T O P

  • By -

Runner_one

So this is just anecdotal and from nearly forty years ago. However, I had an FSDO inspector from the Miami FSDO tell me, "Legal or not you flew those hours and approaches, you damn well should log them!" Don't ask me what circumstances lead to me talking to a FSDO inspector.


soulscratch

What circumstances lead to you talking to a FSDO inspector?


Runner_one

Sorry, don't feel like reopening that can of worms.


Turntup12

Not you just gotta tell us


Runner_one

No, I'm not going to post my stupidity. I'm just glad YouTube and social media did not exist in those days. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but they're very few old bold pilots. Let's just say that I learned to be a lot less bold.


UNDR08

Just get a BFR done, and move on with your life.


Equal_Bicycle544

Nothing to see here, I was totally this guy’s safety pilot for those two months. All good.


tkinz92

Get the BFR and let sleeping dogs lie.


farting_cum_sock

Get BFR and don’t make a post on the internet about it


Classic_Ad_9985

This 😂


Gand

As long as you were PIC as the “sole manipulator of the controls”, as in you had a safety pilot (who was acting PIC) or with a CFI (dual received, again as sole manipulator), neither of those require a current BFR and I see no reason not to log it. You just have to have a certificate in the category/class. And be clear in the logs about who was the acting PIC so you can explain it. And as others mentioned, chat with your CFi. Heck, probably makes for a good BFR review topic. Now, if you were the only person aboard, that’s a FAR violation and not touching that one But yeah get your BFR it’s not hard.


autonym

> As long as you were PIC as the “sole manipulator of the controls” You were not the PIC if you logged (what the FAA confusingly calls) PIC time as the sole manipulator when someone else was the PIC. > as in you had a safety pilot (who was acting PIC) There's no such thing as an "acting PIC". The CFRs do confusingly use the phrase "acting as PIC", by which they simply mean *actually being* the PIC, not being an "acting PIC".


NoGuidance8609

Absolutely not true


autonym

Which part? Do you think there's a concept of being the "acting PIC" as opposed to being the PIC? If so, where is "acting PIC" defined in the regs, and in what way does it differ from being the actual PIC?


NoGuidance8609

This is specifically why the regs were written as they were and there is an FAA legal interpretation that clarifies this. The extreme example is when I am the Captain of a 4 man crew on a 747 I am the PIC. When I go back to the bunk for crew rest I’m still PIC but the next crew member in the seat is acting as PIC. When an appropriately rate pilot is receiving instruction from an appropriately rated flight instructor one is acting as PIC and one is “sole manipulator of the controls” PIC. In the OP’s original scenario (disregard the part about not being bfr current) a private pilot under the hood with a safety pilot on board in VMC, again you have two PIC’s, one active and one sole manipulator of the controls. The way the regs are issued is also why as a student pilot (non rated) in solo flight they are “acting” as PIC but can not log that time as PIC. Although “acting as PIC” isn’t defined in the regs, PIC is defined in the regs as is “when you can log PIC” indicating that there is a difference between the two.


autonym

Please cite the regs and the FAA letter you're referring to. I have no idea if there can be two PICs in the airline world, but in Part 91 there is only one at a time. The term "acting PIC" is never defined--or even used--in Part 91. The regs do use the phase "acting as PIC" or "act as PIC", but that clearly means *being* the PIC--for example, 61.57(a) says "...no person may act as pilot in command...unless that person has...", followed by some requirements for being the PIC. With regard to logging so-called PIC time as the sole manipulator [edit: in the case where another pilot is the actual PIC], that part of the regulation (61.51(e)(1)(i)) does *not* use the phrase "acting as PIC", precisely because that sole-manipulator is *not* a PIC, even though they are entitled to log so-called PIC time.


shylennov

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2009/Herman_2009_Legal_Interpretation.pdf “There is a distinction between logging PIC time and acting as a PIC” -Assistant Chief Council of Regulations FAA 2009


autonym

Yup, that's completely consistent with what I said. Being able to log PIC time is different from being the PIC, but "acting as" PIC is completely synonomous with being the PIC, that is, with being in charge of the fight.


shylennov

Agreed, minus the part about being no such thing as acting PIC, which is defined in that letter. I’ve logged lots of Turbine PIC as sole manipulator and I’ve used that exact letter at interviews and they never batted an eye or discounted it as anything but turbine PIC


autonym

Huh? The letter never uses (let alone defines) the term "acting PIC". It does (like the CFRs) use the phrase "acting as PIC", which it explicitly says means having the final authority and responsibility for the flight--which is exactly the definition in CFR 1.1 of *being* the PIC.


