Logging PIC in aircraft requiring a Type Rating

[Greg Bockelman]

In researching a "Logging Vs Acting" PIC issue, I came across the attached letter. It contains, in part, the following quotes.

You ask whether the SIC can log PIC time for that portion of the flight in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls for the flight. The answer is yes.

This is important because even though an SIC can log PIC time, that pilot may not be qualified to serve as PIC under Part 121.

No where in that letter, as far as I can see, does it specify that the SIC must also be type rated in order to log the PIC as Sole Manipulator. What am I missing?

 

[TMetzinger]

I think it might be a date issue. Once upon a time you had to be rated in category and class to log PIC. Now I think the regs require Cat/Class/Type (if a Type is required).

Not sure when that rewrite occured.

Also, remember that they say that the pilot may not be qualified under 121 as PIC, so the pilot may be fully rated, including a type rating. he may not have enough time or other qualifications to ACT as PIC under 121, but he can still log the time as PIC.

 

[KennyFlys]

It's no different than the previous discussion on logging flight time in a complex or high performance aircraft without the appropriate endorsements. It took me a while for that idea to sink in.

Supposedly, such issues are going to be addressed in future rule changes. Though, I see it no different than my student being allowed to log flight time during training even though they may not even hold so much as a medical certificate, let alone an endorsed student certificate. I'm still acting PIC.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I think it might be a date issue. Once upon a time you had to be rated in category and class to log PIC. Now I think the regs require Cat/Class/Type (if a Type is required).

Not sure when that rewrite occured.

Also, remember that they say that the pilot may not be qualified under 121 as PIC, so the pilot may be fully rated, including a type rating. he may not have enough time or other qualifications to ACT as PIC under 121, but he can still log the time as PIC.

The letter is still on record though. And no mention of needing the type rating. If it WAS a change related issue, then I believe they would have pulled or rescinded the letter.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I am not sure I follow, Ken.

It's no different than the previous discussion on logging flight time in a complex or high performance aircraft without the appropriate endorsements. It took me a while for that idea to sink in.

Do you mean logging PIC? That is legal according to 61.51(e). Endorsements are not ratings.

Supposedly, such issues are going to be addressed in future rule changes.

Although, apparently there is no record of that in the change notices, IIRC.

Though, I see it no different than my student being allowed to log flight time during training even though they may not even hold so much as a medical certificate, let alone an endorsed student certificate. I'm still acting PIC.

I am not quite sure what your point is here.

 

[Everskyward]

No where in that letter, as far as I can see, does it specify that the SIC must also be type rated in order to log the PIC as Sole Manipulator. What am I missing?

Nowhere in the letter do I see type rating mentioned at all. Maybe they are assuming it is a typed SIC, although that is a pretty big assumption.

 

[TMetzinger]

The letter is still on record though. And no mention of needing the type rating. If it WAS a change related issue, then I believe they would have pulled or rescinded the letter.

I don't think they do either one. If they change the rules, that overrides the interpretation.

 

[KennyFlys]

I am not quite sure what your point is here.

Sorry, I left something out there...

If the captain in the left seat is an "authorized intstructor," the pilot in the right seat could be a trainee to obtain a type rating and could log PIC while the sole manipulator.

In this particular case, the "authorized instructor" could be a check airman as allowed under their operating specifications.

From what I'm seeing in 61.55, not much is required to acquire an SIC type rating. An "authorized instructor" under the opspecs can do this.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I don't think they do either one. If they change the rules, that overrides the interpretation.

Thing is, I have been flying type rating required airplanes since 1987 and as far as I can remember, the rule has been consistently the same since then. Nothing is new since the letter was written.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

If the captain in the left seat is an "authorized intstructor," the pilot in the right seat could be a trainee to obtain a type rating and could log PIC while the sole manipulator.

61.51(e) does not make any exceptions to a person logging PIC if he is recieving instruction from an Authorized Instructor. This one is a non starter.

In this particular case, the "authorized instructor" could be a check airman as allowed under their operating specifications.

Granted, but see above.

