Logging vs acting PIC - thread #4252

You guys both missed my "or rated pilot" though. You're correct on a true pre-solo Student pilot.

Commercial rating instruction, may be a good example. If the CFI takes the controls to demonstrate a Chandelle or Lazy Eight, shouldn't the PIC time logged by the "student" be a couple tenths less than the CFI for the flight? Two pilots are not required when the CFI is demonstrating (unlike when a "student" is under the hood working on an IR).

Lots of people make a big deal about this for an Instrument pilot using a Safety Pilot for currency, with one agreed to act as PIC and the other required due to the view limiting device, but every logbook I've seen (granted not many) of a Commercial candidate and their CFI -- match minute for minute the PIC time to the tenth, during the hours leading up to the Commercial rating.

Same thing if an IR "student" is flying under real IMC with their instructor who filed for them. Instructor has the controls, "student" has to stop logging for those minutes, technically... there's only one PIC needed at that point.

I know it's not a lot of time, typically, but it's at least as much time as that VFR to "hooded" transition for a Pilot and Safety Pilot combo that even DPEs make a big deal about not having the same numbers written in the logbook.

Interesting point, while I have seen where pilot/safety pilot pairs have been busted for identical logging, I have not heard of the same result from instructional flights being double logged identically. My guess is this relates to the instructor not Acting as PIC either, rather as in Instructor, same reason a CFI doesn't need a valid medical for teaching rated and current students. What I don't agree with is allowing the CFI PIC time with a rated and current student.
 
If you don't want to believe non-FAR 1 'PIC' time has a really bad smell to a lot of professional pilots, then that's fine.
I would disagree with you here, but that's why I said way up in the thread that it was "controversial". Fill in the blanks on the employment application the way that is specified but there's nothing wrong with logging PIC in your logbook as sole manipulator. In fact some companies prefer that you log and report your PIC that way since insurance companies and auditors such as ARGUS, to my knowledge, don't differentiate.
 
Interesting point, while I have seen where pilot/safety pilot pairs have been busted for identical logging, I have not heard of the same result from instructional flights being double logged identically.
Probably because the regulations specifically allow for it.
 
I would disagree with you here, but that's why I said way up in the thread that it was "controversial". Fill in the blanks on the employment application the way that is specified

Most professional pilot applications I've seen specify that they want to know how much FAR-1 PIC time you have. Typically they want your total time to be calculated as FAR1 PIC + SIC + Dual received.

How can you 'fill in the blanks that way unless you have done as I first suggested and logged FAR-1 PIC separately from the non-FAR1 time allowed by part 61?

PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS: Part 61 logging rules are a joke and a national embarrassment.

But even those who think that they are the best thing since sliced bread ought to track their real PIC FAR1 time separately if they have any interest in applying for a job as professional pilot.
 
PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS: Part 61 logging rules are a joke and a national embarrassment.
PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS: Posts like this scare pilots into not logging time which they are entitled to log. As I said before, follow the instructions when filling out job applications, but there is nothing wrong with logging what you are legally entitled to log.
 
How can you 'fill in the blanks that way unless you have done as I first suggested and logged FAR-1 PIC separately from the non-FAR1 time allowed by part 61?
Nobody said that if you want to fly for the airlines you shouldn't keep track of the time about which the airlines want to know somewhere in your logbook. However, don't let that or what Jim has said deter you from logging in the PIC column of your pilot logbook every second of time authorized by 14 CFR 61.51(e) so you can meet the FAA's PIC time requirements for certificates and ratings, nearly all of which will come before you even start to fill out that airline application form.
 
What I don't agree with is allowing the CFI PIC time with a rated and current student.
It's about twice maybe three times as exhausting for me to be instructing many "current and rated" students or pilots then it is for me to just fly the flight myself.

If they screw something up -- it's going to be my ass. If I'm giving a flight review to a current and rated pilot in a Bonanza and we gear it up I'll be hearing from the FAA and will be 709 riding it at best. Which is why being able to log PIC makes sense.
 
