PIC Time - Has anyone had a straight Answer?

[Islandcrazy]

Okay,

Firstly I have looked throught most the threads in all the forums about logging PIC time. It seems there is some debate, okay a lot of debate :ugh:....and I have read the FAA and JAA regs. I note solo, dual, pic and P1 etc and they dont match up between JAA and FAA logbooks.

I would really appreciate an answer from someone who has actually presented an FAA log book to the CAA and had an answer to:

Can FAA "dual' be logged as P1 JAR if the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls for the purpose of a JAA pilot licence?

Thanks

IC

[Whirlygig]

If FAA time has been logged as "dual" then it will also be dual under JAA.

Cheers

Whirls

[thecontroller]

No it can't. If you are flying with an instructor, in the eyes of the CAA/JAA you CANNOT log it as PIC. The instructor is PIC.

[topendtorque]

sounds like some of these high falutin' reg desingers know more about where the aircraft commander sits than does the aircraft manufacturer.

I'll go with the POH every time. Instructors and check pilots may overrride the PIC for safety sake but they don't hold a candle to being PIC unless they sit where the good book says in my book.
cheers tet

[birrddog]

I really wish they would standardize this across ICAO signatories. I suffer from the same challenges flying between FAA, JAA and CAA (SA).

What do they want to know, time as a rated pilot operating an aircraft (surely this should count for both pilots so qualified in front of the controls)?

Command/Instructor time is useful too, but I would argue as a separate column, though I'm not quite sure how one would use it.

I personally think the FAA has a more practical approach to this.

[parabellum]

topendtorque - If an instructor is fully checked out as PIC in both seats then he can be PIC from the 'other side', (left in most helicopters, right in a Bell47).

The PIC is the one that signed for the aircraft and in the UK system Dual is 'under instruction' where the student definitely does NOT sign out the aircraft if flying with an Instructor for the purposes of instruction.

[SASless]

Parabellum,

Does that mean if I am the owner of the aircraft and I have a an instructor along for some instrument instruction.....he must "sign" for my aircraft?

If I fly the whole flight and the Instructor never touches the controls.....and I am rated in the aircaft, sitting in the annointed seat, and he never utters a word except to confirm the airspace is clear during turns and the like....can I log PIC and does he log PIC?

How does that work for a Check Pilot who has never flown the type of aircraft being flown....for a owner pilot introducing a new type into the Registry?

Another question....when we use the term "pilot seat"....are we specifying exactly one seat, a choice of two seats, or a set that has a set of controls in front of it that is also a passenger seat?

Example.....Huey's (Bell 204, 205) can be flown from either seat....and overtime most commercial operators put the pilot into the left seat despite the aircraft being "designed" to be flown from the right hand seat. Operators also use an unoccupied pilot seat for passengers.

How would your FAA/CAA/JAA/CASA/EASA interpret that situation for logging of Pilot Time?

[Pandalet]

This situation is also complicated by the logging of P1/S, or Pilot 1, supervised. I've only really seen this in the UK, mainly on LPCs. The theory is that if you're rated and legal (so your TR hasn't run out yet), and you pass the LPC, you were technically in command, but under the supervision of the examiner - it wasn't instruction, so it doesn't count as dual, but the examiner has ultimate authority in the cockpit, so it doesn't count as PIC.

As Sasless points out, what if I hire an aircraft at one field (or borrow a friends), then fly to another field where I pick up an examiner or instructor for an hour's flying. I've signed for the aircraft, but the other bod is in charge while I'm under instruction. This would be a situation where I'd probably put P1/S in the logbook.

[wobble2plank]

I have always read it that,

If I am qualified on the type under the supervision of an instructor for the purposes of a test/check then I am flying PIC under supervision for the duration of that check as long as the check is passed to a suitable standard. If the check were not to be passed then the hours would be logged as dual as I would not have been qualified to be the aircraft commander.

If I am flying with an examiner/instructor in a helicopter on which I am qualified and current and the examiner/instructor is not there in an instructional capacity for the purposes of licence validation then I am PIC if I am the aircraft signatory. That goes for any 'interim' instruction for example a bit of 'IR' unless I am not IR qualified in which case the instructor would need to be the signatory and I would revert to PIC U/S.

