Currency with Passenger

Jon on Jan 27, 2011

FAR 61.57 (in part): …no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days…
The key phrase is ‘act as pilot in command’ – your friend would have to act as PIC while you accomplished your takeoffs and landings. Remember not to confuse this with logging PIC, which you would presumably do as the sole manipulator of the controls.

+2 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

John A Lindholm on Jan 27, 2011

No, you cannot act as PIC until you have completed your three “currency” takeoffs and landings. Your pilot passenger (who is acting as PIC and must have control access) then becomes just a passenger and you become the “acting” PIC and “flying/logging” PIC. The other pilot need not be a CFI and no endorsement is required, although you should note in your log record the “currency” intent of your flight.
You do not have to be current to begin the flight as long as your friend is “acting PIC” current.
I’ve done this many times in the last several years to maintain tail-wheel currency when flying with friends in their Cubs.

+4 Votes Thumb up 4 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

Kent Shook on Jan 27, 2011

John,

I found your answer a bit confusing (though it is correct).

Travis,

This is a legal operation, provided your friend is the pilot in command (make sure you discuss this prior to the flight and he’s OK with it, and that all insurance issues and such are taken care of). Your friend, being current, can act as pilot in command, while you can log your three takeoffs and landings as PIC in accordance with FAR 61.51(e)(1)(i) as sole manipulator of the controls, after which you will once again be current.

Note once again the important distinction between logging PIC time and acting as the pilot in command. They are two different things. FAR 61.51 deals with the logging of time, while 61.57 and many others deal with acting as pilot in command. There are scenarios where anywhere from zero to three people may be logging pilot in command time simultaneously on a flight, while there is ALWAYS one, and only one, acting pilot in command. In this example, your friend would be the acting pilot in command but would log nothing, while you will not be the pilot in command but you can log PIC.

I would disagree with the necessity of logging the intent of the flight as currency, though it may be helpful to note that your friend was the pilot in command so that someone who sees that you have logged time non-solo when you weren’t current will know that it was a legal operation.

+1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

Travis on Jan 27, 2011

So as long as he has access to the controls he can be acting PIC but since i am the sole manipulator of the controls i can long pic the entire time? then after i have completed my 3 take off and landings i become acting PIC? and in the log book i should put something like “passenger currency”?
Thanks for the advice guys
Travis

+1 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes

Travis on Jan 27, 2011

Kent,
Your post wasn’t up before i posted that i think i have everything figured out and your post confirmed it. I will make sure to talk to my fired before we go up and as the insurance goes it will be a rental. so with the in mind he is certified in the same type aircraft a DA-40 but has not taken a checkout with the rental would we be covered with the insurance in this predicament?

0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

Kent Shook on Jan 27, 2011

Travis,

In a rental situation I would be surprised if the FBO will allow you to rent the airplane without one of their CFI’s when you’re not current. In addition, if your friend has not been checked out in the airplane at that FBO, he is almost certainly not going to be covered by the insurance, thus if he agrees to act as pilot in command and something happens (bad landing, something breaks or worse yet, mechanical failure leading to loss of the airplane), your friend will probably be on the hook for the entire cost of the repair. Friends don’t do this to friends!

So, I would suggest that you either just take a CFI up for your currency flight, or have your friend get checked out in the DA40 at that FBO – Preferably option #1 as there may be additional FBO or insurance rules regarding who is allowed to act as PIC from the right seat. (For example, my club’s insurance policy requires a specific right seat checkout prior to covering a non-CFI acting as PIC from the right seat.)

+1 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes

Travis on Jan 27, 2011

So you are saying that just because i am not current to carry passengers i can’t go up by myself in a rental to get my three take off and landings.

0 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 28, 2011

Don’t carry a passenger if your not current. Only a CFI on an instruction flight is a non-passenger. Anyone else is a passenger.

-3 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 5 Votes

John A Lindholm on Jan 28, 2011

[So you are saying that just because i am not current to carry passengers i can’t go up by myself in a rental to get my three take off and landings.]
TRAVIS…. of course you can FAA legal, although the people you are renting the aircraft from might not allow it. As you further describe the situation, you easily fall into the area of “what you are allowed to do versus what is FAA legal” as other issues kick in…. such as rental conditions, insurance requirements, flight school policies, etc. Simply, you can get “current” as a flying PIC while you have a passenger along who is legal and willing to be an “acting PIC” pilot. All other conditions are irrelevant to the FAA.
***********************************

[Don’t carry a passenger if your not current. Only a CFI on an instruction flight is a non-passenger. Anyone else is a passenger.]
With all due respect, SKYBOY-CFI, you need a better understanding of the FAA regs. The “acting PIC” so-called passenger referred to above is 100% FAA legal while the other pilot is getting 90 day current as a “flying PIC.” Yes, there might be a risk relating to insurance coverage or rental policies, but that has nothing to do with the flight being legal in the FAA eyes.

******************************************

[I would disagree with the necessity of logging the intent of the flight as currency, though it may be helpful to note that your friend was the pilot in command so that someone who sees that you have logged time non-solo when you weren’t current will know that it was a legal operation.]

KENT… it was just a suggestion, not a necessity. I know of pilots who have had their logbooks/records scrutinized years after a flight and sometime details will help you…. sometimes hurt you. If you record the flight as non-solo, a note describing how it was legal would be advisable, in my opinion.

+2 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 28, 2011

Ok ok ok, boys. Let’s clear our minds of the gibberish above and start over.

The question was:

“if I’m not current to carry passengers, but my passenger is current, can I ‘act’ as pic or would he have to ‘act’ as pic. Bla Bla Bla. ”

The key here is the term ‘acting’ pic. We’ve all agreed in other posts that there are only two terms when it comes to pic. ‘acting’ and manipulator of controls.

This very subject covers my longtime feeling that, forget the question for a moment, if two qualified pilots go fly together to time build and cost share, if one flies and one is ‘acting’ pic then both could log the time. I have always said yes. But experts have argued the answer is no. That only a single pilot can log the flight time unless the other pilot is required. And then it has to be one log pic one log sic.

But according to some of your guy’s thoughts, a person needing to do their currency can carry a qualified pilot and if he just says, I’ll be ‘acting’ pic, you fly, we both log pic, you get your currency, needs to be thought out a bit more. If you can do this, the currency aside, two friends can share time.

It’s a very fine line. The key is that nobody really officially cares. It’s never checked to see if any pic time was done improperly.

Single pilot A/C is clear. Single pic. Any other person on board is a passenger unless they are a required crewmember. Keep it simple stupid.

But I can agree, if Joe blow who is current says to Jane blue, come flying with me, I’ll be pic but I’ll let you do three landings, according to the rules, Jane can log time manipulating controls, but Joe cannot.

It’s AMBUGIOUS!!

