Log PIC in right seat with full type.
08-13-2012, 04:43 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
I never quite understood the battle. Logging under 61.51 is for the FAA. There's no reason why one can't log for FAA requirements and also log for expected job requirements.
08-23-2012, 07:24 PM
#42
Snakes & Nape
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: B-767 Captain
Posts: 775
Correct Answer...and Thanks !
PIC is "Pilot in Command" i.e. who signs for the Jet! Who is ultimately in Charge.
The only time you can LOG PIC is when you are the Captain on Record.
Now if you are a Check Airman, you can LOG PIC from the right seat when you are giving IOE or a Check Ride.
Just because you are typed, does not mean you are PIC. If you are the Sole manipulator of Controls you can log the Stick Time as FP (First Pilot) but not PIC.
The only time you can LOG PIC is when you are the Captain on Record.
Now if you are a Check Airman, you can LOG PIC from the right seat when you are giving IOE or a Check Ride.
Just because you are typed, does not mean you are PIC. If you are the Sole manipulator of Controls you can log the Stick Time as FP (First Pilot) but not PIC.
I'll have another Guiness please.
G'Night Mates
08-24-2012, 06:51 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
It's asked many times because there is both a regulatory ("yes," with more than 30 years of FAA Chief Counsel opinion letters to back it up) and a bunch of non-regulatory answers (usually "no" with various non-regulatory exceptions like the one you made up) and people generally don't try to differentiate between the two.
08-24-2012, 06:59 AM
#44
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,406
I would suggest separate columns in the case of sole-man PIC.
08-24-2012, 11:12 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Makes the most sense. It also avoids two potential scenarios:
Good chance that neither scenario is all that likely to take place but they do exist.
- The low-time pilot who is offered a chance to fly the FBO's little 135 pperation but doesn't meet Part 135 requirements because he "logged for the airlines"
- The pilot who has a logbook falsification because he based PIC logging on "signing for the airplane" rather than 61.51.
Good chance that neither scenario is all that likely to take place but they do exist.
08-24-2012, 11:21 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Makes the most sense. It also avoids two potential scenarios:
- The low-time pilot who is offered a chance to fly the FBO's little 135 pperation but doesn't meet Part 135 requirements because he "logged for the airlines"
- The pilot who has a logbook falsification because he based PIC logging on "signing for the airplane" rather than 61.51.
Falsification sound like you were trying to deceive.
Since logging PIC under the pretense of "signing for the airplane" is going to give you LESS PIC time that FAR 61.51, then I would say that is playing it safe and not falsifying a logbook in the way of saying you have more time than you really do.
To keep ALL ofmy PIC time the ame - I currently log all of my flying as SIC because I am not the PIC on the release, though I would be within the regs to log all sole manipulator time as PIC. Not that I plan on going anywhere in the near to far future. but if I really needed to separate the two then I just look for the flights where I logged a landing.
In this scenario you would say that I am falsifying my logbook?
USMCFLYR
08-24-2012, 05:18 PM
#47
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,406
Falsification sounds a little...well....harsh.
Falsification sound like you were trying to deceive.
Since logging PIC under the pretense of "signing for the airplane" is going to give you LESS PIC time that FAR 61.51, then I would say that is playing it safe and not falsifying a logbook in the way of saying you have more time than you really do.
To keep ALL ofmy PIC time the ame - I currently log all of my flying as SIC because I am not the PIC on the release, though I would be within the regs to log all sole manipulator time as PIC. Not that I plan on going anywhere in the near to far future. but if I really needed to separate the two then I just look for the flights where I logged a landing.
In this scenario you would say that I am falsifying my logbook?
USMCFLYR
Falsification sound like you were trying to deceive.
Since logging PIC under the pretense of "signing for the airplane" is going to give you LESS PIC time that FAR 61.51, then I would say that is playing it safe and not falsifying a logbook in the way of saying you have more time than you really do.