For a check pilot assessing a type for validation, he is there purely for the purposes of assessing the validation of the aircraft under the command of the owner/qualified pilot thus he becomes an observer and the owner/qualified pilot remains the PIC.

If I am not qualified on the aircraft type and flying with an instructor for the purposes of gaining that type rating then I am flying dual until which point I am qualified/solo then I can log PIC U/S if I am not the aircraft signatory flying dual.

It's a minefield but, after 4500 hours of rotary the CAA didn't seem to have a problem with my log book when converting to and ATPL(A).

Trainers/instructors who operate from either seat must do a training familiarisation check and a LHS/RHS check each year to ensure that they are 'comfortable' operating from both seats. (fixed wing airline rules but I am fairly certain they carry across)

Cash Again & Again gotta love em.

p.s. Incidentally I did my last LPC with a lovely chap from the CAA who said they are over budget already this year! So, watch out for cost increases!

[Agaricus bisporus]

sitting in the annointed seat, and he never utters a word except to confirm

Confirm what? The mind boggles!

"Captain, you appear to have annointed your seat!"

"Nah, just a bit of sweat"

"But its running out into the carpet!"

Question is, was it pee one or pee two - and did he, er, "log" it as well? :D:D

[RMK]

If you are licensed, rated and current for the type of heli then you are PIC so long as it is known/agreed that you are in command of the aircraft. Example, you take along an instructor for a first run of the London heliroutes as a checkout for renting their machines.

If this PIC designation query is for some sort of CAA paperwork, you’re probably going to have to argue with them anyhow. Even if you
- cut/paste the regs into all correspondence
- document the person/date/time of every phone call with them

Regarding the seating location comments above, I’ve never read any FAA or JAA docs which noted/commented where your ass touches the helicopter – just whether you are “in command” of the aircraft.

[gulliBell]

Surely it's simply the case that the PIC is the person appointed by the operator to act in that capacity?

[wobble2plank]

The problem comes when you are the operator/owner and require CAA validation.

Oh the delights of the legal minefield!

:eek:

[Gordy]

RMK...

Regarding the seating location comments above, I’ve never read any FAA or JAA docs which noted/commented where your ass touches the helicopter – just whether you are “in command” of the aircraft.

I believe the POH for the Bell 206L4 in the limitations section paragraph 1-5 states:

Minimum flight crew consists of one pilot who shall operate helicopter from right crew seat.

I believe the jetrangers have similar wording as does the Schweizer 300 series and R-22. Therefore, it is my understanding that the only way to log PIC from the "non-pilot" seat, is to hold a CFI license.

This issue came up at Helicopter Adventures a few years ago. The MTP were training foreign military personnel who would NEVER receive civilian licenses. Some of the instructors at the time did NOT hold civilian CFI ratings, the "students" did not hold "student pilot certificates". Therefore the instructor could not legally as as Pilot In Command and fly from the "instructor" seat. They were able to teach, because they were "not giving instruction for the purposes of the issuance of a certificate or rating". Therefore, in the eyes of the FAA, they were the PIC at all times and they had to "instruct" from the designated "pilot seat".

Don't you just love these "legal" issues.

[thecontroller]

The only restriction on the R22 is you can only solo from the right seat.

[SASless]

If you wish to kick over a real bucket of worms....define "Congested Area" re Underslung Ops under FAR Part 133. Forget the regulation as written but engage the FAA in explaining case law that pertains to that issue!:rolleyes:

Similar situation when it comes to most any other FAR, rule, and "policy" of the FAA. The FAR allows for a waiver....but the FAA FSDO states to you...."But that is not our policy.".:mad:

We are about 800 years behind you in bureaucracy but we are catching up rapidly!:{

[Gordy]

SASless:

If you wish to kick over a real bucket of worms....define "Congested Area" re Underslung Ops under FAR Part 133.

Typically the FAA leaves it as a grey area so they can use it to their advantage when they want to site you. Ask and ye shall receive what I have:

The FAA has actually stated in a 1979 Legal Opinion that it will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Below is a copy of the Opinion--note the FAR references have changed.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"In response to your letter dated August 28, 1979, and subsequent telephone conversation, we offer the following answers to your three questions. The facts on which our interpretations are based are as follows:

A fixed wing aircraft operating at an altitude of 600 feet flew directly over a populated subdivision of Prince William County, Virginia. The subdivision consisted of at least 40 residential homes on one acre lots. While operating in this area, the aircraft made a number of steep turns over one of these houses.