Read the rule, then re-read the rule: (edited out non- relevant pieces)

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.

no person may ‘act’ as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers ,, unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days, and—

(i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;;

(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a person may ‘act’ as a pilot in command of an aircraft provided no persons or property are carried on board the aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight. [end reg]

So would the qualified pilot be necessary to the flight. No! Since the pilot ‘could go by himself, another pilot cannot be necessary!! Therefore the rules say ‘no’ to the question presented. The key here again is, the pilot ‘can’ go alone, so another pilot is not necessary.

So there :-p

-3 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 5 Votes

Kent Shook on Jan 28, 2011

Skyboy,

This really isn’t ambiguous. First of all, I’m going to re-emphasize for clarity’s sake that the original question has been answered: It’s legal for Travis and his friend to go up together provided his friend acts as PIC, and Travis can log his three takeoffs and landings as PIC (sole manipulator of the controls) while his friend cannot log anything. That’s the FAA’s take, FBO and/or insurance rules may preclude this from being okay with the owner of the aircraft in Travis’ particular situation.

Now, onto your latest post. You state that:
“if two qualified pilots go fly together to time build and cost share, if one flies and one is ‘acting’ pic then both could log the time. I have always said yes. But experts have argued the answer is no. That only a single pilot can log the flight time unless the other pilot is required.”

Has it ever occurred to you that the “experts” might be right? I challenge you to show me a FAR that allows someone to log PIC solely because they act as PIC – There are only two ways to do that, one requires an ATP certificate in a situation where the ATP certificate is required (not what we’re talking about here), and the other one which does apply here requires the acting PIC to be part of a two-crew-required operation. Straight from FAR 61.51(e)(1)(iii):

“(1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights- (iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted”

There is no ambiguity here. Two pilots going up together in a 172 without one of them being under the hood is in no way a two-crew-required situation.

Next, you say that the “experts” say “And then it has to be one log pic one log sic.” In a scenario where two pilots are required, depending on who is the acting PIC (Pilot Flying or Safety Pilot) it may be one logging PIC and one logging SIC, or it may be both logging PIC – See the 8th answer to this question for more detail: http://www.askacfi.com/3448/simulated-ifr-training.htm

In the situation we’re discussing on this question, nobody is under the hood – Thus, only one pilot is required. The operation is legal, but only one pilot (the pilot flying) can log the time. You say
“But according to some of your guy’s thoughts, a person needing to do their currency can carry a qualified pilot and if he just says, I’ll be ‘acting’ pic, you fly, we both log pic, you get your currency, needs to be thought out a bit more. If you can do this, the currency aside, two friends can share time.”

Everything is correct until you say “we both log PIC.” That is not what we’re saying – That can only apply in a two-crew-required situation. In the currency situation we’re discussing here, only one person can log time at all, and that is the pilot flying, by virtue of 61.51(e)(1)(i). The other pilot, who is acting as pilot in command, cannot log any time at all.

“Single pilot A/C is clear. Single pic. Any other person on board is a passenger unless they are a required crewmember. Keep it simple stupid.”

Like I mentioned over on the simulated instrument question, there is always one and only one Pilot In Command, regardless of the type of operation or aircraft involved. In the scenario presented here, that person is Travis’ friend (Travis cannot be the acting PIC due to 61.57(a)(1)), and Travis is the passenger. But, Travis is the one who can log the time, since he is sole manipulator of the controls.

Finally, your assertion that “The key is that nobody really officially cares. It’s never checked to see if any pic time was done improperly” is particularly troubling to me. Yes, there are people who care – If you’re trying to get an airline job in the future, they’re going to go through your logbook with a fine-toothed comb. If you have an incident, the insurance company is going to look at your logbook, and they are just itching to deny coverage if they find any irregularities. Next time you go for a checkride, the examiner/inspector is going to be looking at your logbook. I have read enforcement actions against people who have improperly logged PIC. Finally, the fact that you even imply that it only matters if you get caught is extremely unprofessional. Does that mean that since ramp checks are very rare for part 91 aircraft that it’s OK to just go flying without a certificate at all? Please, learn the FAR’s and teach them correctly, and don’t even imply that it’s OK to break them if you won’t get caught.

+2 Votes Thumb up 3 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 28, 2011

Kent,
I disagree with most everything you say above. And apparently I touched a point sensitive to your heart. But in all you stated, you left out the part of the regulation that states:
61.57(a)(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a person may ‘act’ as a pilot in command of an aircraft provided no persons or property are carried on board the aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight.
I stand firm in believing and teaching that a pilot is not a required crewmember, just because he is qualified, if he is not “necessary” for the flight. He cannot log any time. And in this questions scenario, he should not be onboard the aircraft. If you can merely call someone that is qualified, the ‘acting’ PIC, then there are so many other regulations you can bypass by this method. It’s wrong to carry persons, property on a currency flight if you are not current. The words are in black and white; maybe you’re colorblind.
Airlines want to know your ‘acting’ and flying PIC time more than flying PIC time alone. That is what is most important to them. It’s a measurement of the time you took full responsibility for your flights. The ‘acting’ PIC is the highest level of piloting, because it carries the most responsibility. And logging all that time is a right and a privilege. An ‘acting’ PIC is the ultimately authority, the boss, the king! And he/she always logs the flight time as PIC while he is ‘acting’ PIC, even if he never touches a single control. The manipulator of the controls (MOC) PIC is secondary to the ‘acting’ PIC. These are the only two classifications when it comes to the term PIC. A MOC PIC cannot always log the flight time. I have many hours ‘flying’ an aircraft that I was qualified in, but I cannot log a single minute, because I was not ‘necessary’ or ‘required’.
Additionally, your comments on violations for logbook entries are a farce. The rules in the FAR’s on how to log what, is clear (Ref. Far 61.51 & 61.59). First off, you do not ever have to log anything. Second you can log what ever you want. If you fart and it last .1 hours while at 10,000 ft, log it. What is wrong, and can result in a violation, is if you ‘use’ non-legal flight time towards qualifications that requires specific time. Much like a cross-country. After you receive your license, all flights to another airport are cross-country time, even if it’s 2 miles away. But you can’t use the CC time towards a rating unless it meets the distance requirements.
Travis can legally fly on his own to get his currency if he meets all the other requirements (i.e. BFR, Cat. Class, etc.). Any other person on board a single pilot aircraft other than a CFI is a passenger. You can’t call him something else to make an exception to the rules. It’s not wise to risk. It is advisable, because it ‘IS’ ambiguous (like most all the regulations), that it be done in the most doubtless manner. And that would be to do his 15-20 minutes, SOLO!!!! Advising a pilot any other way is not the best advise.
I know of nobody that suffered a review of a logbook that went so far as to validate all PIC time so deep as to finding out and classify any possible occupants of a flight just to be sure a person was not carrying unnecessary persons on a currency flight. So that is why I was trying to say, our disagreement is pointless. Do what you feel is right and nothing is ever likely to come of it. I was not advising anyone to break any rules. Your assumption of that is quite off. But I still love ya. 😉

-2 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 3 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 28, 2011

Oh, Kent, One more thing.
Regarding your comment; “Finally, the fact that you even imply that it only matters if you get caught is extremely unprofessional.”
Do not put words in my mouth. That is NOT what I said. :-p

-2 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 3 Votes

Wesley Beard on Jan 28, 2011

SkyBoyCFI, I find your comments regarding this basic tenant of aviation astounding and completely wrong. Before I continue, I will let you have the last say in the matter but want to provide some interesting articles and my point of view.

