LOGGING TIME - LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS The following information is a compendium of legal interpretations culled from the files of the FAA's Chief Counsel's Office which pertain to the subject of logging of flight time. Users are cautioned that there may be other interpretations in existence which are in the public domain but are not in the FAA's internal on-line system. Anyone wishing to obtain a clarification of an interpretation contained in this file or of a regulation that is not covered here may write to the following address: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Chief Counsel's Office, AGC-200 Legal Interpretation # 92-68 December 9, 1992 Mr. Renato Simone Dear Mr. Simone: This is in response to your November 7, 1991, letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Chief Counsel, in which you pose questions relating to certain requirements in Parts 61, 71, 91, and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Before addressing your question, I would like to first apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In recent months, a large number of priority projects have been assigned to this division that have prevented us from responding in a more timely manner to the many requests for interpretations. First, you asked whether a control zone is in effect at certain altitudes and, if so, whether you need to contact ATC for permission to go through the control zone. In the scenario you gave, "A flight at 7500 ft. MSL, VFR and very clear will take you through the vertical limits of a control zone if it is in effect. The cloud layer is from the ground to 3000 ft. MSL in the control zone." FAR sections 71.11 and 71.9 give control zones and continental control area boundaries. A flight at 7500 ft. MSL is within the vertical limits of a control zone. FAR section 91.155 lists the basic VFR weather minimums for certain altitudes, within and outside controlled airspace (14 CFR 91.155). A control zone is a type of controlled airspace. Using your example, if the pilot maintains basic VFR weather minimums according to FAR section 91.155 and is transiting the control zone, he may enter a control zone at 7500 ft. MSL without obtaining an ATC clearance. Second, you questioned, "can a non-instrument rated private pilot log pilot-in-command time in actual instrument flight conditions while receiving instruction from a CFI or CFII? The pilot is rated in this aircraft." The answer is yes. FAR 61.51(c) addresses logging of pilot time: (2) Pilot-in-command flight time. (i) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only that flight time during which that pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or, except for a recreational pilot, when acting as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification or the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted. There is nothing in the FARs which prohibits an appropriately rated private or commercial pilot from logging pilot-in-command time in accordance with Section 61.51(c)(2)(i) when receiving any flight instruction from a certificated flight instructor (CFI). This includes the logging of instrument instruction under actual or simulated IFR conditions. We stress, however, that here we are discussing logging of flight time 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. There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC time. Section 61.3(e)(1) provides in part that no person may act as pilot-in-command of a civil aircraft under instrument flight rules, or in weather conditions less than VFR minimums unless that person holds an instrument rating. A non-instrument-rated pilot who is taking instrument instruction in IFR conditions may log that as PIC time, but may not actually serve as the PIC. The other pilot must be the PIC, as that term is defined under Section 1.1 of FAR. Enclosed are two prior interpretations concerning the logging of pilot-in-command flight time. We hope that these interpretations will be of further assistance to you. Your third question asks, "Can a commercially certificated pilot fly a friend for full compensation or hire under Part 91?" The answer is that there are some limited circumstances when it is permissible. From the standpoint of Part 61, the holder of a commercial pilot certificate is permitted to accept compensation for piloting (See FAR 61.139). There is a question, however, whether the operation can be conducted under Part 91 as opposed to Part 135. A pilot flying under Part 91 may not carry persons or property in air commerce for compensation or hire. This means that the aircraft owner may only transport passengers and property that pertain to the owner or the owner's business, as long as that business is not air transportation (See FAR 91.501). One example of this Part 91 operation is the corporate pilot flying a company airplane carrying company property and passengers. The corporate pilot is paid for his work, and therefore must have a commercial pilot certificate. Another example is pilot service, where a commercial pilot is paid by an airplane owner to fly the airplane for the owner. As long as there is no "carriage in air commerce of persons or property for compensation or hire", the commercial pilot can operate under Part 91 and be paid for his services. We stress that FAR 135.1(3), FAR 135.5, and FAR 135.7 make it clear that the "carriage in air commerce of persons or property for compensation or hire" requires an air taxi/commercial operator operating certificate. Finally, you asked whether a CFI can log landings day or night if the manipulations of the flight controls are shared by both student and instructor. FAR section 61.51(c)(2)(iii) states that a CFI may log as PIC time all flight time during which he acts as a flight instructor. For recent flight experience, however, under Section 61.57(c) and (d), to log PIC time one must be the "sole manipulator of the flight controls." In the scenario you presented, where the "flight controls are shared by both student and instructor," the CFI can log that as PIC flight time under Section 61.51(c)(2)(iii) but the CFI cannot log this as PIC flight time towards recent flight experience under Section 61.57(c) and (d). We trust the above response will prove helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information in this regard. Sincerely, /s/ Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations Division Legal Interpretation # 92-60 July 30, 1992 Dear Mr. Ewing: Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1992, concerning pilot-in-command time. In your letter you request a copy of a "FAA Formal Opinion dated May 8, 1990, which deals with the logging of Pilot-in-command time." You also raise an additional question and comment which concern Part 61.51(c)(2)(i) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) addresses Pilot-in-command flight time: A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only that flight time during which that pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or, except for a recreational pilot, when 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. Your question concerning Part 61.51(c)(2)(i) centers on the sentence "for which the pilot is rated." You ask "If the airplane in question requires a type rating (for example, KC-135 or B-707), does a pilot have to possess the type rating for that aircraft before he can log PIC time during that portion of the flight during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls? Or, to the contrary, are possession of a private pilot certificate and merely being the sole manipulator of the controls sufficient to log PIC time in that aircraft?" Under section 61.51(c)(2)(i), a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which that pilot is rated. "Rated", as used under section 61.51(c)(2)(i), refers to the category, class, and type as appropriate. Therefore, pilots must be appropriately rated for the aircraft, as the term is defined above, before they may log PIC time under Part 61. The possession of a private pilot certificate and merely being the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft is not necessarily sufficient to log PIC time. In addition to your question, you also make the comment that, "The second part of 61.51(c)(2)(i) in question concerns logging PIC time '... when acting as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification ...' It would appear that a pilot, although not in possession of the type certificate for that aircraft, could 'act' as pilot in command (during the portion of the flight that he/she is the sole manipulator of the controls) and therefore log PIC time for that portion of the flight." Under section 61.51(c)(2)(i), concerning the logging of PIC time, the sentence "when acting as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification..." does not mean that a pilot, not in possession of the type certificate for that aircraft, can nonetheless act as PIC during the portion of the flight that he is the sole manipulator of the controls and therefore log PIC time for that portion of the flight. The FAA letter dated May 8, 1990, which you requested is attached. It further explains this issue. I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions and concerns. Sincerely, /s/ Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations Division Legal Interpretation # 92-52 October 30, 1992 Mr. David M. Reid Dear Mr. Reid: Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1992, concerning the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). In your letter you ask four questions. First, you ask whether there are "any circumstances when, during a normal flight, two Private Pilots may simultaneously act as (and therefore log the time as) Pilot-In-Command?" The answer is two private pilots may not simultaneously act as PIC but they may, under certain circumstances, simultaneously log PIC time. There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC time. PIC, as defined in FAR 1.1, means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time. FAR 61.51 deals with logging PIC flight time, and it provides that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC 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. It is important to note that FAR 61.51 only regulates the recording of PIC time used to meet the requirements toward a higher certificate, higher rating, or for recent flight experience. Therefore, 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. PIC flight time may be logged by both the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time in accordance with FAR 1.1, and by the pilot who acts as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft for which the pilot is rated under FAR 61.51. Enclosed please find two prior FAA interpretations concerning logging of PIC time. We hope that these will be of further assistance to you. In your second question you ask "[h]ow shall two Private Pilots log their flight time when one pilot is under the hood for simulated instrument time and the other pilot acts as safety pilot?" The answer is the pilot who is under the hood may log PIC time for that flight time in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft, provided he is rated for that aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently log as second in command (SIC) that time during which he is acting as safety pilot. The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiating the flight that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i). Enclosed please find a prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of flight time under simulated instrument flight conditions. We hope that this interpretation will be of further assistance to you. In your third question you ask "[d]uring instrument training, how shall a VFR Private Pilot log the following flight time: Pilot-In-Command time, Simulated Instrument time, and Actual Instrument time, when that pilot is ... A) ... under the hood? B) ...in actual instrument conditions? C) ... under the hood in actual instrument conditions?" The answer is the VFR private pilot may log all of the flight time you described as PIC flight time under FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) if he was the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated. Under FAR 61.51(c)(4) the pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. Please