1. What is the interpretation of the term "congested area of a city, town or settlement" as that term is used in Section 91.79(b) of the FARs?

The meaning of the term "congested area" is determined on a case-by-case basis. It first appeared in the Air Commerce Regulations of 1926. No abstract regulatory definition has yet been developed. However, the following guidelines indicate the interpretations of the Civil Aeronautics board (now National Transportation Safety Board) in attempting to give meaning to the term.

a. The purpose of the rule is to provide minimum safe altitudes for flight and to provide adequate protection to persons on the ground. Thus, it distinguishes flight over sparsely settled areas as well as large metropolitan areas from low flying aircraft. Thus, size of the area is not controlling, and violations of the rule have been sustained for operation of aircraft: (i) over a small congested area consisting of approximately 10 houses and a school (Allman, 5 C.A.B. 8 (1940)); (ii) over campus of a university (Tobin, 5 C.A.B. 162, 164(1941); (iii) over a beach area along a highway, and (iv) over a boy's camp where there were numerous people on the docks and children at play on shore.

b. The presence of people is important to the determination of whether a particular area is "congested." Thus, no violation was found in the case of a flight over a large shop building and four one-family dwellings because, in the words of the CAB examiner, "it is not known (to the court) whether the dwellings were occupied." In that case, the area surrounding the buildings was open, flat and semiarid.

c. The term has been interpreted to prohibit overflights that cut the corners of large, heavily congested residential areas. As made clear in FAR 91.79, the congested area must be an area of a city, town, or settlement.

2. What is the interpretation of the term "sparsely populated areas" as contained in Section 91.79(c)?

While this term is not expressly defined, we can conclude that it is something other than a congested area under Section 91.79(a). A subdivision of at least 40 occupied residential homes on adjacent one acre lots in Price William County, VA, would not be considered a sparsely populated area. Such a subdivision would well constitute a "settlement" under the rule.

Please feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,

EDWARD P. FABERMAN
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulation and Enforcement Division
Office of the Chief Counsel"

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

I do know that from personal experience, I once once violated for not having a "suitable" landing area. The area in question was measured to be a one mile long beach with 60 people on it. I argued and eluded prosecution on this matter.

[John Eacott]

Minimum flight crew consists of one pilot who shall operate helicopter from right crew seat.

The devil's in the detail ;)

What the manufacturer requires is that if flown with only one pilot, that pilot must be in the right crew seat. It does not say that with a two pilot crew, the PIC cannot be in the left seat :ok:




Australia also has an ICUS (In Command Under Supervision) definition, which is then logged by both pilots as PIC. The Pilot Supervising the Pilot In Command Under Supervision must be approved by the Chief Pilot, and is then able to carry out Check Flights, etc, as supervisory pilot. The pilot being Supervised is PIC for the Check, but both pilots can log PIC in their logbooks.

Seems to work fine over here :)

[John Eacott]

Some references from CASA re ICUS:

CASA Com 01/09/00 (http://bureau2-query.funnelback.com/search/click.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.casa.gov.au%2Fwcmswr%2F_asset s%2Fmain%2Flib91117%2F0901.pdf&rank=1&collection=casatest)

3. APPLICABILITY AND COMPLIANCE
1. Within CAR 5.40 and CAO 82.3 there is no reference to the need for a ‘training captain’ however described, to act in the supervisory role during PICUS. A supervisory captain is one who has been specifically assigned for the flight by the operator, with the candidate PICUS pilot holding a command endorsement and a command instrument rating.
2. The operator must ensure they apply sound governance in the assignment of supervisory captains to oversee the PICUS activity. It would be expected that assigned supervisory captains of PICUS flights are trained and assessed by the operator as competent to operate with a junior, but still qualified, crew member.
3. PICUS flight time may be acquired in a command seat, provided all pilot-in-command functions can be performed from a command pilot’s seat, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command that is appropriately authorised to operate from the co-pilots seat.
4. PICUS flight time may be acquired in a co-pilot’s seat, provided all pilot-in-command functions, except taxiing, can be performed from a co-pilot’s seat, either directly or byinstruction.
5. PICUS would only be accumulated whilst the pilot, regardless of seat position, was assigned as pilot flying.
6. Prior to commencing PICUS for a co-pilot, a candidate would need to have completed the command endorsement training, co-pilot line flying and been ‘checked to line’ as a competent co-pilot.
7. In those instances where an operator wishes to appoint a direct entry captain, with insufficient multi-engine command time, the candidate pilot would be trained and checked to line as a competent captain. The candidate PICUS captain would then require rosteringwith another company captain until sufficient PICUS hours were accrued.