To keep ALL ofmy PIC time the ame - I currently log all of my flying as SIC because I am not the PIC on the release, though I would be within the regs to log all sole manipulator time as PIC. Not that I plan on going anywhere in the near to far future. but if I really needed to separate the two then I just look for the flights where I logged a landing.
In this scenario you would say that I am falsifying my logbook?
USMCFLYR
My warnings on this subject are due to the regionals handing out ATP's to all FO's and the attendant confusion as some of them think they can now apply to majors with sole-man TPIC.
Log it any way you want, just be able to differentiate real TPIC from logged sole-man PIC obtained while serving as SIC. The majors will ask for actual TPIC and will not expect folks to mix the two.
08-24-2012, 07:15 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
This is what I said.
Maybe you misprinted my post when you meant to use another poster's quote instead?
My warnings on this subject are due to the regionals handing out ATP's to all FO's and the attendant confusion as some of them think they can now apply to majors with sole-man TPIC.
Log it any way you want, just be able to differentiate real TPIC from logged sole-man PIC obtained while serving as SIC. The majors will ask for actual TPIC and will not expect folks to mix the two.
What makes you think that PIC logged as sole-manipulator under the FARs is not the REAL PIC and the exception to the rule of an airline's preference isn't the OTHER type?
I'm more inclined to the believe that the FARs represent the REAL PIC, but airlines are allowed to impose their own flavor of what they will accept, which is fine, it is their business.
USMCFLYR
08-25-2012, 05:59 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Two pilots take an IFR trip together in a single-pilot airplane. Vera is a VFR-only pilot; Ira is instrument rated. Ira "signs for" the airplane from the FBO and is clearly the pilot in command on the trip. Ira permits Vera (who has been doing instrument training) to get some actual experience by having her take the controls and fly the first leg of the trip from takeoff to touchdown.
Under this scenario, Ira may not log PIC under the FAA's rules although he is obviously the acting pilot in command and signed for the airplane.
Ira's lack of understanding of the rules might be a defense to the "intentionally false" element of a 61.59 violation but an attitude of "I don't care what the rules say, I'm logging it anyway" would leave him wide open.
08-25-2012, 06:13 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
I said the scenario would be rare but it exists. Here's one:
Two pilots take an IFR trip together in a single-pilot airplane. Vera is a VFR-only pilot; Ira is instrument rated. Ira "signs for" the airplane from the FBO and is clearly the pilot in command on the trip. Ira permits Vera (who has been doing instrument training) to get some actual experience by having her take the controls and fly the first leg of the trip from takeoff to touchdown.
Under this scenario, Ira may not log PIC under the FAA's rules although he is obviously the acting pilot in command and signed for the airplane.
Ira's lack of understanding of the rules might be a defense to the "intentionally false" element of a 61.59 violation but an attitude of "I don't care what the rules say, I'm logging it anyway" would leave him wide open.
Two pilots take an IFR trip together in a single-pilot airplane. Vera is a VFR-only pilot; Ira is instrument rated. Ira "signs for" the airplane from the FBO and is clearly the pilot in command on the trip. Ira permits Vera (who has been doing instrument training) to get some actual experience by having her take the controls and fly the first leg of the trip from takeoff to touchdown.
Under this scenario, Ira may not log PIC under the FAA's rules although he is obviously the acting pilot in command and signed for the airplane.
Ira's lack of understanding of the rules might be a defense to the "intentionally false" element of a 61.59 violation but an attitude of "I don't care what the rules say, I'm logging it anyway" would leave him wide open.
Now to use a situation more near and dear to my heart - - ME!
In my scenario presented with being single-pilot PIC qualified in my airplane, yet not on the P135 dispatch as the PIC, I am legally entitled to log sole-manipulator time as PIC, but the airlines would not count it as such because I am not the PIC on record. I log my civilian time, just as I have always logged my military time (signed for the jet) to keep it simple, so I took your comment to mean that you would think I was falsifying my logbook if I logged my current time as SIC.
USMCFLYR
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