From what I'm seeing in 61.55, not much is required to acquire an SIC type rating. An "authorized instructor" under the opspecs can do this.

Well, this wasn't even addressed in the 1999 letter because the SIC thing came about in the last year and a half. Also, an SIC "rating" is just that, Second In Command. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being rated as far as logging PIC is concerned.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think it might be a date issue. Once upon a time you had to be rated in category and class to log PIC. Now I think the regs require Cat/Class/Type (if a Type is required).

Not sure when that rewrite occured.

Tim,

Was there even a rewrite? The "cat/class/type" is not specifically spelled out in the reg at all:

§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, 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 or has privileges;

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Greg,

It looks to me like the lawyer used lawyerspeak (oh, they do that so well) to not make any further distinction than is already written in the reg. See if you follow here:

The pilot who is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft for which the pilot is rated may also log that flight as PIC.

That is exactly how 61.51(e)(1)(i) is worded, which leads me to believe that this particular interpretation is not meant to change any existing policy with respect to type ratings being required (or not) to log PIC.

One other thing to note:

It is important to remember that we are dealing with logging of flight time only for purposes of FAR 61.51, where you are keeping a record to show recent flight experience or to show that you meet the requirements for a higher rating. Your question does not say if the SIC is fully qualified as a PIC, or only as an SIC. This is important because even though an SIC can log PIC time, that pilot may not be qualified to serve as PIC under Part 121.

With both of the above in mind, I don't think this letter brings any new info to the table on the subject - We'd have to find an interpretation of 61.51(e)(1)(i) that specifically states the meaning of the phrase "an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Sorry, I left something out there...

If the captain in the left seat is an "authorized intstructor," the pilot in the right seat could be a trainee to obtain a type rating and could log PIC while the sole manipulator.

How?

Having an instructor aboard allows you to log the time, period. It does NOT allow you to log PIC. For instance, while working on my multi rating, I logged total time and dual received, but NOT PIC (despite the presence of the instructor) because I was not yet rated in category and class.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

With both of the above in mind, I don't think this letter brings any new info to the table on the subject - We'd have to find an interpretation of 61.51(e)(1)(i) that specifically states the meaning of the phrase "an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges."

OK, I have another question. Does such an interpretation actually exist in writing? Ron?

Or, does "rated" imply "having a rating"? "Rated" is not defined in 61.1 or 1.1, but 1.1 does define a rating as:

Rating means a statement that, as a part of a certificate, sets forth special conditions, privileges, or limitations.

So, "as part of a certificate" would appear to mean something that's written on your pilot (or flight instructor, ground instructor, mechanic, flight attendant, etc.) certificate.

Endorsements are in your logbook. Type ratings are on your certificate. That would appear to indicate that type ratings are required for the purpose of 61.51(e)(1)(i).

 

[KennyFlys]

How?

Having an instructor aboard allows you to log the time, period. It does NOT allow you to log PIC. For instance, while working on my multi rating, I logged total time and dual received, but NOT PIC (despite the presence of the instructor) because I was not yet rated in category and class.

We're talking about someone who already has a multiengine rating. They don't have a type rating for that specific aircraft that has been designated to require one, such as a Mustang.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

We're talking about someone who already has a multiengine rating. They don't have a type rating for that specific aircraft that has been designated to require one, such as a Mustang.

However, I still contend that a type rating is required to log PIC whether or not the other seat is occupied by an Authorized Instructor. That has been my understanding from day one.

(But a word for word literal reading of the FAR tends to indicate something else, hence my original question.)

--edit-- I don't know what I was thinking when I had a question about the statement above. I always knew that "rated" meant Category, Class, and Type, if required.

 

[KennyFlys]

However, I still contend that a type rating is required to log PIC whether or not the other seat is occupied by an Authorized Instructor. That has been my understanding from day one.

But a word for word literal reading of the FAR tends to indicate something else, hence my original question.

That's where the clause for "sole manipulator" kicks in. I see no requirement to hold a type rating in order to log PIC or SIC. At least by my reading.

