Multi time building Q

[Jackal24]

Anyone have any ideas on where to go to get around 50 hours of multi-time
cheap? I looked at AriBen, but the reviews lately are not too great.

[Jim Macklin]

The office supply store sells ballpoint and fountain pens. But if you want
to really fly a the hours, there are no truly cheap hours in a multiengine
aircraft.
But to get a valid answer, you need to say something about your current
qualifications, do you need a rating or have the rating and are looking for
a job?
What part of the world are you living and are you willing to travel? Can
you join the Army?


"Jackal24" > wrote in message
...
| Anyone have any ideas on where to go to get around 50 hours of multi-time
| cheap? I looked at AriBen, but the reviews lately are not too great.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> The office supply store sells ballpoint and fountain pens. But if you
> want
> to really fly a the hours, there are no truly cheap hours in a multiengine
> aircraft.
> But to get a valid answer, you need to say something about your current
> qualifications, do you need a rating or have the rating and are looking
> for
> a job?
> What part of the world are you living and are you willing to travel? Can
> you join the Army?
>
>
> "Jackal24" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Anyone have any ideas on where to go to get around 50 hours of
> multi-time
> | cheap? I looked at AriBen, but the reviews lately are not too great.
>
>

There was a company that used to sell multi-time really cheap. I think they
were freight dogs and only let you touch the controls at altitude. I don't
remember any more details. It sounded like a good deal for someone who only
needed the sign off and no real experience.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"nobody" > wrote in
:

> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The office supply store sells ballpoint and fountain pens. But if
>> you want
>> to really fly a the hours, there are no truly cheap hours in a
>> multiengine aircraft.
>> But to get a valid answer, you need to say something about your
>> current qualifications, do you need a rating or have the rating and
>> are looking for
>> a job?
>> What part of the world are you living and are you willing to travel?
>> Can you join the Army?
>>
>>
>> "Jackal24" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> | Anyone have any ideas on where to go to get around 50 hours of
>> multi-time
>> | cheap? I looked at AriBen, but the reviews lately are not too
>> | great.
>>
>>
>
> There was a company that used to sell multi-time really cheap. I think
> they were freight dogs and only let you touch the controls at
> altitude. I don't remember any more details. It sounded like a good
> deal for someone who only needed the sign off and no real experience.
>
>
>

Not such a good deal unless what they are looking for is a profession
which has people who are willing to pay to work.



Bertie

[Jackal24]

I have 1600 hours (all single) with CP-ASEL, and CFII ratings. I would be
looking at getting my ATP and about 50 hours multi-time. I am looking at
applying with the regionals and am willing to go anywhere in the US.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:

> The office supply store sells ballpoint and fountain pens. But if you
> want to really fly a the hours, there are no truly cheap hours in a
> multiengine aircraft.
> But to get a valid answer, you need to say something about your
> current qualifications, do you need a rating or have the rating and
> are looking for a job?
> What part of the world are you living and are you willing to travel?
> Can you join the Army?
>
>
> "Jackal24" > wrote in message
> ...
>| Anyone have any ideas on where to go to get around 50 hours of
>| multi-time cheap? I looked at AriBen, but the reviews lately are not
>| too great.
>
>
>

[F. Baum]

On Dec 9, 6:06 pm, "nobody" > wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>
>>
> There was a company that used to sell multi-time really cheap. I think they
> were freight dogs and only let you touch the controls at altitude. I don't
> remember any more details. It sounded like a good deal for someone who only
> needed the sign off and no real experience.- Hide quoted text -
>
If thats the place in Colorado, they got shut down by the feds.
Similar deal in DFW many years ago. They got shut down too.

[Jim Macklin]

There were companies that sold multiengine time as copilots on Beech 18s
doing mail runs. The accident rate was very high, the Post Office put a
stop to the practice. The FAA 135 rules make such phony employment illegal
now.


"nobody" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
| ...
| > The office supply store sells ballpoint and fountain pens. But if you
| > want
| > to really fly a the hours, there are no truly cheap hours in a
multiengine
| > aircraft.
| > But to get a valid answer, you need to say something about your current
| > qualifications, do you need a rating or have the rating and are looking
| > for
| > a job?
| > What part of the world are you living and are you willing to travel?
Can
| > you join the Army?
| >
| >
| > "Jackal24" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | Anyone have any ideas on where to go to get around 50 hours of
| > multi-time
| > | cheap? I looked at AriBen, but the reviews lately are not too great.
| >
| >
|
| There was a company that used to sell multi-time really cheap. I think
they
| were freight dogs and only let you touch the controls at altitude. I don't
| remember any more details. It sounded like a good deal for someone who
only
| needed the sign off and no real experience.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Go to Spartan or Flight Safety and get the ATP and CFI ME, they will hire
you when you get the ticket, which will take about 25 hours total, then you
get paid to instruct in the school for 50-100 hours a month. There are lots
of schools that hire their "good" graduates and absorb the low time MEI.
Check in your area.

You can also take the ATP ride in a single and then do the MEL as an add-on
ATP.


