Instrument PIC logging for the experts

[Koopas Ly]

The pilot in the left seat has his PPL, no instrument rating, and is
practicing flying under the hood. His buddy is in the right seat, PPL
+ instrument rating.

The left seat pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls, so he
logs PIC. The safety pilot in the right seat was designated as PIC
before the flight, therefore, as acting PIC, he logs PIC.

They fly into IMC. The guy in the left seat is still controlling the
airplane, so he still gets to log PIC. Now, since the flight has gone
into IMC, there's no longer a safety pilot requirement. So the guy in
the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
superflous.

Who's ACTING PIC now? The guy who's logging PIC in the left seat does
not have an instrument rating so he can't ACT as PIC...but he's the
one at the controls. Does the guy in the guy in right seat retain the
ACTING PIC title, even though he can't log that PIC time?

Alex

[BTIZ]

the pilot acting as PIC.. in the right seat.. (and we presume not an
instructor based on your scenario).. screwed up big time and allowed the
hooded pilot to fly into IMC conditions without a clearance..

without referencing the regs, I'd say the Instrument rated pilot is now the
PIC by default..

be interesting to see what the experts have to say..

BT

"Koopas Ly" > wrote in message
om...
> The pilot in the left seat has his PPL, no instrument rating, and is
> practicing flying under the hood. His buddy is in the right seat, PPL
> + instrument rating.
>
> The left seat pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls, so he
> logs PIC. The safety pilot in the right seat was designated as PIC
> before the flight, therefore, as acting PIC, he logs PIC.
>
> They fly into IMC. The guy in the left seat is still controlling the
> airplane, so he still gets to log PIC. Now, since the flight has gone
> into IMC, there's no longer a safety pilot requirement. So the guy in
> the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
> superflous.
>
> Who's ACTING PIC now? The guy who's logging PIC in the left seat does
> not have an instrument rating so he can't ACT as PIC...but he's the
> one at the controls. Does the guy in the guy in right seat retain the
> ACTING PIC title, even though he can't log that PIC time?
>
> Alex

[Teacherjh]

They fly into IMC. I'll assume =with= a clearance, since it was unspecified
that it was without one.

With a clearance, only the instrument rated (right seat) pilot can BE PIC.
When in the clouds, it is still PIC.

However, he can't log PIC time. Again this stems from the confusion between
"being" and "logging", which would not exist if different words were used. The
left seat, non-rated sole manipulator can LOG PIC time. Of course, he can't
log dual.

Outside the clouds, and not on a clearance, the right seat safety pilot can log
PIC because he's acting as PIC of a crew of two. However, if the other pilot
had (prior) agreed to BE PIC, then the safety pilot can log SIC (required
crewmember). I got my first SIC time recently that way.

To clarify I'll change the words. "BEING Pilot in command" is now defined as
"being Top Dog" (TD). Top Dog time is not loggable. It just says who's in
charge. LOGGING PIC time is now defined as "logging HandsOn Time" (HOT).

So, you log HOT when you're flying by yourself.
You log HOT when you're Top Dog of a required crew.
You log HOT when you're hands-on flying, even if somebody else is Top Dog.
An instructor logs HOT when he or she is instructing, no matter who is Top Dog.

Nobody logs Top Dog time. It's just not loggable any more than the time you
spend eating a tuna sandwich is. (ok, they are both loggable, but neither log
entry is useful)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Outside the clouds, and not on a clearance, the right seat safety pilot
can log
> PIC because he's acting as PIC of a crew of two. However, if the other
pilot
> had (prior) agreed to BE PIC, then the safety pilot can log SIC (required
> crewmember).
>
> [...]

Note that in the example given previously, the pilot under the hood is not
qualified to act as (be) PIC, and thus could not agree to be PIC. Only if
the pilot under the hood is qualified to act as (be) PIC could the safety
pilot log SIC.

Otherwise, all correct (and that part wasn't incorrect, except in context).
I hope everyone else followed it. :)

Pete

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 24 Nov 2003 19:58:22 -0800, (Koopas Ly) wrote:

> Does the guy in the guy in right seat retain the
>ACTING PIC title, even though he can't log that PIC time?

Yes

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Natalie]

"Koopas Ly" > wrote in message om...

