logging (PIC) time

[Jack Brown]

Here's a variation on something that's been beaten to death:
Situation - pilot 1's BFR ran out 2 months ago. Friend (Pilot 2)
comes to visit and wants to go flying. It's Pilot 1's airplane (high
wing) and he doesn't feel comfortable letting (low winger) Pilot 2 fly
it so he does. Pilot 2 is "PIC" but Pilot 1 is sole manipulator of
the controls. Who and how is time logged?

jb

[Peter Duniho]

"Jack Brown" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a variation on something that's been beaten to death:
> Situation - pilot 1's BFR ran out 2 months ago. Friend (Pilot 2)
> comes to visit and wants to go flying. It's Pilot 1's airplane (high
> wing) and he doesn't feel comfortable letting (low winger) Pilot 2 fly
> it so he does. Pilot 2 is "PIC" but Pilot 1 is sole manipulator of
> the controls. Who and how is time logged?

Not that this is an opinion on the legalities, but IMHO, Pilot 1 is, at
best, abusing the regulations. If he does not feel comfortable letting
Pilot 2 fly the airplane, he has no business allowing (asking? requiring?)
Pilot 2 to act as pilot in command.

Which is not to say that Pilot 2 must fly the airplane. Just that Pilot 1
should only be bringing a pilot to act as PIC one that he feels is competent
to act as PIC.

As far as the actual logging goes, only Pilot 1 may log the flight, assuming
Pilot 2 is not an instructor. For a run-of-the-mill Private Pilot to log
the time while acting as PIC but not manipulating the controls, there would
need to be some requirement for two pilots, and there is not in this case.

Pete

[George Patterson]

Jack Brown wrote:

> Who and how is time logged?

I wouldn't log it at all. Unless he's a CFI providing instruction, pilot #2
can't log the time. Pilot #1 can log the time, but it could get sticky if for
any reason the FAA wants to see his logbook at a later date. If pilot #1 decides
to log it, he should have pilot #2 add a note to the logbook IMO.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[N93332]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jack Brown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here's a variation on something that's been beaten to death:
>> Situation - pilot 1's BFR ran out 2 months ago. Friend (Pilot 2)
>> comes to visit and wants to go flying. It's Pilot 1's airplane (high
>> wing) and he doesn't feel comfortable letting (low winger) Pilot 2 fly
>> it so he does. Pilot 2 is "PIC" but Pilot 1 is sole manipulator of
>> the controls. Who and how is time logged?
>
> As far as the actual logging goes, only Pilot 1 may log the flight,
> assuming Pilot 2 is not an instructor. For a run-of-the-mill Private
> Pilot to log the time while acting as PIC but not manipulating the
> controls, there would need to be some requirement for two pilots, and
> there is not in this case.

I agree with Peter that pilot 1 shouldn't ask pilot 2 to be PIC if #1
doesn't trust #2 to fly. Can #1 log this at all since he's not current or
just log it as non-PIC? Personally, I wouldn't log the flight for either
pilot 1 or 2.

Does a flight >have< to be logged by a pilot?

[George Patterson]

N93332 wrote:

> Can #1 log this at all since he's not current or
> just log it as non-PIC?

Pilot #1 can log it. I agree that I would not do so.

> Does a flight >have< to be logged by a pilot?

No.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:9OpYe.7576$N35.4708@trndny09...
>> Can #1 log this at all since he's not current or just log it as non-PIC?
>
> Pilot #1 can log it. I agree that I would not do so.

Why wouldn't you?

Or are you simply agreeing that Pilot 2 should be qualified to fly the
airplane?

Pete

[Hilton]

Jack wrote:
> Here's a variation on something that's been beaten to death:
> Situation - pilot 1's BFR ran out 2 months ago. Friend (Pilot 2)
> comes to visit and wants to go flying. It's Pilot 1's airplane (high
> wing) and he doesn't feel comfortable letting (low winger) Pilot 2 fly
> it so he does. Pilot 2 is "PIC" but Pilot 1 is sole manipulator of
> the controls. Who and how is time logged?

Pilot 1 logs all the time, Pilot 2 logs nothing - this assumes that it is
all VFR, no hoodwork, that Pilot 2 has all the endorsements etc to be PIC,
and that Pilot 1 is rated in the aircraft.