note that the FARs do not distinguish between "actual" and "simulated" instrument flight time. Enclosed is a prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of instrument flight time. We hope this interpretation will further assist you. Finally you ask "[d]oes FAR 61.57 affect how the VFR Private Pilot shall log Pilot-In-Command time during instrument training, either before or after meeting the 6/6/6 requirement, and if so, how?" FAR 61.57 does not affect how a pilot logs PIC time during instrument training; FAR 61.51(c)(2) and (4) govern logging of instrument flight time. FAR 61.57(e) provides currency requirements for acting as PIC under instrument flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than the minimums for visual flight rules (VFR). Enclosed please find a prior FAA interpretation on instrument flight time and FAR 61.57(e). We hope this interpretation will further assist you. We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. Sincerely, /s/ Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations Division Legal Interpretation # 92-46 August 3, 1992 Mr. William Clay Cunningham Dear Mr. Cunningham: Thank you for your letter of September 28, 1991, in which you ask a question about the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time when operating under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Before addressing your question, I would like to first apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In recent months, a large number of priority projects have been assigned to this division that have prevented us from responding in a more timely manner to the many requests for interpretations. Mr. Irshad A. Haqq of my staff recently discussed this situation and the question raised in your letter with you via telephone. This letter constitutes our formal reply. In your letter, you pose the following scenario: under a part 135 operation, the flight crew of a 19 seat deHaviland Twin Otter (DHC-6-300) consists of a captain and first officer, neither of whom is required to possess a type rating to act as a flight crewmember. You then ask whether the first officer may log PIC time for the period during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft. You also explain that you have received conflicting answers from local FAA personnel to whom you have posed this question. The answer to your question is yes. Under Section 61.51(c)(2) of the FAR, the first officer may log as PIC time that time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft. In fact, both the captain, assuming he is the designated PIC required under Section 135.109, and the first officer may simultaneously log as PIC time that time during which the first officer is the sole manipulator of the controls. We recently rendered an interpretation encompassing the issue you raise as well as other questions related to the logging of PIC time under the FAR. A copy of that June 25, interpretation addressed to Mr. Dallas Butler is enclosed for your reference and convenience. The sections of the FAR that are pertinent to this issue are cited in that letter. We hope this satisfactorily answers your question. Sincerely, /s/ Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations Division Legal Interpretation # 92-40 June 5, 1992 Dear Mr. Butler: Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1992, in which you ask questions about logging pilot-in-command (PIC) and second-in-command (SIC) time when operating under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Your letter presents the following scenario: under a Part 121 operation, the air carrier has designated a pilot and a co-pilot. The pilot is the authorized PIC and the co-pilot is the authorized SIC. During the course of the flight, the SIC is the sole manipulator of the controls for one or more legs. You ask two questions. The first asks whether the pilot designated as PIC by the employer, as required by FAR 121.385, can log PIC time while the SIC is actually flying the airplane. The answer is yes. FAR 1.1 defines pilot in command: (1) Pilot in command means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time. FAR 91.3 describes the pilot in command: (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC time. Part 61 deals with logging flight time, and it is important to note that section 61.51, Pilot logbooks, only regulates the recording of: (a) The aeronautical training and experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent flight experience requirements of this part. Your second question asks if the SIC is flying the airplane, can he log PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) because he is appropriately rated and current, and is the sole manipulator of the controls. Additionally, he has passed the competency checks required for Part 121 operations, at least as SIC. The answer is yes. FAR 61.51(c) addresses logging of pilot time: (2) Pilot-in-command flight time. (i) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only that flight time during which that pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or, except for a recreational pilot, when acting as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification or the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted. (ii) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot in command time all of the flight time during which he acts as pilot in command. (iii) Second-in-command flight time. A pilot may log as second in command time all flight time during which he acts as second 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. As you can see, there are two ways to log pilot-in-command flight time that are pertinent to both your questions. The first is as the pilot responsible for the safety and operation of an aircraft during flight time. If a pilot is designated as PIC for a flight by the certificate holder, as required by FAR 121.385, that person is pilot in command 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 second way to log PIC flight time that is pertinent to your question is to be the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, as you mention in your letter. Thus, under a 121 operation you can have both pilots logging time as pilot in command when the appropriately rated second in command is manipulating the controls. We stress, however, that here we are discussing logging of flight time 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 second pilot in your example 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. An example of this difference is FAR 121.652(a), which raises IFR landing minimums for pilots in command of airplanes flown under Part 121 who have not served at least 100 hours as PIC in that type of airplane. Served and logged are not the same in this context, and no matter how the SIC logs his time, he has not served as a PIC until he has completed the training and check rides necessary for certification as a Part 121 PIC. We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. Sincerely, /s/ Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division Legal Interpretation # 92-14 March 26, 1992 Mr. Michael G. Tarsa Dear Mr. Tarsa: Thank you for your letter of April 3, 1991, in which you ask questions about logging pilot-in-command (PIC) and second-in-command (SIC) time when operating under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). We apologize that staff shortages, regulatory matters, and interpretation requests received prior to yours prevented us from answering your questions sooner. Your letter presents the following scenario: a Part 135 certificate holder conducts operations in multiengine airplanes under instrument flight rules (IFR). The operator has approval to conduct operations without an SIC using an approved autopilot under the provisions of FAR 135.105. The operator has assigned a fully qualified pilot, who has had a Part 135 competency check, to act as SIC in an aircraft that does not require two pilots under its type certification. Although FAR 135.101 requires an SIC for Part 135 operations in IFR conditions, the autopilot approval is an exception to that requirement. You correctly state that while the SIC is flying the airplane, he can log PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) because he is appropriately rated and current, and is the sole manipulator of the controls. Additionally, he has passed the competency checks required for Part 135 operations, at least as SIC. You then ask two questions. The first asks whether the pilot designated as PIC by the employer, as required by FAR 135.109, can log PIC time while the SIC is actually flying the airplane. The answer is yes. FAR 1.1 defines pilot in command: (1) Pilot in command means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time. FAR 91.3 describes the pilot in command: (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC time. Part 61 deals with logging flight time, and it is important to note that section 61.51, Pilot logbooks, only regulates the recording of: (a) The aeronautical training and experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent flight experience requirements of this part. FAR 61.51(c) addresses logging of pilot time: (2) Pilot-in-command flight time. (i) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only that flight time during which that pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or, except for a recreational pilot, when 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. (ii) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot in command time all of the flight time during which he acts as pilot in command. (iii) (omitted). (3) Second-in-command flight time. A pilot may log as second in command time all flight time during which he acts as second 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. As you can see, there are two ways to log pilot-in-command flight time that are pertinent to your question. The first is as the pilot responsible for the safety and operation of an aircraft during flight time. If a pilot is designated as PIC for a flight by the certificate holder, as required by FAR 135.109, that person is pilot in command 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 second way to log PIC flight time that is pertinent to your question is to be the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, as you mention in your letter. Thus, a multiengine airplane flown under Part 135 by two pilots can have both pilots logging time as pilot in command when the appropriately rated second in command is manipulating the controls. We stress, however, that here we are discussing logging of flight time 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 second pilot in your example 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 has not qualified to serve as a PIC under Part 135. An example of this difference is FAR 135.225(d), which raises IFR landing minimums for pilots in command of turbine powered airplanes flown under Part 135 who have not served at least 100 hours as PIC in that type of airplane. Served and logged are not the same in this context, and no matter how the SIC logs his time, he has not served as a PIC until he has completed the training and check rides necessary for certification as a Part 135 PIC. Approval for single pilot operations with use of an operative approved autopilot system under FAR 135.105 gives an operator an additional option in the conduct of operations. It does not mandate that all future flights be conducted in that manner. The operator can elect to fly trips with two pilots, as is otherwise required for flight in IFR conditions under FAR 135.101, using the second in command instead of the autopilot. Your second question asks if, under the circumstances given above, the SIC can log time as SIC when the designated pilot in command is flying the aircraft. The answer is yes, as long as the certificate holder is using the SIC as a crewmember instead of exercising the autopilot authorization. In other words, the certificate holder elects not to conduct an IFR flight using the single pilot with a functioning autopilot option, but rather conducts an IFR flight using two qualified pilots. The two pilots are then "required by the regulations under which the flight is conducted", FAR 61.51(c)(3), and the assumption is that the second pilot (SIC) will function as a required