"Jackal24" > wrote in message
...
|I have 1600 hours (all single) with CP-ASEL, and CFII ratings. I would be
| looking at getting my ATP and about 50 hours multi-time. I am looking at
| applying with the regionals and am willing to go anywhere in the US.
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
| :
|
| > The office supply store sells ballpoint and fountain pens. But if you
| > want to really fly a the hours, there are no truly cheap hours in a
| > multiengine aircraft.
| > But to get a valid answer, you need to say something about your
| > current qualifications, do you need a rating or have the rating and
| > are looking for a job?
| > What part of the world are you living and are you willing to travel?
| > Can you join the Army?
| >
| >
| > "Jackal24" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >| Anyone have any ideas on where to go to get around 50 hours of
| >| multi-time cheap? I looked at AriBen, but the reviews lately are not
| >| too great.
| >
| >
| >
|

[Jim Macklin]

Actually, Jim Macklin did not say that.



"F. Baum" > wrote in message
...
| On Dec 9, 6:06 pm, "nobody" > wrote:
| > "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
| >
| >>
| > There was a company that used to sell multi-time really cheap. I think
they
| > were freight dogs and only let you touch the controls at altitude. I
don't
| > remember any more details. It sounded like a good deal for someone who
only
| > needed the sign off and no real experience.- Hide quoted text -
| >
| If thats the place in Colorado, they got shut down by the feds.
| Similar deal in DFW many years ago. They got shut down too.

[Jackal24]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:

> Go to Spartan or Flight Safety and get the ATP and CFI ME, they will
> hire you when you get the ticket, which will take about 25 hours
> total, then you get paid to instruct in the school for 50-100 hours a
> month. There are lots of schools that hire their "good" graduates and
> absorb the low time MEI. Check in your area.
>
I would rather get done in just a couple of weeks. I have around $10k to
spend on this. (a donation)

> You can also take the ATP ride in a single and then do the MEL as an
> add-on ATP.
>
>

What would be the point of that?

[nobody[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .

>
> Not such a good deal unless what they are looking for is a profession
> which has people who are willing to pay to work.
>

Or if your insurance company won't cover you in your own airplane until you
have 50 hours. I really dislike insurance companies, so have no problems
when it comes to finding loopholes.

This is the link for the cheap multi-time

http://www.multiengine.net/

$60/hour for 50 hours.

[Jim Macklin]

If your knowledge test is near expiration, you can take the ATP ride in a
single, and then take the MEL ride anytime, just to save taking the "written
test" again.


"Jackal24" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
| :
|
| > Go to Spartan or Flight Safety and get the ATP and CFI ME, they will
| > hire you when you get the ticket, which will take about 25 hours
| > total, then you get paid to instruct in the school for 50-100 hours a
| > month. There are lots of schools that hire their "good" graduates and
| > absorb the low time MEI. Check in your area.
| >
| I would rather get done in just a couple of weeks. I have around $10k to
| spend on this. (a donation)
|
| > You can also take the ATP ride in a single and then do the MEL as an
| > add-on ATP.
| >
| >
|
| What would be the point of that?

[F. Baum]

On Dec 10, 5:33 am, "nobody" > wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in 6.130...
>
>
>
> > Not such a good deal unless what they are looking for is a profession
> > which has people who are willing to pay to work.
>
> Or if your insurance company won't cover you in your own airplane until you
> have 50 hours. I really dislike insurance companies, so have no problems
> when it comes to finding loopholes.
>
> This is the link for the cheap multi-time
>
> http://www.multiengine.net/
>
> $60/hour for 50 hours.

This place looks like a scam to me. I have seen these before and I can
tell you that the FAA does not consider this logable PIC time.

[Mike Isaksen]

"nobody" wrote ...
> Or if your insurance company won't cover you in your own airplane
> until you have 50 hours. I really dislike insurance companies, so have
> no problems when it comes to finding loopholes.
>

That's funny. Insurance companies don't "dislike" you, they dislike losing
money. They compare you to others with similar "paper documented"
experience. And finding that those "comparables" have a poor risk
performance the insurance companies choose not to give you a $100,000 risk
coverage for the next 12 months for $1000. They may give you that for
$10,000, or they may say "Hey, go get some experience, ding up a few things,
and come back and see us then". Don't take it personally, they have a bigger
pot of money on the line. That's the only reason you go to them in the first
place (for access to their pot of money).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"nobody" > wrote in
news:Sma7j.13031$Bg7.3910@trndny07:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>
>> Not such a good deal unless what they are looking for is a profession
>> which has people who are willing to pay to work.
>>
>
> Or if your insurance company won't cover you in your own airplane
> until you have 50 hours. I really dislike insurance companies, so have
> no problems when it comes to finding loopholes.
>
> This is the link for the cheap multi-time
>
> http://www.multiengine.net/
>
> $60/hour for 50 hours.
>


Well, that one's not so bad. I was thinking more of the scumbags that make

FO's pay to work for them.

A pox on them!



Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
news:PSc7j.5756$581.814@trnddc04...
>
> "nobody" wrote ...
> > Or if your insurance company won't cover you in your own airplane
> > until you have 50 hours. I really dislike insurance companies, so have
> > no problems when it comes to finding loopholes.
> >
>
> That's funny. Insurance companies don't "dislike" you, they dislike losing
> money. They compare you to others with similar "paper documented"
> experience.

But they do like re-writing the rules.

#1) I own two automobiles. I cannot possibly drive two automobiles at the
same time, yet the insurance company charges me double the premium because
"Somebody *could* drive the other car"

#2) I've owned said second vehicle since before my son was born. Because he
is now licensed to drive, he *MUST* be listed as the primary driver of the
vehicle he's not allowed to touch.

