Changing logbook from FAA to EASA
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen logbooks of EASA Modular CPL students where their PIC hour building was conducted in the U.S. with an instructor on board, yet logged as PIC "because that's allowed in the States...isn't it?". This practice is in fact fraudulent for the purpose of logging hours towards a Part-FCL Licence.
ersa,
In general four possible logging rules can be constructed:
The first rule is permissible under US regulations subject to one of two conditions in 14 CFR 61.51 being satisfied, otherwise either rule 2 or 3 applies. The first rule is not permissible for EASA licensing purposes despite the absence of an implementing rule stating so much. Which of rules 2 and 3 are acceptable to EASA, or more accurately, to the competent authority?
Is EASA really taking the view that neither person is entitled to log pilot-in-command time? That would be an absurd position.
There is no question that a safety pilot not acting as pilot-in-command may not log pilot-in-command time for EASA purposes.
What evidence exists in the logbook for a third-party, a person auditing the logbook for example, to determine whether the safety pilot did or did not act as pilot-in-command? Short of the holder recording his own name in his own personal flying logbook, in compliance with 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(v) [requirement to record safety pilot's name], there is likely to be insufficient information in the logbook for this question to be answered (61.51 does not require name of PIC to be recorded). There is therefore a possibility that both pilots could attempt to claim pilot-in-command time for EASA purposes, but the solution ought not to be that neither pilot is permitted to recording PIC time. If the competent authority adopted that position then I expect a judicial review would be warranted.
your missing the point, its highly likely that the 2 people in the cockpit have both logged PIC.
- each certificated pilot logs pilot-in-command,
- only the acting pilot-in-command logs pilot-in-command,
- only the certificated pilot manipulating the controls, not acting as pilot-in-command, logs pilot-in-command, or,
- neither pilot logs pilot-in-command.
The first rule is permissible under US regulations subject to one of two conditions in 14 CFR 61.51 being satisfied, otherwise either rule 2 or 3 applies. The first rule is not permissible for EASA licensing purposes despite the absence of an implementing rule stating so much. Which of rules 2 and 3 are acceptable to EASA, or more accurately, to the competent authority?
Is EASA really taking the view that neither person is entitled to log pilot-in-command time? That would be an absurd position.
Ive seen many log books from the FAA, in EASA it won't be accepted.
What evidence exists in the logbook for a third-party, a person auditing the logbook for example, to determine whether the safety pilot did or did not act as pilot-in-command? Short of the holder recording his own name in his own personal flying logbook, in compliance with 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(v) [requirement to record safety pilot's name], there is likely to be insufficient information in the logbook for this question to be answered (61.51 does not require name of PIC to be recorded). There is therefore a possibility that both pilots could attempt to claim pilot-in-command time for EASA purposes, but the solution ought not to be that neither pilot is permitted to recording PIC time. If the competent authority adopted that position then I expect a judicial review would be warranted.
I've seen logbooks of EASA Modular CPL students where their PIC hour building was conducted in the U.S. with an instructor on board, yet logged as PIC "because that's allowed in the States...isn't it?". This practice is in fact fraudulent for the purpose of logging hours towards a Part-FCL Licence.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite, however flights for the purpose of building experience towards the PIC requirement for a Part-FCL CPL, the intention clearly, has to be that such experience is not gained through instructional sorties. The instructor is usually present either because there is no-solo insurance clause (I've seen this at some schools in the US), or else the school doesn't feel comfortable signing the 'renter' off for solo. In my experience, the EASA pilot feels they have acted in good faith either because they are ignorant of the spirit in which such experience is intended to be gained or else ignorant of the differences between the two regulatory environments, and easily convinced by a local instructor or flying school management, or both.
Agreed, however, if entering these hours in an EASA compliant logbook and recording the names of both the 'PIC' and the 'CFI' sitting in the right-hand seat signing off each entry in the Remarks and Endorsements column, it's fairly evident.
...there is likely to be insufficient information in the logbook for this question to be answered (61.51 does not require name of PIC to be recorded).
Alex: This issue raises it's head time and again due to the rather "quirky" FAA legal interpretation. However, it simply boils down to who is considered the legally responsible person charged for the flight. This can only be one person - if you doubt this imagine, for me, what would happen on a IR training flight if the flight caused an airspace violation or worse. Who do you think the "Feds" would come after to take to court or fine?
Reversebucket,
Clearly these are examples of low hanging fruit in which the capacity of the logbook holder is signalled by the signature of the instructor.
Ambiguity may continue to exist for flights involving a required safety pilot and in which neither pilot holds, or exercises, a flight instructor certificate. In genuine cases free of misrepresentation it would be absurd if one of the required pilots could not log pilot-in-command for EASA purposes.
Meikleour,
Surprisingly, this test can fail to produce the desired outcome in the US. The Office of the Chief Counsel for FAA has provided an opinion on this in the Speranza interpretation 2009.
Clearly these are examples of low hanging fruit in which the capacity of the logbook holder is signalled by the signature of the instructor.
Ambiguity may continue to exist for flights involving a required safety pilot and in which neither pilot holds, or exercises, a flight instructor certificate. In genuine cases free of misrepresentation it would be absurd if one of the required pilots could not log pilot-in-command for EASA purposes.
Meikleour,
Surprisingly, this test can fail to produce the desired outcome in the US. The Office of the Chief Counsel for FAA has provided an opinion on this in the Speranza interpretation 2009.
Selfin, reagrdless of what you think should be the case, EASA do not recognise the term safety pilot and it is not something which can count towards total time for EASA licence or rating issue. The FAA have a different approach but the person asked what he had to do to make his hours acceptable to EASA. He has been advised what EASA will or will not accept, what the FAA do is up to them.