Hilton

[cjcampbell]

Jack Brown wrote:
> Here's a variation on something that's been beaten to death:
> Situation - pilot 1's BFR ran out 2 months ago. Friend (Pilot 2)
> comes to visit and wants to go flying. It's Pilot 1's airplane (high
> wing) and he doesn't feel comfortable letting (low winger) Pilot 2 fly
> it so he does. Pilot 2 is "PIC" but Pilot 1 is sole manipulator of
> the controls. Who and how is time logged?
>
> jb

Pilot 1 logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls. Pilot 2 logs PIC
as a required crewmember acting as PIC. Pilot 2 could not log PIC if
pilot 1 was current because then pilot 2 would not be a required
crewmember. There is nothing in the regs that requires you to be
current in order to log PIC.

I agree with Peter Duniho that you should not ask a pilot you do not
trust to be PIC.

No one is required to log time if they do not wish -- some pilots do
not log any time at all; just keep the bare minimum records to ensure
that they are current.

[Bob Moore]

"cjcampbell" > wrote

> Pilot 1 logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls. Pilot 2 logs PIC
> as a required crewmember acting as PIC. Pilot 2 could not log PIC if
> pilot 1 was current because then pilot 2 would not be a required
> crewmember.

BS! CJ....The certification of the a/c does not require two pilots
and the rules under which it is operated do not require two pilots.
Pilot 2 logs NOTHING.

Bob Moore

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Bob Moore wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote
>
>> Pilot 1 logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls. Pilot 2 logs PIC
>> as a required crewmember acting as PIC. Pilot 2 could not log PIC if
>> pilot 1 was current because then pilot 2 would not be a required
>> crewmember.
>
> BS! CJ....The certification of the a/c does not require two pilots
> and the rules under which it is operated do not require two pilots.
> Pilot 2 logs NOTHING.


Since Pilot #1 isn't current, isn't this analogous to letting one of the
passengers handle the controls? Pilot #2 would be the only one current and
therefore MUST be the PIC. Pilot #1 is effectively the passenger. If he wants
to be more, he needs to get his BFR and / or medical current.

If he has an accident, you can be sure his insurance company will use his lack
of currency as an excuse to avoid having to pay.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[[email protected]]

According to AOPA CJ is correct.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.html

Any Pilot that is rated for the aircraft, meaning ASEL if the plane is
single engine land, can log PIC time for the time he is sole
manipulator of the controls. This is true whether or not he has a
current medical, BFR or, if the plane meets the criteria, the
endorsements required for high performance and/or complex aircraft.
However, there must be a pilot in the plane that DOES meet all the
requirements for the plane being flown.

Typical FAR's...clear as mud!

Chris

Bob Moore wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote
>
> > Pilot 1 logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls. Pilot 2 logs PIC
> > as a required crewmember acting as PIC. Pilot 2 could not log PIC if
> > pilot 1 was current because then pilot 2 would not be a required
> > crewmember.
>
> BS! CJ....The certification of the a/c does not require two pilots
> and the rules under which it is operated do not require two pilots.
> Pilot 2 logs NOTHING.
>
> Bob Moore

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Why wouldn't you?

'Cause I don't need the time for anything and I don't want the FAA asking
questions about it if, for some reason, an inspector starts looking into my
logbook at a later time.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Hilton]

Mortimer Schnerd wrote:
> Bob Moore wrote:
> > "cjcampbell" > wrote
> >
> >> Pilot 1 logs PIC as sole manipulator of the controls. Pilot 2 logs PIC
> >> as a required crewmember acting as PIC. Pilot 2 could not log PIC if
> >> pilot 1 was current because then pilot 2 would not be a required
> >> crewmember.
> >
> > BS! CJ....The certification of the a/c does not require two pilots
> > and the rules under which it is operated do not require two pilots.
> > Pilot 2 logs NOTHING.
>
>
> Since Pilot #1 isn't current, isn't this analogous to letting one of the
> passengers handle the controls? Pilot #2 would be the only one current
and
> therefore MUST be the PIC. Pilot #1 is effectively the passenger. If he
wants
> to be more, he needs to get his BFR and / or medical current.

