Logging B200 Time as a PPL

[KevinAu 441]

>That may well be truw. But I atill suggest that one is much>more likely to get a definative answer (one way or the other)>than by relying on advice in a flight sumulation forum.You're absolutely right. This Hangar Chat forum should be terminated because any questions asked here could definitely be better asked directly of a CFI at your airport or a visit to the local FSDO to ask your FAA inspector. Besides, the CFIs need your money and the FAA inspectors just love to show you how friendly they are. This forum is pointless and full of bad and unsubstantiated information that can lead to people making bad decisions with their lives.

[Guest jrewing]

Geofa,I'm surprised that there was so much confusion about the aeronautical experience requirements for adding a multi-engine class rating to your commercial ASEL. 14 CFR 61.63 says:"© Additional class rating. Any person who applies for an additional class rating to be added on a pilot certificate:..."(4) Need not meet the specified training time requirements prescribed by this part that apply to the pilot certificate for the aircraft class rating sought unless the person holds a lighter-than-air category rating with a balloon class rating and is seeking an airship class rating and(5) Need not take an additional knowledge test, provided the applicant holds an airplane, rotorcraft, powered-lift, or airship rating at that pilot certificate level."Kevin,I'm assuming your conclusions about this forum are meant as hyperbole. There are flight instructors (like myself) who are willing to share their knowledge and experience here, though I do agree that the signal-to-noise ratio can, at times, be a bit higher than one might want.John

[Geofa 108]

This was 4-5 years ago. Language I believe was added to address this issue-perhaps the reg you mention-I can't recall.However, at the time there was directly contradictory language in the regs-and that was what caused the trouble. I can't remember if the reg you mention was there-but there was one similar to what you mention which is what my flight school was basing the argument that an additional night flight was not needed. However, elsewhere it was stated that one had to do a 2 hour night flight with and instructor to achieve a commercial rating. The ambiguity was whether that night flight had been achieved in a single whether it was grandfathered to a multi. The faa decided finally at the time not-but also decided since it was ambiguous that they would let it slide in my case. It left me with a 2 hour debate before my oral could even start...

[Guest jrewing]

In my experience there is a fair amount of variation between various FSDOs, but that language has been there since at least April 1, 2000 ...http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...=2000&TYPE=TEXT

[Geofa 108]

Well once again-that was what my training facility was probably using to justify that I was ready.However, the examiner questioned the language in Aeronautical experience (at the time) which presently states:(iv) One cross-country flight of at least 2 hours in a single-engine airplane in night VFR conditions, consisting of a total straight-line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure.If I recall at the time it did not specify single vs. multi (and also required an instructor to be present for the flight), but just stated that a this night flight was required for a commercial rating. The question at the time was whether filling requirement for a single engine commercial rating took care of the requirement for a multi commercial rating.I believe now it is seperated and specified for both single and multi (I don't have my regs handy right now but from the web -Sec. 61.127(:((2) IV). The question went all the way to Oklahoma City where they agreed it was not clear-it wasn't just a local fsdo issue.Since I was not a part of the discussion and sat there for two hours while the debate went on over the phone I am a little fuzzy on the exact clauses that went back and forth but that is how it was explained to me afterwords.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Jeff S KDTW]

>While sure that is the wording of the FAR/AIM I certainly>wouldn't put that up against an FAA inspector. Being rated>for the airplane does only go as far as category and class in>the FARs, I guarentee an FAA inspector would fine you for not>having the HP and Complex ratings. Are you rated for category>and class? Sure. Why else would they have complex and high>performance endorsements? I can go fly my C-182RG for>category and class rather easily but is the really legal? >It's up to you to decide if it's a smart move.>>The FARs are a huge grey area but it is up to you to decide>between what is legal and what is plain stupid just to get 2>hours of B200 time.Your statement is in context to "acting PIC". The original poster's question is related to merely "logging" PIC, not "acting" PIC. There is over 25 years of FAA case law and FAA-issued Legal Opinions that state that logging PIC and acting PIC are separate and distinct issues.There is also FAA Legal Opinions that state that "rated" does not mean endorsements in this context.Edit - Original poster, by the way, I received this Type Designation sheet as an email from the FAA a few weeks ago that appears to clear up some question as to whether the BE-200 requires a type rating.http://162.58.35.241/e.gov/airmen/Type_Rating_Table.pdf_____________________________http://www.pbase.com/image/76286728.jpgPersonal Photo/Aviation Website

[Guest PARADISE]

Exactly what I think. There are actually two "PICs" possible on one flight, the PIC - Pilot In Command and the PIC - Pilot In Control. The first can log flight time whether he's on the controls or not. The second can only log time while in control of the aircraft. JM

