Looking for link to FAR FAQ

[Greebo]

Specifically, to the section in the FAQ (or the specific spot in the FARs, for that matter) that makes it clear that a certificated pilot can legally act as PIC even when under dual instruction.

I'm having yet another "difference of opinion" with the club CFI (who is not my CFI) who has just said that "even if you had a current BFR, under most all circumstances, the CFI on-board would be PIC "

(Yes, I'm past due for my BFR - projects at home have prevented me from flying for a few months so until the finances are in line again to support it, I've grounded myself)

Anyway the club CFI has made several statements in the past which I believe are contradictory to the FARs and I would like supporting evidence before I contradict him.

CH

 

[poadeleted20]

In its latest web site reorganization, the FAA moved the FAQ link to http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs800/afs840/part_61/media/pt61FAQ.doc. This includes the all-important verbiage on the difference between BEING the PIC and being able to LOG time in the PIC column.

 

[Greebo]

While I dig through the FAQ, let me ask you, Ron:

Am I right in thinking that, once a pilot has a certificate and is rated in the aircraft, he can BE PIC even when a CFI is providing instruction?

Example 1: IFR Training in VMC. PP-ASEL is in C172 under the hood and is sole manipulator. Pilot can *be* PIC, not just log PIC?

Example 2: IFR training in IMC. PP-ASEL is in C172, and in the soup. Pilot is not IFR rated, and can not BE PIC in those circumstances?

Thanks!
CH

 

[gismo]

Specifically, to the section in the FAQ (or the specific spot in the FARs, for that matter) that makes it clear that a certificated pilot can legally act as PIC even when under dual instruction.

I'm having yet another "difference of opinion" with the club CFI (who is not my CFI) who has just said that "even if you had a current BFR, under most all circumstances, the CFI on-board would be PIC "

(Yes, I'm past due for my BFR - projects at home have prevented me from flying for a few months so until the finances are in line again to support it, I've grounded myself)

Anyway the club CFI has made several statements in the past which I believe are contradictory to the FARs and I would like supporting evidence before I contradict him.

CH

I'm guessing you already know all this but;

When flying with a CFI, you can be (act as) PIC as long as you meet all the FAA requirements (category/class rating,medical, BFR, currency, endorsements) but unless you own the airplane, there may be rental/insurance issues as well.

With nothing but the first two (category / class rating) you can log PIC whenever you are the sole manipulator regardless if the right seat is occupied by a CFI, the FAA's chief examiner, or Chuck Yeager, whether or not the other pilot is acting PIC.

 

[Greebo]

I do - but I've decided not to even debate the point with him - its not the first time he's said things I knew were wrong, but since he's not my personal CFI, just the clubs CFI, I don't feel like rocking the boat *again* about these little things...

I just don't fly with him.

 

[gismo]

While I dig through the FAQ, let me ask you, Ron:

Am I right in thinking that, once a pilot has a certificate and is rated in the aircraft, he can BE PIC even when a CFI is providing instruction?

Example 1: IFR Training in VMC. PP-ASEL is in C172 under the hood and is sole manipulator. Pilot can *be* PIC, not just log PIC?

Example 2: IFR training in IMC. PP-ASEL is in C172, and in the soup. Pilot is not IFR rated, and can not BE PIC in those circumstances?

Thanks!
CH

Not Ron, but we usually agree on this stuff. Both of your statements are correct. BTW, normally the only issue WRT acting PIC when two qualified pilots are in an aircraft is which are authorized per insurance requirements, FBO policy etc. And from what I've read, regardless of what two qualified pilots agreed to before or during a flight, the FAA is likely to make their own determination if there's a violation or worse, and they like to assume that a CFI is acting in a PIC role than an instrument student.

 

[MSmith]

I do - but I've decided not to even debate the point with him - its not the first time he's said things I knew were wrong, but since he's not my personal CFI, just the clubs CFI, I don't feel like rocking the boat *again* about these little things...

I just don't fly with him.

Also not Ron, but here's my interpretation.

You can't be PIC because you don't have a current BFR. The CFI will have to be PIC for that flight.

