NoyGonnaDoIt

Of course, "rated" means something very different that "qualified" but to the extent you just mean qualified (the pilot does need to be rated to log PIC)...
==============================
Section 61.51 is a flight-time logging regulation, under which PIC time may be logged by one who is not actually the pilot in command (i.e., not "ultimately" responsible for the aircraft) during that time. This is consistent with the purpose of Section 61.51, which as stated in 61.51(a) is to record aeronautical training and experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent flight experience requirements of Section 61.
==============================
FAA Chief Counsel said that almost 30 years ago.

Some might not like the explanation, but it's really pretty simple. The FAA issues certificates and ratings so the FAA gets to decide what kind of time counts toward them and pilot currency.

Based on a number of years seeing this issue discussed, I've come to the conclusion that its a pure semantic argument - that not that many folks would be all bent out of shape if 61.51 said:
==============================
61.51(e) Logging certificate-rating-counted flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log certificate-rating-counted flight time for flights-

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
==============================

and then, for example, 61.129(a) said

==============================
§ 61.129 Aeronautical experience.

(a) For an airplane single-engine rating. Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, a person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating must log at least 250 hours of flight time as a pilot that consists of at least:

(1) 100 hours in powered aircraft, of which 50 hours must be in airplanes.

(2) 100 hours of certificate-rating-counted flight time, which includes at least—
==============================

The real argument seems to come down to, "but I don't like it that the FAA decided to call it pilot-in-command flight time instead of something else."

aviatorhi

Folks, let's read the reg again, we're all focusing on proving the Co-Pilot logging PIC is in the wrong... let's see how the captain could log PIC in this case if he is letting the non-type rated Co-Pilot hand fly the plane...

(i) The Captain is not the sole manipulator if the sole manipulator is the co-pilot.

(ii) Negative

(iii) The aircraft I mentioned do not require more than one pilot under the type certificate or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

Now, an ATP may log all the time for an operation that requires an ATP, but flying a 1900 under Part 91 or a CE525 does not require an ATP.

So I guess nobody is logging PIC?

The person in the most appropriate position to log the PIC time is in fact the non-rated Co-Pilot.

This is why there is a difference between Captain and Copilot... not everything is interchangeable.

FlyerJosh

Because the aircraft that you are flying do not require more than one crew member, then the person who is the rated pilot is the only one that is permitted to log flight time.

If the non-rated co-pilot does not have a CE525 rating or 1900(s) rating, he's not qualified to act as PIC and cannot log such time. Furthermore, if the PIC is not a rated instructor in such aircraft (CFI-ME), the person sitting in the right seat is not legally permitted to be "sole manipulator" since they are neither rated nor required to do so. (SIC is not required for single pilot ops).

aviatorhi

Show me the reg or other guidance from the FAA supporting that... it's definitely not in the reg that deals with the logging of time, which is what I think the question dealt with.

Furthermore, under part 91 you are allowed to let anyone you want actually manipulate the controls, Part 121 (.545) and 135 (.115) there are regs which specify who may and may not manipulate the controls, no such reg for part 91 flying.

Using your statement the time that a person spends receiving instruction in a high performance airplane within a category and class for which they are rated would not be logged as PIC, when the contrary is true.

Furthermore, let's look at type ratings themselves (61.31)...

Notice it specifically says "...ACTS as a pilot in command...", no mention is made of a type being required to log time. As we all should know "acting as" and "logging of" PIC are two dramatically different things. The non rated pilot may in fact log the PIC, however, this is not "Captain" time, which is what most employers are actually looking for when they incorrectly state "PIC".

If you read the section dealing with Type Ratings you will also see that there are specific circumstances outlined where a non PIC rated pilot may in fact act as and log and be etc. etc. PIC/Captain of an aircraft requiring a type rating.

NoyGonnaDoIt

You're quoting from an old version of the reg, although the substance hasn't changed.

I think that the thread has creeped enough that it's hard to tell if your analysis is correct.