Yes, Pilot #2 is *acting* as PIC, but that in itself does not allow him/her
to log it as PIC.

Hilton

[Hilton]

Chris wrote:
> According to AOPA CJ is correct.
>
> http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.html
>
> Any Pilot that is rated for the aircraft, meaning ASEL if the plane is
> single engine land, can log PIC time for the time he is sole
> manipulator of the controls. This is true whether or not he has a
> current medical, BFR or, if the plane meets the criteria, the
> endorsements required for high performance and/or complex aircraft.
> However, there must be a pilot in the plane that DOES meet all the
> requirements for the plane being flown.
>
> Typical FAR's...clear as mud!

If you looked in Part 61, you would see that Part 61 with regards logging
PIC is pretty darn clear, you just need to read it in B&W without trying to
read between the lines.

BTW: This AOPA text is exactly consistent with what Bob and I wrote and
inconsistent with what CJ wrote.

Hilton

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:qtAYe.10024$LV5.2323@trndny02...
>> Why wouldn't you?
>
> 'Cause I don't need the time for anything and I don't want the FAA asking
> questions about it if, for some reason, an inspector starts looking into
> my logbook at a later time.

Huh.

IMHO the FAA, if they are looking into your logbook, is already asking
questions. Assuming the flight was legal, and you met the logging
requirements, you would have a good answer for the questions.

But granted, if you don't care to have the time in your logbook, it's
certainly your prerogative to decline to log the time. I'd say you're being
overly cautious, but then lots of people tell me I'm overly cautious at
times too. Far be it from me to call you wrong. :)

Pete

[[email protected]]

Scenario #1
Pilot A wants to accompany Pilot B on a cross country flight in a
single engine, high performance aircraft. Pilot A is rated for the
airplane, but does not have a current medical, high performance
endorsement, or current biennial flight review. Pilot A will be
practicing simulated instrument flying, wearing a view limited device
and will be sole manipulator of the controls during the enroute portion
of the flight. Pilot B meets all the requirements to be PIC and has
agreed to be PIC and safety pilot during the flight.

Under these circumstances, Pilot A may log PIC time and simulated
instrument time, Pilot B may log PIC time, but not instrument time,
since he/she is not operating the aircraft by reference to instruments
(FAR 61.51).


How can you read this and say that it is consistent with what you and
Bob are saying. In the above scenario, Pilot A does not have a current
medical, BFR or required endosements, but he can log the time spent as
sole manipulator of the controls as PIC. Pilot B is current and has the
required endorsements. Therefore he is a required crewmember and can
log PIC. This seems to me more consistent with what CJ posted and the
above scenario is very similar to the question in the orignal post.

[Doug]

Jack Brown wrote:
> Here's a variation on something that's been beaten to death:
> Situation - pilot 1's BFR ran out 2 months ago. Friend (Pilot 2)
> comes to visit and wants to go flying. It's Pilot 1's airplane (high
> wing) and he doesn't feel comfortable letting (low winger) Pilot 2 fly
> it so he does. Pilot 2 is "PIC" but Pilot 1 is sole manipulator of
> the controls. Who and how is time logged?
>
> jb


First of all. Who is PIC? The definition of PIC is in the glossary in
front. The PIC is the pilot who is "in charge of the flight". Since
pilot 1 is in charge of the flight (it is HIS airplane AND he feels
that pilot 2 is not qualified to fly it), then pilot 1 must be PIC. But
he can't be PIC because he isn't under a current flight review.

Pilot 2 could legally fly the airplane, by himself, if pilot 1 would
let him and agree that he was competent (and if pilot 2 thought he was
competent). And pilot 2 could be PIC with pilot 1 on the aircraft, if
pilot 1 would let him.

Not only can't they log it, they can't legally fly it either. Because
the person who is FAA qualified to be PIC is not allowed to be PIC by
the owner of the airplane.

If the answer to "who is PIC?" is a contrivance to make the flight
legal and doesn't meet the definition of a TRUE PIC, then that person
is not really PIC. It would be akin to an airliner and neither the
pilot nor copilot were current. But they happened to have a legally
current and rated pilot onboard who could't really fly the plane. They
can't put him in the cockpit and call him PIC and make the flight
legal. It would be a "contrivance", done only to make the flight legal.
He is not really PIC. To be PIC you have to BE THE PILOT IN CHARGE OF
THE FLIGHT!