[Guest Jeff S KDTW]

Wellll, yes, there are cases where that can happen--namely, a rated pilot under a view limiting device being the sole manipulator of the controls and a safety pilot who is qualified to be the ACTING PIC, including all of the endorsements, etc. that go along with being qualified to be the ACTING PIC, being designated the ACTING PIC. In this case, both the flying pilot under the hood and the safety pilot acting as PIC can LOG PIC time.You're also right that the Pilot in Control, as you called him (lets call the flying pilot), can log PIC for that time that he is the sole manipulator of the controls for which he is rated. We know this from 61.51(e)(1)(i).However, just to be clear, the Pilot in Command, as you called him (lets call him the non-flying pilot that is ultimately responsible for the flight (aka ACTING PIC)), can log PIC only when his duties fall within some of aspect of FAR 61.51. That's it. He doesn't get an automatic right to LOG PIC simply by virtue of being the ACTING PIC because there is no such condition for this set forth in 61.51. In the ACTING PIC safety pilot scenario mentioned above, he gets to log PIC as a result of 61.51(e)(1)(iii), but there were additional conditions that had to be met first, namely he needed to be a "required crewmember" and be ACTING PIC.I'm resisting adding a lot of detail here relating to the question of LOGGING PIC vs. ACTING PIC, but suffice it to say that the known universe regarding all logging questions is contained in FAR 61.51. Hope this helps and doesn't muddy the waters._____________________________http://www.pbase.com/image/76286728.jpgPersonal Photo/Aviation Website

[TopGun 0]

Good evening folks, I want to sincerely thank everyone who contributed to this post. I apologise for not responding earlier but I have been extremely busy at work. Part of the reason that I decided to post this question was because I got two different opinions from two different FSDOs and since this site is always helpful to me, I decided to post the question here. BTW Jeff, can you provide me with a link(if it's not too much trouble) to some of those legal FAA opinions that address this issue? Thanks again.J.C. (MYNN)PPL ASEL, AMEL Instrument Airplane (Currently time building towards COMM ASEL,AMEL)

[Guest Jeff S KDTW]

Sure. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headqu...9/Carpenter.rtf

---

February 9, 1999Bill Carpenter12808 E. Pacific Drive, #302 Aurora, Colorado 80014Dear Mr. Carpenter:Thank you for your letter of January 25, 1999, in which you ask questions about logging pilot in command (PIC) time and second in command (SIC) time when operating under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)You first ask whether it would be proper under FAR 61.51(g) for a properly qualified SIC to log instrument flight time flown during instrument conditions while serving as the SIC in Part 121 operations on an aircraft that requires two crewmembers. The answer is yes. As a qualified SIC, and as a required crewmember, you are "operating" the aircraft within the meaning of FAR 61.51(g). Therefore, as the SIC operating the aircraft "solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions," you would log that time as SIC flown in instrument conditions. Naturally, the PIC logs the time as PIC flown in instrument conditions.You then ask if, for the purposes of maintaining instrument currency, an instrument approach on the above flight flown by the PIC can be logged as an instrument approach by the SIC. The answer is no. As the SIC you have not "performed" the approach as contemplated by FAR 61.57© because you were not the sole manipulator of the controls during the approach.Lastly, you present the following scenario: under a Part 121 operation the air carrier has designated a pilot and a copilot as required by FAR 121.385©. The pilot is the authorized PIC and the copilot is the authorized SIC. The PIC is also the company check airman. During the course of the flight, the SIC is the sole manipulator of the controls for the flight. Additionally, he has passed the competency checks required for Part 121 operations, at least as SIC. You ask whether the SIC can log PIC time for that portion of the flight in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls for the flight. The answer is yes.There is a distinction between acting as pilot in command and logging of pilot in command time. "Pilot in command," as defined in FAR 1.1, "means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time." FAR 61.51(e) is a flight-time logging regulation, which only regulates the recording of PIC time used to meet the requirements toward a higher certificate, higher rating, or for recent flight experience:(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.(1) A recreational private or commercial pilot may log pilot-in- command time only for that flight time during which that person -- (i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated_ (ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft: or (iii) Except for a recreational pilot is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.(2) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.While it is not possible for two pilots to act as PIC simultaneously, it is possible for two pilots to log PIC flight time simultaneously. If the pilot is designated as PIC by the certificate holder, as required by FAR 121.385©, that person is PIC for the entire flight, no matter who is actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft, because that pilot is responsible for the safety and operation of the aircraft. The pilot who is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft for which the pilot is rated may also log that flight as PIC.It is important to remember that we are dealing with logging of flight time only for purposes of FAR 61.51, where you are keeping a record to show recent flight experience or to show that you meet the requirements for a higher rating. Your question does not say if the SIC is fully qualified as a PIC, or only as an SIC. This is important because even though an SIC can log PIC time, that pilot may not be qualified to serve as PIC under Part 121.I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.D. Brent PopeAttorney, ANM-7H