If you're saying that when neither the aircraft nor the flight operation requires two pilots, then, on a technical reading of the regs and published official interpretations, the captain would not be permitted to log the time as PIC.

But that doesn't make it a foregone conclusion that a mere SIC rating therefore must count as a rating for 61.51(e)(1)(i) purposes. Aside from the "is it a real rating?" issue generally, the SIC rating is only relevant (if at all in the US) with respect to operations that require a SIC - the types of operations that would authorize the PIC to log PIC under 61.51(e)(1)(iii).

(I put "published" in italics due to an unpublished FAA Chief Counsel opinion that essentially says that an additional basis for logging PIC is when you acting as PIC on a flight on which there are no other rated pilots. In other words, you can log PIC when you allow your 10 year old nephew to fly the airplane)

NoyGonnaDoIt

I think you're losing me.

==============================
61.51(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
==============================

What part of that allows a pilot who is not rated to log PIC time?

aviatorhi

The FAA (ie. the people who get to decide what those regs mean), is of the opinion that "rated in the aircraft" is referring to category and class, not type, type is required to "act" not "log".

And yes, this is a technicality, but the fact remains that the reg, and official interpretation do allow for the logging of PIC time while not being rated in type.

NoyGonnaDoIt

You need to read your references again. If a type rating is required for the aircraft, the regs and the the people who get to decide what those regs mean both say that you need to be rated in type.

===============
Rating" as used in that section (61.51) refers to the rating in categories, classes, and types, as listed in Section 61.5, which are placed on pilot certificates. (my emphasis)
===============
That's from an October, 1980 Chief Counsel opinion letter.

Don't like old stuff? How about May, 2009?

===============
The term "rated," as used in section 61.51 (e), refers to the pilot holding the
appropriate aircraft ratings (category, class, and type, if a type rating is required), and these ratings are listed in 14 C.F.R. § 61.5 and are placed on the pilot certificate (my emphasis)
===============
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...009/Herman.pdf

Pretty consistent huh?

Are you perhaps confusing a type rating with an endorsement (which is not required to log PIC)?

aviatorhi

The last time I had this discussion was May 2007 so considering the letter from the office of Chief Counsel dated May 21, 2009 I had to review the subject again, now, if we take into consideration 61.5(b)(7) it lists all "type ratings" specifically listing an SIC type as an "aircraft type rating", which would mean (according to the regs) that the SIC type fulfills the requirements for the logging of PIC time, but not acting as PIC. The regs do specifically state when a rating is required for acting as PIC, but they specifically do not express that one must fulfill the ability to "act as" PIC prior to "logging" PIC. Hence I revise my opinion, to the effect that only a person holding a PIC or SIC type in the aircraft may log the PIC time under the current regs.

NoyGonnaDoIt

That's a pretty good analysis since 61.5(b)(7) does show the SIC rating as a type rating. But the question still remains whether the Chief Counsel will agree if asked since the rating has limitations "traditional" ratings don't.

btw, if you look back on the discussion, you'll see I have no opinion on whether the SIC rating is sufficient. That's because I've picked up along the way that many of the opinions, especially in the area of what counts toward certificates and ratings, and especially recently, are policy-driven, with the legal analysis justifying the desired result.

If the Chief Counsel is asked and, in consultation with Flight Standards decides, for example, that SIC-typed sole manipulator time should not count as PIC time toward the ATP, the opinion will be that it doesn't count as a "rating" for 61.51 purposes. OTOH, if they decide that it should count, the opinion letter will sound something like your analysis.

My guess about the FAA would do varies every time I think about it (I bounce back and forth between "it's not a real rating, just paperwork" and "it's at least and probably more valuable piloting experience than being allowed to log flying your uncle's Meridian when you've never soloed in anything more complex than a 152"), so I don't bother guessing anymore.

But I still think you probably made a mistake if you thought a rating of some kind wasn't required by 61.51(e)(1)(i) in your 2007 discussion. The 2009 opinion letter says the same thing as the 1980 one and afaik, there has never been an FAA opinion stating otherwise.