> They fly into IMC. The guy in the left seat is still controlling the
> airplane, so he still gets to log PIC. Now, since the flight has gone
> into IMC, there's no longer a safety pilot requirement. So the guy in
> the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
> superflous.

His presence isn't superfluous, it's just ceased to be an opreation requiring
more than one pilot, which is a logging issue only.

>
> Who's ACTING PIC now? The guy who's logging PIC in the left seat does
> not have an instrument rating so he can't ACT as PIC...but he's the
> one at the controls. Does the guy in the guy in right seat retain the
> ACTING PIC title, even though he can't log that PIC time?

Let's forget "acting" shall we. "acting" sounds like pretend. There is always
one and only one pilot in command during any point of a flight. This is the
person who is ultimately responsible, the one IN COMMAND. At all times
while on the IFR plan, your right seat pilot (whether safety pilot or not, whether
manipulating the controls or not), had better be the PILOT IN COMMAND.
He's the only one qualified. Logging is superfluous to this conce.t

[Teacherjh]

> So the guy in
> the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
> superflous.

Actually, it's the guy in the left seat that is superfluous. The guy (or gal)
at the right is the Pilot In Command... the Head Honcho... the One In Charge...
the Top Banana... el Mucho Macho... the Big Dog.

He's very much required.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ron Natalie]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message ...
> > So the guy in
> > the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
> > superflous.
>
> Actually, it's the guy in the left seat that is superfluous. The guy (or gal)
> at the right is the Pilot In Command... the Head Honcho... the One In Charge...
> the Top Banana... el Mucho Macho... the Big Dog.
>
I guess I picked the wrong week to give up sniffing glue.

[Todd Pattist]

(Teacherjh) wrote:

>So, you log HOT when you're flying by yourself.
>You log HOT when you're Top Dog of a required crew.
>You log HOT when you're hands-on flying, even if somebody else is Top Dog.
>An instructor logs HOT when he or she is instructing, no matter who is Top Dog.
>
>Nobody logs Top Dog time. It's just not loggable any more than the time you
>spend eating a tuna sandwich is.

Well. if we want to pick nits (and isn't that what all
"logging" threads are about :-), the pilot in the right seat
can log Top Dog time if the sole manipulator in the right
seat 1) is not PIC (by agreement), 2) can't be PIC (not
instrument rated, no medical, etc.) *and* 3) is not a pilot
(has no pilot certificate of any type).

The exact bounds of this type of legal logging (the sole
manipulator has a balloon rating?) are not currently known,
but it is certain that if the right seat person is under 14,
you can log the time even when you are not touching the
controls. The reason the FAA's Chief Counsel gave for
allowing this type of logging is specifically because the
right seat pilot is "Top Dog," as defined in this thread.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Well. if we want to pick nits (and isn't that what all
"logging" threads are about :-), the pilot in the right seat
can log Top Dog time if the sole manipulator in the right
seat 1) is not PIC (by agreement), 2) can't be PIC (not
instrument rated, no medical, etc.) *and* 3) is not a pilot
(has no pilot certificate of any type).
<<

Nope. TopDog is not loggable. Only HOT is loggable. If you're Top Dog (and
the situation is right) you log HOT, not Top Dog.

That's my point. HOT is what is loggable, TopDog is what you are.

I also think you meant "left" the second time you said "right".

Further, the *and* makes little sense. I think you menat "or". After all, if
the person in question is not a pilot, he can't be PIC anyway. And in any
case, you are mixing up PIC with TopDog and HOT. The point of doing TopDog and
HOT is to get away from the "PIC" word and express the same idea in a less
ambiguous context.

If the left seat person is not a pilot, OR isn't Top Dog, then the right seat
person has to be Top Dog. (that is, assuming there are only two dogs involved
:) But Top Dog doesn't get logged. Only HOT gets logged. Sometimes the Top
Dog can log HOT.

There can only be one Top Dog. However, in some cases both can log HOT. In
some cases, nobody can log HOT (something I find bizzare, but then again, this
is the FAA). But nobody ever logs Top Dog.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jon Woellhaf]

Thank you for clearing this up once and for all <g>!

