250 or point 65

You might be right. I'll have to dig, but I thought I had an AC or interpretation that mentioned this specifically from my CFI days.

wrxpilot

Amazing. I spell it out with FARs and everything, and still people don't understand it.

wmuflyboy

i understand it and thats all that matters. thanks!

ryan1234

interview:

Well... we at xyz airlines/charters have been reviewing your logbook... we see you have 10hrs PIC in a BE20 with 10hrs in a BE20 total time....hmm...

"Well, that's the difference towards acting and logging PIC...etc..."

Oh ok, so is that the same way with your other PIC time, was it all safety pilot time? Back to the BE20? Did you sit left or right seat? Were you on the insurance? I forget, did the BE20 have the TPE331s or the PT6A... was that the -42 or -60s? What can you tell me about the mass flow of the -42, is that a three or two stage axial followed by a one or two stage centrifugal or what? Let's talk about the hydraulic system for a few minutes.......


- yes, you are right there is a difference between acting and logging... just be prepared to answer PIC questions if you log PIC time.

250 or point 65

sorry ryan, that doesn't work here. Receiving dual is a perfectly acceptable way to log your time.

What did YOU do during your instrument training? Or during your commercial training? You certainly were not PIC, but you should have logged every bit of it. No airline is going to shun you for logging something correctly, even safety pilot time. That is legitimate PIC per the regs. Now, they may not prefer a 1000 hr safety pilot, but they certainly cannot tell you that you did it wrong because the regs dictate how it should be logged.

And we've got it. If you log PIC, you should have an idea about the plane. I think that exactly what the OP is trying to accomplish, a legitimate learning experience.

ryan1234

Receiving Dual is a perfectly acceptable way to log time, without PIC. There are very many people out there going into interviews in the corporate world and other places that have bogus time (excessive amounts of 'safety pilot' time, etc). Most interviewers can smell BS, and regardless of how a person may justify their time, they'll never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Since you asked what I did during my instrument training I'll tell you: I did what was necessary for the rating, both parties logged PIC time for each flight - however one logged for more than the other one logged per flight. For my commercial, I often traded legs if I flew with another person. For tailwheel/hp/ha I didn't log PIC before the endorsement. I understand your arguments, but they are the same arguments for logging backseat CFI time. Backseat CFI time is BS, plain and simple, regardless of what you can legally do/log.


If in an interview, someone confessed that their "dual given" time was actually from the backseat - I'm not sure how that would look. By the same token, having "dual received" in a BE20 without PIC time, until you honestly feel proficient enough to be PIC, may go a longer way at an interview and save you some headache later on.

250 or point 65

Hold on. There is no comparison between logging dual received PIC and logging backseat dual given.

If I were interviewing someone who logged dual received but not PIC in an aircraft in which they had privileges, I would be very skeptical that they had any understanding of the regs. This is a perfectly legal, culturally acceptable, CORRECT way to log time. Dual received PIC is not trying to hide anything, it's exactly what it says it is. It is not bogus time at all. It is expected.

So you're saying that during your instrument rating, your CFI did not log every second of every flight as PIC? If this is correct, he needs to take a serious look at the regs.

My arguments are not at all the same as logging backseat time. My argument are firmly based in the FARs, not trying to stretch the FARs to include anytime you walk near an airplane.

ryan1234

Ok... so you're saying that someone who sits right seat, cold turkey in a BE20 without endorsements, is the sole manipulator of the controls the whole time (necessary to log respective PIC time right?) who isn't on the insurance, doesn't work for the company, with an aircraft that is probably not insured with flight instruction intended? Even "dual received" is stretching it unless the whole flight is for the purpose of flight instruction (i.e. the flight will go on regardless of the who needs to be taken somewhere).

250 or point 65

No, thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm talking about FAR. Its 61.51. Could you explain to me where it says in any regulation that a pilot must be sole manipulator (airline captains couldn't log PIC), on the insurance, work for that company, and have the intention for flight instruction to log PIC?

We live in a culture that looks to regulation for guidance. Your definition has no base in regulation. When logging PIC, it does not matter who's older, who's wearing 3 stripes or 1, who signs for the airplane, who has more hours, and in a multi-pilot environment, who is sole manipulator (cause this can't exist).

All that matters is 61.51, period.

The OP was not trying to hide anything from anyone, he was trying to be an active crewmember and log his time as such. I don't think he mentioned anything about just sitting there and logging time.

ryan1234

I can explain to you that in order to log PIC under dual instruction as received, the student would need to be the sole manipulator of the controls - In order to have PIC time, the student would need to meet at least 1 of 3 criteria -61.51e (1) - in this case it would be "sole manipulator" (i) since the other two do not apply (sole occupant - and two pilots required for type/regulation).

An airline captian (ATP) would log PIC under 61.51e (2) - which is totally seperate and does not pertain to this.

Therefore if you are logging PIC under 61.51e (1)(i) you could only log that time which you were the "sole manipulator" of the aircraft.

I can agree with you that it is legal to log PIC time in a BE20 under this part. Will that count for all of the time....probably not. Now having said that, dual received has to be actual flight instruction. If the condition doesn't exist for this to be real, legitimate flight instruction (as defined by no other influence on the motive of the flight, ie like I said previously), the condition can't exist to log PIC time at all, because if it were not for flight instruction the student would need to be ACTing PIC as well.

It does matter who is the sole manipulator see above - I'm not sure why you said "this can't exist"?

I never said the OP was hiding anything - I understand the circumstances and think that is a great opportunity - but just to tread carefully.... because sooner or later it may come back to bite.