#3) Because the insurance was doubled, I took said vehicle off the road and
bought a $250 car for my son. Now, second son gets license. Adding him as an
occational driver of $250 car will not result in premium increase, because
primary driver is also inexperienced. They say he cannot be listed as an
occational driver of the only vehicle he's allowed to drive, and *MUST* be
listed as an occational driver of my car (75% increase in my premium).

If the insurance company refused to insure me for the appropriate risk, I
will do anything *LEGAL* to reduce my premium.

BTW, if you google http://www.multiengine.net/ , you'll see they have both
supporters and detractors.

Since I only fly one airplane, with one engine, I have no need for their
program. I was just answering the question asked.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>
>
> Well, that one's not so bad. I was thinking more of the scumbags that make
>
> FO's pay to work for them.
>
> A pox on them!
>

Doesn't sound vastly different to me. But, Hey, This is America. Capitalism
at it's best.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"nobody" > wrote in news:OLd7j.1065$W27.439@trndny09:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> Well, that one's not so bad. I was thinking more of the scumbags that
>> make
>>
>> FO's pay to work for them.
>>
>> A pox on them!
>>
>
> Doesn't sound vastly different to me. But, Hey, This is America.
> Capitalism at it's best.

At it's worst, more like.


The rest depends on whether you're doing anything useful in the airplane as
to whether it's actually worth doing. If you're the autopilot for four
hours it's next to useless from a training point of view, but it might help
with the logbook. But, as another poster has pointed out, it might not even
be legally loggable if you're not legal to do the work in the airplane.
I can see his point. However, if you're checked out in the airplane and
have a commercial, you should be able to log it as PIC time. It's not 135,
itt's just aerial work.

Been a while since I had to think about all that stuff, though. Thanks God
I won't have to again..



Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 9, 9:43 am, Jackal24 > wrote:
> Anyone have any ideas on where to go to get around 50 hours of multi-time
> cheap? I looked at AriBen, but the reviews lately are not too great.

There did used to be an outfit that paired up ME pilots in order to
gain time. The two pilots split the cost and the flying pilot would
always be under the hood (so they could both log it). I can't remember
the name though.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 9, 9:32 pm, Jackal24 > wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote :
>
> > Go to Spartan or Flight Safety and get the ATP and CFI ME, they will
> > hire you when you get the ticket, which will take about 25 hours
> > total, then you get paid to instruct in the school for 50-100 hours a
> > month. There are lots of schools that hire their "good" graduates and
> > absorb the low time MEI. Check in your area.
>
> I would rather get done in just a couple of weeks. I have around $10k to
> spend on this. (a donation)
>
> > You can also take the ATP ride in a single and then do the MEL as an
> > add-on ATP.
>
> What would be the point of that?

Because he can't take the ATP ME with only 50 hours in ME time.

-Robert

[F. Baum]

On Dec 10, 1:55 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:43 am, Jackal24 > wrote:
>
> > Anyone have any ideas on where to go to get around 50 hours of multi-time
> > cheap? I looked at AriBen, but the reviews lately are not too great.
>
> There did used to be an outfit that paired up ME pilots in order to
> gain time. The two pilots split the cost and the flying pilot would
> always be under the hood (so they could both log it). I can't remember
> the name though.
>
> -Robert

It was a place out of KSNA. A good budy of mine worked there. They got
an official ruling from the FAA and the Safety Pilot had to log SIC
time. There are probably more places like this. The OP should use
extreme caution with outfits that charge for time during commercial
ops . The Feds take a dim view of this .

[Jim Macklin]

Sure he can, the ATP is based on total time.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
| On Dec 9, 9:32 pm, Jackal24 > wrote:
| > "Jim Macklin" > wrote
:
| >
| > > Go to Spartan or Flight Safety and get the ATP and CFI ME, they will
| > > hire you when you get the ticket, which will take about 25 hours
| > > total, then you get paid to instruct in the school for 50-100 hours a
| > > month. There are lots of schools that hire their "good" graduates and
| > > absorb the low time MEI. Check in your area.
| >
| > I would rather get done in just a couple of weeks. I have around $10k to
| > spend on this. (a donation)
| >
| > > You can also take the ATP ride in a single and then do the MEL as an
| > > add-on ATP.
| >
| > What would be the point of that?
|
| Because he can't take the ATP ME with only 50 hours in ME time.
|
| -Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 10, 1:18 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 1:55 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 9:43 am, Jackal24 > wrote:
>
> > > Anyone have any ideas on where to go to get around 50 hours of multi-time
> > > cheap? I looked at AriBen, but the reviews lately are not too great.
>
> > There did used to be an outfit that paired up ME pilots in order to
> > gain time. The two pilots split the cost and the flying pilot would
> > always be under the hood (so they could both log it). I can't remember
> > the name though.
>
> > -Robert
>
> It was a place out of KSNA. A good budy of mine worked there. They got
> an official ruling from the FAA and the Safety Pilot had to log SIC
> time. There are probably more places like this.

On what basis did the the FSDO say the safety pilot couldn't log PIC
despite the fact that FAR 61.51(e)(iii) says he can log PIC and the
FAA Chief Council has previously confirmed that?