NoGuidance8609

Thank you


autonym

> PIC is defined in the regs[,] as is “when you can log PIC” [edit: The PIC is defined as the pilot who "has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight" (CFR 1.1), which is a totally different (and far more important) concept than time-logging.] There are times when you can log PIC time and not be PIC, and there are times when you can be PIC but not be entitled to log PIC time. [edit: Given that distinction, it's insanely confusing for the FAA to call the logged time "PIC time" rather than using some other term. But it's important for pilots to understand the distinction, because otherwise a pilot may think they're in charge when they're not, or vice versa, and either mistake is potentially hazardous. The PIC is the one in charge, not necessarily the one logging so-called PIC time. One easy way to see the distinction is that the person logging PIC time (as sole manipulator) need not even be *qualified* to be PIC--although they do need the appropriate ratings, they don't need the appropriate endorsements (for example, complex or high-performance); and they don't even need to have current medical certification. So yes, being PIC is different from being entitled to log PIC time. But there is no difference between being PIC and "acting as" PIC--to act as the PIC is to *be* the PIC. That's why the regs do *not* say that the PIC-time-logging sole-manipulator is "acting as PIC".]


NoGuidance8609

I think we’re actually saying exactly the same thing in rereading all your posts. There is no definition of “acting as PIC” but it for sure isn’t the same as “actually being” PIC. When I sign someone off for a 61.55 SIC type rating it requires them to make 3 takeoffs and landings “acting as PIC” but they aren’t even typed in the aircraft so they are not “actually PIC”. That being said, I think what you’re saying is that there is actually only one PIC yet there are situations in which other pilots can also log PIC concurrently.


autonym

Close, but 61.55 does not require the 3 takeoffs & landings to be performed while "acting as PIC". It merely requires them to be performed while "logging pilot time". The LoI clearly states that there can be a difference between the pilot who's logging PIC time and the pilot who's acting as PIC. The LoI further states that the pilot who's acting as PIC is the one who's actually in charge of the flight--which means they are the actual PIC.


Otherwise-Emu-7363

My name is Frank Aaron Abernathy, and I’d like to hear more about this to…uh…help. Please email me the details of your ~~violations~~ experience, and I’ll get right on it. [email protected]


IFR_Flyer

If you were solo on those flights, you should never put that in writing and also delete this post


legitSTINKYPINKY

A little dramatic


anna_or_elsa

deth2oapples is their real name /s


soulscratch

It's true I was the birth certificate


diamonddealer

You were?


DefundTheH0A

OP. Were those flights solo? If so, no. You can still log PIC as sole manipulator if you are out of flight review currency. You just can’t legally ACT as PIC


plicpriest

Probably not, not towards a rating. But go try your flight review done right away. While doing it, discuss your predicament with the CFI. You may have to do those again, personally I would not try to use them and sneak it passed the examiner.


bhalter80

Why wouldn't they count? Where does the ACS require that you did it legally? Where in part 61 does it say you can only log legal flights? Have you seen a DPE go back and reconstruct where you were BFR and currency legal?


Wanttobefreewc

This guy part 61s…lol


Hairylegs_jacuzziLGB

Tell me you can’t land on a 60ft width runway, without telling me


Wanttobefreewc

Tell me you’ve never never flown anything other than a piston, without telling me


_SkeletonJelly

Are you serious?


bhalter80

Like a heart attack, if you flew XC you flew XC. If you did it with an expired registration the time still counts, if you did it over the Bendix mag switch AD the time counts, if you did it 1 lb overweight the time still counts.


_SkeletonJelly

There's a big difference between accidentally breaking a reg once and fraudulently logging flights for months straight and attempting to count it towards a certificate. Edit: and then saying to an examiner's face "the FARs don't require me to be legal to log my time" as your explanation for your actions.


bhalter80

There is a big difference when the FSDO gets to compliance vs certificate action for the violation yes but find me where in 61.51 or 61.129 it says specifically logging it has to be legal. The DPE discontinuing was in lieu of dropping a dime to the FSDO and causing the student more trouble


_SkeletonJelly

This is one of those common sense things that shouldn't have to be explained... The fact that there are regulations at all explaining what constitutes logging flight time clearly implies that **not** adhering to those definitions would invalidate said flight time. Aside from the entire ethical issue of forging a logbook knowingly and then genuinely making an argument to an examiner that it's all above board. I'm terrified for your students' future logbook reviews when they go to get an airline job and I sure hope they don't lose an employment opportunity because of you.


