Logging time in a P51D?

Anybody care to take a shot at this question?

I took a ride in a P51D recently. After we left the pattern the
owner, in the front seat, let me (in the back seat) take over the
stick for the next hour. Then in the pattern he took over and landed.
I was the only one who touched the controls for an hour. I have a
PPL with plenty of time in tail draggers (170's, 180's, Tcraft,
supercub, etc) and in complex, high perf, and RG planes (182's,
Vikings, etc). I am current in SEL planes but I haven't flown a
taildragger in some time (20 yrs) and of course everything else is
current; medical, BFR, etc. Can I log the hour towards total time or
should I just log it for the memory?

M. Grinnin

You may log the time you were controlling the aircraft as pilot time. You
may log it as PIC time if the P-51 does not require a type rating.
§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
(c) Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be
used to:

(1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part; or

(2) Satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A 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;

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
You may log the time you were controlling the aircraft as pilot time. You
may log it as PIC time if the P-51 does not require a type rating.
§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
(c) Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be
used to:

(1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part; or

(2) Satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A 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;


I was under the impression that the FAA had determined that each of the WWII
fighters required a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to be flown by a civilian
pilot. Because of this LOA requirement, which is a practical equivalent to
a type rating, even a military pilot of that particular aircraft model could
not log PIC time as a civilian, unless he had the LOA.

Maybe I'm wrong.

--
Scott

"tscottme" wrote in message I was under the impression that the FAA had
determined that each of the WWII
fighters required a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to be flown by a
civilian
pilot. Because of this LOA requirement, which is a practical equivalent
to
a type rating, even a military pilot of that particular aircraft model
could
not log PIC time as a civilian, unless he had the LOA.

You are correct for warbirds having 1000 horsepower or more. Does the
requirement for an LOA count as a rating as concerns this particular
question? I could research it, but soon the LOA will be gone and in it's
place will be type-ratings. In the near future, P-51 will be a type-rating.

D.

I was under the impression that the FAA had determined that each of the WWII
fighters required a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to be flown by a civilian
pilot. Because of this LOA requirement, which is a practical equivalent to
a type rating, even a military pilot of that particular aircraft model could
not log PIC time as a civilian, unless he had the LOA.

But you don't need to be qualified to be PIC to log PIC, only "rated".
A "rating" is something printed on your certificate. Just like
endorsements are not required, I would think LOA's would not be.

-Robert

"tscottme" wrote
I was under the impression that the FAA had determined that each of the WWII
fighters required a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to be flown by a civilian
pilot. Because of this LOA requirement, which is a practical equivalent to
a type rating, even a military pilot of that particular aircraft model could
not log PIC time as a civilian, unless he had the LOA.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not sure all the WWII fighters require it (I seem to recall that
some of the earlier ones don't) but that's beside the point.

The LOA is indeed a practical equivalent to a type rating, in the
sense that no pilot can act as PIC in an aircraft that requires one
unless he has it. However, the LOA is not a type rating. If it were
a type rating, it would be called a type rating. There are actually
some differences, including the fact that while a type rating always
requires a checkride, the LOA can be issued without one. For example,
a military pilot who showed that he flew that particular model in the
service would almost certainly be issued an LOA on that basis.

Therefore, one can log PIC time without an LOA, in the same way that
one can log PIC time in a taildragger without having a tailwheel
endorsement. One simply can't act as PIC.

Truly I wish the FAA would fix this and make acting as PIC and logging
PIC the same.

Michael

Truly I wish the FAA would fix this and make acting as PIC and logging
PIC the same.


I wish they would fix is by changing the words. What you log and what you are
are supposed to be different. That they are given the same name is the error.

Jose


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

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

Truly I wish the FAA would fix this and make acting as PIC and logging
PIC the same.


I wish they would fix is by changing the words. What you log and what you
are
are supposed to be different. That they are given the same name is the
error.

Absolutely. And they compound the confusion by not even interpreting the
regs as written.

The FARs' distinction between "instrument meteorological conditions", on the
one hand, and "instrument conditions" or "instrument flight conditions", on
the other, is another example of abysmally confusing terminology.

--Gary

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
Truly I wish the FAA would fix this and make acting as PIC and logging
PIC the same.

Or change the names to not use "PIC" for both.

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
Therefore, one can log PIC time without an LOA, in the same way that
one can log PIC time in a taildragger without having a tailwheel
endorsement. One simply can't act as PIC.

If the other guy is an insructor then I guess you could log it as
Pu/t (pilot under training) or whatever it's called in the US.
That would be quite cool. A "lesson" in a P51!

Paul