-Robert

[F. Baum]

On Dec 10, 6:26 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> On what basis did the the FSDO say the safety pilot couldn't log PIC
> despite the fact that FAR 61.51(e)(iii) says he can log PIC and the
> FAA Chief Council has previously confirmed that?

Robert, ya gotta be careful with this stuff. I can remember an Embry
Riddle buddy (We used to call them Riddlers) who told me they used to
put 4 guys in a Seminole (Nevermind what we used to call those ;)) and
EACH one of them logged the time as PIC. Riddle actually came up with
an interpritation that supported this !! As for the Long Beach FISDO,
I cant recall what the basis was exactly , but they were ask for an
interpritaion and they gave one. When the FAA first went online years
ago they had a section where they fielded questions on interpritaions
and the logging of flight time always had the most questions. Heres
the way I like to think of it; For every flight you have A pilot. Im
kinda slow and I gotta keep things simple. I have heard just about
every line there is for logging time.
FB
>
> -Robert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 10, 6:31 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:

> Robert, ya gotta be careful with this stuff. I can remember an Embry
> Riddle buddy (We used to call them Riddlers) who told me they used to
> put 4 guys in a Seminole (Nevermind what we used to call those ;)) and
> EACH one of them logged the time as PIC. Riddle actually came up with
> an interpritation that supported this !! As for the Long Beach FISDO,
> I cant recall what the basis was exactly , but they were ask for an
> interpritaion and they gave one. When the FAA first went online years
> ago they had a section where they fielded questions on interpritaions
> and the logging of flight time always had the most questions. Heres
> the way I like to think of it; For every flight you have A pilot. Im
> kinda slow and I gotta keep things simple. I have heard just about
> every line there is for logging time.

Sure but the idea that a safety pilot who is serving as PIC can log
PIC is very well established by the FAA Chief Council opinions, the
Lynch FAQ etc. Its not one of those "kindas" its well established.

BTW: There is no FAR that allows you to log the flight just because
you are the PIC, so it can go both ways. Logging PIC is totally
different than serving as PIC.

-Robert, CFII

[F. Baum]

On Dec 10, 8:28 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> Sure but the idea that a safety pilot who is serving as PIC can log
> PIC is very well established by the FAA Chief Council opinions, the
> Lynch FAQ etc. Its not one of those "kindas" its well established.

Let me apologize up front here Rob because I might split some hairs on
this one. First, the Safety doesnt serve as PIC. Second, I think this
is one of those questions where it depends which Fed you ask.
Generally (Real Generally) the FAA likes to see one PIC . There are
exeptions to this of course, but someone serving as SIC shouldnt be
logging PIC. A good example of this happens at airlines. Most airlines
type their FOs these days. So if it is the FO's leg (Sole manipulator)
and he is typed, he still cannot log PIC because the certificate
holder has to designate a PIC and SIC for the flight.Like I posted
earlier, I have seen this , and several other flight logging issues
argued but the Feds recognize one PIC. All of this is mute to me
because I dont log much of my flight time anymore, But I am trying to
keep the OP out of trouble.
>
> BTW: There is no FAR that allows you to log the flight just because
> you are the PIC, so it can go both ways. Logging PIC is totally
> different than serving as PIC.

Exactly.
>
> -Robert, CFII

[Jackal24]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:17a49ca5-905f-4aba-bd0c-
:

> Generally (Real Generally) the FAA likes to see one PIC . There are
> exeptions to this of course, but someone serving as SIC shouldnt be
> logging PIC.

I disagree. The safety pilot thing has already been mentioned. Instruction
of someone rated in the aircraft (maybe for a higher rating, maybe not) is
another. You are a CFII according to your post. When you were giving
instrument instruction, did you log it as PIC? Did your student?
That's a pretty common situation. If you meant really, really, really,
really generally, then ok.

[Denny]

Hey, like the girls from Motown ued to sing, if you don't like what a
FSDO says, "You gotta shop around'

Remember, they are little fiefdoms..

denny

[F. Baum]

On Dec 10, 11:59 pm, Jackal24 > wrote:
>
> I disagree. The safety pilot thing has already been mentioned. Instruction
> of someone rated in the aircraft (maybe for a higher rating, maybe not) is
> another. You are a CFII according to your post. When you were giving
> instrument instruction, did you log it as PIC? Did your student?
> That's a pretty common situation. If you meant really, really, really,
> really generally, then ok.
The CFII was the other guy. I think we are blurring an important
distiction here because Robert posted that the Safety Pilot can log
the time that he is acting as PIC. This is correct, but he cannot log
PIC for the time he is not functioning as PIC. The FAA has made this
determination , not me ;). If any of these cheap Multi outfits tell
you otherwise, they are not truthfull. This is how the interpritaion
from the LGB FSDO came about (In writing). I will readily admit that
the FAA has a hard time consistintly interpriting thier own regs, so
you may find a FSDO that may say otherwise
I would occasionally serve on the interview board at my old airline.
As part of the screening process we would have a panel of three pilots
who would screen apllicants (In addition to a sim ride and a written
test). Part of the panel discusion involved a reveiw of an applicants
logbooks. All of the panelists got pretty good at spotting the suspect
flight time from these cheap multi outfits , and others like the
weekend type rating places (You would even recocnize N numbers after
awhile). Of course this would always come up during the interview. The
honest canidates (the ones who would recieve further consideration)
would tell us what they logged, The dishonest applicants (The ones who
got sent home) would maintain that you could have 2 or more people
logging PIC for the same flight. We screened knucleheads who would log
PIC in the 737 they rode in to get to the interview because they were
typed. So put whatever you want to in your logbook, but dont think
that you are fooling anyone.
FB