On any given flight, there is one and only one acting pilot in command. That pilot is directly responsible for and has the final say in the flight. Reference 91.3. There is no argument here. The regulation covering logging PIC time is 61.51(e). The point of contention is 61.51(e)(1)(iii) which states the acting pilot in command is required under the type certification or regulations. Kent and I agree that the type certification for single pilot airplanes states single pilot and the regulations only allow dual PIC to be logged for hood time and training time (Part 91 rules only). If you can show a regulation that supports your position I would love to hear about it.

You stated above that a pilot who is qualified cannot log PIC time if they were not required is incorrect. The Herman document clarifies that point. As long as you are appropriately rated, you can log PIC time when you are the sole manipulator of the contols. Period. It seems you could legally have more hours than you currently do.

The Herman interpretation you referenced in previous posts asked the question whether a pilot without the specific endorsement can log PIC time. The interpretation stated that pilot could log PIC time but could not act as pilot in command. We both agree that the first pilot (without endorsement) is not required and the second pilot (acting as pilot in command) is required. We differ on the interpretation of the regulations. The first pilot (without endorsement) can log PIC time as the sole manipulator but because the operation does not require two pilots the second pilot (acting as pilot in command) cannot log PIC time under 61.51(1)(e)(iii).

61.51(e)(2) states an ATP pilot can log PIC time for that time they were acting as pilot in command in operations requiring an ATP certificate. As far as I know, that only deals with Part 121 and 135 operations.

61.51(e)(3) states a CFI can log PIC time for the flights where they were the authorized instructor and rated to act as pilot in command.

You make a good argument for the type of time airlines require and that is acting as pilot in command time and not the 61.51 PIC time. You are more than welcome to record that time but it doesn’t comply with 61.51. I have a separate column in my logbook called “Captain” where I log those flights where I was the acting pilot in command.

There are certain (3) things that MUST be logged in your logbook. (1) Evidence of compliance with a flight review to include flight and ground time. The endorsement in the back by the instructor is also required (2) Recency of Flight Experience is required to be logged so the pilot can carry passengers and (3) any other time you wish to use for another certificate or rating. Thus your assertion that nothing is required to be logged is incorrect.

I want to share an administrative law judges ruling that will see this play out in action. Federal Aviation Administration vs. Crow and Pearson. The story goes that both pilots logged identical PIC time for over 200 flights and then had an accident. They later tried to cover their flights with hood time and instructor present to cover them under 61.51. The ALJ confirmed the FAA’s decision to revoke (meaning no longer certificated pilots) all of their FAA certificates. That is a harsh consequence for not following the regulations. There are ten other 61.51 violations on the NTSB Case Decisions Database website. Read the decisions and come to your own conclusion.

With that said, I urge you to call your local FSDO and get their interpretation to the Herman letter. I don’t plan on changing your opinion but to help shape others that may come across this thread with this question.

+4 Votes Thumb up 4 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

Kent Shook on Jan 29, 2011

Skyboy,

I find that we are in violent agreement on some things:

1) A pilot is not “necessary” solely by virtue of being rated; (I’m going to use “rated” as opposed to “qualified” because “qualified” can imply many things)
2) A pilot cannot log any time solely by virtue of being rated;
3) It is wrong to carry persons or property on a currency flight if you are not current;
4) Travis could regain his currency by soloing, his friend is unnecessary;
5) It’s not wise to risk – Mainly on the part of Travis’ friend, as his friend is on the hook if anything goes wrong by virtue of being the acting PIC (91.3).

Here is where we disagree:

A) WRT 61.57(a)(2), you’re confusing the scenario: The non-current pilot is NOT the acting PIC – The friend is. Thus, 61.57(a)(2) does not apply, because the acting pilot in command is not “meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1).” Calling them the “acting” PIC is not what I call them, it’s what the FAA calls the person who is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft.

B) In the scenario presented, the pilot in command (Travis’ friend) is current. The other pilot (Travis) is a passenger. However, he’s a rated passenger who is manipulating the controls and thus can log the landings to regain his currency.

C) An acting PIC does NOT “always log the flight time as PIC while he is acting PIC.” There is no such regulation. There are two regulations that allow the logging of PIC time by virtue of acting as PIC, one of which is the ATP rule (61.51(e)(2)) and one of which is the two-pilots-required rule (61.51(e)(1)(iii)).

D) A “MOC PIC” *can* always log time in aircraft for which they are rated (category, class, and type if applicable). 61.51(e)(1)(i). It’s right there in black and white. Now, someone who’s a PP-ASEL, for example, can’t log MOC time in a multi-engine airplane, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. And if you were flying an aircraft you were qualified in (again, rated in category, class, and type if applicable) you can log all that time regardless of whether you were necessary or required – But the other pilot cannot, unless another part of 61.51 allows it – For example, since all Southwest pilots including the FO’s are typed in the 737, when the FO is the PF, both pilots can log PIC – Captain via 61.51(e)(2) and FO via 61.51(e)(1)(i).

E) “nobody really officially cares. It’s never checked to see if any pic time was done improperly” Yes, the FAA most certainly does care. See the appeal that Wesley posted – That’s the one I had in mind. The FAA actually cared enough to REVOKE their pilot certificates – Not a suspension, an outright revocation – Meaning that the FAA feels that someone who will improperly log PIC time is not fit to fly, period. There aren’t a whole lot of things that the FAA issues outright revocations for, so they’re clearly quite serious about logging time properly.

“I was not advising anyone to break any rules. Your assumption of that is quite off.”

Glad to hear it – That’s just how it read.

+3 Votes Thumb up 3 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 29, 2011

Ok Wesley & Kent, it’s not nice to tackle the newbie. :-p (New to AskaCFI.com) I don’t mind a little horseplay, but bring some whip cream if we’re gonna wrestle.

I’ll start out stating, that considering your responses. I don’t think you get my points.

Wesley,

Your paragraph agreed with what I said(???). You repeated the same thing I was saying but added Type Certificate stuff. A type certificate does not say hood time requires dual pilots, the rules do. You have me a little lost on your point. We are talking about SP A/C (Single Pilot Aircraft). For a second person to log time, the aircraft type certification must require a second pilot, or the operation must require a second pilot. Let me know if you know any other points but there are no more. The aircraft or the operation must require the second pilot.