Pilot Log Books (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90100)

In Command Under Supervision
(ICUS) The conditions for logging of ICUS are at CAR 5.40 and include the following:

* the pilot flying ICUS must hold either a CPL or an ATPL;
* the pilot flying ICUS must make all decisions relevant to the safe operation of the aircraft;
* the pilot must hold a command aircraft endorsement for that type;
* the pilot must hold a command instrument rating if the flight is conducted under the IFR;
* the operator must permit the person to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision;
* the pilot in command of the aircraft must be appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft.

[parabellum]

SASless - between them I think wobble2plank, Gordy and John E. have answered your questions better than I could. 'Ownership' and 'licenced to fly' a type are not the same thing and I think it could be argued that if you are flying IFR whilst yet to qualify then the IFR qualified pilot is the PIC, if it is just practice then the other pilot could also be known as a 'safety pilot', assuming the pilot flying does hold an IFR rating. That is the best I can do, I think the military sometimes have a better approach to this subject than the various regulating authorities.

[Gordy]

John:

The devil's in the detail

I was referring to FAA rules, and specifically the example I quoted. The "student" in the right seat, (in the case of the jetranger), does NOT hold ANY pilot certificate, and the "instructor" was NOT a rated CFI, therefore, holding ONLY a pilot license he was obligated to fly from the right seat. This is NOT a two pilot crew situation.

Can you imagine the insurance nightmare if something had gone wrong and he was in the "other" seat with no CFI license?

[gwelo shamwari]

Let me throw another can of worms in to the mix...

You are in a multi-crew situation. The company assigned PIC flies one leg and the SIC flies the other. When the pilots are flying they are making the command decisions. At the end of the day when the paperwork is done, the flight sheet shows both pilots have half PIC and SIC time.

How do you log this flight time? :ouch:

[SASless]

Designated PIC shows all flight time as PIC, the SIC shows all half as SIC and half as PIC (FAR Rules)....now if the Autopilot is flying the aircraft and the SIC is only pushing buttons.....and not touching the sticks?

I guess George can log P1 US.

[gwelo shamwari]

Ok... but how would you log it in JAA land so that the CAA don't get their panties in a knot???
:suspect:

[SASless]

Crats Against Aviation knickers stay in a knot from what I recall.....as no one will say "Boo" to a ghost there unless they have a written document citing the exact case they are looking at....then they still are spring loaded to the "No" position.

Make no decisions....make no mistakes...incur no wrath from above!

[Gordy]

SASless:

Crats Against Aviation knickers stay in a knot from what I recall

Once again---you crack me up with your one liners...

Make no decisions....make no mistakes...incur no wrath from above!

Well, God-damn it--if only I had known that sooner---I would have a "clean" license.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

SASless speaks the truth---but how boring is that???? What I have learnt is, that if you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before.

[SASless]

Gordy,

The pickle for working pilots (unlike our bureaucratic brethren) is we have to make decisions....constantly.....and everyone including heavenly bodies (not the female kind) weigh in on the outcomes. We live and die by our decisions.....and in those cases where we don't (make a decision) we can snuff it as well.

Then after it is all done but the finger pointing and hand wringing.....we or our heirs have to defend what we do/did. We don't get the luxury of hiding behind a pile of paperwork and bovine fecal matter like those who sit in judgement of us.

If the rules were black and white.....all those highly paid and perk laden drones would be out of a job and thus be faced with "earning" a living.

[Gordy]

SASless...

How true. You and I need to go for a beer one night.....

Reminds me of this...("Papa Phil" is my boss...):

A FEW GOOD HELICOPTER PILOTS..............

Gordy: "You want answers?"

Papa Phil: "I think I’m entitled."

Gordy: "You want answers?!"

Papa Phil: "I want the truth!"

Gordy: "You can't handle the truth!!!"