If you HAD a current BFR, you could be PIC and are. There's a regulation that allows the CFI to log PIC time as well.

If he leaves the PIC column empty and you're authorized, fill it in later. YOU are the one signing the bottom of the page, not him.

 

[Greebo]

I think you maybe didn't quite understand the question... I wasn't asking about me specifically - I know I can't be PIC w/o a BFR. It was about what the club CFI said: "even if you had a current BFR, under most all circumstances, the CFI on-board would be PIC "

 

[MSmith]

At any rate, when I (current) fly with an instructor for anything (thus far only aircraft checkouts and WINGS flights), both of us log PIC and I am acting PIC.

 

[wsuffa]

Chuck,

Instead of the brain damage of trying to prove something to him, ask him (as the instructor) to give you the reference of where you CANNOT log/act as PIC when a CFI is in the right seat.

Just a thought.

 

[mmthomas]

Also not Ron, but here's my interpretation.

You can't be PIC because you don't have a current BFR. The CFI will have to be PIC for that flight.

This is correct, but potentially misleading because you go on to talk about logging PIC time. Without a BFR, you can't BE the PIC, but you can LOG PIC time. The authority for this is section 61.51(e):

(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;

(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.

All that is required for a private pilot to LOG PIC time under 61.51 (e)((i) is that the pilot be rated for the aircraft and be the sole manipulator of the controls.

 

[SkyHog]

Example 2: IFR training in IMC. PP-ASEL is in C172, and in the soup. Pilot is not IFR rated, and can not BE PIC in those circumstances?

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I don't think that's true. There is a requirement to be rated for the airplane, but not the conditions (or so I thought).

Looking for the reference now.

edit: I think this is it:

Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I don't think that's true. There is a requirement to be rated for the airplane, but not the conditions (or so I thought).

Looking for the reference now.

edit: I think this is it:

Gee, Nick. I am confused by your post. In said example, the pilot cannot ACT as PIC because he is not instrument rated. But he can LOG PIC for the reason you cited.

 

[ejensen]

At recent wings/pace weekend, I flew with an FAA inspector and 3 different CFIs in my airplane. Almost the first thing all four said was, 'You are PIC of the flight'. I am really surprisd this is an issue with the club CFI. Maybe he is talking about club aircraft and club policy.

 

[SkyHog]

Gee, Nick. I am confused by your post. In said example, the pilot cannot ACT as PIC because he is not instrument rated. But he can LOG PIC for the reason you cited.

I don't follow. The example I cited says that the pilot must be rated for the aircraft.

That's what I said in the post with it also:

There is a requirement to be rated for the airplane, but not the conditions (or so I thought).

and the reg:

Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges

No mention of conditions, only of the aircraft. There is a chance I'm pulling a big stupid, but I can't see it.

No offense intended, and none taken if intended.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I don't follow. The example I cited says that the pilot must be rated for the aircraft.

That's what I said in the post with it also:



and the reg:


No mention of conditions, only of the aircraft. There is a chance I'm pulling a big stupid, but I can't see it.

No offense intended, and none taken if intended.

Nick. All of the above is true with regard to LOGGING PIC. In the case of a Private Pilot flying in IMC while flying with an instrument instructor, that pilot CANNOT ACT as PIC since he is not qualified to do so. But he CAN log it in accordance to the reg you cited.

 

[Greebo]

What Greg said - Nick 61.51 e is all about logging - not being. In other words, while you may not legally take command of certain flights, you can get credit for them on the books.

Similarly, if I understand it correctly, a PP-ASEL without a high power endorsement can log training time in a C182 as PIC even though he can not legally BE PIC. The CFI is legal PIC, the pilot being trained just gets paper credit.

 

[MSmith]

While all of this logging vs. being stuff is good for building time, does anybody else wish that the FAA would simplify the regulations?

It seems to me that there's only one PIC on any given flight. That's reality. Most of the time it's the person who manipulates the controls (the big exception being primary training).

The FAA should clarify the regulations to state that only one pilot is PIC for any given flight, and that pilot may ALWAYS log PIC (or NOBODY is allowed to be PIC). If we want additional exceptions (the CFI exception comes to mind), then those should be codified as well.