 

[poadeleted20]

The SIC can log it if the SIC meets the requirements of 61.51(e)(1)(i) -- and that includes the type rating if one is required. The letter only says the SIC need not be PIC-qualified under 121 (i.e., holding an ATP, not just CP) to log it as PIC time. I see nothing in that letter which exempts Part 121 SIC's from the basic requirements of 61.51(e)(1)(i) (i.e., being "rated," which includes the type rating when one is required for the aircraft) in order to log PIC time.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

That's where the clause for "sole manipulator" kicks in. I see no requirement to hold a type rating in order to log PIC or SIC. At least by my reading.

61.51(e)(1)(i) covers it, as Ron says below. In this context, rated means Category, Class, and Type, if required. Many instances of that interpretation in the regs.

The SIC can log it if the SIC meets the requirements of 61.51(e)(1)(i) -- and that includes the type rating if one is required.

That is the way I always understood it. :smile:

The letter only says the SIC need not be PIC-qualified under 121 (i.e., holding an ATP, not just CP) to log it as PIC time. I see nothing in that letter which exempts Part 121 SIC's from the basic requirements of 61.51(e)(1)(i) (i.e., being "rated," which includes the type rating when one is required for the aircraft) in order to log PIC time.

Ok, that clears it up for me. I just didn't read that part closely enough.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

That's where the clause for "sole manipulator" kicks in. I see no requirement to hold a type rating in order to log PIC or SIC. At least by my reading.

I am going to get zinged for this by a certain person that frequents this board. At this point I don't care because I have seen nothing in writing that contradicts what follows.

A question was asked and an answer given. I have bolded the appropriate passages in the scenario. It is as follows:

QUESTION: The Air Force rules state that “primary time is time actively controlling the aircraft,” it seems to fit the description of § 61.51(e)(1)(i) [i.e., “the sole manipulator of the controls”]. What exactly does “. . . for which the pilot is rated. . . “ mean?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.51(e)(1)(i); You asked what does “. . . for which the pilot is rated . . .” mean in § 61.51(e)(1)(i). Well for your situation, you must have accomplished an official U.S. military pilot check and instrument proficiency check in that aircraft category, class, or type, if type is applicable, as pilot in command in order to log pilot in command flight time.

Additionally, I am not completely familiar with all the different military logging of time definitions. But the phrase “. . . for which the pilot is rated . . .” in § 61.51(e)(1)(i) would mean as for an example:

A person holds a Private Pilot Certificate with an Airplane Single-Engine Land class rating. While that person is receiving training for the Airplane Multiengine Land class rating, the person would log the flight time as “flight training time” received [meaning dual training per § 61.51(b)(2)(iv)] while that person is the sole manipulator of the controls (hands-on time). And the flight training would need to be endorsed by the instructor who provided the flight training. This would not be logged as PIC flight time because the pilot is not “rated” in a multiengine land airplane.

However, if that same pilot were receiving dual training in a single-engine land airplane, all flight time while that pilot was the sole manipulator of the controls (hands-on time) could be logged as PIC flight time since the pilot is already rated in a single-engine land airplane.

To log PIC in an aircraft that has a type rating designation, a pilot must have passed the appropriate type rating practical test and have that type rating awarded on his/her pilot certificate. Since the C-141 has a FAA aircraft type rating designation as the L-300 (Lockheed 300) you must have accomplished an official U.S. military pilot check and instrument proficiency check and designated as MP (aircraft commander) to thereby be “rated” before you may log PIC in the aircraft.

The argument offered by a certain individual is that the document this was taken from was rendered null and void. This is true, but I have not found any references in the regs that contradicts this opinion.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's where the clause for "sole manipulator" kicks in. I see no requirement to hold a type rating in order to log PIC or SIC. At least by my reading.

Did you miss the word "rated" in 61.51(e)(1)(i)? The FAA Chief Counsel has said in writing that "rated" means holding the applicable category, class, and type ratings. If the aircraft requires a type rating, and you don't have it on your ticket, you're not "rated," and can't log PIC time under that clause. Note that the phrase "or has privileges" in that clause applies solely to Light Sport pilots when there is no "rating" required for what they are flying.