"We live in a world that requires revenue. That revenue is generated by flying helicopters, and must be flown by people with elite skills. Who's going to do it? You, Mr. President? You Mr. Finance? You, Ms. Human Resources? We have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You scoff at the Line Pilots and you curse our mediocre incentives. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what we know. And my very existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, drives REVENUE!

You don't want to know the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at the coffee pot and staff meetings, you want me in that helicopter. You NEED me in that helicopter!! We use words like RH, backing fire, ping pong balls, long line, buckets, load calcs, airworthiness, medium-rare, and on-the-rocks. We use these words as the backbone of all Professional Helicopter Fire Aviation. You use them as a punch line! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to people who rise and sleep under the very blanket of service I provide and then question the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a flight helmet. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!"

Papa Phil: "Did you expense the lap dancers?"

Gordy: "I did the job I was hired to do."

Papa Phil: "Did you expense the lap dancers?!"

Gordy: "You're goddamn right I did!”

[IntheTin]

Haaaaaaa like it Gordy :ok::D

[chinookgwa]

Got what I presume is a simple question for those in the know. As a military pilot I've got P1 and Captaincy hours. When a civilian company (in this instance a US company) asks for PIC hours how are these defined? Is it all the P1 or just the captaincy?

[hands_on123]

PIC Time: Part 61.51 or Part 1. What's the difference? (http://jet-jobs.com/articles/pic.html)

[itk]

I've been reading the FARs in response to questions from company co-pilots regarding the logging of flight time.

Company co-pilots are not cleared to act as PIC, but they are permitted to manipulate the controls at the discretion of the PIC.

Have the FAA rules recently changed to bring them into line with the PICUS or P1/US concept?

Part 1.1 states:

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

So under this definition, co-pilots can not be PIC. They do not have the final authority and responsibility, and they are never designated PIC.

However, does Part 61.51 allow co-pilots to log PIC time when they perform the duties of PIC under supervision? If so, it would appear to not be as simple as merely being the 'pilot flying' rather than 'pilot not flying' (a very different concept in my opinion)... it appears that there are 2 crucial provisos: they must be undergoing an approved PIC training scheme with each entry signed by the actual PIC in the logbook (as per JAA-land). Or is this section aimed at PPL/CPL/IR training rather than P1/US training schemes?

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.

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

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

(ii) When the pilot is the sole occupant in the aircraft;

(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted; or

(iv) When the pilot performs the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a qualified pilot in command provided—

(A) The pilot performing the duties of pilot in command holds a commercial or airline transport pilot certificate and aircraft rating that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft being flown, if a class rating is appropriate;

(B) The pilot performing the duties of pilot in command is undergoing an approved pilot in command training program that includes ground and flight training on the following areas of operation—

( 1 ) Preflight preparation;
( 2 ) Preflight procedures;
( 3 ) Takeoff and departure;
( 4 ) In-flight maneuvers;
( 5 ) Instrument procedures;
( 6 ) Landings and approaches to landings;
( 7 ) Normal and abnormal procedures;
( 8 ) Emergency procedures; and
( 9 ) Postflight procedures;

(C) The supervising pilot in command holds—

( 1 ) A commercial pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate, and aircraft rating that is appropriate to the category, class, and type of aircraft being flown, if a class or type rating is required; or

( 2 ) An airline transport pilot certificate and aircraft rating that is appropriate to the category, class, and type of aircraft being flown, if a class or type rating is required; and

(D) The supervising pilot in command logs the pilot in command training in the pilot's logbook, certifies the pilot in command training in the pilot's logbook and attests to that certification with his or her signature, and flight instructor certificate number.

Have I interpreted this correctly? It would appear that the supervising pilot in command must also have a FI certificate...?

Or is the relevant section actually:
(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted;
In which case, can a co-pilot act as PIC? Not according to the above definition. I also note that the definition of PIC mentions nothing about being the manipulator of the controls...

Does anybody know what the airlines operating under FAA do?

On 2 separate but related points:

(2) If rated to act as pilot in command of the aircraft, an airline transport pilot may log all flight time while acting as pilot in command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.
Which operations under FAA require an ATP?

What are people's thoughts on the logging of flight time when moving between systems:
1. Flight time should be logged as per the rules of the licence they were using during that particular flight; or
2. Logbooks can be retrospectively adjusted to reflect the rules of any particular system as required.