Interesting point, while I have seen where pilot/safety pilot pairs have been busted for identical logging, I have not heard of the same result from instructional flights being double logged identically. My guess is this relates to the instructor not Acting as PIC either, rather as in Instructor, same reason a CFI doesn't need a valid medical for teaching rated and current students.
Rated and PIC-qualified, not current. In fact, when only the trainee and instructor are aboard, not all currencies apply, in particular, the 61.57 landing currencies.
What I don't agree with is allowing the CFI PIC time with a rated and current student.
If you were a CFI, you might understand this better. In any event, given that the FAA and NTSB hold the instructor accountable for pretty much anything that happens on an instructional flight even if the instructor is not acting as PIC (the exception noted in Strobel, see below, notwithstanding), I think instructors logging PIC time on instructional flights is appropriate.

Despite respondent's status as flight instructor and pilot in command, we will not impose strict liability on him for all of his student's mistakes. Although flight instructors are expected to "do all things possible for the safety of the flight," they are not held strictly liable for its safe outcome [when] he could not reasonably be expected to anticipate [the trainee's action].
 
Ron is correct, the FAA is pretty hard on a CFI or ATP in the cockpit if anything bad happens. Even if the CFI instructing in the case where the pilot under instruction is in fact the FAR 1 PIC and the CFI isn't qualified in the airplane for one reason or another.
 
Yes, assuming you're doing it in an aircraft for which you are rated, not, say, combining your IR training with a Multiengine add-on. And, of course, since you are receiving training from an authorized instructor, also "training received."

Re: an Instrument student logging PIC time while taking lessons on a plane for which he/she is rated.

If we were learning under actual IMC vs. Simulated IMC; would I still be able to log PIC time?
 
It's about twice maybe three times as exhausting for me to be instructing many "current and rated" students or pilots then it is for me to just fly the flight myself.

If they screw something up -- it's going to be my ass. If I'm giving a flight review to a current and rated pilot in a Bonanza and we gear it up I'll be hearing from the FAA and will be 709 riding it at best. Which is why being able to log PIC makes sense.

But you aren't flying, you are instructing. I didn't say you shouldn't get paid, I said you shouldn't get PIC. I understand your position, but at the same time it is also what brings us the more prevalent 'time builder' CFIs whose only concern is that airline job. You have to weigh all the costs and benefits, and the overall result we see is too much poor instruction given by uninspired instructions in the name of building PIC time.
 
If you were a CFI, you might understand this better.

As a consumer of airline service, I understand it all too well which is a big part of my objection. CFI should NOT be a time building job, CFI should be a 1500 hr position tougher to meet than ATP. CFI should be a rating for people who want, and have the talent to, teach aviation properly, not just show the student the easiest way to pass a test while keeping them and you alive until that airline call comes through.

The logging of PIC by CFIs is what keeps the quality of instruction where it is today, and when I look at the types of accidents airliners are having these days, that quality is low.
 
There's plenty of professional educators teaching MBAs who haven't ever run a business. At least aviation isn't that bad.
 
There's plenty of professional educators teaching MBAs who haven't ever run a business. At least aviation isn't that bad.

Yes, it is, same same really. Most time builder CFIs have 300hrs of stick with no experience outside the training environment when they get their job. If they went through Embry Riddle, from my understanding they have never encountered IMC.
 
Re: an Instrument student logging PIC time while taking lessons on a plane for which he/she is rated.

If we were learning under actual IMC vs. Simulated IMC; would I still be able to log PIC time?
Yes. Conditions of flight don't matter, rules of flight don't matter, only whether you are rated for the aircraft matters.
 
As a consumer of airline service, I understand it all too well which is a big part of my objection. CFI should NOT be a time building job, CFI should be a 1500 hr position tougher to meet than ATP. CFI should be a rating for people who want, and have the talent to, teach aviation properly, not just show the student the easiest way to pass a test while keeping them and you alive until that airline call comes through.

The logging of PIC by CFIs is what keeps the quality of instruction where it is today, and when I look at the types of accidents airliners are having these days, that quality is low.
Personally, I'd require 1000 hours PIC to be eligible for CFI, but that's another story -- the rules are what they are on that score even if I think they're wrong. But after a few thousand hours as an instructor, I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that an authorized instructor giving training should get to log PIC time, and if you ever earn that certificate and start giving flight training, you'll see what I mean.
 
But after a few thousand hours as an instructor, I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that an authorized instructor giving training should get to log PIC time, and if you ever earn that certificate and start giving flight training, you'll see what I mean.

Not to mention the fact that a good percentage of the time the CFI HAS to be PIC.
 
Back
Top