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> [...]
> How can you read this and say that it is consistent with what you and
> Bob are saying.

He can say that, because it is.

> In the above scenario, Pilot A does not have a current
> medical, BFR or required endosements, but he can log the time spent as
> sole manipulator of the controls as PIC.

True. As sole manipulator with the necessary category and class ratings, he
gets to log the flight, whether he is qualified to act as PIC or not.

> Pilot B is current and has the required endorsements.

Since he's acting as PIC, he'd better be, and he'd better have.

> Therefore he is a required crewmember

Since Pilot A cannot act as PIC, yes...Pilot B is a required crewmember.

> and can log PIC.

True. But not for the reasons you've stated so far.

The only reason (in that scenario) that Pilot B is permitted to log the time
is that they are acting as safety pilot. The question of who is acting as
PIC is irrelevant. When flying in simulated instrument conditions, a safety
pilot is required, and thus invokes the "more than one pilot is required
under...the regulations under which the flight is conducted".

Being a required crewmember is not sufficient. If one is not manipulating
the controls, one must not only be a required crewmember, there must be more
than one pilot required.

Without the simulated instrument conditions, more than one pilot is NOT
required, and thus the pilot acting as PIC, though he is certainly required
(in a flight in which only one pilot is required), does not get to log the
time as PIC flight time.

> This seems to me more consistent with what CJ posted

It seems to you, apparently. But it's not.

> and the
> above scenario is very similar to the question in the orignal post.

I'll grant you similar. But similar does not mean it is equivalent.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> [...] The question of who is acting as PIC is irrelevant.

And I really should clarify this:

When I say "irrelevant", I don't mean it's irrelevant to the question at
large. Simply that acting as PIC doesn't necessarily imply one can log PIC.
The regulation that allows Pilot B to log PIC time *does* require that Pilot
B be acting as PIC, so obviously it's relevant in that case.

[Hilton]

IBean wrote:
> Scenario #1
> Pilot A wants to accompany Pilot B on a cross country flight in a
> single engine, high performance aircraft. Pilot A is rated for the
> airplane, but does not have a current medical, high performance
> endorsement, or current biennial flight review. Pilot A will be
> practicing simulated instrument flying, wearing a view limited device
> and will be sole manipulator of the controls during the enroute portion
> of the flight. Pilot B meets all the requirements to be PIC and has
> agreed to be PIC and safety pilot during the flight.
>
> Under these circumstances, Pilot A may log PIC time and simulated
> instrument time, Pilot B may log PIC time, but not instrument time,
> since he/she is not operating the aircraft by reference to instruments
> (FAR 61.51).
>
>
> How can you read this and say that it is consistent with what you and
> Bob are saying.

Because in my very initial post I wrote: "Pilot 1 logs all the time, Pilot 2
logs nothing - this assumes that it is all VFR, no hoodwork, that Pilot 2
has all the endorsements etc to be PIC, and that Pilot 1 is rated in the
aircraft."

I cannot repeat myself every post. Therefore, given those restrictions, Bob
was correct, and since the original poster did not state restrictions or
conditions, I assumed and stated VFR with no hoodwork.

If you wanna use VFR with hood work, fine. Pilot A logs PIC time, and
simulated instrument time, as well as complex and hi-performance as
appropriate whether or not he/she has these endorsements. Pilot be logs PIC
if he/she was acting as PIC (which they are in your example), or SIC if
Pilot A was acting as PIC (with all the required stuff of course).