The only question now involves the new SIC type rating, which was not anticipated by the language of 61.51(e)(1)(i). Does an SIC type rating make one "rated" in the context of 61.51(e)(1)(i)? I should think that was never their intent, but it is something about which the person who wrote those rules is not thinkiing (since two days ago when he realized what they'd done). Stand by...

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The FAA Chief Counsel has said in writing that "rated" means holding the applicable category, class, and type ratings.

I've been trying to find that online most of the afternoon. Unless I am using the wrong search terms, it must be one of those that hasn't been posted online yet.

 

[KennyFlys]

Did you miss the word "rated" in 61.51(e)(1)(i)? The FAA Chief Counsel has said in writing that "rated" means holding the applicable category, class, and type ratings. If the aircraft requires a type rating, and you don't have it on your ticket, you're not "rated," and can't log PIC time under that clause. Note that the phrase "or has privileges" in that clause applies solely to Light Sport pilots when there is no "rating" required for what they are flying.

The only question now involves the new SIC type rating, which was not anticipated by the language of 61.51(e)(1)(i). Does an SIC type rating make one "rated" in the context of 61.51(e)(1)(i)? I should think that was never their intent, but it is something about which the person who wrote those rules is not thinkiing (since two days ago when he realized what they'd done). Stand by...

Pardon me, my brain is a bit fried from some other things this late afternoon was filled with.

When I spoke of being without a type rating, I was referring to that which may be required under 61.31.

 

[poadeleted20]

When I spoke of being without a type rating, I was referring to that which may be required under 61.31.

Then ignore the second paragraph and just read the first.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

We're talking about someone who already has a multiengine rating. They don't have a type rating for that specific aircraft that has been designated to require one, such as a Mustang.

Again... A type RATING is required to log, as 61.51(e)(1)(i) clearly states "an aircraft for which the pilot is RATED." Read my previous post again, 1.1 clearly defines a rating as something which is written on your pilot certificate, which type ratings are. The pilot without the type rating is not rated, just as I was not rated. No difference.

When I spoke of being without a type rating, I was referring to that which may be required under 61.31.

And that is completely irrelevant. 61.31 states:

§ 61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and authorization requirements.

(a) Type ratings required. A person who acts as a pilot in command of any of the following aircraft must hold a type rating for that aircraft:

(1) Large aircraft (except lighter-than-air).

(2) Turbojet-powered airplanes.

(3) Other aircraft specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures.

As we've been over a million times, acting and logging are entirely different animals.

 

[KennyFlys]

As we've been over a million times, acting and logging are entirely different animals.

Why are you arguing with me? Look at my very first post.

In your reference, I was responding to Ron in looking at the difference between a rating as in ASEL versus what is addressed in 61.31.

 

[poadeleted20]

In your reference, I was responding to Ron in looking at the difference between a rating as in ASEL versus what is addressed in 61.31.

If you want to know what different ratings exist, see 61.5(b). It includes both category and class ratings like ASEL and, in subparagraph (7), aircraft type ratings.

 

[KennyFlys]

If you want to know what different ratings exist, see 61.5(b). It includes both category and class ratings like ASEL and, in subparagraph (7), aircraft type ratings.

So, the distinction I was really looking at was between 61.5(b)(1)(i)/(2)(i) and 61.5(7)(i-iii) or in the case of SIC, 61.5(7)(iv).

I'm feeling the pressure of those parentheses closing in!

 

[EdFred]

Public Sub DeadHorse()

While Exist 61.51 Do

Bang
Head
Wall

​

End While
​

End Sub

​

 

[midlifeflyer]

OK, I have another question. Does such an interpretation actually exist in writing? Ron?

Or, does "rated" imply "having a rating"? "Rated" is not defined in 61.1 or 1.1, but 1.1 does define a rating as:



So, "as part of a certificate" would appear to mean something that's written on your pilot (or flight instructor, ground instructor, mechanic, flight attendant, etc.) certificate.