crewmember, and SIC time may validly be logged. However, if for some reason another qualified pilot "rides along" and does not function as a crewmember, then second-in-command time may not be validly logged. This interpretation has been prepared by Arthur E. Jacobson, Staff Attorney, Operations Law Branch, Regulations and Enforcement Division; Richard C. Beitel, Manager. It has been coordinated with the Manager, Air Transportation Division, and the Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight Standards Service. We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. Sincerely, /s/ Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division Legal Interpretation # 92-5 January 28, 1992 Mr. Timothy Slater Dear Mr. Slater This is in response to your October 24, 1991, letter in which you asked several questions about certain Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). First, you asked whether a clearance is required to operate in a control zone, "... when an aircraft is 5000 feet over the airport, in VFR conditions, but the airport itself is covered in low stratus." We assume from your scenario that the airport is at sea level and that the pilot of the aircraft is merely planning to transit the control zone at 5000 feet above ground level (AGL). FAR Section 91.155 lists the basic VFR weather minimums for certain altitudes, within and outside controlled airspace (14 CFR Section 91.155). A control zone is a type of controlled airspace. Using your example, if the pilot maintains basic VFR weather minimums and is transiting the control zone, he may enter a control zone at 5000 feet AGL without obtaining an ATC clearance. Second, you questioned how low a pilot must descend (i.e., minimum descent altitude or decision height or full-stop landing) on the six instrument approaches he must log to meet the recent IFR experience requirements specified in FAR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) (14 CFR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i)). You also asked if an instrument approach "counts" if only part of the approach is conducted in actual IFR conditions. Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) states that: No pilot may act as pilot in command under IFR, nor in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless he has, within the past 6 calendar months - (i) In the case of an aircraft other than a glider, logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved, including at least six instrument approaches, or passed an instrument competency check in the category of aircraft involved. For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height. Third, you questioned the meaning of the phrase, "... in the vicinity of an airport ...", as specified in FAR Section 91.103(a), Preflight action (14 CFR Section 91.103(a)). Section 91.103(a) provides that, "Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include - (a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC;" We have no specific, fixed definition of "vicinity", but instead, interpret its meaning on a case-by-case basis. Your fourth question concerns FAR Section 91.185, IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure (14 CFR Section 91.185). You asked at what point may a pilot begin his descent for an instrument approach if he experiences communications failure when operating under IFR. Your example assumes the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins. Section 91.185(b) provides that, "If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable." If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if Section 91.185(b) cannot be complied with, FAR Section 91.185(c)(2) specifies that the pilot shall continue the flight at the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown: (i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received; (ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in section 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or (iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance. FAR Section 91.185(c)(3)(ii) provides, in pertinent part, that if the clearance limit is not affix from which an approach begins, "... proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." In sum, if the communications failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if Section 91.185(b) cannot be complied with, the pilot maintains the highest of the altitudes or flight levels specified in Section 91.185(c)(2) for the particular route segment being flown until reaching the fix from which his approach begins. After reaching this fix, he may commence his descent as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended estimated time en route. Fifth, you asked who is responsible for obtaining clearance through a restricted area when an aircraft is operating on an IFR clearance, and the ATC clearance assigns, "VFR conditions on top". If the aircraft is operating via a route which lies within joint-use restricted airspace, and if the restricted area is not active and has been released to the controlling agency (FAA), the ATC facility will allow the aircraft to operate in the restricted airspace without issuing specific clearance for it to do so. Conversely, if the restricted area is active and has not been released to the controlling agency (FAA), the ATC facility will issue a clearance which will ensure the aircraft avoids the restricted airspace, unless it is on an approved altitude reservation mission or has obtained its own permission to operate in the airspace and so informs the controlling facility. If the aircraft is operating via a route which lies within nonjoint-use restricted airspace, the ATC facility will issue a clearance so the aircraft will avoid the restricted airspace, unless it is on an approved altitude reservation mission or has obtained its own permission to operate in the airspace and so informs the controlling facility. These procedures are set forth in the Airman's Information Manual, paragraph 3-43. Finally, you asked when a pilot can leave a fix, from which an approach begins, to commence his approach, if he is operating under IFR on a tower en route clearance and experiences two-way radio communications failure. The procedures specified in FAR Section 91.185 (14 CFR Section 91.185) apply when operating under IFR on a tower en route clearance. Section 91.185(c)(3)(i) provides that, "When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information in this regard. Sincerely, /s/ Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel June 18, 1991 Mr. Gerald Naekel ARM Systems Post Office Box 172 Battle Ground, WA 98604 Dear Mr. Naekel: Thank you for your letter of April 26, 1989, in which you ask for an interpretation of Section 135.245(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). We apologize that it has taken so long to answer your letter. FAR 135.245(a) holds, in pertinent part, that ... no certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as second in command of an aircraft unless that person holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and an instrument rating. For flight under IFR, that person must meet the recent instrument experience requirements of part 61 of this chapter. FAR 61.57(e)(1), in pertinent part, states Recent IFR experience. No pilot may act as pilot in command under IFR, nor in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless he has, within the past 6 calender months.... Your letter asks whether the last sentence of FAR 135.245(a) cited above means that a second in command (SIC) must meet the requirements of FAR 61.57(e)(1), or (2) for recent IFR experience or an instrument competency check, or whether it means that the SIC must simply hold an instrument rating without meeting the recent experience requirements. You mention that FAR 61.57(e) might tend to be confusing because it speaks to a pilot in command, while FAR 135.245(a) pertains to a SIC. The FAA has been continually upgrading requirements for pilots operating under Part 135. The preamble to revisions of Part 135 (including Section 135.245) published October 10, 1978 (43 F.R. 46742), states: The primary purpose of this revision of Part 135 is to upgrade the level of safety for operations conducted by commuter air carriers, on-demand air taxi operators and commercial operators. FAR 135.245 is an example of this upgrade process. An earlier version only required that a SIC have: ... a current commercial certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, in the case of flight under IFR, a current instrument rating and has met the recent instrument experience requirements prescribed for a pilot in command in Section 61.47(d) of this chapter (29 FR 2996, March 5,1964). This earlier version of FAR 135.245 referred specifically to the pilot in command recent instrument experience requirements of FAR 61.47(d) [now 61.57(e)]. While the current version of FAR 135.245 does not refer to a specific section of Part 61, there is no doubt that the reference is to the same section cited in the earlier regulation, and that the reference to this regulation makes it applicable to a SIC regardless of whether it inherently also applies to pilots in command. Additionally, no other section of Part 61 prescribes recent instrument experience, so the reference in FAR 135.245 can only be to section 61.57(e). It is important not to confuse a "current instrument rating" with "recent instrument experience." A current instrument rating merely means that a person holds an instrument rating, and that it has not been revoked, suspended, or surrendered. The term carries no implication of recent experience required in FAR 61.57(e). FAR 135.245 clearly requires recent instrument experience, not merely an instrument rating. It is also important to note that the 6 month instrument currency requirement of Part 61 is in addition to the SIC annual competency check required in FAR 135.293(b). We hope that this answers your questions. This interpretation has been coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Service. Sincerely, Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division Legal Interpretation # 90-30 10/30/90 Ms. Judy Lincoln Dear Ms. Lincoln: This is in further response to your letter dated July 19, 1990, and follows the August 14, 1990, interim response of Mr. George Thompson, Assistant Chief Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Northwest Mountain Region. You asked for a clarification of several FAA opinions concerning whether private pilots may act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft towing gliders. Based on your letter and a memorandum to our office from Mr. Thompson, we understand that in the specific circumstances applicable to the Soaring Society of America (SSA), no money is paid to the private pilot. However, the glider pilot does pay a tow fee to the glider club, which provides the tow aircraft without charge to the tow pilot. The opinions at issue are: 1. Letter dated February 11, 1978, from Clark Onstad, Chief Counsel, to Mr. Forrest Blossom of SSA. 2. Memo dated February 22, 1978, from Jonathan Howe, Acting Chief Counsel, to AEA-7. 3. Letter dated April 5, 1978, from Edward Faberman, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, to Mr. Leonard E. Samuelson, Jr. 4. Letter dated June 26, 1980, from William Sacrey, Chief, Operations Branch, to Ms. Loretta Belter. 5. Memo dated April 28, 1982, from Joseph Budro, Chief, Flight Standards Branch, to Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division. 