On an instruction flight, the CFI is required, so both him and his student log the time. I’m sure we all agree on this. On a hood flight, a safety pilot is required, so both log the time, but the safety pilot is really an SIC and logging of time stops when he is no longer required, which is when the hood comes off. I’ve heard many agreements so far on this.

I flew several flights for an air carrier as an FO. I was Typed in the aircraft, I was the flying pilot (FP or MOC), I was fully qualified in the aircraft. But I cannot log and use any of the flight time because neither the aircraft nor the operation required me. This is a sad FACT but real; it is documented and interpreted by FAA Assistant Chief Counsel in my very case. I will teach it the way this authority states is the way it is.

The ‘Herman’ opinion is a good example of how legal interpretations sometimes conflict. The MOC pilot cannot fly alone because he lacks a tailwheel endorsement. We all agreed. But a tailwheel is a Single Engine Airplane. So he flies with a friend that has a type rating. The friend becomes required because he has the endorsement. Right? Like a safety pilot, in a single pilot aircraft. The focus should always be; “is the second pilot required or necessary”. Don’t complicate things by going away from that defined point.

In the question Travis presented, and in all cases similar, if the same flight could have been conducted by a single pilot, then never is a second pilot necessary or required. And the rules are clear that logging then is improper. Travis can fly solo because he is only out of his currency. And FBO or Insurance would not preclude him from flying an aircraft he is qualified to fly (considering he meets the FBO rental timeframes for checkout) on his own. We are only talking about the FAR’s on carrying passengers. Agreed? It’s proper to advise Travis to fly the flight alone.

Commenting on ATP, Part 135 & 121 is beyond the scope of this discussion so I will refrain from a response to your point on that and save it for another discussion.

Ok, I’m going now argue points from both ya dudes. And this is healthy! It’s how we all continue to learn.

Logging of flight time. I am right!! (sticking tongue out at you :-p) But you are also right. I explain it differently. You ‘never’ have to log anything when you fly. But if you want your time to count for something, you do. If you are trying to work towards additional ratings, if you want to demonstrate you are current or that you have a flight review, etc., if you don’t log it, it doesn’t count. But I know guys that have stopped logging flight time. They have so much. They only document, for example, that they have met the requirements of 61.57 but in a simple line stating the required date, time, location, etc. and that they completed the requirements. They are not even ‘required’ to note the amount of landings because it’s clear there were 3 because the rule says at least 3. Play with that one a little. But it’s correct. Wesley, you were correct in what you wrote on the subject, but it’s the same soup, different kitchen.

I will not review the enforcement action case you linked until I have more time, but yes, there are times when it does become imperative that your flight time be deeply reviewed for errors and flaws. Cheaters eventually get caught. But if you follow the rules, nothing happens, and you use your best judgment, you’re not cheating, then it doesn’t matter. I knew several cases where two guys tried to save money by flying a SP aircraft to timebuild. It’s just not correct and can lead to trouble.

Kent,

I don’t get your violent agreement statement. :-p I am very passive. It’s a contradiction in terms. <smile> You can’t be violent in an agreement. But I’ll assume you meant that points 1-5 we agree on, because they all are correct or better said, none are wrong.

The rest of your points I covered above, I think, I hope.

A MOC *cannot* always log the time and my past as an FO is clear proof of that. The sad part of that is that I was told I could. The FAA attorney’s got involved and said no. It was a good example that general understanding isn’t always correct. You may have understood it to be, but now you can see a real world example of how it’s not.

Please never read into anything I say as intending to be encouraging of wrong. I am an extremely honest person. I do not break rules and I never would teach someone to, even if I disagree with the rule. But I process thought very different then the average person and I think out of the box, and I can often confuse the average Joe.

Now if we could just simply agree, all of us, that back to the question. Travis! Fly solo so there is no doubt. Then take your friends up and have a good time. Nobody can disagree that “THAT’ is the best advice.

Happy & safe flying boys!! (Oh and girls too. :-p)

-1 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 3 Votes

Kent Shook on Jan 30, 2011

Skyboy,

Very interesting. Do you have a link to the interpretation on your case? Because the Herman interpretation is but one of many that are all in agreement with each other, and I’ve never seen one that says otherwise. (In fact, I know Jason Herman, and I’m pretty sure he knew what the answer was going to be before he asked the question. He’s a sharp guy.) It may simply be that the FAA feels differently about a part 121 operation.

One minor nit: The CFI in a dual instruction scenario isn’t necessarily required (for example, giving a BFR before the pilot’s BFR has expired – And doesn’t need a medical either) and that’s not why they get to log it – They get to log it by virtue of 61.51(e)(3).

I think the argument over who’s required in the tailwheel scenario as well as the scenario from this question is confusing one point too. You’re talking about Travis taking a passenger – He’s not. He IS the passenger. He cannot take a passenger because he’s not current IAW 61.57. A second pilot is not required – Travis is not required! That’s why only one of them can log the time.

Finally… I agree, it’s better for Travis to go solo or with a CFI. I’m guessing he’ll have to go with a CFI anyway, it’s been a LONG time since I came across an FBO that would let you go solo without renting from that FBO in the last 90 days.

+1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

John A Lindholm on Jan 30, 2011

[I think the argument over who’s required in the tailwheel scenario as well as the scenario from this question is confusing one point too. You’re talking about Travis taking a passenger – He’s not. He IS the passenger. He cannot take a passenger because he’s not current IAW 61.57. A second pilot is not required – Travis is not required! That’s why only one of them can log the time.]********************************************

Kent….. let’s say your grandfather was a WWII pilot and you decide to take him flying. He never converted to a civilian certificate. You let him fly the aircraft and he does so well you let him make 3 landings and takeoffs. During this time, you are the “acting” PIC only… not the “flying” PIC. This is not a “two” pilot operation and you CANNOT log any PIC or SIC flight time while he is flying as you are not manipulating the controls. The flight operation is FAA legal, because as the “acting” PIC you have the responsibility for the flight, but neither you or your grandfather can log PIC time as you are not flying the controls and he is not an FAA certified pilot.

Travis is 100% legal to go make his “currency” takeoffs and landings while his “acting PIC” passenger is in the aircraft…… just as I am 100% legal to get my tailwheel currency while in my friend’s aircraft with him aboard. Travis is not “taking” a passenger, he is simply flying the aircraft (and logging PIC) to get his currency requirements. The currency regulation requires you to be flying as PIC…. not acting as PIC.

I once told a pilot group that when they give rides (such as EAA Eagles) and let the passengers fly 50% of the time, they can only log 50% of their flight time.. technically. Needless to say, they all told me I was crazy, but I can promise you the FAA legal opinion would back me up. It’s quite plain to figure if you carefully apply the FAA regulations as written.