Hilton

[cjcampbell]

Hilton wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > According to AOPA CJ is correct.
> >
> > http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.html
> >
> > Any Pilot that is rated for the aircraft, meaning ASEL if the plane is
> > single engine land, can log PIC time for the time he is sole
> > manipulator of the controls. This is true whether or not he has a
> > current medical, BFR or, if the plane meets the criteria, the
> > endorsements required for high performance and/or complex aircraft.
> > However, there must be a pilot in the plane that DOES meet all the
> > requirements for the plane being flown.
> >
> > Typical FAR's...clear as mud!
>
> If you looked in Part 61, you would see that Part 61 with regards logging
> PIC is pretty darn clear, you just need to read it in B&W without trying to
> read between the lines.
>

You are right. Part 61 is very clear. Pilot B is a required crewmember
for the operation of the flight and should log PIC. There is nothing in
part 61 specifying that pilot A has to be under the hood or any other
silly exceptions. Pilot A cannot fly the plane himself, so pilot B is
required. I should point out that in fact that it is common practice
that pilots who are unable to act as PIC to get a qualified friend to
fly with them. The lack of qualification does not prevent the pilot
from logging PIC since he is sole manipulator of the controls. The
other pilot is required to be on board by regulation -- someone who is
qualified has to be on board to act as PIC or the flight is illegal --
and should log PIC while doing so. The FAA has consistently ruled in
favor of this interpretation and it is also interpreted this way in the
part 61 FAQ. I also believe the AOPA interpretation supports my view. I
cannot understand why you seem to have a problem with this. The
regulations are very clear and were specifically written to allow for
this kind of situation.

The question of whether pilot B is actually PIC, though, is more
important. As Doug points out, if pilot B is not allowed to act as PIC
then he is not PIC and the flight then consists of a non-current pilot
and a passenger, which is illegal.

[cjcampbell]

Hilton wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > According to AOPA CJ is correct.
> >
> > http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.html
> >
> > Any Pilot that is rated for the aircraft, meaning ASEL if the plane is
> > single engine land, can log PIC time for the time he is sole
> > manipulator of the controls. This is true whether or not he has a
> > current medical, BFR or, if the plane meets the criteria, the
> > endorsements required for high performance and/or complex aircraft.
> > However, there must be a pilot in the plane that DOES meet all the
> > requirements for the plane being flown.
> >
> > Typical FAR's...clear as mud!
>
> If you looked in Part 61, you would see that Part 61 with regards logging
> PIC is pretty darn clear, you just need to read it in B&W without trying to
> read between the lines.
>

You are right. Part 61 is very clear. Pilot B is a required crewmember
for the operation of the flight and should log PIC. There is nothing in
part 61 specifying that pilot A has to be under the hood or any other
silly exceptions. Pilot A cannot fly the plane himself, so pilot B is
required. I should point out that in fact that it is common practice
that pilots who are unable to act as PIC to get a qualified friend to
fly with them. The lack of qualification does not prevent the pilot
from logging PIC since he is sole manipulator of the controls. The
other pilot is required to be on board by regulation -- someone who is
qualified has to be on board to act as PIC or the flight is illegal --
and should log PIC while doing so. The FAA has consistently ruled in
favor of this interpretation and it is also interpreted this way in the
part 61 FAQ. I also believe the AOPA interpretation supports my view. I
cannot understand why you seem to have a problem with this. The
regulations are very clear and were specifically written to allow for
this kind of situation.

The question of whether pilot B is actually PIC, though, is more
important. As Doug points out, if pilot B is not allowed to act as PIC
then he is not PIC and the flight then consists of a non-current pilot
and a passenger, which is illegal.

[cjcampbell]

Doug wrote:
>
>
> First of all. Who is PIC? The definition of PIC is in the glossary in
> front. The PIC is the pilot who is "in charge of the flight". Since
> pilot 1 is in charge of the flight (it is HIS airplane AND he feels
> that pilot 2 is not qualified to fly it), then pilot 1 must be PIC. But
> he can't be PIC because he isn't under a current flight review.

If there had been an incident, you can be almost certain that the FAA
would have decided that pilot 2 was in charge of the flight because he
was the only qualified pilot on board. The FAA would have taken a dim
view of any action where pilot 2 allowed an unqualified pilot to
over-rule him.

There was one case where, even though he was sitting asleep in the back
seat of a four place plane, the FAA ruled that the pilot was PIC simply
because he was an ATP while those flying the plane were an instructor
and private pilot. I have to disagree with that interpretation; I think
this is one of those cases that proves that the FAA is not always
right, but they did it anyway. I really think the FAA should consult
with me more before taking actions like this. If they did, the world
would be a better place.

[Peter Duniho]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You are right. Part 61 is very clear. Pilot B is a required crewmember
> for the operation of the flight and should log PIC.

