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 ....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?

[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!

[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!

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.".

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]

Originally Posted by Gordy

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




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

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

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.