Please just accept that safety pilot hours do NOT count towards licence or rating issue for an EASA licence or rating.
Please just accept that safety pilot hours do NOT count towards licence or rating issue for an EASA licence or rating.
BF,
The only opinion I have expressed in this discussion is the belief that it would be absurd for no pilot to log pilot-in-command time.
It is irrelevant that EASA does not recognise the term. The received wisdom is that two pilots cannot log overlapping pilot-in-command time, and I have not challenged it here; however, your statement leads to a situation in which nobody logs pilot-in-command time. Such an outcome, in my opinion, is absurd and it should invite, in the case of UK CAA, a regulation 6 appeal.
Part-FCL at FCL.050 on the recording of flight time states:
Where the UK Air Navigation Order applies, the only pertinent requirement is that the "the capacity in which the holder acted in flight" is recorded. Therefore, if he wishes to comply with art 228 of the ANO, a safety pilot who acted as pilot-in-command must make an entry to that effect in his personal log book. In doing so he attests to his designation according to the definition of pilot-in-command in Part-FCL, which agrees with the definition under US regulations.
Further, the implementing rule at FCL.035(a)(2)(i) states:
While the AMC1 FCL.050(b)(1)(i), on the logging of PIC flight time, states:
A safety pilot who acts as pilot-in-command satisfies the abovementioned requirements for crediting PIC time for Part-FCL purposes. Nowhere has it been stated that the safety pilot must act as pilot-in-command.
The only opinion I have expressed in this discussion is the belief that it would be absurd for no pilot to log pilot-in-command time.
It is irrelevant that EASA does not recognise the term. The received wisdom is that two pilots cannot log overlapping pilot-in-command time, and I have not challenged it here; however, your statement leads to a situation in which nobody logs pilot-in-command time. Such an outcome, in my opinion, is absurd and it should invite, in the case of UK CAA, a regulation 6 appeal.
Part-FCL at FCL.050 on the recording of flight time states:
The pilot shall keep a reliable record of the details of all flights flown in a form and manner established by the competent authority.
Further, the implementing rule at FCL.035(a)(2)(i) states:
An applicant for a licence, rating or certificate shall be credited in full with all solo, dual instruction or PIC flight time towards the total flight time required for the licence, rating or certificate.
the holder of a licence may log as PIC time all of the flight time during which he or she is the PIC
Please just accept that safety pilot hours do NOT count towards licence or rating issue for an EASA licence or rating.
selfin:Speranza interpretation 2009.: Thank you for the link. Interestingly it also says that the logging of PIC by two pilots AT THE SAME TIME is not allowed! Obviously, that is one legal opinion only. If all lawyers always agreed on all points of law then life would be very simple indeed!
bingofuel,
The safety pilot need not be relegated to the status of a passenger for EASA purposes if he acts as pilot-in-command. He is required to so act if the simulated flight is done under IFR (in VMC only—Walker 2011) if the other pilot does not hold a valid instrument rating.
Meikleour,
Under the circumstances described in the Speranza and Walker interpretations that is correct. However, once 14 CFR 91.109(c) [requirement for a safety pilot during simulated instrument flight] becomes applicable then two pilots may log pilot-in-command under 14 CFR 61.51. See the interpretation to Danny Creech, 8 Aug 2013 [pdf], for flight in a single-pilot aeroplane operated in VMC:
The safety pilot need not be relegated to the status of a passenger for EASA purposes if he acts as pilot-in-command. He is required to so act if the simulated flight is done under IFR (in VMC only—Walker 2011) if the other pilot does not hold a valid instrument rating.
Meikleour,
Under the circumstances described in the Speranza and Walker interpretations that is correct. However, once 14 CFR 91.109(c) [requirement for a safety pilot during simulated instrument flight] becomes applicable then two pilots may log pilot-in-command under 14 CFR 61.51. See the interpretation to Danny Creech, 8 Aug 2013 [pdf], for flight in a single-pilot aeroplane operated in VMC:
Mr. Gebhart's letter presented a scenario in which two pilots are flying during VMC
conditions in an aircraft for which both pilots have appropriate ratings. Pilot A flies the
aircraft and Pilot B acts as the pilot-in-command. We informed Mr. Gebhart that in this
scenario Pilot A may log the entire flight as PIC flight time "because that pilot was the sole
manipulator of the controls for the entire flight." Additionally, Pilot B may log PIC time for
the time during which Pilot B acted as the safety pilot for Pilot A's simulated instrument
flight "because Pilot B was a required flight crewmember for that portion of the flight"
under 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(c).
In the scenario you present Pilot A may log the entire flight as PIC time as that pilot is the
sole manipulator of the controls for the entire flight.
Assuming that Pilot B is acting as PIC for the flight, Pilot B may log any portion of the
flight during which Pilot A operated in simulated instrument flight and Pilot B acted as the
safety pilot because Pilot B's presence is required for that portion of the flight under
§91.109(c).
conditions in an aircraft for which both pilots have appropriate ratings. Pilot A flies the
aircraft and Pilot B acts as the pilot-in-command. We informed Mr. Gebhart that in this
scenario Pilot A may log the entire flight as PIC flight time "because that pilot was the sole
manipulator of the controls for the entire flight." Additionally, Pilot B may log PIC time for
the time during which Pilot B acted as the safety pilot for Pilot A's simulated instrument
flight "because Pilot B was a required flight crewmember for that portion of the flight"
under 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(c).
In the scenario you present Pilot A may log the entire flight as PIC time as that pilot is the
sole manipulator of the controls for the entire flight.
Assuming that Pilot B is acting as PIC for the flight, Pilot B may log any portion of the
flight during which Pilot A operated in simulated instrument flight and Pilot B acted as the
safety pilot because Pilot B's presence is required for that portion of the flight under
§91.109(c).