There are very few exceptions to when a “non-manipulating” pilot can log PIC flight time and they are clearly specified in the FAA regulations.

+3 Votes Thumb up 3 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

John A Lindholm on Jan 30, 2011

[Travis is 100% legal to go make his “currency” takeoffs and landings while his “acting PIC” passenger is in the aircraft……]

I meant to say “so-called” passenger. That makes the statement make more sense. That “passenger” is 100% legal as the “acting” PIC during the flight until Travis becomes “flight current” and then the other pilot’s “acting PIC” responsibility and FAA legality would end.

+1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 30, 2011

Why do you guys ignore the part of the rule that says any person or property on the flight must be necessary? Because Travis is legal to fly alone, his friend is not necessary, not required and therefore is a passenger.

John, I have heard the very same things from FAA examiners on the WWII pilot scenario you presented. I disagree with it, but you are right that the FAA says that. It’d be interesting what FAA counsel would say in a legal opinion.

Kent, the Herman opinion link is:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/Herman.pdf

Is this the Herman you know and understood as my reference to in my responses above.?

0 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes

Wesley Beard on Jan 30, 2011

Quote skyboy: “Why do you guys ignore the part of the rule that says any person or property on the flight must be necessary? Because Travis is legal to fly alone, his friend is not necessary, not required and therefore is a passenger.”

We aren’t ignoring this rule. In fact, it is because of this rule that Travis’s friend cannot log PIC time while Travis flies the airplane. Travis cannot act as pilot in command with a passenger because he is out of passenger currency. We all agree on this. The question is how can Travis get passenger current (get the required landings)?

Fly solo! Without a passenger Travis doesn’t have to be passenger current to fly and can act as pilot in command.
Fly with a CFI on a training flight (dual given and received).
Fly with another pilot who is legal and current to act as pilot in command. Travis becomes the passenger.

The discussion centers around point 3. The only required crew member in that scenario is the acting pilot in command. He is the only one that fulfills the passenger currency and as such can carry Travis who is the passenger. Travis can log the sole manipulator of the controls time as PIC and log the landings as sole manipulator. During that time, Travis’s friend cannot log any PIC time.

The time SkyboyCFI was flying as a FO in a 121/135 operation may or may not be loggable as he stated. It depends on the OpsSpecs for the company. Reference 135.115 and 121.545. He could manipulate the controls but it may not be loggable. Logging of flight time for 121/135 operations is different than Part 91 operations and has no relevance to this thread.

+3 Votes Thumb up 3 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 30, 2011

Wesley, of the 3 points, I agree with the first two. (two out of three ain’t bad) 🙂 but I have yet to see proof I am totally wrong on point three. Nobody here can provide that proof.

Also, The carrier I work for was a 135 carrier. However, even on part 91 legs, the time is not legal to log. It all comes down to, is the pilot required and necessary. Nothing in the OpSpecs made a second pilot required. Because every flight could have been flown single pilot. That is the key.

I do see all your guy’s view on the friend in Travis’s question. I totally understand the points being made. Sorry I just disagree. Travis needs to fly alone. There then will be zero argument to it’s legality. Zero. Therefore, like I said several times, fly solo.

The reg’s are ambiguous for a reason. It’s so the FAA can make them out to be what they want on a case by case basis. Its a sad reality. Regulations are laws. The are Federal Codes of Regulation. They are much like any legal statute, or legal opinion. I have a background in law and I look at the regs different the average pilot. This is the only reason I may disagree on this point.

But to end this record discussion, I think we can all agree, it would probably be best for Travis to solo. Because none of us disagree with that being perfectly fine, without question.

-4 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 4 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 30, 2011

Once last thing,

Let’s say that if what you all say is correct, then it would mean that there could be other passengers on board. See the very first response by Joe. If Travis’s friend is current, Travis is not ‘acting’ pic, then having 1,2, or even 100 passengers on board, if the plane had room, then that would be fine? I think with that considered, doesn’t it seem more wrong then right?

-2 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 3 Votes

Matthew Waugh on Jan 30, 2011

skyboyCFI is correct – you can’t add additional required crewmembers just because you need them – they have to be required. The “passenger” isn’t required (the fact that you need somebody to act as PIC doesn’t make them required) so they can’t take on a crewmember role – hence they are are passenger and the PIC needs to be qualified.

Look at it this way – people are flying around, one under the hood, so both pilots can log PIC time. Do you think they’d be doing it under the hood if you could just declare one of the passengers as acting PIC and go that route?

0 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 2 Votes

John A Lindholm on Jan 30, 2011

[Let’s say that if what you all say is correct, then it would mean that there could be other passengers on board. See the very first response by Joe. If Travis’s friend is current, Travis is not ‘acting’ pic, then having 1,2, or even 100 passengers on board, if the plane had room, then that would be fine? I think with that considered, doesn’t it seem more wrong then right?]

Yes, SKYBOY…. Travis can be flying/logging as PIC while doing his currency takeoffs and landings while his pilot friend is in the right seat “acting” as PIC and if capable, other passengers can be in the aircraft. The “acting” PIC is qualified and responsible for the flight….. and as Wesley said, Travis is merely a passenger also (who happens to be flying) until he completes his currency requirements. He then, if agreed with the “acting” PIC, can assume the “acting” PIC also as he’s now legal to have passengers while “acting” as PIC, regardless if he or the friend is flying. Unless the aircraft requires a “type” rating, the number of passengers aboard during this flight doesn’t matter.

0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 30, 2011

John,

All of you fail to answer the big question. Is this friend necessary. Read rule 61.57(2). The answer is no, his friend is not necessary. ‘Because’ Travis is qualified to fly alone, just not to carry passengers. Now read 61.51(e)(1)(iii). The part iii is an ‘or’ condition, not an ‘and’ condition of (i) as MOC.

I refer to my proven history of being an FO MOC, qualified, but not being legal to log time. The concepts are the same. If you all say Travis can log time MOC, in a single pilot flight, with another ‘acting’ PIC, then you are saying that I can do the same in my FO situation, because I also had an ‘acting’ PIC on board.. I would love that but FAA Assistant Chief Counsel says ‘no’. They write the rules. They interpret them. We follow them.

0 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 2 Votes

John A Lindholm on Jan 30, 2011

Skyboy,

Who cares if the friend is necessary (he isn’t)…. the question was could he there while Travis makes his currency takeoffs and landings…. and the answer is YES. Your issue while being a FO has nothing to do with this question as far as I see it.

I’ve spent much of my flying career in a position to interview pilots and reviewing resumes and I can tell you that there is a lot of phony time out there and a lot of ignorant pilots when it comes to logging flight time and being legal for certain operations of aircraft. Frankly, some of it is fraud. It’s an automatic “no thanks” when I see stuff like that.

You can log any “experience” that you want…. but the FAA clearly defines what constitutes legal logged flight time when it comes to currency and total time, PIC and SIC….. also the limitations and privileges of the certificate(s), etc.