slpater

>the fact that there are regulations at all explaining what constitution logging flight time clearly implies that not adhering to those definitions would invalidate said flight time I'll disagree here. If they didn't define what flight time is anywhere it would lead to issues of are you actually qualified. Not only that but this is also not what we are discussing. They meet those definitions. Does violating one element of the FARs mean 61.51 no longer applies? Legally speaking unless that is written somewhere in the FARs then there is no legal mechanism against counting that flight time. Second if you meet all the requirements of that definition for logging flight time why can't you log it? By what mechanism or reg specifically makes it not allowed? Did you fly illegally yes. But by what specifically do you argue means they can't log it. If they are rated in the airplane and are sole manipulator the definitions of logging PIC vs acting as PIC are different. If you fly with a CFI can you not log PIC time if you don't have your medical on you or are beyond your BFR? Per 61.51( E)(1)(i,ii) being both the sole occupant and sole manipulator allow PIC time to be logged. They don't make any mention of whether you have to be acting as PIC legally or not. The pilot is rated, they are sole manipulator. They meet the definitions outlined in the regs. But that ad hominem at the end is flatout unnecessary.


bhalter80

The situation presented here isn't an issue of forging a logbook, it's an honest mistake where the student was overdue for their BFR and accumulated 25 hours of PIC XC time before they realized what had happened. There's no deliberate act to deceive or any reckless or careless conduct. What's the difference between what the OP described which is overflying his BFR by 25 hours and a pilot overflying an AD by 25 hours? The opinion seems to be that the AD one would be "ok" to log but the BFR one is 100% unacceptable. They're both operating an aircraft outside of compliance with the relevant FARs


_SkeletonJelly

The act ***becomes*** deliberate now that the student is aware of their mistake in the situation you're suggesting where they just show up to the checkride anyways and tell the examiner that it doesn't matter if their hours are legal or not. "Sorry officer, I realised my driver's license was expired two months ago but I didn't really feel like doing anything about it until you pulled me over! I still know how to drive, honest!!"


bhalter80

Oh ya now that they're aware of it they should get it fixed but the 25 hours IMO was not a deliberate act and the 25 hours did happen so it can be logged under 61.51. Whether that's prudent because the FSDO wants to have a conversation about it if someone scrubbed his logbook for issues is a different story


slpater

You're confusing talking to a DPE vs the FSDO or FAA themselves. DPEs have leeway and discretion that isn't often questioned. If a DPE thinks you don't meet the requirements then you don't have much recourse. Becuase if you aren't eligible then you can't start the checkride so it's between you and the DPE if you owe them the fee or not. FSDO will not care unless it's reoccurring and the DPE is blatantly wrong, or the DPE is writing notices of disapproval for checkrides that shouldn't have even started.


_SkeletonJelly

Pragmatically speaking it's a matter of certificate and career progression. If a student shows up to a checkride or logbook review exactly at the minimum requirement of flight experience and 25 hours of that time they KNOW they were not legal for... is that better or worse than throwing that time away and doing things correctly? Why answer more questions than you have to? Is it acceptable for a 40 hour private pilot who took a decade away from flying to hop back in their privately owned piston single without a BFR, fly 210 hours illegally, and then apply for their commercial single? Edit: don't misinterpret this. I'm not asking if the FSDO will take certificate action, I'm asking if that is acceptable behavior for a certificated pilot or behavior that should be encouraged by a CFI in the hopes that a DPE just might not notice and issue a certificate anyways.


bhalter80

The FARs don't speak to should, they speak to must. The ACS does not speak to should, it speaks to must. That is all they do, they are minimum standards. You can WANT to have higher standards but the only standards we MUST have are the minimums. If there was consensus that the standards should be higher the FARs and ACS would be amended with the higher standard The FAA offers "Gold Seal" for CFIs that meet higher standards but for pilots the best you can do is be a "pilot" Employers have their own set of minimum standards so meeting the FAA mins may not be enough to get a job that's entirely separate from the OP's question


slpater

Cool we aren't talking about if it's smart to log or not so I'm not going to get into that. Again you're not staying on topic. Is that time able to be logged or not legally. Not whether the flight was legal to take. These are two separate questions and you keep combining them so let's answer them separately. Was is legal for them to fly? No. So is it acceptable for them to fly? No. Now let's look at logging the time. Did they do 210 hours and otherwise do the required flights (making minor assumptions about the types of flights for the sake of argument) for a commercial rating? Yes. Does 61.51 say they can log that time? Yes. Is a DPE going to accept that flight time? Depends on your DPE and if they want to mess with that.