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> Well. if we want to pick nits (and isn't that what all
> "logging" threads are about :-), the pilot in the right seat
> can log Top Dog time if the sole manipulator in the right
> seat 1) is not PIC (by agreement), 2) can't be PIC (not
> instrument rated, no medical, etc.) *and* 3) is not a pilot
> (has no pilot certificate of any type).
> <<
>
> Nope. TopDog is not loggable. Only HOT is loggable. If you're Top Dog
(and
> the situation is right) you log HOT, not Top Dog.
>
> That's my point. HOT is what is loggable, TopDog is what you are.
>
> I also think you meant "left" the second time you said "right".
>
> Further, the *and* makes little sense. I think you menat "or". After
all, if
> the person in question is not a pilot, he can't be PIC anyway. And in any
> case, you are mixing up PIC with TopDog and HOT. The point of doing
TopDog and
> HOT is to get away from the "PIC" word and express the same idea in a less
> ambiguous context.
>
> If the left seat person is not a pilot, OR isn't Top Dog, then the right
seat
> person has to be Top Dog. (that is, assuming there are only two dogs
involved
> :) But Top Dog doesn't get logged. Only HOT gets logged. Sometimes the
Top
> Dog can log HOT.
>
> There can only be one Top Dog. However, in some cases both can log HOT.
In
> some cases, nobody can log HOT (something I find bizzare, but then again,
this
> is the FAA). But nobody ever logs Top Dog.
>
> Jose
>
>
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[BTIZ]

and he's the one that screwed up and allowed them to enter IMC..

BT

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> > So the guy in
> > the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
> > superflous.
>
> Actually, it's the guy in the left seat that is superfluous. The guy (or
gal)
> at the right is the Pilot In Command... the Head Honcho... the One In
Charge...
> the Top Banana... el Mucho Macho... the Big Dog.
>
> He's very much required.
>
> Jose
>
>
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[David Rind]

Teacherjh wrote:
> Well. if we want to pick nits (and isn't that what all
> "logging" threads are about :-), the pilot in the right seat
> can log Top Dog time if the sole manipulator in the right
> seat 1) is not PIC (by agreement), 2) can't be PIC (not
> instrument rated, no medical, etc.) *and* 3) is not a pilot
> (has no pilot certificate of any type).
> <<
>
> Nope. TopDog is not loggable. Only HOT is loggable. If you're Top Dog (and
> the situation is right) you log HOT, not Top Dog.
>
> That's my point. HOT is what is loggable, TopDog is what you are.
>
> I also think you meant "left" the second time you said "right".
>
> Further, the *and* makes little sense. I think you menat "or". After all, if
> the person in question is not a pilot, he can't be PIC anyway. And in any
> case, you are mixing up PIC with TopDog and HOT. The point of doing TopDog and
> HOT is to get away from the "PIC" word and express the same idea in a less
> ambiguous context.
>
> If the left seat person is not a pilot, OR isn't Top Dog, then the right seat
> person has to be Top Dog. (that is, assuming there are only two dogs involved
> :) But Top Dog doesn't get logged. Only HOT gets logged. Sometimes the Top
> Dog can log HOT.
>
> There can only be one Top Dog. However, in some cases both can log HOT. In
> some cases, nobody can log HOT (something I find bizzare, but then again, this
> is the FAA). But nobody ever logs Top Dog.
>
> Jose

No, he meant what he wrote. Despite what we all think we
understand about the logging regs for acting as PIC, there
is an interpretation from the FAA that seems to say that if
there is only one pilot in the plane, that pilot can log
PIC time even if he or she allows someone else to manipulate
the controls. The interpretation seems to be clearly in
conflict with the wording of the FARs, but it is out there
and was posted here a number of months ago.

--
David Rind

[Teacherjh]

>>
No, he meant what he wrote. Despite what we all think we
understand about the logging regs for acting as PIC, there
is an interpretation from the FAA that seems to say that if
there is only one pilot in the plane, that pilot can log
PIC time even if he or she allows someone else to manipulate
the controls. The interpretation seems to be clearly in
conflict with the wording of the FARs, but it is out there
and was posted here a number of months ago.
<<

That would be a rare case where the FAA is making sense. Of course it only
does that by contradicting itself. :)

What you are describing is a pilot in one seat (say the right one), a non pilot
in the other seat, and no other dogs. Only the pilot can be Top Dog. The
non-pilot has hands-on-time but can't log it because he's not a pilot. Only
HOT can be logged - Top Dog is never logged. So, in this case the FARs say
nobody gets to log HOT, but the FAA says the pilot can log HOT.