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 11, 6:17 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 11:59 pm, Jackal24 > wrote:
>
> > I disagree. The safety pilot thing has already been mentioned. Instruction
> > of someone rated in the aircraft (maybe for a higher rating, maybe not) is
> > another. You are a CFII according to your post. When you were giving
> > instrument instruction, did you log it as PIC? Did your student?
> > That's a pretty common situation. If you meant really, really, really,
> > really generally, then ok.
>
> The CFII was the other guy. I think we are blurring an important
> distiction here because Robert posted that the Safety Pilot can log
> the time that he is acting as PIC. This is correct, but he cannot log
> PIC for the time he is not functioning as PIC.

I never said otherwise. However, to understand this discussion you
must mentally separate logging PIC from servings as PIC, the two are
the not same. The well understood method of both pilots logging PIC
(that the Chief Council approves of is)..
Guy #1 flys the plane. He logs PIC because he is the sole manipulator
of the controls (very, very clear in 61.51(e)(1)(i). This pilot is
under the hood.
Guy #2 serves as safety pilot and PIC. He logs PIC under 61.51(e)(1)
(iii) and doesn't touch the controls. Both log PIC.

This is the method the FAA suggests for both pilots to log PIC.

Another method is for one rated pilot to have his hand on the controls
(61.51(e)1(i)) and the other pilots (MEI) to provide instruction
(61.51(e)(3)). Both are suppose to log PIC.


Please note that logging PIC is regulatated by 61.51(e).

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 11, 6:17 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:

>The dishonest applicants (The ones who
> got sent home) would maintain that you could have 2 or more people
> logging PIC for the same flight.

As would I because the FAA has said you can over and over again. As a
CFII I would never hire a CFI who did not understand that both the CFI
and the rated student *SHOULD* be logging PIC at the same time. If you
do not log your rated student's flights as PIC when you fly with them
you are doing them a disservice and are not understanding the rules.

My guess it that you misunderstood what the local FSDO wrote. I would
suggest you post it here. If it really does say what you are saying
I'll take it to the FAA and have them reverse it.

-Robert, CFII

[F. Baum]

On Dec 11, 10:49 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>
> I never said otherwise. However, to understand this discussion you
> must mentally separate logging PIC from servings as PIC, the two are
> the not same. The well understood method of both pilots logging PIC
> (that the Chief Council approves of is)..
> Guy #1 flys the plane. He logs PIC because he is the sole manipulator
> of the controls (very, very clear in 61.51(e)(1)(i). This pilot is
> under the hood.
> Guy #2 serves as safety pilot and PIC. He logs PIC under 61.51(e)(1)
> (iii) and doesn't touch the controls. Both log PIC.
>
> This is the method the FAA suggests for both pilots to log PIC.
>

OK Rob, here is what I got from the FAA. Ill use quotation marks where
my FSDO budy is talking although it is not entirely verbatim. "This
question has come up alot with an entire cottage industry of multi
engine time building schools trying to exploit a percieved loophole in
the regs. The operation of a light twin does not require two
crewmembers so unless one pilot who is rated and current is recieving
instruction, only one pilot can log PIC. If the PIC uses a view
limiting device he must have a rated safety pilot. This pilot can log
time as a safety pilot for the time that the PIC is under the hood. It
is concevable that he could log SIC time because the operation reqires
two pilots". Robert ask yourself this, if this situation doesnt work
at an airline (Where the situation is much more clearly defined), why
would it work for GA ?
I think this is along the lines of your 50 hours of multi rule.
>
> Please note that logging PIC is regulatated by 61.51(e).
>
> -Robert, CFII

[F. Baum]

On Dec 11, 10:53 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Dec 11, 6:17 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>
> As a
> CFII I would never hire a CFI who did not understand that both the CFI
> and the rated student *SHOULD* be logging PIC at the same time. If you
> do not log your rated student's flights as PIC when you fly with them
> you are doing them a disservice and are not understanding the rules.

This is not what is being disputed. Furthermore, the airlines frown on
this practice too. I havent filled out an app in awhile but I recall
the last ones I did fill out ask for time that I was "soley resposible
for the operation of the aircraft" . Maybe the feds could clear things
up a bit with verbage similar to this.
>
> My guess it that you misunderstood what the local FSDO wrote. I would
> suggest you post it here. If it really does say what you are saying
> I'll take it to the FAA and have them reverse it.
That was a long time ago and I never had a copy of it. I doubt the FAA
would suport the logging of PIC by anyone other than the PIC.
>
> -Robert, CFII

[Denny]

Does that mean if Fred (rated pilot) goes flying with me and we both
watch for traffic and he follows the GPS on a nav chart, I cannot log
PIC because I was not 'soley' responsible for the operation of the
aircraft?


denny - inquiring mind, and all that

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Denny wrote:
> Does that mean if Fred (rated pilot) goes flying with me and we both
> watch for traffic and he follows the GPS on a nav chart, I cannot log
> PIC because I was not 'soley' responsible for the operation of the
> aircraft?
>
>
> denny - inquiring mind, and all that