6. Memo dated May 1982 from Bernard Geier, Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division, to Chief, Flight Standards Division. Your concern, as outlined in your letter and the attached commentary, is that the 1978 opinions (Documents 1, 2 and 3 above) appear to support the position that the tow pilot under the circumstances described need not have a commercial pilot certificate, while Document No. 6 says that such operations would require a commercial pilot certificate. I believe that these two lines of opinions can be explained by reference to the specific sections of Section 61.118 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations), to which they apply. Section 61.118 provides, in relevant part: Except as provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may he, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. * * * * * In this paragraph from Section 61.118 there are two district prohibitions that apply to a private pilot. The first prong of Section 61.118 says a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire. As the question arises in the glider context, the first issue to be addressed is whether an aircraft towing a glider is "carrying passengers or property." Document No. 1, the Onstad letter, concluded (in paragraph 5) that "a glider and its occupants are not considered to be property or passengers that are being carried by the aircraft towing them." From this premise, it followed that a tow pilot with only a private pilot certificate would not be violating the first prong of Section 61.118. Once it was decided that the glider and its occupants were not property or passengers, the issue of compensation or hire became irrelevant to the first prong of 61.118. The Documents cited above are consistent in supporting this conclusion., See, in addition to Document No. 1, No. 2 (paragraphs 3 and 4), and No. 3 (paragraph 3). The second prong of Section 61.118 says that a private pilot may not, "for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft." There is no question that the pilot of the tow plane is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. The issue is whether he is so acting "for compensation or hire." With regard to this second prong of Section 61.118, the agency has repeatedly taken the position that building up flight time is considered compensatory in nature when the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft and would, therefore, be deemed a form of "compensation" to the private pilot under Section 61.118. Only one of the documents you enclosed with your letter squarely addresses this issue. In Document No. 6, paragraph 4, Bernard Geier noted that a private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of such an operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary compensation for service as pilot in command since, as stated, the private pilot is rendering his/her services to build (flight) time. This act, within itself, constitutes an operation for gain or advantage, other than for transportation alone. As such, it would be considered an operation for compensation or hire. In summary we are left with two conclusions that may seem contradictory as applied to the tow plane situation. On the one hand, there is the Onstad letter (Document No. 1) and others holding that since a glider and its occupants are not considered to be property or passengers that are being carried by the aircraft towing them, a private pilot may tow a glider without running afoul of the first prong of Section 61.118. On the other hand, there is the conclusion of the Geier letter (Document No. 6) that building flight time by towing gliders is considered to be an operation for compensation or hire; thus a private pilot towing a glider would run afoul of the second prong of Section 61.118. One explanation is that Mr. Onstad and the others who reached the same conclusion simply did not address the second prong of Section 61.118. It appears that Mr. Onstad skirted the issue when he noted that the tow plane pilot does not "receive any remuneration other than the eligibility of flying the tow plane." It is unclear what "eligibility" means in this context, but in any event Mr. Onstad did not directly address the question of building flight time in this letter. In the sixth paragraph of his letter, he took at face value SSA's statement that the pilot received no remuneration for his service, and did not consider whether building flight time was considered "compensation or hire." That means the Onstad letter is correct as far as it goes, but is an incomplete analysis of the issues. To the extent that it was intended to address the second prong, or can be reasonably read to address the second prong, this opinion, not the Onstad letter, now controls. It could be argued that the accumulation of flight time is not always of value to the pilot involved. The FAA does not consider it appropriate to enter into a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the logging of time is of value to a particular pilot, or what the pilot's motives or intentions are on each flight. One solution to this problem would be for private tow plane pilots not to log their time, a practice which I understand the Palouse Soaring Society (PSS) pilots have already adopted (according to Mr. Thompson's August 14, 1990 letter to SSA). I gather that this is not a hardship, since, as you note in your commentary: In the case of the PSS, each private rated tow pilot has already logged flight time in excess of the commercial pilot minimums noted in 61.129(b), and thus has no motive to `build flight time' towing gliders. If compensation, hire, gain or advantages were desired, any of these pilots could readily obtain his commercial pilot rating and find a more efficient means to `build flight time' .... Another alternative would be for the PSS pilots to obtain their commercial pilot ratings, which would resolve the Section 61.118 prohibitions concerning private pilots. This interpretation has been coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Office of Flight Standards at FAA Headquarters. We hope that it satisfactorily responds to your inquiry. Sincerely, /s/ Donald P. Bynre Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division Legal Interpretation # 90-7 May 8, 1990 Dear Mr. This is in response to your recent letter concerning the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) flight time. Acting as PIC and logging of PIC time can be two separate and distinct functions. PIC as defined in Part 1 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) means, the pilot (singular) responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time. Section 61.51 of the FAR, provides that PIC time used to meet the requirements toward a higher certificate or rating may be logged by a private or commercial pilot who is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he/she is rated. Therefore, it is possible for two pilots to log PIC flight time simultaneously, one who is responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft in accordance with Part 1, of the FAR and the other, who acts as sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he/she holds a rating during the time the aircraft is in flight. We trust this information sufficiently responds to your question and wish you success in your aviation endeavors. Sincerely, Original signed by James I. Riddle Acting Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division Legal Interpretation # 89-24 September 13, 1989 Mr. Bruce J. Brotman Dear Mr. Brotman: This is in response to your March 1, 1989, letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Chief Counsel, in which you pose questions relating to certain requirements in Parts 61 and 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). This also acknowledges receipt of your July 17, 1989, letter to Administrator Busey, in which you inquire about the status of this response. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding to you. The office responsible for researching and drafting answers to your questions has been preoccupied with a number of high priority activities which, unfortunately, has prevented a more timely response. For your convenience, each of your questions is set out below in the order in which they appeared in your March 1, 1989, letter, followed by our response. Question #1 The requirement in FAR 61 concerning spin training for CFI applicants has been removed. However, the CFI "Practical Test Standards" mandates CFI candidates be able to demonstrate spin entry and recovery. Since we train in accordance with the regulations, but test to the Practical Test Standard - what is the official FAA position on spin training for instructors? Response to Question #1 We believe a historical review is helpful in understanding the issue. Spin training was deleted from the aeronautical skill requirements of Section 20.36 of the Civil Air Regulations (CAR) for private and commercial pilots by Amendment 20-3, 14 FR 3326, effective August 15, 1949. A subsequent 1956 proposal to re-initiate spin training for pilots under CAR 20 was considered but never adopted. From 1956 until issuance of Amendment 61-60 on February 1, 1973 (38 FR 3161), the FAA continued to base its regulatory authority for requiring spin training for flight instructors on the provisions of Section 61.173, which specifically required flight instructor applicants to demonstrate spins. The word "spins" was specifically deleted from Part 61 of the FAR by Amendment 61-60. However, under FAA policy, Flight Instructor Practical Test Guides through Advisory Circular (AC) 61-58A, revised 1978, continued to provide that during flight tests in airplanes and gliders, a flight instructor applicant might be asked to demonstrate recognition of and recovery from spin situations expected to be encountered during student training flights. The tacit basis for including spin recognition and recovery in AC-61-58A and in current Practical Test Standards was, and continues to be based on the stated requirements of Section 61.187(a)(5) and (6), respectively. These requirements provide for the effective analysis and correction of common student pilot flight errors, and for the performance and analysis of standard flight training procedures and maneuvers appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought. Thus, it is in the interest of safety to require that applicants for flight instructor certificates be prepared to demonstrate spins. In certain aircraft, for example, airplanes and gliders, it is a common student pilot error to spin. Unless the CFI is prepared to correct such an error, the CFI would not be considered competent. Question #2 Part 91.15(d)(2) does not require the use of a parachute for spins and other flight maneuvers covered by regulations. However, since part 61 no longer requires spin training, does this mean that parachutes must be worn when practicing spins? Response to Question #2 Under Section 91.15(d)(2) of the FAR, a certificated flight instructor and the person receiving instruction are excepted from the requirement to wear parachutes only for those maneuvers which are required by the regulations for any certificate or rating. Thus, any maneuver which is not specifically required by the regulations must be taught employing parachutes pursuant to Section 91.15(c). Therefore, since Part 61 of the FAR no longer contains a specifically worded requirement for spins, the flight instructor teaching spins is not excepted under the provisions of Section 91.15(d)(2) and both the instructor and the person receiving instruction must wear parachutes while spin training is being conducted. Questions Related to TAB/AERO Publication In addition to the above two questions, you submitted a series of questions regarding interpretations previously published by FAA and which reappeared in a TAB/AERO publication. Your introductory comment, questions, and TAB/AERO responses, along with FAA's responses, are set out below. Introductory Comment to TAB/AERO Questions We have recently reviewed portions of a TAB/AERO publication containing excerpts from "Flight Forums" published between 1974 and 1987. The question and answers elected by TAB/AERO, according to them, have undergone a general review of TAB/AERO staff and the editorial staff of FAA Aviation News. However, recognizing that regulations and procedures occasionally change, we would seek the FAA's current interpretation. TAB/AERO Question #1 Can a student pilot log solo time as pilot-in-command time in the hopes of applying the PIC time to a later certificate, such as commercial? TAB/AERO Response Affirmative, FAA's general counsel has interpreted FAR 61.51(c) to allow the logging of student pilot solo time as PIC time because the student is the sole occupant of the aircraft 9-10/80. FAA Response The TAB/AERO response is not accurate. A student pilot may not log pilot in command time under any circumstances. FAR Section 61.51(c)(2) clearly requires a private or higher pilot certificate before a person may log pilot in command time. The TAB/AERO response merely expresses FAA's long standing policy of according recognition to student pilot solo time by allowing the crediting of such time as pilot in command for