Endorsements are in your logbook. Type ratings are on your certificate. That would appear to indicate that type ratings are required for the purpose of 61.51(e)(1)(i).

You nailed it. It's that simple - rated means having the applicable category, class and (if applicable) type ratings.

If you want to see a legal opinion on the connection, you'd go all the way back to 1980 to the granddaddy of the logging opinions:

==============================
"Rating" as used in that section [referring to 61.51] refers to the rating in categories, classes, and types, as listed in Section 61.5, which are placed on pilot certificates.
==============================

 

[poadeleted20]

You nailed it. It's that simple - rated means having the applicable category, class and (if applicable) type ratings.

It was that simple -- before they invented the SIC type rating. John Lynch has admitted they didn't think about the connection of "rated" to the rules on logging PIC time or the plane in which you take a flight review when they wrote the SIC type rating rule. Now it's not clear whether an SIC type rating fills the "rated" square to log PIC time as a sole manipulator or to get a flight review in a type-required aircraft. I don't think they intended either, but it's not clear what the law is in that regard. However, if you don't have the SIC type rating, there's no question -- it's a no-go on both counts.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I believe the SIC type (Second in Command) is just that. It's NOT a PIC (Pilot in Command) type rating and was never intended to be. I can't see how anyone with a SIC Type could log PIC.

 

[poadeleted20]

I believe the SIC type (Second in Command) is just that. It's NOT a PIC (Pilot in Command) type rating and was never intended to be. I can't see how anyone with a SIC Type could log PIC.

The problem is the definition of the word "rated." The Chief Counsel's office was extremely literal when they told AFS-800 that for the purpose of logging PIC time, "rated" did not include the requirement for the endorsements needed to act as PIC. If you have a type rating that says "CE500" on your ticket, there's nothing in that Chief Counsel interpretation which says you're not "rated in the aircraft" (note that is aircraft, not crew position). Since the rules just say "rated," not "PIC rated," the door is open enough to get a legal foot in. Whether the Chief Counsel will slam the door on that foot remains to be seen.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I can't see how anyone with a SIC Type could log PIC.

Me either.

 

[poadeleted20]

Me either.

And I didn't think someone without the tailwheel endorsement needed to be the PIC could log PIC time in your C-195, but the Chief Counsel said it was OK. Likewise, I didn't see how an instructor who wasn't current for passengers could legally take up a student who wasn't current for passengers, but the Chief Counsel said that was OK, too. Until the question is asked and answered, you just don't know what they'll say.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The problem is the definition of the word "rated." The Chief Counsel's office was extremely literal when they told AFS-800 that for the purpose of logging PIC time, "rated" did not include the requirement for the endorsements needed to act as PIC. If you have a type rating that says "CE500" on your ticket, there's nothing in that Chief Counsel interpretation which says you're not "rated in the aircraft" (note that is aircraft, not crew position). Since the rules just say "rated," not "PIC rated," the door is open enough to get a legal foot in. Whether the Chief Counsel will slam the door on that foot remains to be seen.

But a SIC Type on a certificate says (example) CE500 SIC. The PIC's Type is just CE500 without limitations. The distinction is that the SIC type is a limitation to second in command only and does not allow the user to operate as PIC.

Many years ago I received a type rating in a SA227 Metroliner and was typed as Single pilot. Not long after that the FAA changed our training and all captains after that point had a limitation placed on their type rating SA227 SIC Required.

When John Travolta first got his CE500 Type he had the limitation of CE500 VFR Only. So my reading is type ratings can have limitations attached, and if it says SIC it's cut and dried.

 

[poadeleted20]

But a SIC Type on a certificate says (example) B777 SIC. The PIC's Type is just B777. The distinction is that the SIC type is limited to second in command only and does not allow the user to operate as PIC.

It appears to be pretty clear.

I thought 61.57(a) was pretty clear, too, until the Chief Counsel said it really was OK to take up a student without anyone being current for landings. So did every examiner and inspector out there, too. Now, you won't hear me advising anyone to log PIC time or give a flight review on that basis, but no bets here on the official answer until Miss Rebecca speaks.