No it means that he can't.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 12, 6:11 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
> F. Baum wrote
>
> > OK Rob, here is what I got from the FAA. Ill use quotation marks where
> > my FSDO budy is talking although it is not entirely verbatim.
>
> I have C/P a letter from an FAA Chief Counsel concerning the logging of
> pilot time by more than one pilot. It is verbatim. :-)
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP ASMEL, Flight Instructor-Instrument
> PanAm (retired)
>
> October 30, l992
> Mr. David M. Reid
>
> Dear Mr. Reid:
>
> Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1992, concerning the
> logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time under the Federal Aviation
> Regulations (FAR).
>
> In your letter you ask four questions. First, you ask whether
> there are "any circumstances when, during a normal flight, two
> Private Pilots may simultaneously act as (and therefore log the
> time as) Pilot-In-Command?" The answer is two private pilots may
> not simultaneously act as PIC but they may, under certain
> circumstances, simultaneously log PIC time.
>
> There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC
> time. PIC, as defined in FAR 1.1, means the pilot responsible
> for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.
> FAR 61.51 deals with logging PIC flight time, and it provides
> that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that
> flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the
> controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the
> sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC 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. It is important to note that FAR 61.51 only
> regulates the recording of PIC time used to meet the requirements
> toward a higher certificate, higher rating, or for recent flight
> experience.
>
> Therefore, while it is not possible for two pilots to act as PIC
> simultaneously, it is possible for two pilots to log PIC flight
> time simultaneously. PIC flight time may be logged by both the
> PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft
> during flight time in accordance with FAR 1.1, and by the pilot
> who acts as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft
> for which the pilot is rated under FAR 61.51. Enclosed please
> find two prior FAA interpretations concerning logging of PIC
> time. We hope that these will be of further assistance to you.
>
> In your second question you ask "[h]ow shall two Private Pilots
> log their flight time when one pilot is under the hood for
> simulated instrument time and the other pilot acts as safety
> pilot?" The answer is the pilot who is under the hood may log
> PIC time for that flight time in which he is the sole manipulator
> of the controls of the aircraft, provided he is rated for that
> aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently
> log as second in command (SIC) that time during which he is
> acting as safety pilot.
>
> The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiating the flight
> that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the
> operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this
> is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC
> time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may
> log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the
> sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with
> FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i). Enclosed please find a prior FAA
> interpretation concerning the logging of flight time under
> simulated instrument flight conditions. We hope that this
> interpretation will be of further assistance to you.
>
> In your third question you ask "[d]uring instrument training, how
> shall a VFR Private Pilot log the following flight time: Pilot-In-
> Command time, Simulated Instrument time, and Actual Instrument
> time, when that pilot is...A)...under the hood? B)...in actual
> instrument conditions? C)...under the hood in actual instrument
> conditions?" The answer is the VFR private pilot may log all of
> the flight time you described as PIC flight time under FAR
> 61.51(c)(2)(i) if he was the sole manipulator of the controls of
> an aircraft for which he is rated. Under FAR 61.51(c)(4) the
> pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during
> which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to
> instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight
> conditions. Please note that the FARs do not distinguish between
> "actual" and "simulated" instrument flight time. Enclosed is a
> prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of instrument
> flight time. We hope this interpretation will further assist
> you.
>
> Finally you ask "[d]oes FAR 61.57 affect how the VFR Private
> Pilot shall log Pilot-In-Command time during instrument training,
> either before or after meeting the 6/6/6 requirement, and if so,
> how?" FAR 61.57 does not affect how a pilot logs PIC time during
> instrument training; FAR 61.51(c)(2) and
> (4) govern logging of instrument flight time. FAR 61.57(e)
> provides currency requirements for acting as PIC under instrument
> flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than the
> minimums for visual flight rules (VFR). Enclosed
> please find a prior FAA interpretation on instrument flight time
> and FAR 61.57(e). We hope this interpretation will further
> assist you.
>
> We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Donald P. Byrne
> Assistant Chief Counsel
> Regulations Division

Robert, thanks for the post. Something to remember is that this letter
is 15 years old and the FAA has revised the definitions of logable
flight time several times since 1992. Also, as it pertains to these
multi engine timebuilding mills, there is still a big grey area . This
is why it comes up alot during a pilots interview. I have seen it come
up at major airline interviews (I have been ask this) so it is a good
idea to be truthfull as to ones capacity during a flight. Happy
Holidays,
FB

[F. Baum]

On Dec 12, 5:48 am, Denny > wrote:
> Does that mean if Fred (rated pilot) goes flying with me and we both
> watch for traffic and he follows the GPS on a nav chart, I cannot log
> PIC because I was not 'soley' responsible for the operation of the
> aircraft?
>
Hows Fred doin ;). In this scenario the aircraft type certificate
would have to require two pilots, and then one of you would have to
log SIC. Helping with the flying chores and looking for traffic is
still a great idea.
FB