purposes of applying for additional ratings, but only by the holder of a private or higher pilot certificate. Even then, the FAA will only accept student pilot solo flight time toward meeting pilot in command experience requirements when such practice is not specifically precluded in the regulations. For example, under Section 61.65(e)(1), solo time logged as a student pilot cannot be credited as pilot in command time for purposes of obtaining an instrument rating. TAB/AERO Question #2 FAR 61.51 says a pilot may log PIC time any time he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated. Suppose IFR conditions prevail when a pilot is taking instrument instruction. Don't the regulations expressly forbid anyone to fly as pilot-in-command under instrument conditions without an instrument rating? TAB/AERO Response An instrument student who has a private or better certificate and is rated in the airplane, may indeed log as PIC the time he is sole manipulator of the controls regardless of the meteorological conditions. However, if the flight is under actual instrument conditions the student must be accompanied by a pilot, who may be a flight instructor, holding an instrument rating and who is rated in the aircraft. They further clarify as follows: "As far as making any decisions necessary for safe flight, the flight instructor - when he is on board for the purpose of giving instruction - is always the pilot-in-command and may log the time as such. However, FAR Part 61.51(c)(2)(i) permits a pilot with a private or better certificate to also log as PIC time any, "during which he is sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated." FAA Response An instrument student who holds at least a private pilot certificate and who is rated for the aircraft flown may log as pilot in command flight time under Section 61.51(c)(2)(i), the time spent as sole manipulator of the controls regardless of the meteorological conditions of the flight. In situations where actual IFR meteorological conditions exist, as in the case presented in the above example, the safety pilot or flight instructor, as the case may be, must be pilot in command, as that term is defined under 1.1 of the FAR. TAB/AERO Question #3 FAR Section 61.19 states that a flight instructor's certificate is valid only while the holder has a current pilot certificate and a medical certificate appropriate to the pilot privileges being exercised. Would instruction from a CFI who has been denied a medical certificate be accepted for an additional rating? TAB/AERO Response A CFI who does not hold a current medical certificate, but is not acting as PIC or as a required flight crew member, may give creditable flight instruction to a pilot who is fully qualified and currently rated to act as PIC for the aircraft. A non-medically current CFI is not permitted to give flight instruction to a student pilot; to a pilot whose BFR has lapsed, or who is otherwise not qualified, rated, and current in the aircraft; to a non-instrument rated pilot in IMC or on an instrument flight plan; or to a pilot practicing instrument flight under a hood (which requires the presence of a safety pilot). FAA Response A certificated flight instructor who does not hold a valid medical certificate of any class may give creditable flight instruction under conditions which do not require that the instructor serve as a required crewmember or as pilot in command as the terms are defined under Section 1.1 of the FAR. We trust the above response will prove helpful to you as a representative of the Allaire Airport Instructor's Association. Sincerely, /s/ Donald P. Byrne Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Legal Interpretation # 88-13 April 1, 1988 Dear Mr. This is in response to your letter of March 2 concerning the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) flight time. Specifically, you asked whether it is possible for two pilots to log simultaneous PIC flight time in an aircraft requiring two flight crewmembers. In addressing the question presented in your letter, the meaning of PIC flight time as defined in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 1 is as follows: PIC means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time. Acting as PIC and logging of PIC time can be two separate and distinct functions. Section 61.51(c)(2)(i) of the FAR provides that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC 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. These two specific usages are not synonymous and should not be confused with one another. To summarize the application of the FAR to the situation you described, either pilot may log PIC flight time during the time that pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft, provided that each pilot is type rated in the aircraft and holds at least a private or commercial pilot certificate. The pilot acting as PIC, as defined in Part 1 of the FAR, may log all flight time as PIC time regardless of whether or not he is the sole manipulator of the controls, because he is the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft. Note that under Section 61.51(c)(2)(i), it is possible for two pilots to log simultaneous PIC time in an aircraft requiring two flight crewmembers. This is consistent with the purpose of Section 61.51 which is to provide for the logging of training and experience to meet the requirement for a certificate or rating or the recent flight experience requirements of Section 61.51 of the FAR. We hope this adequately responds to your question and will assist you in your record keeping tasks. Sincerely, /s/ James F. Byers for James I. Riddle Manager, Certification Branch Legal Interpretation # 84-31 December 5, 1984 Donald W. Steinman Dear Mr. Steinman: This is in response to your letter regarding the logging of pilot in command (PIC) flight time. Specifically, you ask about the logging of flight time by a copilot of a small multiengine airplane operated by a commuter air carrier under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). You pose the following questions: (1) Can the co-pilot enter in his log book as PIC time that time during which he is sole manipulator of the controls of the airplane? (2) Can he use that time to satisfy the requirements for 100 hours of PIC time-in-type specified by FAR 135.225(d)? (3) Would there be any objection to his presenting that time as PIC time on a application for federal employment? You ask us to consider the following factors: The copilot is rated in the airplane under FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i). The copilot has been designated as second in command (SIC) by the operator under FAR 135.109. The copilot has not had the upgrade training described in FAR 135.321(b)(3). Two pilots are required by the regulations under which the airplane is operated, i.e., FAR 135.99(b). The airplane, a 17-passenger Fairchild Metro II turboprop, weighs 12,500 pounds and does not require two pilots under its type certificate. You also note the "legal precedents" for treating SIC time as PIC time found in FAR 61.155(b)(1) and 61.155(e)(1). As you know, Section 61.51 of the FAR provides rules for the logging of aeronautical training and experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. Section 61.51(c)(2) describes the circumstances under which a private or commercial pilot may log PIC time. That section provides in paragraph (c)(2)(i), in part, that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time that flight time during which the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he or she is rated. This 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., "ultimately" responsible for the aircraft) during that time. To answer your question (1), the SIC who is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated may log that time as PIC flight time under Section 61.51(c)(2), in order to use that experience to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating or recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. Note that in your example the time also may be logged as SIC time under Section 61.51(c)(3), because the pilot is acting as SIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the regulations under which the flight is conducted. Of course, one hour logged as both PIC and SIC time adds up to only one hour total flight time. Section 135.225(d) provides that certain instrument landing minimums are increased for "each pilot in command of a turbine- powered airplane who has not served at least 100 hours as a pilot in command in that type of airplane." Note, first, that by its terms Section 61.51 does not apply to the logging of PIC time to be used to meet requirements in Part 135. Note also that Section 135.225(d) refers to hours served as pilot in command, not to hours logged as pilot in command. To answer your question (2), the 100 hours of PIC time in Section 135.225(d) refer to time when the pilot actually served as the PIC, not when he was the SIC manipulating the controls. Therefore, the SIC flight time described may not be used to satisfy the 100-hour requirement in Section 135.225(d). As you appear to recognize already, some time may be logged as PIC time for some purposes, but not for others. To answer your question (3), flight experience logged in accordance with Part 61 should be creditable as flight experience toward Federal employment except where conditions were prescribed for crediting of flight experience which would preclude the use of this time. The agency to which you wish to apply should be contacted for further information. Sincerely, John H. Cassady Assistant Chief Counsel Legal Interpretation # 84-29 November 07, 1984 Mr. Joseph P. Carr Dear Mr. Carr: This is in response to your letter asking questions about instrument flight time. First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as actual instrument flight time. Second, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.57(e)(2) of the FAR, noting that Advisory Circular 61-65A, Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors, seems to contain advice contrary to your understanding of the rule. As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides, in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (i.m.c.)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions. To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described, a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective, and based in part on the sound judgement of the pilot. Note that, under Section 61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should include the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate. To answer your second question, your understanding of Section 61.57(e) is correct. Section 61.57(e) provides currency requirements for acting as pilot in command (PIC) under instrument flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than the minimums for visual flight rules (VFR). No pilot may act as PIC under those conditions unless she or he has, within the last six months, logged the number of hours of instrument flight time, including the number of approaches, indicated in Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) or (ii). When that six-month currency period lapses, that is, on the day the pilot no longer has the required instrument flight time within the last six months, the pilot may in the next six months regain her or his currency simply by logging the required instrument flight time. Note that, during this second six-mont period, Section 61.57(e)(1) prohibits the pilot from acting as PIC under IFR or below VFR minimums (i.m.c.). If that second six-month period runs without the pilot regaining currency, she or he may only again become qualified to act as PIC under IFR or in weather below VFR minimums (i.m.c.) by passing an instrument competency check as described in Section 61.57(e)(2). Advisory Circular 61-65A, paragraph 15a, explained in part that a pilot failing to meet the recency of instrument experience requirements for a period of 12 months must pass an instrument competency check. This simply meant that, when a pilot becomes qualified to act as PIC under the instrument conditions described, he or she has at least a 12-month period in which currency may be maintained or regained by logging the required instrument flight time. After that 12-month period, if currency has not been