As I posted elsewhere, being a "required crewmember" is necessary, but not
sufficient. The flight ALSO has to require MORE THAN ONE crewmember
(because of the aircraft or regulations under which the flight is done).
So, for example, where a safety pilot is required in addition to the pilot
flying the airplane, the second pilot is required and thus gets to log PIC.
But in the case we're talking about here, only one pilot is required, so any
additional pilots do not get to log PIC.

Note that this is the same reason that, when a lone pilot in the airplane
allows a passenger to fly the airplane, they are not permitted to log as PIC
the time during which the passenger is flying. They are acting as PIC,
which is part of the requirement, but the regulations governing the flight
require only one pilot, which does not meet the other part of the
requirement.

> There is nothing in
> part 61 specifying that pilot A has to be under the hood or any other
> silly exceptions.

Yes, there is. The requirement that the flight is conducted under rules
that require more than one pilot does require, for example, that Pilot A be
under the hood. Without simulated instrument flight, there is no regulatory
requirement for there to be two pilots.

> Pilot A cannot fly the plane himself, so pilot B is
> required.

But ONLY Pilot B is required. This is different from simulated instrument
flight, because a single pilot cannot by himself operate in simulated
instrument conditions.

> I should point out that in fact that it is common practice
> that pilots who are unable to act as PIC to get a qualified friend to
> fly with them.

But those friends acting as PIC have no legal right to log the time as PIC.

> The lack of qualification does not prevent the pilot
> from logging PIC since he is sole manipulator of the controls.

That's true.

> The other pilot is required to be on board by regulation

They are required, true. But ONLY they are required. The pilot actually
flying the airplane is optional. He is essentially a passenger who is being
permitted to manipulate the controls, for the purposes of Pilot B deciding
whether he can log the time or not.

> -- someone who is
> qualified has to be on board to act as PIC or the flight is illegal --
> and should log PIC while doing so.

No. The flight is not conducted under any regulation that requires two
pilots, and so the mere act of acting as PIC does not qualify Pilot B for
logging PIC time.

> The FAA has consistently ruled in favor of this interpretation

No, they haven't. Or, put another way, please feel free to cite an FAA
ruling that supports your interpretation.

> and it is also interpreted this way in the part 61 FAQ.

No, it's not. The FAQ *does* discuss the safety pilot scenario, but there's
nothing in the FAQ that suggests a pilot acting as PIC while *not* acting as
safety pilot for simulated instrument conditions can log PIC.

If you feel otherwise, please feel free to quote the pertinent part of the
FAQ.

> I also believe the AOPA interpretation supports my view.

No, it doesn't.

> I cannot understand why you seem to have a problem with this.

Because you are incorrect.

> The
> regulations are very clear and were specifically written to allow for
> this kind of situation.

No, they are clear but they do NOT allow for "this kind of situation".

> The question of whether pilot B is actually PIC, though, is more
> important. As Doug points out, if pilot B is not allowed to act as PIC
> then he is not PIC and the flight then consists of a non-current pilot
> and a passenger, which is illegal.

That much is correct.

Pete

[Brad Zeigler]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> There was one case where, even though he was sitting asleep in the back
> seat of a four place plane, the FAA ruled that the pilot was PIC simply
> because he was an ATP while those flying the plane were an instructor
> and private pilot.

I have heard this story so many times that it seems to have almost acheived
urban legend status. Can you point me in the direction of where I might
find this case? I've tried to search for this but I've been unsuccessful.

[Scott Draper]

<<but I *have* seen it, or at least a posted version that came from a
generally reliable source. Thus, it is legal to log the time if the
flying passenger is not a pilot, but not if the flying passenger is
a pilot who can log it.>>

I think you're overstating the case here. At best, it's the General
Counsel's opinion that it's legal, but I don't think that alone makes
it legal.

But you don't have a copy of the opinion and I can't find it on my
Summit CD and it is not supported by the regulations, so your evidence
is pretty scanty, to say the least.

If there was ever such an opnion, it might have well been corrected by
a later opinion, which is why it's not to be found.

Without some evidence, I don't think you should say "it's legal".