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 12, 6:54 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:11 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > F. Baum wrote
>
> > > OK Rob, here is what I got from the FAA. Ill use quotation marks where
> > > my FSDO budy is talking although it is not entirely verbatim.
>
> > I have C/P a letter from an FAA Chief Counsel concerning the logging of
> > pilot time by more than one pilot. It is verbatim. :-)
>
> > Bob Moore
> > ATP ASMEL, Flight Instructor-Instrument
> > PanAm (retired)
>
> > October 30, l992
> > Mr. David M. Reid
>
> > Dear Mr. Reid:
>
> > Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1992, concerning the
> > logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time under the Federal Aviation
> > Regulations (FAR).
>
> > In your letter you ask four questions. First, you ask whether
> > there are "any circumstances when, during a normal flight, two
> > Private Pilots may simultaneously act as (and therefore log the
> > time as) Pilot-In-Command?" The answer is two private pilots may
> > not simultaneously act as PIC but they may, under certain
> > circumstances, simultaneously log PIC time.
>
> > There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC
> > time. PIC, as defined in FAR 1.1, means the pilot responsible
> > for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.
> > FAR 61.51 deals with logging PIC flight time, and it provides
> > that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that
> > flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the
> > controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the
> > sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC 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. It is important to note that FAR 61.51 only
> > regulates the recording of PIC time used to meet the requirements
> > toward a higher certificate, higher rating, or for recent flight
> > experience.
>
> > Therefore, while it is not possible for two pilots to act as PIC
> > simultaneously, it is possible for two pilots to log PIC flight
> > time simultaneously. PIC flight time may be logged by both the
> > PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft
> > during flight time in accordance with FAR 1.1, and by the pilot
> > who acts as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft
> > for which the pilot is rated under FAR 61.51. Enclosed please
> > find two prior FAA interpretations concerning logging of PIC
> > time. We hope that these will be of further assistance to you.
>
> > In your second question you ask "[h]ow shall two Private Pilots
> > log their flight time when one pilot is under the hood for
> > simulated instrument time and the other pilot acts as safety
> > pilot?" The answer is the pilot who is under the hood may log
> > PIC time for that flight time in which he is the sole manipulator
> > of the controls of the aircraft, provided he is rated for that
> > aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently
> > log as second in command (SIC) that time during which he is
> > acting as safety pilot.
>
> > The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiating the flight
> > that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the
> > operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this
> > is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC
> > time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may
> > log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the
> > sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with
> > FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i). Enclosed please find a prior FAA
> > interpretation concerning the logging of flight time under
> > simulated instrument flight conditions. We hope that this
> > interpretation will be of further assistance to you.
>
> > In your third question you ask "[d]uring instrument training, how
> > shall a VFR Private Pilot log the following flight time: Pilot-In-
> > Command time, Simulated Instrument time, and Actual Instrument
> > time, when that pilot is...A)...under the hood? B)...in actual
> > instrument conditions? C)...under the hood in actual instrument
> > conditions?" The answer is the VFR private pilot may log all of
> > the flight time you described as PIC flight time under FAR
> > 61.51(c)(2)(i) if he was the sole manipulator of the controls of
> > an aircraft for which he is rated. Under FAR 61.51(c)(4) the
> > pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during
> > which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to
> > instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight
> > conditions. Please note that the FARs do not distinguish between
> > "actual" and "simulated" instrument flight time. Enclosed is a
> > prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of instrument
> > flight time. We hope this interpretation will further assist
> > you.
>
> > Finally you ask "[d]oes FAR 61.57 affect how the VFR Private
> > Pilot shall log Pilot-In-Command time during instrument training,
> > either before or after meeting the 6/6/6 requirement, and if so,
> > how?" FAR 61.57 does not affect how a pilot logs PIC time during
> > instrument training; FAR 61.51(c)(2) and
> > (4) govern logging of instrument flight time. FAR 61.57(e)
> > provides currency requirements for acting as PIC under instrument
> > flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than the
> > minimums for visual flight rules (VFR). Enclosed
> > please find a prior FAA interpretation on instrument flight time
> > and FAR 61.57(e). We hope this interpretation will further
> > assist you.
>
> > We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > Donald P. Byrne
> > Assistant Chief Counsel
> > Regulations Division
>
> Robert, thanks for the post. Something to remember is that this letter
> is 15 years old and the FAA has revised the definitions of logable
> flight time several times since 1992. Also, as it pertains to these
> multi engine timebuilding mills, there is still a big grey area . This
> is why it comes up alot during a pilots interview. I have seen it come
> up at major airline interviews (I have been ask this) so it is a good
> idea to be truthfull as to ones capacity during a flight. Happy
> Holidays,

I agree. If the applicant were trying to tell you that two pilots were
both serving as PIC at the same time then something is very wrong.
However, the FAA does allow for both pilots to log PIC at the same
time (you don't have to serve as PIC to log PIC per 61.51(e)).
I can only speculate as to the FDSO letter however I could easily see
that the FSDO may have decided that if one pilot were logging the PIC
time as an authorized instructor that the FSDO may have determined
that in their operation the MEIs were not really providing instruction
but just sitting back and logging PIC. If this were my operation I
would require whoever is acting as the MEI at the time to provide a
lesson plan and an evaluation afterwards to ensure the MEIs understood
that they must provide instruction.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 11, 8:04 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Dec 11, 10:53 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 6:17 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>
> > As a
> > CFII I would never hire a CFI who did not understand that both the CFI
> > and the rated student *SHOULD* be logging PIC at the same time. If you
> > do not log your rated student's flights as PIC when you fly with them
> > you are doing them a disservice and are not understanding the rules.
>
> This is not what is being disputed. Furthermore, the airlines frown on
> this practice too. I havent filled out an app in awhile but I recall
> the last ones I did fill out ask for time that I was "soley resposible
> for the operation of the aircraft" . Maybe the feds could clear things
> up a bit with verbage similar to this.