maintained or regained, the pilot must pass an instrument competency check. Advisory Circular 61-65A was not intended to expand the second six-month "grace" period to 12 months. As you note, the Advisory Circular has been changed, and paragraph 15 was rewritten to more accurately reflect the requirements of Section 61.57(e)(2). Sincerely, John H. Cassady Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations & Enforcement Division Legal Interpretation # 83-3 April 6, 1983 Harlan V. Elliott Dear Mr. Elliott: This is in reply to your December 10, 1982 letter questioning the accuracy of an interpretation appearing in the September/October 1982 issue of FAA General Aviation News (GA News) (found on page 15). GA News addressed the following question: When I am taking instruction for an instrument rating, can I log it as pilot-in-command time in actual instrument conditions when I am the sole manipulator of the controls in IFR conditions? This question was answered as follows: No. A pilot receiving instrument instruction in actual instrument conditions must be rated and current in the aircraft and already possess an instrument rating, in order to log pilot-in-command time for such conditions. You note that the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) do not specifically permit a pilot to log pilot-in-command (PIC) time in actual instrument conditions without an instrument rating, but neither do they specifically prohibit logging this time. As you indicated in your letter, there are a number of FARs which bear on this. Section 61.51(c)(2) provides in part that a private or commercial pilot may log as pilot-in-command time flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated. Section 61.51(c)(4) provides in part that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. Section 61.65(e)(2) requires that an applicant for an instrument rating must have at least 40 hours of simulated or actual instrument time as a pilot, and Section 61.65(e)(3) requires the applicant to have at least 15 hours of instrument flight instruction by an authorized flight instructor. You offer your opinion that the remaining 25 hours required in Section 61.65(e)(2) which is not "dual" instruction under Section 61.65(e)(3), could be flown with a "watch pilot" and must be pilot-in-command time under Section 61.51(c)(2) and instrument time under Section 61.51(c)(4). The only limitations on the PIC time which may be logged by a private or commercial pilot are those found in Section 61.51(c)(2), including the provision that PIC time may be logged when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he or she is rated. Please note that Section 61.51(c)(2) and the other sections cited above are only provisions for logging flight time. Section 61.3(e)(1) provides in part that no person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under instrument flight rules, or in weather conditions less than VFR minimums unless that person holds an instrument rating. A non-instrument rated pilot who is taking instrument instruction in IFR conditions may log that as PIC time, but may not actually serve as the PIC. The other pilot must be the PIC, and is not merely a "watch pilot." We are informing GA News of our interpretation. I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, John H. Cassady Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations & Enforcement Division Legal Interpretation # 80-30 October 28, 1980 Winston Scott Jones Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your letter in which you request an interpretation of Section 61.51(2)(c) 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(c)(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; or 2. Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or 3. 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(c)(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(b)(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(c)(2)(i) while receiving instruction, and the instructor may log that same time as PIC time under 61.51(c)(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(b)(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 requested 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 in 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 ratings 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. Faberman Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division Legal Interpretation # 79-39 July 10, 1979 Mr. E. C. Rawley Dear Mr. Rawley: Your request for a legal opinion dated June 26, 1979, addressed to Mr. Don Loftin of the FAA Houston GADO has been referred to this office for consideration and reply. Your request has been construed to be twofold: 1. Whether Mr. J. G. Bucher can utilize 300 flight hours accumulated in operating an Aero Commander 500S under your supervision to assist him in qualifying for a multi-engine rating; and, 2. Whether Mr. J. G. Bucher can utilize 73 flight hours of instrument flying accumulated in operating an Aero Commander 500S under your supervision to assist him in qualifying for an instrument rating. In response to 1. above, a multi-engine rating is an airplane class rating for which no specific number of flight hours are required in order to obtain a multi-engine rating. Section 61.63(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations requires, inter alia, that an applicant for a class rating present a log book record showing that the applicant has received flight instruction in the class of aircraft for which a rating is sought. Section 61.51(b)(iii) of the regulations requires that the flight instruction be received from an authorized flight instructor. Thus the 300 flight hours Mr. J. G. Bucher accumulated under your supervision will not meet the requirements of Section 61.63(c), in that none of them were accumulated while flying the aircraft under the instructions of an authorized flight instructor. In response to 2. above, Section 61.65(e) requires that an applicant for an instrument rating must have at least 40 hours of simulated or actual instrument time, with a minimum of 15 of those hours being instructional by an authorized flight instructor. Thus, while Mr. J. G. Bucher may use the 73 hours of instrument flying under your supervision to meet a portion of the instrument rating requirements, those hours in and of themselves are not sufficient to meet the 40 hours requirement because none of them were received when flying under the instructions of an authorized flight instructor. However, the 330 flight hours accumulated by Mr. J. G. Bucher can be used to partially meet the 200 hours of pilot flight time required by Section 61.65(e)(1). I trust this response is of some assistance. Very truly yours, JOSEPH A. KOVARIK Regional Counsel By: /s/ Don L. Bachman General Attorney Legal Interpretation # 79-12 April 5, 1979 Mr. James M. Klein Dear Mr. Klein: This is in response to your letter dated March 3, 1979, in which you request written interpretation of certain sections of Part 61 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Specifically, you ask whether you may receive credit under Section 61.155(d) for all or part of your experience as a Naval Flight Officer (NFO), which is designated in military logbooks as "Special Crew Time." In addition, you ask whether you may log time spent performing the duties of a NFO as second-in-command flight time in your civilian logbook. You also ask whether "other pilot time" as used in FAR Section 61.51(b)(2)(vii) means "flight time" as a pilot, at a pilot station, but not performing required duties such as pilot-in-command, second-in-command, etc. Since he has not been designated a pilot by the Navy, a Naval Flight Officer cannot log time spent functioning as a NFO as "pilot time" for civilian purposes. He cannot receive credit under FAR Section 61.155(d) for military flight time, since that section is limited to operations conducted under FAR Part 121 -- Certification and Operations: Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Air Carriers and Commercial Operators of Large Aircraft. Finally, "other pilot time" means pilot time other than that specified in FAR Section 61.51(b)(2). It does not include experience accumulated as a NFO, since NFOS are not designated as pilots. Sincerely, Carl B. Schellenberg Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations & Enforcement Division Legal Interpretation # 78-31 October 17, 1978 Mrs. M. J. Ruth Dear Mrs. Ruth: The Chief Counsel has asked me to respond to your letter in which you asked: (1) how to log time as dual or solo; (2) how much ground trainer time or simulator time may be counted toward private and commercial pilot certificates, and an instrument rating; (3) what ratings are required to "sign off" for instrument instruction; and (4) what is the meaning of section 141.91(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations for certificated flight and ground instructors. 1. With regard to your first question concerning the logging of time as dual or solo, we refer you to section 61.51(c). Under paragraph (1) of that section, except for certain experience in an airship, a pilot may log as solo flight time only that flight time when he or she is the sole occupant of the aircraft. Section 61.61 does not provide for the logging of "dual" time, as such; however, pilots may log pilot-in-command and second-in-command time in accordance with section 61.51(c)(2) and (3). Note that under section 61.51(c) both a pilot receiving instruction and the instructor may log pilot-in-command time for the same flight time. This is consistent with the purpose of section 61.51 which is to provide for the logging of training and experience to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. 2. How much ground trainer time or simulator time can be counted toward a particular certificate or rating varies depending on how training for the certificate is obtained. While Part 61 provides specific aeronautical experience requirements for each type of certificate and rating, section 61.71(a) provides that a graduate of a flying school certificated under Part 141 is considered to meet the applicable aeronautical experience requirements of Part 61, if the pilot presents a graduation certificate to the FAA within 60 days after graduation. Section 61.109 (Airplane rating: Aeronautical experience) does not allow the substitution of simulator or trainer time for any of the required 40 hours of flight instruction and solo flight time required for a private pilot certificate. Under Part 141, 35 hours of flight training is required for a private pilot course, but a student may credit toward this time up to five hours in a ground trainer meeting the requirements of section 141.41(a)(1) or up to 2.5 hours in a ground trainer meeting the requirements of section 141.41(a)(2). For a commercial pilot certificate, section 61.129(b) provides that up to 50 hours of ground-trainer instruction time is creditable toward the 250 hours of total pilot flight time required. Appendix D of Part 141 requires only 190 hours of flight training, for which the student may credit up to 40 hours in a ground trainer that meets the requirements of section 141.41(a)(1) or up to 20 hours in a ground trainer that meets the requirements of section 141.41(a)(2). For an instrument rating, section 61.65(e) provides that up to 20 hours of instrument time in a ground trainer is creditable toward the 40 hours of simulated or actual instrument time required. Under Appendix C of Part 141, 35 hours of flight training are required, and the student may credit toward that time up to 15 hours in a ground trainer meeting the requirements of section 141.41(a)(1) or up 7.5 hours in a ground trainer meeting the requirements of section 141.41(a)(2). 3. Section 61.65(c) requires that an applicant for the flight test for an instrument rating (airplane) present a logbook certified by an authorized flight instructor showing that the applicant has received flight instruction in an airplane in certain pilot operations and has been found competent in each of them. A flight instructor is authorized to provide this certificate, or "sign off," for instrument instruction if the instructor has an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate. In addition, in accordance with section 61.195(b), the instructor must have had a category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, in the aircraft in which the flight instruction was conducted. 