There have been hundreds of hours I could have logged “actual” instrument time while flying in VFR conditions….. did I do it..? of course not…. but I could have… as it met the definition of the FAA for logging actual instrument flight time.

0 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 2 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 30, 2011

Well boys, we’ve broken a record in number of responses. This is a highly debated and responded to topic. But I’ll end my contribution and conclude in saying the following with point below. Anybody can develop his or her own opinion. But I’ll never advise a pilot to carry a passenger if he is out of currency. Or, that it is okay to call a friend an ‘acting’ pic to try to circumvent the rules.
John
1. You admit the friend is not necessary. 61.57(2). Nothing more to say. Not necessary, not onboard.
2. My FO MOC time has nothing to do with this topic? Wrong. It’s the same kind of condition, single pilot aircraft & operation, single pilot log. Because, like you agree, the friend is not necessary/required.
3. Who cares if the friend is necessary? The FAA cares if you qualify yourself inproperly.
4. You’ve seen allot of phony flight time and there are allot of ignorant pilots. You are so right. But what does that have to do with this topic? Nothing! There are also allot of ignorant flight instructors too. Most are in their 20’s fresh out of flight school themselves, looking to just build hours. They teach crap and it funnels down to the very pilots you call ignorant, who in turn, become instructors (scared of that!).
5. We agree, you can log what ever you want. But you can only use legal time to meet requirements. You don’t meet any requirements unless it’s documented.
So my last response to this post will be a repeat of what my answers to the question was in my above posts, Travis, leave your friend on the ground, fly solo, be the ‘acting’ pic with no persons or property onboard. It’ll take no time at all. If you are current with your FBO and BFR, you are good to go. Log the time as required to demonstrate your completion of the rule (61.57) and call it a day. Have fun and be safe.
If anyone has different advice for Travis, leave it, we’ll let Travis make his own choice as a professionally Trained and qualified pilot.
Cheers! 🙂

-3 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 4 Votes

Wesley Beard on Jan 31, 2011

Skyboy, I’m glad to finally see an end to this discussion. You have failed to see that Travis is not required on the flight, he is a passenger. Thus 61.57 does not apply to Travis but to his friend. Your first office experience is not valid here as it is Part 135 time as you admitted too. We operate under Part 91 rules. You have also failed to provide the documentation that supports your assertion although it doesn’t matter as it is for Part 135.

Reread 61.57 again and you will see that 61.57(a)(2) is really designed for multi-pilot airplanes because 61.57(a)(1) states the pilot cannot act as pilot in command in an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot. Notice it also says nothing about having to act as the pilot in command while gaining the currency. Thus it is conceivable and legal to log PIC time and landings for currency when you are not the acting pilot in command. I don’t want to change your point of view only to provide the correct answer to others reading this thread.

The regulations are not ambiguous as you stated especially when Administrative Law Judges and other interpretations are out there to clear up any confusion. It’s your choice to believe it or not. We have presented our case, with numerous references and documentation. Whatever you do, please don’t confuse logging PIC time and acting as pilot in command.

I think we can all consider this thread closed.

0 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes

Travis on Jan 31, 2011

I would like to thank everyone for the warm welcome. Through all of this I am just going to solo and get my passenger currency that way.
Looking forward to posting something else!!!!

+1 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 31, 2011

Some of you guys apparently can’t read. The thread cannot be closed on a wrong note.

And sorry Wesley,

You may have high points on here because you’ve been on this site for a while, but you apparently do not read thoroughly before you write.

If you had read the previous posts, you would see I had explained that although my flights as an FO were with a Part 135 carrier, many of them were on Part 91 legs you silly boy. Your comments are misleading because of this and therefore unprofessional.

The FAA said ‘no’ to the logging on all the flights, including the Part 91 legs, not me, the FAA (See FAA Opinion by FAA Assistant Chief Counsel Daniel Byrne, dated March 2000 if you want your proof). You have provided no evidence that counter that written FAA Legal Opinion.

So you have no right to say otherwise. That is not proper for you to do as a teacher. The point of my FO experience was to disprove the belief that a MOC can always log time. Your lack of ability to properly cover all the points completely and accurately are disappointing and could disqualify any other opinion you may have on any subject associated with aviation.

You write in the response above: [Fly with another pilot who is legal and current to act as pilot in command. Travis becomes the passenger.] I’ll ask you to direct me to a rule that says what you are saying. You can’t because there is no rule. You are wrong to suggest that. You conjured that out of thin air and that statement has no merit.

Further Wesley, you also wrote: [61.57(a)(1) states the pilot cannot act as pilot in command in an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot.] I suggest you read it again and maybe have someone explain it to. It says; no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days. You switched the word ‘of’ with ‘in’. This is one part that shows where you went wrong. The question presented by Travis did not ask about flying an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot. Your failure to properly read and relay the correct meaning damages your credibility.

Please review the original question (and read it all this time until you understand it) :
Travis asked: [“ok my question is if i am not current to carry passengers but my passenger is current and in the same aircraft can i still act as pic or would he have to act as pic and if so can i log landings to get current while flying with him or does he have to be a CFI to do so? This is tricky. My thoughts are that i still have to be current to act as PIC even if he is current and rated in the same airplane. I just want to make sure”]
The answer cannot be anything else but ‘no’. Travis’s thought was right because his friend is, like he even stated, a passenger, not necessary or required. It’s that simple. You guys went way off topic. To a point that made this entire discussion over complicated and confusing. That says some of you lack the proper understanding of how to teach and response to questioning. This is extremely disappointing but not surprising.
Several of you are not even close to answering the original question efficiently. This discussion has accomplished nothing more than confusion. Because the arrogance and lack of professionalism some of you have displayed. This is truly sad.

-3 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 5 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 31, 2011

Travis, in regards to your last post. A wise choice. Have fun!! Sorry this got out of context.

0 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes

Kent Shook on Jan 31, 2011

Whoo boy, what a can of worms!

John L, I agree 100% with your post immediately after my previous one – And I don’t think I said anything to the contrary. As for non-rated pax manipulating the controls, as the regs read you are correct that nobody can log the time at all, but apparently the FAA recently issued an interpretation to the contrary, though I have yet to see it. So I guess the FAA will let us log that “Young Eagles/WWII” time – But again, I haven’t seen that interpretation with my own eyes yet.

Skyboy, yes that is the Jason Herman and the Herman interpretation I’ve been talking about. Also, we’re not “ignoring” any part of the rules. The rule you’re talking about, 61.57(a)(2), says “a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day VFR or day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight.” However, none of us are saying it would be OK for Travis to “act as pilot in command.” His friend would be acting as pilot in command, so 61.57(a)(2) does not apply.