[Rotorbee]

Your first question
The copilot can log PIC time, as long he is a required crew member.

Your second question.
Yes, the supervising pilot must be a CFI. It's all about training here.
A safety pilot on a simulated IFR flight, can not log PIC time, because he is not the sole manipulator of the controls. He is a required crew member, but not a CFI doing training. He/she is not supervising.

An ATP is needed for ... airline work.

[itk]

Thanks for the reply.

Your first question
The copilot can log PIC time, as long he is a required crew member.
But under what circumstances?
The "sole manipulator of controls" paragraphs does not seem to be referenced to multicrew environments by virtue of the fact that later paragraphs explicitly do reference multicrew environments.
Furthermore, the FAA's definition of PIC makes no reference to being the sole manipulator of controls as being part of the definition of PIC.
If this is the case, it would seem that the rules confuse "pilot flying / pilot not flying" with "PIC / SIC" which are very different concepts in multicrew.

Your second question.
Yes, the supervising pilot must be a CFI. It's all about training here.
A safety pilot on a simulated IFR flight, can not log PIC time, because he is not the sole manipulator of the controls. He is a required crew member, but not a CFI doing training. He/she is not supervising.
So if a co-pilot ever wishes to log PIC time, the accompanying captain must be an FAA CFI?

An ATP is needed for ... airline work.
Are there any regulations which point to this? Where does the definition of an airline come from? A small puddle-hopper? A widebody jet? Does scheduled public transport by rotorcraft count?

Thanks again for the reply.

[SASless]

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated,

There is your answer.....the rest of that sentence had an "or" in front of it.

Anytime your co-pilot is rated in the aircraft (meaning type rating in the FAA usage of Type Rating) and is the handling pilot.....that is PIC time. (under the FAA Rules)

A good Captain will allow the Co-Pilot fly as much as possible to facilitate the building of PIC Time for the less experienced Pilot.....if you want him/her to move ahead professionally.

We do have a responsibility as Professionals to mentor our subordinates do we not?

[Rotorbee]

That whole question was never really completely explained by the FAA. But here a few more of my cents:
So if a co-pilot ever wishes to log PIC time, the accompanying captain must be an FAA CFI?
Nope. The captain is not acting as a CFI in normal circumstances. The co-pilot will only be able to get SIC time while in a airplane or operation that requires two pilots.
61.51
(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.
Acctually what I said in the last post is bs.

Look here (http://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faa.gov%2Fabout%2Foffice_org%2Ffield_of fices%2Ffsdo%2Fsdl%2Flocal_more%2Favsafety_program%2Fmedia%2 FLOGGING%2520PILOT-IN-COMMAND%2520TIME.pdf&ei=HCihT5TZA4_t-gbR7v2iBw&usg=AFQjCNHskKA4wPQtr7yXHtzRUqG_k3E6xg&sig2=dvCe8yRZ7C10Rbve51wAIw) for more information about logging PIC time in FAA land.

And acctually yes, pilot flying or non flying is not the same as PIC responsibilities. As you will see, even a safety pilot may log PIC time, if he is taking the responsibility.

And now read this and you will be completely confused:
61.55 Second-in-command qualifications. (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1c56a17815f8299c15deebfb1f6f6f82&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.1.1.34&idno=14)

I would say ... and I am absolutely not sure here and it does not bother me, because I don't fly this kind of ships ... if you are the copilot (providing operation and/or aircraft requires nada nada nada ...) you get SIC time, because you are not responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. That's the captain. If you are the captain you get PIC time ... period ... and now don't ask me about the relief pilot. We don't do plank questions here but generaly in a more-than-one-pilot-required environement the sole-manipulator-of-the-controls rule does not apply.

You may say, that this is not logic, because a CFI can always log PIC time and the student (as long as he/she is already a rated pilot) may also log PIC time. But that's two different things and another story.

[itk]

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated,
There is your answer.....the rest of that sentence had an "or" in front of it.
This is what doesn't make any sense to me (but then it doesn't really matter what makes sense to me. It is about what makes sense to the FAA).

My $0.02: (i) through (iv) must be exclusive clauses to make any sense, even in the absence of "or" / "and".

Which brings us right back around to what does being the handling pilot have to do with PIC/SIC designation in a multicrew environment? Who is logging it when the autopilot is engaged? What about when the pilots are regularly swapping "pilot flying" / "pilot not flying" roles during a single flight?