 

[SkyHog]

Nick, you just pulled a big stupid. Why don't you shut up now?

Argh!!! You are right. I misread the first question 3 times. But at least I had the right answer to the wrong question

 

[Greebo]

Well after an email exchange with CFI, it seems what he meant was that, regardless of the agreement between CFI and student, the FAA would very likely hold the CFI responsible as PIC in the event of an incident, even if before hand the person receiving instruction had been agreed upon as PIC.

So he and I are in agreement.

 

[poadeleted20]

Am I right in thinking that, once a pilot has a certificate and is rated in the aircraft, he can BE PIC even when a CFI is providing instruction?

IF he is fully PIC qualified (current flight review, 90-day landings, applicable ATE's, etc) and IF he and the CFI agree to it. Not all CFI's are happy for the trainee to be PIC, since if something bad happens, the CFI will probably still eat the dirt-burger even if he's not PIC ("Instructor failed to prevent...").

Example 1: IFR Training in VMC. PP-ASEL is in C172 under the hood and is sole manipulator. Pilot can *be* PIC, not just log PIC?

Only if they're operating under VFR. Note that you can be operating under IFR even in VMC, and you may well be doing so on the long IFR XC.

Example 2: IFR training in IMC. PP-ASEL is in C172, and in the soup. Pilot is not IFR rated, and can not BE PIC in those circumstances?

Correct, although it doesn't matter what the meteorological conditions are -- the rules under which you are operating determine whether an IR is needed to be PIC.

 

[poadeleted20]

Similarly, if I understand it correctly, a PP-ASEL without a high power endorsement can log training time in a C182 as PIC even though he can not legally BE PIC. The CFI is legal PIC, the pilot being trained just gets paper credit.

Correct for now, because the FAA Counsel said the reg as written does not include ATE's in being "rated" in the aircraft even though that's what AFS-800 wanted when they wrote the 8/4/97 version of Part 61. AFS-800 has been saying for about six years that they want to change the definition of "rated" to fix that, and the lead time on reg changes is about eight years, so I expect that to change in 2007.

 

[poadeleted20]

While all of this logging vs. being stuff is good for building time, does anybody else wish that the FAA would simplify the regulations?

The problem is the folks who write what they want in the regs are pilots, but the lawyers actually write the regs. They're getting better now, with joint lawyer/pilot committees, but the 8/4/97 revision to Part 61 was a coordination disaster, with the lawyers telling Flight Standards after the regs went into effect what the official legal interpretations of them were, and it didn't always match AFS's intent.

It seems to me that there's only one PIC on any given flight. That's reality.

True, and the regs don't say otherwise.

Most of the time it's the person who manipulates the controls (the big exception being primary training).

Outside of 2-pilot operations like airlines and jets, that's also true.

The FAA should clarify the regulations to state that only one pilot is PIC for any given flight, and that pilot may ALWAYS log PIC

I agree, and where there's only one pilot aboard, so wrote the FAA Counsel about the previous version of the logging rules, although whether that interpretation survives the 8/4/97 rewrite is a legal question to which I do not have the answer.

If we want additional exceptions (the CFI exception comes to mind), then those should be codified as well.

The are, in the current version of 14 CFR 61.51(e). The only question that comes to mind is whether we want to allow a PIC-qualified or fully (i.e., including all necessary ratings and ATE's to be PIC for the flight) "rated" pilot not acting as PIC to log PIC time when flying the plane ("sole manipulator" clause). Clearly that was the intent of the current version of the "sole manipulator" clause, but the lawyers said AFS wrote it wrong, so you can currently log PIC time under IFR without an IR, or in an ATE airplane without the ATE.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well after an email exchange with CFI, it seems what he meant was that, regardless of the agreement between CFI and student, the FAA would very likely hold the CFI responsible as PIC in the event of an incident, even if before hand the person receiving instruction had been agreed upon as PIC.