Skyboy, in the case of your logging FO time – I’d still like to see that interpretation. Do you have a link? I searched all of the counsel opinions for the year 2000 and there wasn’t anything about logging (sure you have the dates right?). I don’t think 121.545 or 135.115 apply to logging, they only apply to manipulating the controls. If you were legally manipulating the controls, you should have been able to log it – And if you were not a required crewmember (ie you had the required autopilot and your opspecs didn’t require it) then it would be the captain who couldn’t log the time you were manipulating the controls.

Also, yes, additional passengers WOULD be OK on this flight by the regs, since the friend is the acting PIC and IS CURRENT TO CARRY PASSENGERS. He has to be, since Travis *IS* a passenger in this case! Not to say that it’s smart, but is is legal.

Matthew, you’re making the same mistake Skyboy is making in understanding the scenario properly. Travis is not the Pilot In Command in this scenario. His friend is, and can carry as many passengers as he wants. There is only one required crewmember aboard, and it is Travis’ friend.

Skyboy, you are correct at the end of the last post that we have made so many twists and turns that the answer has become somewhat unclear. I’ll send another answer momentarily to try to rectify that.

+1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

Kent Shook on Jan 31, 2011

Skyboy,

Now I’m REALLY wanting to see this interpretation you’re talking about, because in my searches I can only find things that contradict you. In particular, see the Louis Glenn interpretation, particularly scenarios 4 and 6, which specifically allow for FO’s in Part 135 and 121 to log PIC time as sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft for which they are rated in a part 121 or part 135 operation:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/Louis%20Glenn.pdf

I also found numerous interpretations that agree with my statements here in addition to Herman (Speranza, Nichols, Haralson, Gebhardt, yadda yadda yadda).

0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 31, 2011

Kent,
Sorry but I do not have a link. I have a copy attached to a letter directed to me with the opinion attached which was used in determining that my time was not loggable. Like the FAA, they blocked out the names so I cannot identify the Respondant. But the date was correct. It was actually not suprising. It was a question at the time I was flying. All the authorities and experts I questioned back then said the time could not be logged by simply applying the Regulations (Both 91 & 135) and even the OpSpecs. The OpSpecs possible reasoning offered was considered by the FAA and they thought all that through and the end result was, no.
I teach, like most teachers, what I’ve learned and what’s documented in reliable source. An FAA inspector once told me, the key to understanding when to log time is simple. Ask the question, can the same flight depart single pilot (FAR’s parts not relevent). If the answer is yes, then a second pilot is obviously not required. If the other pilot is not required, then even if the pilot flies (MOC), they cannot log any of the time. The point in this question is that Travis can go alone. Therefore the rule of thumb taught to me applies.
Also, in this question, Travis ask about being the ‘acting’ PIC. Not a passenger. I have not argued that a passenger cannot log time. I have argued that I was a MOC under a ‘acting’ PIC and was told by the FAA I could not log the time. So the same would have to apply to Travis if his friend was to be ‘acting’ PIC. Otherwise, it would not be fair that I could not. Now in the Herman Opinion, the second pilot is required because he has the endorsement and the first pilot does not and cannot go alone.
61.57 refers to the term ‘acting’ pic. It continues to refer to a ‘person’ flying as ‘acting’ PIC. Travis cannot be ‘acting’ PIC and carry any passengers. I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. The disagreement lies in calling another qualified pilot the ‘acting’ PIC and Travis the MOC. That wasn’t part of the question. But became a lead topic of discussion. And my point was, it’s nearly identical to my FO scenerio and the FAA has said no.
Travis has commented on all this mess. I really think his decision to fly solo is the best choice. Because it leaves no doubt and regardless of what any of us say, it’s clearly a legal manner in which he can bring himself current to carry passengers.
I do not agree that anyone should argue against that.

-2 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 2 Votes

Kent Shook on Jan 31, 2011

Okay Travis, to avoid all the confusion we’ve caused I’m going to paste in your exact wording and answer your questions one at a time, with references. The italicized text is the original question:

ok my question is if i am not current to carry passengers but my passenger is current and in the same aircraft can i still act as pic

No you may not act as PIC. 61.57(a)(1).

or would he have to act as pic

Yes. Since you are not current IAW 61.57(a)(1), he would have to act as PIC.

and if so can i log landings to get current while flying with him or does he have to be a CFI to do so?

Yes, you may log landings to get current while flying with him. Caveats, as noted above, are that he must act as the pilot in command and accept full responsibility for the flight IAW 91.3. But you may log the landings – 61.51(e)(1)(i) allows you to log PIC time for the time that you are sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated, and 61.57(a)(1)(i) simply states that you must be sole manipulator of the controls for your three takeoffs and landings.

This is tricky.

Boy, you ain’t kiddin’! 😉

I should mention that your friend would not be allowed to log any time at all in these scenarios. He gets all the responsibility by acting as pilot in command (see 91.3) but he gets none of the benefit as the acting PIC only gets to log time that he’s not manipulating the controls if he’s an ATP in an ATP-required operation or if two pilots are required, and this is not a two-pilot-required operation. (Your friend is required, you are not.)

My thoughts are that i still have to be current to act as PIC even if he is current and rated in the same airplane.

You do need to be current to act as PIC – 61.57(a)(1)(i). You do not need to be current to log landings while your friend acts as PIC. The important thing to understand is that the FAA considers acting as PIC and logging PIC to be two completely different things, and they specifically say so in the Speranza interpretation (see the top of page 2) which also references the previously-linked Herman interpretation.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/Speranza.pdf

I just want to make sure

And good for you for doing so! I hope that I have cleared some things up here. While I (and the FAA) vehemently disagree with skyboy’s assertion that it isn’t legal, I do agree that it is NOT a good way to get current. It is highly unlikely that the FBO you’re renting the plane from would allow it, the insurance probably would not cover it, and you are putting your friend in a bad position by making him responsible for your screw-ups should you have any. Best thing to do (and probably required by the FBO): Go do the landings with a CFI. Next best thing: Do them yourself. The only reason I can see for doing them with your friend is if it was your friend’s airplane.

+5 Votes Thumb up 5 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 31, 2011

Kent,
Your last post above is good, clear and understandable. Even though you disagreed with my point of the MOC logging time.
I reviewed the opinion you linked and it is specific in saying; “Provided that two pilots are required by the aircraft’s type certificate or by operating rule for the part 135 operation,” And this is the Point I am trying to make.
Maybe it’s a line in the rules between GA pilot and Commercial Pilots (not the Part 91 or 135, because some of the time was Part 91 also). There were no OpSpecs that required a second pilot.
Would you agree that Travis’s friend is not required or necessary?
What ever the case, I think we all might agree that opinions can and have often conflicted. If I took my FO case to a different FAA attorney for an answer, it may be different. This is why I call the regulations ambiguous.

am·big·u·ous/amˈbigyo͞oəs/Adjective
1. (of language) Open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
2. Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
Ambiguous!!!