This mindset does seem rather entrenched with FAA pilots. For example, when two captains are scheduled together for a flight the FAA pilots will tend to consider the PIC/SIC designation as synonymous with PF/PNF allocation for the entire flight.

A good Captain will allow the Co-Pilot fly as much as possible to facilitate the building of PIC Time for the less experienced Pilot.....if you want him/her to move ahead professionally.

We do have a responsibility as Professionals to mentor our subordinates do we not?
For your second statement, absolutely. The other systems I've operated under do cater for this:

The Captain always logs PIC time for the entire flight.

The Co-Pilot logs either:
1. SIC time; or
2. PICUS (or P1/US depending upon terminology). This is not the same as straight PIC time, and it must be countersigned by the Captain. It is recognized by the regulatory body (sometimes with a weighting) towards the grant of licences etc.

For your first statement, my thoughts are that by the time a pilot reaches a multicrew role they often don't need work on "manipulating the controls" of yet another (probably easier to fly) helicopter... Decision making, multicrew CRM, operational considerations etc tend to make good topics for the mentoring IMHO. But if PIC time is only obtained when the copilot is concentrating on hand-flying the helicopter.....?

Rotorbee: reading this paragraph in your link would seem to suggest that two people can log PIC time for the same flight provided it is a multicrew operation:
However, two pilots may not simultaneously log PIC when one pilot is
sole manipulator of the controls and the other is acting as pilot-in-command if the regulations governing the flight do not require more than one pilot.

[SASless]

ITK.....either log it like you have done in CAA/JAR/JAA/EASA land OR do per FAR's. Your pick....but when a Log Book Audit is done by the CAA et al....they will look to see it logged their way in their format and in their style Logbook.

If you log it using the FAA method....you might encounter a problem breaking out the right hours to suit the CAA et al.

My impression is you are trying to force the two methods into one...and that dear chum just doesn't fly in either system.

Simple rule for the FAA....if you are doing the driving....either with hands on the sticks or pushing autopilot buttons.....Log PIC.

You want interesting questions.....ask how many Pilots can log PIC simultaneously in the same aircraft!

Or...must you have a current Medical Certificate to log flight time?

Better yet....what if you have neither Medical Certificate or License of any kind....can you log flight time?

We can really get you confused with not a lot of effort!

[itk]

ITK.....either log it like you have done in CAA/JAR/JAA/EASA land OR do per FAR's. Your pick....but when a Log Book Audit is done by the CAA et al....they will look to see it logged their way in their format and in their style Logbook.
That is certainly the impression I've got from various authorities.

My impression is you are trying to force the two methods into one...and that dear chum just doesn't fly in either system.
My apologies if I have given that impression. I am merely trying to get a handle on the FAA system in order to give better answers to questions I'm receiving. What complicates our situation is we move pilots between countries, and use local licences which model themselves on various other authorities' rules. Therefore some company guidance is sorely needed.

Simple rule for the FAA....if you are doing the driving....either with hands on the sticks or pushing autopilot buttons.....Log PIC.
Well, as I've said this makes no sense to me, but what I think isn't what matters.

It raises some interesting questions about the practicalities... the handling pilot asking the non-handling pilot to set an altitude acquire, or change something in the FMS.... the list goes on and on.

You want interesting questions.....ask how many Pilots can log PIC simultaneously in the same aircraft!

Or...must you have a current Medical Certificate to log flight time?

Better yet....what if you have neither Medical Certificate or License of any kind....can you log flight time?

We can really get you confused with not a lot of effort!
Indeed!

Thanks to all for the comments and feedback.

[Rotorbee]

@itk
Rotorbee: reading this paragraph in your link would seem to suggest that two people can log PIC time for the same flight provided it is a multicrew operation:
Quote:
However, two pilots may not simultaneously log PIC when one pilot is
sole manipulator of the controls and the other is acting as pilot-in-command if the regulations governing the flight do not require more than one pilot.

That's the thing with law. Only because the law says one thing, you may not automatically draw a conclusion that could be read between the lines.
The "may" in this sentence is probably only there, because the author wasn't absolutely sure, that there wasn't a possibility that this could indeed be the case.

[itk]

Very true. It is a pity that the FAR's are not clearer on this topic.