that doesn't fit the definition of PILOT TIME, you have to cut out a lot of other times (notably any sole manipulator time where you are not the PIC in most situations).

 

[dmspilot]

I disagree. First off, the above is an incorrect paraphrase of the requirements for PILOT TIME.

No, it is not "an incorrect paraphrase."

I listed 3 examples of the 5 types of time. I quoted the reg in a subsequent post. The other two are solo and flight simulator or training device which did not apply in context.

But if you ban all-time logging that doesn't fit the definition of PILOT TIME, you have to cut out a lot of other times (notably any sole manipulator time where you are not the PIC in most situations).

That is not correct. Sole manipulator time is logged as PIC time.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Type of pilot experience or training—
(i) Solo.
(ii) Pilot in command.
(iii) Second in command.
(iv) Flight and ground training received from an authorized instructor.
(v) Training received in a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device from an authorized instructor.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. It has to be one of the above. Otherwise if I'm sitting in seat 23B on a Southwest flight and we enter the clouds, I can write instrument time in my logbook?

Are you suggesting it is improper for a safety pilot who is not acting as PIC and logs it a flight time to have an empty SIC column for the flight? Maybe you are right, but I don't think so. I don't see 61.51(b)(2) as prohibiting "none of the above," but only a requiring the entry of applicable information. think the individual logging regs stand alone. If you fit a column, you may enter the column, regardless of whether you do or don't fit the others.

But here's what I am getting at:

Almost all of the individual logging rules begin with "A [type] pilot may..." The instrument logging rule doesn't use "pilot" at all. Instead it says

A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.​

That's the theoretical. I theory a non-pilot may log instrument time, for all the good it would do.

The "maybe" practical is that the instrument currency reg also does not talk about "pilots". It also talks about "persons".

Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate, for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained.​

Notice that 61.57(c) also talks in terms of appropriate category, not class. Which follows the instrument rating itself, which is category, but nor class specific.

So here's the "maybe practical" scenario: I am not multi-rated. My friend (not a CFI-MEI) takes me for a ride and permits me to fly an approach in actual. Looking at the regulations (and even the Chief Counsel opinions), I think the regs as written authorize me to log the actual instrument time and the approach, and to count the approach toward my currency.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I disagree. First off, the above is an incorrect paraphrase of the requirements for PILOT TIME.

No, it is not "an incorrect paraphrase."

Actually, he's right. Here's the FAR definition of "pilot time."

Pilot time means that time in which a person -

(i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember;
(ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device; or
(iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device.​

Think of the exact actual instrument scenario the Chief Counsel said a non-instrument pilot may log PIC and actual instrument time when an instrument-rated friend is acting as PIC. The non instrument-rated pilot:

(i) is not serving as a required crewmenber. He's really just a passenger being allowed to fly the airplane.
(ii) is not receiving training from an authorized instructor. The other pilot is not a CFI.
(iii) is not giving training as an authorized instructor​

No "pilot time" under the formal definition, but is nevertheless authorized to log the time as flight time because there are individual 61.51 boxes which say so.

​

 

[dmspilot]

Actually, he's right. Here's the FAR definition of "pilot time."

Pilot time means that time in which a person -

(i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember;
(ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device; or
(iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device.​

​

No, he isn't right. I "paraphrased" 61.51(b)(2) (not 61.1) which lists five types of time that can be logged. That is solo, PIC, SIC, or flight/ground training received, or training received in a simulator or training device. My paraphrase is 100% correct, the two of five that I left out had no possible applicability to the scenario.

Think of the exact actual instrument scenario the Chief Counsel said a non-instrument pilot may log PIC and actual instrument time when an instrument-rated friend is acting as PIC.

That scenario is completely the opposite of flyingron's scenario. In the Chief Counsel scenario the type of flight time is one of the five types, in flyingron's scenario, it is zero of the five types.

 

[Sundancer]

Make it stop. . .

 

[dmspilot]

Are you suggesting it is improper for a safety pilot who is not acting as PIC and logs it a flight time to have an empty SIC column for the flight?

The time is SIC time, and it is this fact which makes it loggable at all, via 61.51(f)(2). Leaving the column blank doesn't change this fact.

61.51(g)(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.
​

That's the theoretical. I theory a non-pilot may log instrument time, for all the good it would do.

Maybe if you read that particular reg in a vacuum. I don't know how you could.

61.51(g) limits you as to when you can log instrument time, it does not grant you the ability to log time when you otherwise couldn't.

In other words, I have always believed that a flight has to be loggable in generable, before you can determine if you can log instrument time.

So here's the "maybe practical" scenario: I am not multi-rated. My friend (not a CFI-MEI) takes me for a ride and permits me to fly an approach in actual. Looking at the regulations (and even the Chief Counsel opinions), I think the regs as written authorize me to log the actual instrument time and the approach, and to count the approach toward my currency.

There are cases where you can log approaches for currency but not log any flight time, e.g., solo simulator or training device, so not logically inconsistent that you can have one without the other.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

[flyingron]

61.51(a)(2)? You're making no sense. 61.51(a) puts no constraints on what you CAN log. It tells you what you MUST log.

None of the rest of your arguments make sense. Subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) are all orthogonal to each other. None requires any relationship to another.

 

[dmspilot]

61.51(a)(2)? You're making no sense. 61.51(a) puts no constraints on what you CAN log. It tells you what you MUST log.

That was a typo, I meant (b)(2). Which I quoted earlier. Now tell me what doesn't make sense?

 

[Palmpilot]

Make it stop. . .

Reading threads like this helps prevent Alzheimers!

 

[flyingron]

That was a typo, I meant (b)(2). Which I quoted earlier. Now tell me what doesn't make sense?

This explains where you got the list from (I agree I thought you were enumerating the pilot time cases). Still, the wording indicates things you must enter in a log entry, not a prohibition on what you can enter. You'd darn well enter the number of takeoffs and landings if you want to demonstrate 61.31 currency, but that's not listed either. You have to read the regulations as they are written.

 

[dmspilot]

This explains where you got the list from (I agree I thought you were enumerating the pilot time cases). Still, the wording indicates things you must enter in a log entry, not a prohibition on what you can enter. You'd darn well enter the number of takeoffs and landings if you want to demonstrate 61.31 currency, but that's not listed either. You have to read the regulations as they are written.

When the "type of pilot time" is "none of the above" I don't see how you can have a flight to log.

Using your interpretation, a passenger not receiving instruction could log instrument time, landings, and seemingly all kinds of things. Could he or she log night time too? And multiengine time?

 

[flyingron]

Why not? If the type of experience they are attempting to prove doesn't put a restriction on it.

 

[jonvcaples]

An FAA inspector once explained it this way. If there is an accident or incident we define the PIC as the pilot who is properly certificated (category, class etc.) and current. A friend got caught up by this when he was asked to just ride around the pattern a few times with pilot X. On the third touch and go X lost control of the airplane and took out a runway light. Turned out X was not current so my friend who was current (and certified etc.) had an unpleasant meeting with the feds but fortunately was only counseled.