The latter makes sense.

You take a non-pilot friend for a flight, you let him act as a human autopilot,
you log the time.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Todd Pattist]

(Teacherjh) wrote:

>Nope. TopDog is not loggable. Only HOT is loggable. If you're Top Dog (and
>the situation is right) you log HOT, not Top Dog.

OK, I'll buy your definitions and your point, but then
you're logging hands on time when you're not hands on. I
was making the point that there are situations where you log
time because you're top dog

>I also think you meant "left" the second time you said "right".

Yep :-)


>you are mixing up PIC with TopDog and HOT. The point of doing TopDog and
>HOT is to get away from the "PIC" word and express the same idea in a less
>ambiguous context.

I took Top Dog to be "acting (or serving) as PIC" and HOT to
be "loggable time for a rating under 61.51." Which are more
commonly used terms. Did I misunderstand you?

>If the left seat person is not a pilot, OR isn't Top Dog, then the right seat
>person has to be Top Dog. (that is, assuming there are only two dogs involved

Agreed. I can also say "If the left seat person is not a
pilot, AND isn't Top Dog" if I want to, although I agree
that the first implies the second. I was just covering a
lot of situations in one logical expression.

>:) But Top Dog doesn't get logged. Only HOT gets logged. Sometimes the Top
>Dog can log HOT.

But my point is that there is only one situation I'm aware
of where you can log time legally solely because you ARE TOP
DOG even though that time does not appear under 61.51 (which
I equated to your "HOT" logging.) That time is where
there's only one pilot, he's acting as PIC (TOP DOG) and
he's not manipulating the controls, but a non-pilot is.
Take a look at 61.51 (e) (which I equated to HOT time) and
try to justify the Chief Counsel's Interpretation that
permits this logging. It isn't HOT time, but the CC says
it's loggable because it's TOP DOG time, thus I say you're
logging TOP DOG time in this one situation, and HOT time in
all the others.

>There can only be one Top Dog. However, in some cases both can log HOT. In
>some cases, nobody can log HOT (something I find bizzare, but then again, this
>is the FAA). But nobody ever logs Top Dog.

Fine, if you want to separate the concepts of
authority/responsibility from the concept of making records,
then you're right. OTOH, if you are separating time that's
loggable under 61.51 from time that's not loggable under
61.51, but is loggable because you're TOP DOG, then my
comment makes sense.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Teacherjh]

>>
but then you're logging hands on time when you're not hands on.
<<

Well, I had to call it =something=. :) That's why I called it by its acronym
(to evoke hotshot) rather than "HandsOn time". And anyway, are you 'hands on'
when you engage the autopilot and sit back? (but let's not start another
thread on whether that is "real" flying)

>>
I took Top Dog to be "acting (or serving) as PIC" and HOT to
be "loggable time for a rating under 61.51."
<<

Exactly right. And then I stayed away from the potentially confusing "PIC"
word.

>>
But my point is that there is only one situation I'm aware
of where you can log time legally solely because you ARE TOP
DOG even though that time does not appear under 61.51 (which
I equated to your "HOT" logging.) That time is where
there's only one pilot, he's acting as PIC (TOP DOG) and
he's not manipulating the controls, but a non-pilot is.
Take a look at 61.51 (e) (which I equated to HOT time) and
try to justify the Chief Counsel's Interpretation that
permits this logging. It isn't HOT time, but the CC says
it's loggable because it's TOP DOG time...
<<

Chief Counsel disagrees with a straight interpretation of the regs. Not the
first time. It's in "our favor". That's probably a first.

>>
thus I say you're
logging TOP DOG time in this one situation, and HOT time in
all the others.
<<

.... and I say the rules let you log HOT in this situation. The non-pilot is a
human autopilot.

>>
Fine, if you want to separate the concepts of
authority/responsibility from the concept of making records,
then you're right.
<<

Exactly what I was trying to do.