That's probably true. The airlines may ask for the time you served as
PIC, the number of times you went to the bathroom, or the number of
stewardess you've impregnated. However, 61.51(e) provides for the
"logging of PIC" and is very specific as to when you can and cannot
log PIC and it is not the same as serving as PIC. The airlines are
clearly asking for something different than the FAA is and I can
understand why.


> > My guess it that you misunderstood what the local FSDO wrote. I would
> > suggest you post it here. If it really does say what you are saying
> > I'll take it to the FAA and have them reverse it.
>
> That was a long time ago and I never had a copy of it. I doubt the FAA
> would suport the logging of PIC by anyone other than the PIC.

FAR 61.51(e) explicitly says you can.

Cheers,

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 12, 4:48 am, Denny > wrote:
> Does that mean if Fred (rated pilot) goes flying with me and we both
> watch for traffic and he follows the GPS on a nav chart, I cannot log
> PIC because I was not 'soley' responsible for the operation of the
> aircraft?

In fact if you let your 4 year old grand daughter try her hands at the
controls during a cross country flight (legal under part 91) then no
one an log PIC. Most pilots log PIC as "sole manipulator"....
61.51(e)(1)(i)
(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;

[Jackal24]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1c428362-f0b6-4f81-b0f4-
:


> In fact if you let your 4 year old grand daughter try her hands at the
> controls during a cross country flight (legal under part 91) then no
> one an log PIC.

Unless you are a CFI and are giving instruction, then you can log it.

[Brad[_1_]]

On Dec 12, 9:54 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> Robert, thanks for the post. Something to remember is that this letter
> is 15 years old and the FAA has revised the definitions of logable
> flight time several times since 1992. Also, as it pertains to these
> multi engine timebuilding mills, there is still a big grey area . This
> is why it comes up alot during a pilots interview. I have seen it come
> up at major airline interviews (I have been ask this) so it is a good
> idea to be truthfull as to ones capacity during a flight. Happy
> Holidays,
> FB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There are two seperate issues here:

1) Who is ACTING PIC?
2) Who can log PIC

Regardless of whether it's a Piper Cub or an Airbus A380, only one
person aboard the aircraft can ACT as PIC. They are the commander,
with sole responsiblity of the ship. Period.

Logging PIC is a different story. In the case of a flying under the
hood, the safety pilot must agree to ACT as PIC. By virtue of being
PIC and a required crewmember, he may also LOG PIC. Because the guy
with the hood is the sole manipulator of the controls, he may log PIC
as well. If the guy under the hood insists on ACTING as PIC, the
safety pilot may only log SIC by virtue of being a required
crewmember. I can assure you the opinion of the FAA has not changed
on this since 1992.

The shady logging scenarios included CFIs in the backseat providing
"instruction" to sole manipulator and safety pilot, while logging PIC
time as instruction given. I imaging these schemes have been shut
down by now.

[Jim Macklin]

I have given dual while in the back seat.
Pilot in the left seat was working on his CP, pilot in right seat was
getting his CFI. I logged PIC, the student in the left seat logged PIC as
sole manipulator and the CFI student in the right seat did not log it,
except for the time he was demonstrating a maneuver [sole manipulator].

In a multiengine airplane, I would allow a student to observe from the back
seat if the student pilot did not object, but in that case, the back seater
did not log pilot time, even though they learned a lot and did assist with
traffic.

There isn't any free flight time, but just watching is helpful, but isn't
"pilot time" but the FAA can and does disallow obvious fraudulent time and
can revoke your certificate and make you wait a year before you can apply
again. They will require that you only use the "honestly logged" time.


"Brad" > wrote in message
...
| On Dec 12, 9:54 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
| > Robert, thanks for the post. Something to remember is that this letter
| > is 15 years old and the FAA has revised the definitions of logable
| > flight time several times since 1992. Also, as it pertains to these
| > multi engine timebuilding mills, there is still a big grey area . This
| > is why it comes up alot during a pilots interview. I have seen it come
| > up at major airline interviews (I have been ask this) so it is a good
| > idea to be truthfull as to ones capacity during a flight. Happy
| > Holidays,
| > FB- Hide quoted text -
| >
| > - Show quoted text -
|
| There are two seperate issues here:
|
| 1) Who is ACTING PIC?
| 2) Who can log PIC
|
| Regardless of whether it's a Piper Cub or an Airbus A380, only one
| person aboard the aircraft can ACT as PIC. They are the commander,
| with sole responsiblity of the ship. Period.
|
| Logging PIC is a different story. In the case of a flying under the
| hood, the safety pilot must agree to ACT as PIC. By virtue of being
| PIC and a required crewmember, he may also LOG PIC. Because the guy
| with the hood is the sole manipulator of the controls, he may log PIC
| as well. If the guy under the hood insists on ACTING as PIC, the
| safety pilot may only log SIC by virtue of being a required
| crewmember. I can assure you the opinion of the FAA has not changed
| on this since 1992.
|
| The shady logging scenarios included CFIs in the backseat providing
| "instruction" to sole manipulator and safety pilot, while logging PIC
| time as instruction given. I imaging these schemes have been shut
| down by now.