Logging PIC time
12-07-2009, 08:53 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 320 F.O.
Posts: 1,386
Originally Posted by UCLAbruins
a lot of debate over this, some say "according to part whatever, you are allowed to log it", or "according to part whatever, you are not".
From my interviewing experience, they don't care about whether or not you are typed, whether or not you are allowed to log it or CFR part ###..... for interviewing purposes, PIC means who's name appears on the release as the PIC
regardless of what the FAR/AIM says, this question might come up during an interview "you logged it as PIC, were you the actual PIC of this flight?" that won't be easy to explain
again my experience, you do whatever you want
From my interviewing experience, they don't care about whether or not you are typed, whether or not you are allowed to log it or CFR part ###..... for interviewing purposes, PIC means who's name appears on the release as the PIC
regardless of what the FAR/AIM says, this question might come up during an interview "you logged it as PIC, were you the actual PIC of this flight?" that won't be easy to explain
again my experience, you do whatever you want
12-08-2009, 07:07 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: 737 Left
Posts: 1,825
Logging Part 135 time
The only time you can actually touch anything in the cockpit (legally) when an aircraft is being operated under Part 135 is if you are qualified under part 135. That means that the operator has ops specs that approve the seat you are flying in, they have a training program for the pilot seat you are operating, you have been through that training program and it is correctly documented, and you have been through the appropriate checkride with your POI or his/her designee. If that is not the case, you can't legally touch anything on the 135 legs, so you can't log anything on the 135 legs. We have clients that request a second pilot in aircraft that only require one pilot. When that happens, the second pilot can't log anything because, although our ops specs allow two pilots, we don't have a SIC training program, and nobody has taken an SIC checkride, so they are only there in the event the PIC decides to go Tango Uniform.
You can log the Part 91 legs if you are appropriately rated and the sole manipulator of the flight controls. We generally log these legs as PIC and dual received, and then make the appropriate entries in the pilot's training folder.
You can log the Part 91 legs if you are appropriately rated and the sole manipulator of the flight controls. We generally log these legs as PIC and dual received, and then make the appropriate entries in the pilot's training folder.
12-08-2009, 10:15 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: E-170
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by minitour
Source?
-mini
-mini
No pilot in command may allow any person to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight conducted under this part, nor may any person manipulate the controls during such flight unless that person is—
(a) A pilot employed by the certificate holder and qualified in the aircraft; or
(b) An authorized safety representative of the Administrator who has the permission of the pilot in command, is qualified in the aircraft, and is checking flight operations.
12-08-2009, 01:58 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by propjunkie
(a) A pilot employed by the certificate holder and qualified in the aircraft; or
Although...being a contract pilot, I am not "employed" by the certificate holder. Interesting choice of words in the reg.
-mini
12-09-2009, 04:56 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by AtlCSIP
If that is not the case, you can't legally touch anything on the 135 legs, so you can't log anything on the 135 legs.
But it =is= generally considered very bad form to document an FAR violation in ones logbook.
12-09-2009, 10:16 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: E-170
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by NoyGonnaDoIt
Well, technically you can since 61.51's "sole manipulator" clause doesn't care about such things.
But it =is= generally considered very bad form to document an FAR violation in ones logbook.
But it =is= generally considered very bad form to document an FAR violation in ones logbook.
12-09-2009, 10:44 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: PT Inbound
Posts: 219
135 legs = Only 135 pilots (SIC too if ops spec says yes) may log stuff (PIC and SIC as appropriate)
91 legs = Sole Manipulator w/ Proper FAA Pilot License may "LOG" PIC time (Regardless if he/she is actually the PIC listed by the 135 operator) however, no one may log SIC time (Not required = no logging)
*If during the PART 91 LEG, the pilot hands the controls to that right seat guy, he becomes the sole manipulator and therefore can log PIC time
**The pilot is NOT ALLOWED to hand the controls over on the 135 legs unless that person is... (already mentioned above)
91 legs = Sole Manipulator w/ Proper FAA Pilot License may "LOG" PIC time (Regardless if he/she is actually the PIC listed by the 135 operator) however, no one may log SIC time (Not required = no logging)
*If during the PART 91 LEG, the pilot hands the controls to that right seat guy, he becomes the sole manipulator and therefore can log PIC time
**The pilot is NOT ALLOWED to hand the controls over on the 135 legs unless that person is... (already mentioned above)
12-09-2009, 12:28 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by propjunkie
No.
If the PIC of a Part 135 flight illegally handed the controls over to a non-qualified pilot, the non qualified pilot could log the time as PIC under 61.51, since 61.51 doesn't care whether the activity is legal or not.
Just an extreme example of the difference between the logging rules of 61.51 and the operational rules in other parts of the FAR.
12-09-2009, 01:15 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Reclined
Posts: 2,168
Originally Posted by ppilot
Sure, agreed. But the Caravan does not require more than one pilot under the type certification or under part 91. So the pilot can log the time as PIC under the 'sole manipulator' part of the rule.
I'm not telling the poster to do this. Just saying that as I interpret it, that he CAN. In fact, I don't think there's any other way that he CAN log the flight time under pt 91, right?
Cloudchaser, one thing to think about...did you take a checkride? Unless you have a signed 8410 form showing proficiency and dated within the last 12 months, you can't log the 135 legs.
I'm not telling the poster to do this. Just saying that as I interpret it, that he CAN. In fact, I don't think there's any other way that he CAN log the flight time under pt 91, right?
Cloudchaser, one thing to think about...did you take a checkride? Unless you have a signed 8410 form showing proficiency and dated within the last 12 months, you can't log the 135 legs.
He can not.
If he is flying as an SIC and the operators Operations Specifications require an SIC, then he can not by definition be PIC.
There is tremendous case law available on this, and a fairly well documented enforcement action involving a King Air 200 (also certified for single pilot) but the company Ops Specs required two pilots. The FO was logging time as sole manipulator of the controls on the part 91 legs. Some six months after being employed there, a minor gound incident - not with the FO controlling - resulted in the company records being looked at including the logbooks of both pilots. The FO was violated for EACH time he signed his name to a logbook page with PIC time listed for the part 91 King Air legs. His case was appealed tot he full NTSB panel, and the FAA's suspension was upheld.
The entire case, and many others, are available on the AOPA website in their legal case studies section.
Go ahead and log it if you like; but the case law is not on your side.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