4. We understand your concern to be that section 141.91(c) requires instructors at a satellite base be under the "direct supervision" of the chief instructor. This provision appears to contradict section 141.81 which requires direct supervision only for ground instructors who do not hold a flight or ground instructor certificate with an appropriate rating. Section 141.91(c), however, must be interpreted in the light of section 141.81. It is not intended to require additional supervision of persons with flight or ground instructor certificates when they are teaching at a satellite base. The provisions of section 141.81 apply at the satellite base as well as the main operations base. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry, and we hope that this will be of assistance in answering the questions you have concerning this subject. Sincerely, CARL B. SCHELLENBERG Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations & Enforcement Division Legal Interpretation # 77-50 August 30, 1977 Mr. William P. Siretnak Department of Law and Public Safety Division of State Police P.O. Box 7068 West Trenton, New Jersey 06825 Dear Mr. Siretnak: This is in response to your letter of June 15, 1977, to the Chief Counsel in which you inquire whether section 91.3 (14 CFR 91.3) or any section of Part 61 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) imposes pilot-in-command responsibility on a certificated flight instructor (CFI), whether or not he is acting on the flight as a CFI. The specific regulations applicable to answering your questions are sections 91.3 and 61.51(c)(2). The pertinent parts provide: Section 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. * * * * * Section 61.51(c)(2) Pilot-in-Command flight time. (i) A private or commercial pilot may log as pilot in command time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he 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. * * * * * (iii) A certificated flight instructor may log as pilot in command time all flight time during which he acts as a flight instructor. When a pilot who is also a CFI flies with another appropriately rated pilot who has been designated or agrees to act as pilot in command (PIC) for that flight, only the pilot actually acting as PIC has the responsibility specified in section 91.3. The fact that a pilot is a CFI does not automatically impose this responsibility on him. As a CFI, you may log PIC time when you act as PIC, in accordance with section 61.51(c)(2)(i), or when you are actually acting as a flight instructor, pursuant to section 61.51(c)(2)(iii). However, the logging of PIC time by a CFI, pursuant to section 65.51(c)(2)(iii), is not conclusive as to who is the pilot in command. For example, if a CFI is giving instruction to a pilot, and that student agrees to accept the responsibility of the PIC, then the student is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft while he is acting as PIC. The answers to the specific questions you have raised are as follows: 1. When acting in the capacity of a flight instructor and occupying the left seat of Bell 206B Jet Ranger I assume I have the responsibility for the actions of the pilot and may be held liable for any violations of the F.A.R.'s and any accidents that might occur. Is this true or false? There is no FAR which states that the pilot occupying the left seat of an aircraft is presumed to be the pilot in command. Which pilot is the PIC at any given moment is a question of fact and, as such, there is no rule or regulation which automatically imposes PIC liability on a CFI. 2. Since the nature of our job dictates that we fly with two pilots on most police missions and at times I may be flying in the left seat as an observer, but not performing flight instructor duties; and the other pilot is acting as pilot-in-command and is not a C.F.I.. Am I responsible for any violations of the F.A.R.'s or accidents that the pilot commits or causes because I am the assigned flight instructor? The fact that you hold a flight instructor certificate, in addition to other certificates and ratings, does not transfer the responsibilities of the PIC to you, if another pilot is acting as the PIC. However, if you are assigned as flight instructor for a particular flight, and your failure to give proper instruction results in endangering the life or property of another, you could be held responsible for careless or reckless operation of the aircraft in violation of section 91.9. 3. Another point not to be overlooked is that I may not be the highest ranking pilot on board, taking into consideration of our rank structure from troopers to lieutenants. The relative rank of the pilots in your police organization is not itself significant in establishing who the PIC is on any flight. 4. Another point to remember is that it may not always be clear that the mission did not intentionally begin as a dual training mission but if some discrepancies do occur it is the responsibility of the assigned flight instructor to point these out and take necessary action to steer the pilot in the proper direction. The fact that a CFI points out a problem or tells the PIC what he should be doing does not make that CFI the new PIC. However, if another pilot is designated or agrees to act as PIC and that pilot wishes to have you act as PIC, both you and he may agree to the turn over of the PIC responsibility. The facts of any particular situation vary, making it impossible to give any hard and fast answer to this specific question. 5. With these questions and points in mind I assume that no matter how the flight originates I may be held liable for the actions of any pilot who occupies the pilot-in-command seat as long as I am assigned as an active flight instructor to the Helicopter Patrol Bureau. Assuming that you properly exercise your flight instructor duties, it is incorrect to assume that because you are the CFI assigned as active flight instructor that the FAA would hold you liable for violations of the FARs of another pilot who is acting as PIC. This interpretation is not intended to answer any question which relate to civil liability, New Jersey State Police regulations, or to any conditions of employment between yourself and the New Jersey State Police. We trust this information will be of assistance to you. As you were advised by Mr. Byrne of our office on August 29, 1977, your inquiry and this reply will not be published in any FAA publication. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY EDWARD P. FABERMAN for NEIL R. EISNER Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division Office of the Chief Counsel Legal Interpretation # 77-38 July 12, 1977 Mr. Thomas F. Dover Dear Mr. Dover: This is in response to your recent request for an interpretation of section 61.51(c)(2)(i) (14 CFR 61.51(c)(2)(i)) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). You ask the following questions: (1) Can a rated pilot (private pilot and sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated) log instruction received from a CFI as pilot-in-command flight time? (2) Can a rated pilot (private pilot and sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated) log instrument instruction received from a CFI or CFII as pilot- in-command flight time? Section 61.51(c)(2)(i) provides: A private or commercial pilot may log as pilot in command time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he 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. There is nothing in the FARs which prohibits an appropriately rated private or commercial pilot from logging pilot-in-command time in accordance with section 61.51(c)(2) when receiving any flight instruction from a certificated flight instructor (CFI). This includes the logging of instrument instruction under actual or simulated IFR conditions. We hope this interpretation will be of assistance to you in logging pilot-in-command flight time pursuant to section 61.51(c)(2)(i). Sincerely yours, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY EDWARD P. FABERMAN for NEIL R. EISNER Legal Interpretation # 77-30 June 15, 1977 Mr. Thomas T. Ishiharhi Dear Mr. Ishiharhi: This letter is in response to your recent letters to the FAA Flight Standards Service and to the Chief Counsel inquiring about the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time by an airman whenever he considers himself to be giving instruction. Specifically, you state that one of the pilots with when you work (pilot X) claims "that the mere statement of telling the pilot doing the flying that he forgot to put the existing beacon on (for one thing), makes his role one of flight instructor, thus justifying logging pilot-in-command time." We understand your position to be that pilot X may not log this time as PIC time because: (1) instruction cannot be given without the knowledge and permission of the person being instructed and without the necessary endorsements in the logbooks of the pilots being instructed; and (2) pilot X may not log PIC time unless he is actually flying the airplane. Section 61.51(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations provides, in pertinent part: (2) Pilot-in-Command flight time. (i) A private or commercial pilot may log as pilot in command time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he 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. * * * * * (iii) A certificated flight instructor (CFI) may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time during which he acts as a flight instructor. Only if pilot X is a CFI and is actually giving flight instruction to the other pilot may he log his flight time as PIC time in accordance with Section 61.51(c)(2)(iii), even though he is not actually "flying the airplane." Under the circumstances you describe, it does not appear that pilot X is actually giving flight instruction. We agree that the knowledge of the person being instructed, and, in fact, his consent to the instruction, are essential elements. However, it is not necessary that the person receiving instruction log it as time in order for the instructor to log PIC time in accordance with Section 61.51(c)(2)(iii). It should be noted that a pilot may also log PIC time in accordance with Section 61.51(c)(2)(i) when he is not actually "flying the airplane", if the airplane is one on which more than one pilot is required under its type certificate or under the regulations under which the flight is conducted and he is acting as PIC. In addition, it should also be noted that more than one pilot may log PIC time for the same flight time. For example, one pilot may log PIC time in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(i) for the time he is designated PIC, and another pilot may log PIC time in accordance with (c)(2)(iii) for the same time during which he is actually giving flight instruction. We hope that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry on the proper logging of PIC time. You may wish to bring this matter to the attention of an FAA Flight Standards District Office. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY EDWARD P. FABERMAN for NEIL R. EISNER Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations & Enforcement Division Office of the Chief Counsel How to Log Time Federal Aviation Regulation 61.51 governs the logging of pilot time. Please note that there is a distinction between *acting* as pilot in command, and the logging of pilot in command time. It is neither necessary nor sufficient (except for an ATP) to *be* the PIC in order to *log* PIC time. Solo Any pilot may log solo flight time when s/he is the sole occupant of the aircraft. Pilot in Command A student pilot may not log PIC time. A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log PIC time when s/he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or, except for a recreational pilot, when acting as PIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certificatation of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted, such as being the safety pilot when the pilot who is manipulating the controls is wearing a view-limiting device. Note: The sole manipulator of the controls does not have to *be* the pilot in command in order to log PIC time. As long as s/he is rated in the aircraft, that is sufficient. No recency of experience requirement, BFR, medical, high performance, high altitude, or tailwheel endorsement is necessary. "Rated" means category (airplane, for example) and class (single-engine land, for example). An airline transport pilot may log as PIC time all of the flight time during which s/he acts as pilot in command. It is not necessary for an ATP to be the sole manipulator of the controls. Note: The question arises, suppose an ATP is the sole manipulator of the controls, but not the PIC? May s/he then log PIC time? It does not seem reasonable to *lose* logging privileges after obtaining a more advanced rating, so we tend to say "yes", but there are FAA inspectors who disagree with us, and say that an ATP must *be* the PIC in order to log PIC time. A certified flight instructor may log as PIC time all flight time during which he acts as a flight instructor. Second in Command A pilot may log as SIC time all flight time during which s/he acts as SIC 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, such as being the safety pilot when the pilot who is manipulating the controls is wearing a view-limiting device. The second in command must be rated for the aircraft and must have in his possession a valid medical certificate, but does not have to meet the recency of experience requirements, nor have a current BFR or high performance, high altitude, or tailwheel endorsement. Instrument flight time A pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which s/he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. Note: There is no requirement to be rated for the aircraft or to be IFR rated in order to log actual instrument time. An instrument flight instructor may log as instrument time that time during which s/he acts as instrument flight instructor in actual instrument weather conditions. Answers to common questions: Do I need to be receiving instruction in order to log pilot ground trainer (simulator) time? Yes. There is no provision for logging "solo" pilot ground trainer time. Does pilot ground trainer time count as "flight time"? No, do not include pilot ground trainer time in your "flight time" column. You may include it in your "instrument time" column, and in your "ground instruction time" column. If I am receiving instruction in actual instrument conditions, and I am the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which I am rated, can I log PIC time, instrument flight time, and instruction time simultaneously? Yes. If a pilot friend (not a CFI) lets me manipulate the controls of an aircraft for which I am *not* rated, may I log that time? Yes, log it as "flight time" and in a column labeled "other" flight time, since it is neither PIC, SIC, nor instruction received. If I do not have a current medical certificate may I log PIC time when a pilot friend (not a CFI) allows me to be the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which I am rated? Yes. I am a private pilot, SEL, but not instrument rated. I fly with another private pilot (not a CFI) who is instrument rated. He files an IFR flight plan and we encounter actual IFR conditions, during which time I am the sole manipulator of the controls of the Cessna 172. May I log such time as PIC and actual instrument time? Yes. I am a private pilot SEL, working on my instrument rating. When I fly under the hood with my instructor may I log the time both as simulated instrument dual received and as PIC cross-country time? Yes, although in order to log it as cross-country time towards the instrument rating the flight must include a landing at an airport more than 50 nautical miles from the departure airport. FROM lede92.fed: Second, you questioned, "can a non-instrument rated private pilot log pilot-in-command time in actual instrument flight conditions while receiving instruction from a CFI or CFII? The pilot is rated in this aircraft." The answer is yes. FAR 61.51(c) addresses logging of pilot time: (2) Pilot-in-command flight time. (i) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only that flight time during which that pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or, except for a recreational pilot, when acting as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification or the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted. There is nothing in the FARs which prohibits an appropriately rated private or commercial pilot from logging pilot-in-command time in accordance with Section 61.51(c)(2)(i) when receiving any flight instruction from a certificated flight instructor (CFI). This includes the logging of instrument instruction under actual or simulated IFR conditions. We stress, however, that here we are discussing logging of flight time 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. There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC time. Section 61.3(e)(1) provides in part that no person may act as pilot-in-command of a civil aircraft under instrument flight rules, or in weather conditions less than VFR minimums unless that person holds an instrument rating. A non-instrument-rated pilot who is taking instrument instruction in IFR conditions may log that as PIC time, but may not actually serve as the PIC. The other pilot must be the PIC, as that term is defined under Section 1.1 of FAR. Enclosed are two prior interpretations concerning the logging of pilot-in-command flight time. We hope that these interpretations will be of further assistance to you. FROM lejau9.fed: Dear Mr. Ewing: Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1992, concerning pilot-in-command time. In your letter you request a copy of a "FAA Formal Opinion dated May 8, 1990, which deals with the logging of Pilot-in-command time." You also raise an additional question and comment which concern Part 61.51(c)(2)(i) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) addresses Pilot-in-command flight time: A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only that flight time during which that pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or, except for a recreational pilot, when 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. Your question concerning Part 61.51(c)(2)(i) centers on the sentence "for which the pilot is rated." You ask "If the airplane in question requires a type rating (for example, KC-135 or B- 707), does a pilot have to possess the type rating for that aircraft before he can log PIC time during that portion of the flight during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls? Or, to the contrary, are possession of a private pilot certificate and merely being the sole manipulator of the controls sufficient to log PIC time in that aircraft?" Under section 61.51(c)(2)(i), a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which that pilot is rated. "Rated", as used under section 61.51(c)(2)(i), refers to the category, class, and type as appropriate. Therefore, pilots must be appropriately rated for the aircraft, as the term is defined above, before they may log PIC time under Part 61. The possession of a private pilot certificate and merely being the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft is not necessarily sufficient to log PIC time. In addition to your question, you also make the comment that, "The second part of 61.51(c)(2)(i) in question concerns logging PIC time '...when acting as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification...' It would appear that a pilot, although not in possession of the type certificate for that aircraft, could 'act' as pilot in command (during the portion of the flight that he/she is the sole manipulator of the controls) and therefore log PIC time for that portion of the flight." Under section 61.51(c)(2)(i), concerning the logging of PIC time, the sentence "when acting as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification..." does not mean that a pilot, not in possession of the type certificate for that aircraft, can nonetheless act as PIC during the portion of the flight that he is the sole manipulator of the controls and therefore log PIC time for that portion of the flight. The FAA letter dated May 8, 1990, which you requested is attached. It further explains this issue. I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions and concerns. Sincerely, Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations Division FROM leoc92.fed: October 30, l992 Mr. David M. Reid Dear Mr. Reid: Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1992, concerning the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). In your letter you ask four questions. First, you ask whether there are "any circumstances when, during a normal flight, two Private Pilots may simultaneously act as (and therefore log the time as) Pilot-In-Command?" The answer is two private pilots may not simultaneously act as PIC but they may, under certain circumstances, simultaneously log PIC time. There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC time. PIC, as defined in FAR 1.1, means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time. FAR 61.51 deals with logging PIC flight time, and it provides that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC 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. It is important to note that FAR 61.51 only regulates the recording of PIC time used to meet the requirements toward a higher certificate, higher rating, or for recent flight experience. Therefore, 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. PIC flight time may be logged by both the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time in accordance with FAR 1.1, and by the pilot who acts as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft for which the pilot is rated under FAR 61.51. Enclosed please find two prior FAA interpretations concerning logging of PIC time. We hope that these will be of further assistance to you. 2 In your second question you ask "[h]ow shall two Private Pilots log their flight time when one pilot is under the hood for simulated instrument time and the other pilot acts as safety pilot?" The answer is the pilot who is under the hood may log PIC time for that flight time in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft, provided he is rated for that aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently log as second in command (SIC) that time during which he is acting as safety pilot. The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiating the flight that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i). Enclosed please find a prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of flight time under simulated instrument flight conditions. We hope that this interpretation will be of further assistance to you. In your third question you ask "[d]uring instrument training, how shall a VFR Private Pilot log the following flight time: Pilot-In- Command time, Simulated Instrument time, and Actual Instrument time, when that pilot is...A)...under the hood? B)...in actual instrument conditions? C)...under the hood in actual instrument conditions?" The answer is the VFR private pilot may log all of the flight time you described as PIC flight time under FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) if he was the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated. Under FAR 61.51(c)(4) the pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. Please note that the FARs do not distinguish between "actual" and "simulated" instrument flight time. Enclosed is a prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of instrument flight time. We hope this interpretation will further assist you. Finally you ask "[d]oes FAR 61.57 affect how the VFR Private Pilot shall log Pilot-In-Command time during instrument training, either before or after meeting the 6/6/6 requirement, and if so, how?" FAR 61.57 does not affect how a pilot logs PIC time during instrument training; FAR 61.51(c)(2) and (4) govern logging of instrument flight time. FAR 61.57(e) provides currency requirements for acting as PIC under instrument flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than the minimums for visual flight rules (VFR). Enclosed 3 please find a prior FAA interpretation on instrument flight time and FAR 61.57(e). We hope this interpretation will further assist you. We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. Sincerely, Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations Division Enclosures