[Brian]

If something bad happens during the flight the FAA will consider Pilot
#2 PIC. Pilot #1 can not act as PIC without a current BFR. So if pilot
#2 is taking the responsiblity he might as well log it.

My somewhat simplfied interpretation of the FARS for PIC is as follows.

1. A pilot may only log PIC only if they are legally qualified to fly
the airplane as the solo, Note 90 day currency must be met if any
passengers are on board. (note there may be a few exceptions)

2. Both a Pilot and Safty pilot my log PIC when performing simlulated
instrument flight. Both must meet #1.

3. A Flight instructors may log PIC when giving instruction to pilots
that meet #1. But should be careful not to abuse this. i.e. does the
pilot really need instruction for insurance, currency, ratings, etc.

There are some other possibilities, for logging PIC but the above are
the basics according to Brian.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Brian]

I had considered this but wanted to keep my post simple, if Pilot #2
was unaware that Pilot #1 was not legal, pilot #2 might be able to
convince the FAA that he was not aware that he was PIC. Otherwise the
legal precedence that the FAA seems to take is that the most qualified
pilot is the most legally responsible.

IF pilot #2 is a 10000hr ATP and they end up busting the Washington
ADIZ who do you think the FAA is going to go after? (the answer is
probably would be both, but I think the legal PIC would be in the most
hot water)

Brian

[Brian]

Good point, This policy was imparted to me during my instructor
training. And I even indirectly referenced it in my post below.

As an instructor you quickly learn that there is a lot of
unsubstantiated information around. I have heard more rules quoted to
me that no one can find in the FARs than I can remember.

Even if the story is not true, it does have good point that just
because you are not the pilot in command if you have the experinence
and ratings you should do everything you can to keep other pilots from
doing something stupid.

If someone does have some information to substantiate the story I would
love to see it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Peter Duniho]

"Brian" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> [...]
> My somewhat simplfied interpretation of the FARS for PIC is as follows.

As long as people understand they are overly simplified...that is, some
nuance is lost in the simplification. It's not so much that it's wrong, but
that it's incomplete and could lead to wrong interpretations of the FARs.

> 1. A pilot may only log PIC only if they are legally qualified to fly
> the airplane as the solo, Note 90 day currency must be met if any
> passengers are on board. (note there may be a few exceptions)

More to the point, this is *sometimes* a "necessary" but not "sufficient"
requirement for logging PIC.

In addition, whether one is current to carry passengers or not is completely
unrelated to *logging* PIC. IMHO, a discussion about *logging* PIC should
not introduce that issue, as doing so just complicates the discussion
without need.

> 2. Both a Pilot and Safty pilot my log PIC when performing simlulated
> instrument flight. Both must meet #1.

Almost.

But in absence of passengers (two pilots, both are required crew members, no
passengers) the passenger currency requirement need not be met by either
pilot. See what I mean about needlessly complicating the discussion. :)

Additionally, if the safety pilot is acting as PIC, the pilot flying need
only meet the category and class rating requirement. He doesn't even need a
current BFR.

IMHO, the attempt to tie *logging* PIC with the requirements to *act* as PIC
(which, in spite of your use of the word "log" in #1 is really what #1 is
about) is the classic mistake people make when talking about the issue.
Logging PIC and acting PIC are two entirely different things. Only in very
specific situations does the question of acting as PIC affect the question
of logging as PIC.

Trying to come up with a general interpretation that always includes the
question of acting as PIC is doomed to failure; there are too many ways to
log PIC time without being qualified to act as PIC.

Pete

[Scott Draper]

<<any opinion rendered from his office that interprets the FARs is
binding on the FAA. That's as "legal" as it gets, since the FAA
enforces the FARs.>>

The regulation itself and any court rulings take precedence over the
Chief Counsel's opinion.

And the Chief Counsel's opinion was erroneous. Section 61.51
describes the conditions under which a pilot can log PIC, and acting
as PIC is only sufficient under two circumstances, 1) acting as a
safety pilot, or 2) the pilot is an ATP when an ATP is required.

None of the Letters I have contradict the interp that Rick Cremer
provided, but none of them support it, either. Quite a number of them
describe the conditions under which a pilot may log PIC, and merely
acting as PIC isn't one of them.