-1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 2 Votes

John A Lindholm on Jan 31, 2011

Geesh….. let’s discuss pitch vs power…. would be be a better use of our time at this point.

0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 31, 2011

Ok John. :-p

On approach, you use pitch for airspeed and power for altitude. In cruise, you use power for airspeed and pitch for altitude. Or is it, use pitch for altitude and power for airspeed in cruise?

Lean above 3000ft AGL or MSL. :-p

-3 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 3 Votes

John A Lindholm on Jan 31, 2011

[On approach, you use pitch for airspeed and power for altitude. In cruise, you use power for airspeed and pitch for altitude.]

I’ll believe that when you can tell me what make/model aircraft knows when it is in level flight vs a 3.5 degree glide path.

0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 31, 2011

Airbus a380, Boeing b787, b747-8

-2 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 2 Votes

John A Lindholm on Jan 31, 2011

[Airbus a380, Boeing b787, b747-8]

Their flight control systems use power to control airspeed and pitch to control flight path (level altitude or rate of change or digital path). Could it be that their multi-million $$ systems are programmed wrong..??

0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 31, 2011

I thought your question was; “can u tell me which A/C know when they are level or when they are 3.5 degree glide path. :-p

-2 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 2 Votes

John A Lindholm on Jan 31, 2011

[I thought your question was; “can u tell me which A/C know when they are level or when they are 3.5 degree glide path. :-p]

Well, according to your comment, the method of primary flight control changes between the two, and your list of aircraft do not vary their method between those flight regimes. So, I’m still waiting for a list of aircraft that follow your method of flight control.

0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Jan 31, 2011

Aw, it really was meant to be sarcastic. But I was referring to the most common SE piston GA training aircraft. i.e. C-172, etc.

I guess to avoid criticism, I need to be so specific as to make the simple, complicated. I think this fourm is 99.9% GA students wanting to learn. Therefore my comments focus around that. So I apologize my power pitch was not so specific to make it clear I was referring to C-172 like piston AC. 😉 it’s all good though.

-3 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 3 Votes

Wesley Beard on Jan 31, 2011

I have reviewed the response from Daniel Byrne dated in March 2000 to Jeff Karch. Skyboy referred to this interpretation many times. The interpretation was quite difficult to find but believe I have the correct interpretation. I have found another interpretation that quotes this interpretation in the response. Please refer to the Nichols Interpretation. Now it is quite possible that two Daniel Byrne’s wrote PIC interpretations in the same month for the FAA but it is highly unlikely. The Karch interpretation is not listed on the FAA website. Another interesting PIC / SIC interpretation: Hicks Interpretation

I’ll post the summary of the Karch Interpretation dealing only with Part 135 operations “In summary, based on your scenario, a pilot, wishing to advance his or her career, may pay a part 135 operator to fly in the right pilot seat during part 135 operations provided he or she is qualified, under part 135, for the operation for which the person is to be used. In addition, this pilot may manipulate the controls of the aircraft during part 135 operations provided he or she is employed by the certificate holder. This pilot may be designated as SIC even though the aircraft being flown does not require more than one pilot and the regulations under which the flight is being conducted do not require more than one pilot. Finally, this pilot may log PIC time for those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, but may not log any portion of the flight as SIC time.” It seems that this interpretation clearly repudiates the previous statements made by Skyboy regarding logging PIC time and validates the other posters responses.

Part of the Nichols interpretation specifically with Part 91 operations. “However, that second pilot may be able to log PIC time for the portion of the operation during which the second pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls provided that pilot meets the requirements of section 61.51(e).”

In the Part 61 FAQ’s compiled by John Lynch, the architect of the current regulations has some interesting insights. Although this specific question is not directly answered in the FAQ’s we can glean lessons from other questions. I should mention that the FAQ’s are not regulatory in nature and are provided for information only. However, since John Lynch answered most of these I would place more faith in what he says than anyone else on this forum.

——————– (page 154)

QUESTION: Another scenario, two pilots are out flying with one of the pilots serving as a safety pilot and that person has agreed to act as the PIC (i.e., § 1.1) and will log PIC flight time while the other pilot uses a view limiting device. The other pilot is under the “hood” and is the sole manipulator of the controls while performing instrument tasks. No passengers are being carried. Which pilot has to be § 61.57(a)(1) takeoff and landing current?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.57(a)(1); The PIC must be takeoff and landing current and you said the safety pilot has agreed to act as the § 1.1 PIC, so that is the § 1.1 PIC for the flight in your scenario. The § 1.1 PIC must be takeoff and landing current.

———
——— (page 30)
Question: … Could a chief instructor meet the pilot in command recent flight experience requirements of § 61.57 without a medical certificate?

Answer:

If a chief instructor is not acting as the pilot in command or serving as a required pilot flight crewmember, then the chief instructor would not need to hold a medical certificate when accomplishing the pilot in command recent flight experience requirements of § 61.57. Meaning, if another pilot is onboard who is current and qualified and is acting as the § 1.1 pilot in command then the chief instructor would not need to hold a medical certificate when performing the pilot in command recent flight experience requirements of § 61.57.

———

This makes it pretty clear that Travis can fly with his friend who is passenger current and if he is the sole manipulator of the controls log PIC time as well as log landings for his passenger currency.

To sum things up. Read Kent’s last post for the correct answer to Travis’s question. As a side note, I think we did a great disservice to Travis for arguing and bickering over the regulations, perhaps next time we can all just say once what we believe the correct answer is and move on.

+7 Votes Thumb up 7 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

skyboyCFI on Feb 02, 2011

Well the same would go for you Wesley. “perhaps next time we can all just say once what we believe the correct answer and move on”

As for your Daniel Byrne find, I cannot say if it is the same one. I can however say that the letter I received from the Deputy Director of FAA FSS said no to all the logging of the time (both 91 & 135) and referred to an opinion by Daniel Byrne. I don’t agree that anyone be so firm to say they are right when the actual question has never been interpreted by the FAA. All I can say is, if Travis can log MOC, then I should have been able to. Either one of us could be right, we both could be wrong. But it’s sad you can’t agree that Travis’s final choice to fly alone was the best choice, because there is no doubt if he flies Solo, until the FAA interprets this very question we’ll never know 100%.

Happy flying!

-6 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 6 Votes

skyboyCFI on Feb 02, 2011

Wesley,

I reviewed the Daniel Byrne response you linked. Although very interesting, it was not the associated opinion to my case. And although it was on an unofficial forum and not an FAA document, I find it very interesting. I’d like to get an official copy. Not that my time matters anymore, it’d be interesting to use this response to counter the one I received. Although not quite the same, I will agree that this response supports your argument. And it also might allow pilots to log PIC time in several other cases where they thought or were told they should not.

-5 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 5 Votes

Currency with Passenger

48 Answers

Answer Question

Login

Latest Questions

FAA Written Test Prep

Categories