>>
OTOH, if you are separating time that's
loggable under 61.51 from time that's not loggable under
61.51, but is loggable because you're TOP DOG, then my
comment makes sense.
<<

Not what I was doing, and in any case "loggable because you're Top Dog (of a
one dog plane with a cat in it)" is only an opinion from Chief Council. It's
not in the FARs. Were we to get into a discussion about what non-FAR time is
loggable, or even what non-FAR activity is permissible (wanna talk icing?) it
could go on forever, and not be sorted out until the accident, and even then
only for that case and the new rule that evolves from it. :)

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[David Brooks]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Koopas Ly" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > They fly into IMC. The guy in the left seat is still controlling the
> > airplane, so he still gets to log PIC. Now, since the flight has gone
> > into IMC, there's no longer a safety pilot requirement. So the guy in
> > the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
> > superflous.
>
> His presence isn't superfluous, it's just ceased to be an opreation
requiring
> more than one pilot, which is a logging issue only.

Just a minute. The operation does so require more than one pilot, since we
have specified that the actual PIC (TopDog) isn't manipulating the controls.
Someone had better be manipulating the controls, or someone will soon be
talking to the NTSB.

If the TopDog were to take the controls at the time of entering IMC, that
would be a different operation (the entire purpose of this operation is to
give the HOT some instrument time).

That's my argument and I'm sticking to it until I see something else in the
FAQ or counsel rulings.

-- David Brooks

[Teacherjh]

>>
If the TopDog were to take the controls at the time of entering IMC, that
would be a different operation (the entire purpose of this operation is to
give the HOT some instrument time)
<<

Yanno, I've always wondered about that interpretation. Seems to be reasonable
to say that two pilots are required when "the purpose of the flight" is to give
one pilot simulated instrument time. There's only one way to do it, and that
is with a safety pilot. Thus, a two pilot operation.

But is it really still a two-pilot operation when "the entire purpose" is to
give a non-instrument rated pilot actual time? There's also only one way to do
it, but you can certainly go in the clouds single pilot.

Somewhere I remember a case where two pilots could be up front, each legal to
do their thing, but none able to be Top Dog. So if a third pilot sits in the
back and acts as Top Dog, the flight would be legal. Is this now a three-pilot
op?

And (to be a bit silly), suppose the whole purpose of the flight is to try out
a new autopilot. Right seat pilot (say, the owner of the plane) is Top Dog,
and the left seat pilot is trying the instrumentation. The right seat pilot
takes off, then hands the controls to the left seat pilot, who logs HOT while
he's sole manipulator. But all he does is turn on the autopilot and watch for
two hours. He gets to log two hours of HOT while he's sitting on his hands.
But if it were the right seat pilot who turned on the autopilot and then turned
the controls over to the left seat pilot, and then nobody touches the controls
for two hours while the autopilot does its thing, who gets to log HOT?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:05:48 -0800, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

> The operation does so require more than one pilot,

But that's NOT what the regulations says is a requirement for a safety
pilot logging PIC time.

The regulation says (in part) that in order to LOG PIC time, one must be
acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is
required under the ... regulations under which the flight is conducted.

In the type of situations we are discussing, there is no *regulation* that
says two pilots are needed except when a safety pilot is required.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Natalie]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message ...

> Just a minute. The operation does so require more than one pilot, since we
> have specified that the actual PIC (TopDog) isn't manipulating the controls.

The complete phrase is "an operation requiring more than one pilot under the
regulations under which the flight is conducted."

The rule was primarily designed for things like Part 135 and 121 where a
Second In Command is specifically called out for in the regs, but the FAA has
agreed that Simulated Instrument Flight also meets the definition.

Your scenario, only requires one pilot in the regulations. The fact that you
ended up using more than one, doesn't count.'

[David Brooks]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Just a minute. The operation does so require more than one pilot, since
we
> > have specified that the actual PIC (TopDog) isn't manipulating the
controls.
>
> The complete phrase is "an operation requiring more than one pilot under
the
> regulations under which the flight is conducted."

Well, it isn't. It's "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". Not using the word "operation" weakens my case
considerably.

> Your scenario, only requires one pilot in the regulations. The fact that
you
> ended up using more than one, doesn't count.'

In case you haven't guessed, I'm taking a contrarian view just to see if the
regs can support the idea of the PIC safety pilot being able to log, which
some people around here think would be a good idea. This existential view of
the meaning of "the flight" seemed like fertile ground.

-- David Brooks