The FAA generally assumes the person in the left seat to be PIC unless there's an instructor aboard, in which case they assume the instructor is PIC if he's PIC-qualified. Obviously, that point can be argued, and has been, especially if the left-seater is not PIC qualified and the non-instructor in the right seat is. At that point, they usually try to apply the "duck test" -- whichever of the rated pilots occupying a control seat seems to have been acting as the PIC, i.e., making the decisions and flying the plane, whether legally PIC-qualified or not, gets to be PIC for the enforcement action.

However, in liability cases, the CFI can still be found liable even if it's agreed he wasn't the PIC based on the legal argument that as the instructor, he has a duty to keep the trainee from making a mistake even if the trainee is PIC. Note that a "duty to exercise care" is one of the four elements of legal negligence, along with a failure to discharge that duty, the occurence of actual damage, and that failure being a proximate cause of the actual damage. Only if the trainee PIC uses his PIC authority and refuses to accept the guidance, or otherwise overrules the instructor on that basis, would the instructor be able to easily defeat that argument.

Thus, a CFI should always assume that he will catch legal heat if something bad happens, even if the trainee is the designated PIC for the flight, and act accordingly, both before the flight (e.g., buying liability and legal defense insurance) and during the flight (e.g., doing his best to keep the trainee from doing anything dumb).

 

[wsuffa]

Also keep in mind, if you own a plane, that the PIC generally needs to qualify on the open pilot warranty. In some cases, that may preclude the CFI from being PIC under the insurance policy.

That's why I generally insist on being PIC when doing recurrent training in the plane I own (IPC, for example).

 

[poadeleted20]

Also keep in mind, if you own a plane, that the PIC generally needs to qualify on the open pilot warranty. In some cases, that may preclude the CFI from being PIC under the insurance policy.

While that may be an insurance issue, I'm not sure the FAA will even look at it when making their decision on whom to fry. I see no legal reason why the FAA might not conclude that one pilot was PIC while the insurance company concludes that the other pilot was PIC -- after all, they can now convict two different people of being the shooter in a single murder with only one shot fired.

 

[wsuffa]

While that may be an insurance issue, I'm not sure the FAA will even look at it when making their decision on whom to fry. I see no legal reason why the FAA might not conclude that one pilot was PIC while the insurance company concludes that the other pilot was PIC -- after all, they can now convict two different people of being the shooter in a single murder with only one shot fired.

I don't disagree.

My point is this. For insurance to be valid, it may be necessary for the owner to be PIC, and the CFI may need to agree to that before going on the flight (even if he buys the big one).

An owner that doesn't insist on being PIC under those circumstances may well be leaving his assets exposed, depending on the terms of the policy. The CFI is likely to eat it from the FAA either way.

YMMV. Know your policy.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I do - but I've decided not to even debate the point with him - its not the first time he's said things I knew were wrong, but since he's not my personal CFI, just the clubs CFI, I don't feel like rocking the boat *again* about these little things...

I just don't fly with him.

"I do" being you own the aircraft? You might want to pitch the heated battle, then, as it may not be just the chief CFI with the misconception. As an example, my aircraft insurance policy's open pilot warranty has very high total time, retract time, and Mooney time requirements (1000, 500, 20 IIRC). Most local FBO CFI types don't meet one, two, or all of those requirements. The last thing you need is a club CFI who doesn't meet the open pilot warranty but is a drinking buddy of the chief CFI opening his/her mouth to the FAA or insurance company with the "I'm the legal PIC" phrase after you have an insurance claim event.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Well after an email exchange with CFI, it seems what he meant was that, regardless of the agreement between CFI and student, the FAA would very likely hold the CFI responsible as PIC in the event of an incident, even if before hand the person receiving instruction had been agreed upon as PIC.

What was agreed upon before hand is good if the agreement is in writing; what is agreed upon afterwards is most important if it wasn't. IOW, if the pilot and the CFI agree that the pilot will be acting legal PIC for the flight and they both tell the FAA the same story after the infraction or incident then the CFI will not get nailed by the FAA for a legal PIC issue. The instructor may/will get nailed for other issues, but legal PIC will not be one of them.

So he and I are in agreement.

As to the FAA holding the CFI responsible as legal PIC despite contrary evidence/testimony from both the pilot & the CFI, you both may be in agreement, but you are both wrong.