---

OCT. 28, 1980WINSTON SCOTT JONESDear Mr. Jones:This is in response to your letter in which you request an interpretation of Section 61.51(2)© of the Federal Aviation Regulations, regarding logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) flight time.Specifically, you ask what time may be logged as PIC time when the pilot in the right seat is a certificated flight instructor (CFI) along for the purpose of instruction and is not a required crewmember, and the pilot in the left seat holds either a private or commercial certificate in an aircraft for which he is rated.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.Section 61.51©(2)(i) provides that a private or commercial pilot may log as pilot-in-command time only that flight time during which the pilot-- 1. Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated; or2. Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or3. Acts as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.Under Section 61.51©(2)(iii) a certificated flight instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time during which he or she acts as a flight instructor. Sections 61.51(:((2)(iii) and (iv) provide for logging of flight instruction and instrument flight instruction received.Accordingly, two or more pilots may each log PIC time for the same flight time. For example, a pilot who is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he or she is rated may log that time as PIC time under 61.51©(2)(i) while receiving instruction, and the instructor may log that same time as PIC time under 61.51©(2)(iii).There is no provision in the FAR's for logging of "dual" flight time; however, we assume that you are referring to logging time as instruction received. Section 61.51(:((2)(iii) and (iv) allow flight instruction and instrument instruction received time to be recorded. There is nothing in the FAR's which prevents a pilot from logging the same time as both instruction received and PIC time, as long as each requirement is met. The pilot may also log the same time as instrument instruction. Note, though, that one hour of flight logged both as one hour of PIC and one hour of instruction received still adds up to only one hour total flight time.You request interpretations of these regulations for situations in which:1. The purpose of the flight is instruction in advanced maneuvers.2. The purpose of the flight is simulated instrument instruction in actual VFR conditions.3. The purpose of the flight is instrument instruction actual IFR conditions.4. The pilot in the left seat is not current in the aircraft or in the conditions of flight.5. The purpose of the flight is transition from tricycle to conventional landing gear.6. The purpose of the flight is obtaining logbook endorsement authorizing operation of a high performance aircraft, as required by FAR 61.31(e).7. The purpose of the flight is transition to a different type aircraft of the same category and class for which the left seat pilot is rated and a type rating is not required.In each situation, the CFI may log PIC time for all flight time during which she or he acts as flight instructor. The pilot receiving instruction may also log PIC time in each of these situations, as the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which she or he is rated. Specifically, neither the currency requirements of situation 4 nor the log book endorsement of situation 6 are ratings within the meaning of Section 61.51. "Rating" as used in that section refers to the rating in categories, classes, and types, as listed in Section 61.5, which are placed on pilot certificates.We trust that this discussion answers your questions.Sincerely,EDWARD P. FABERMANActing Assistant Chief CounselRegulations and Enforcement Division

---

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headqu.../1993/Hicks.rtf

---

Assuming you are an AOPA member:http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.htmlhttp://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1996/accs9612.htmlhttp://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2000/pc0003.html

---

You can also search for additional FAA Legal Opinions here:http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headqu...nterpretations/_____________________________http://www.pbase.com/image/76286728.jpgPersonal Photo/Aviation Website

[razorseal 0]

I'll respond after 4 pages...you CANNOT log that time 1. you are not ME rated2. that plane is over 12,500 lbs, you need a typerating, and also the person teaching you needs ATP, and can only endorse you if it is a 135 flight for training.I'm surprised you are asking this... this should have been something heavily covered in your oral as to what you can log and what you CANT

[Guest Jeff S KDTW]

>I'll respond after 4 pages...>>you CANNOT log that time >>1. you are not ME rated>2. that plane is over 12,500 lbs, you need a typerating, and>also the person teaching you needs ATP, and can only endorse>you if it is a 135 flight for training.>>>I'm surprised you are asking this... this should have been>something heavily covered in your oral as to what you can log>and what you CANTI beg to differ on both accounts:1) First, the original poster is multi-engine rated ("AMEL").2) The King Air B200 (note the model) is not a "large aircraft" as that phrase is used in the FARs and, thus, does not require a type rating. Remember that the FARs (for US application to this question) defines a "large aircraft" as an "aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight." (FAR 1.1)The B200 has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 (on purpose)._____________________________http://www.pbase.com/image/76286728.jpgPersonal Photo/Aviation Website