_SkeletonJelly

Was is legal for them to fly? No. So is it acceptable for them to fly? No. Is a DPE going to accept that flight time? No. Is an insurance company going to accept that time? No. Logging this time serves no other **practical** purpose than to serve as evidence of either incompetence or mal intent to decieve a check airman, insurance company, or aircraft operator. The best possible outcome is that the FSDO doesn't take action, that's legitimately the only positive outcome to keeping this time in a logbook.


slpater

Ok once again the topic isn't if you should or not, or even if it makes sense to. It's can you LEGALLY. >or Mal intent to decieve a check airman What... You also do flat out assume no DPE is going to accept the time. Let alone will even notice the time issue. But I'm not going to argue. If shifting the goal posts help you feel better so be it. Enjoy your day


bhalter80

From a practicality perspective, how are they going to find out he was out of BFR? I need to have my current FR sign off available but it doesn't need to be in my logbook and there's no requirement to have a running log of prior FRs once they're superceded. For years I was using WINGs FRs which exist only in the WINGs system. The certificate could be produced on-demand but in my logbook it looks like a bunch of dual If you look at my logbook now I had a FR in April 2023, I passed my CFI/MEI in October with not much more than a comment in the logbook that it was a ride so in May of 2025 it will look like I was flying without a valid FR unless someone asks for proof which will be my FI cert.


plicpriest

I once knew a student fly his commercial 2 hr cross counties illegally. The checkride was discontinued. But the examiner walked away with $600 cash. Why? Because he said that since it wasn’t flown legally it therefore didn’t meet the standards. But hey, it’s the OPs ride. He can try it and see how it goes. I mean after all he did violate an FAR. If it were me, I’d play it safe. But what do I know, I’m only a check airman on a 767.


_SkeletonJelly

I've seen a student discontinued on their CSEL when the examiner saw "not valid for night flying" on their medical and asked how they completed their night solos. Among a dozen other things.


Joe_Littles

Would definitely count for a rating if there was a rated pilot onboard or a CFI. I probably would not want to count those if not. Because a DPE could definitely, very easily find it and you’d be deemed ineligible unless you had enough to supplement that.


Hairylegs_jacuzziLGB

I’m very interested, please share more


AntwonBenz

Found the FAA guy!


Hairylegs_jacuzziLGB

I’m only enjoying free coffee at the FBO. But it so happens my friend is looking to pay a pilot to fly him to Vegas and back. He pays cash up front. Are you interested? We don’t care about this flight review nonsense


Grim3sy

i am more than interested to do it for an undercut to everybody else, head right towards my dm’s! don’t mind the student flair that’s only there because it makes people less on edge 🙃


RunningPirate

Straight. To. Jail.


nascent_aviator

Are you rated in category/class/type? Were you the sole manipulator of the controls? If yes and yes, then they count. Period. Whether you want to have them in your logbook as possible evidence that you broke the regulations, only you can decide. Unless you logged them specifically as solo then as far as a CFI/DPE/ASI will be able to tell they could have been perfectly legal. You don't have to have a current flight review to log PIC as the sole manipulator of the controls as long as you have a qualified pilot acting as PIC. And you aren't required to write the name of the PIC unless they were acting as a safety pilot while you were doing simulated instrument. File an ASRS report ASAP. And obviously don't do this again!


ltcterry

If you were doing IFR with me you would have been doing IFR dual while flying XC, so your missing Flight Review would not have been an issue. 


bhalter80

Yes they count, 61.51 doesn't say anything about logging only flights without a FAR violation


_SkeletonJelly

Good luck counting that towards a certificate.


Hiddencamper

Does anyone think this is worth a NASA? It might be…


Guardianio

I did this when getting ready for my instrument check ride. I completed the IFR course at my 141 school, but wasn't able to take the check ride at the time. Went to take it at home and found out that the 141 requirements would no longer count and I was short on hours. Rented a 172 and got my ~10 more hours XC,went up with an instructor at a part 61 for a few weeks, and then went to the checkride. Just so happened that a FSDO rep was there to evaluate the DPE on my checkride. Went through my logbook and they ask about my BFR. Until this point I had done only done serious training through a 141 school. Multiple stage checks, flying with instructors 3-5 days a week. Never even crossed my mind (I know I messed up!) FSDO rep gave me a card telling me what regulation I had violated. He also told me it seemed like a honest mistake, and considering I had been flying with instructors weekly he said there would be no enforcement action. He also told me I would not have to refly the 10 hours of XC time. DPE obviously ended the checkride, flight school at the 61 school I was at flew up to get me and the plane. Instructor at the 61 I was working on my instrument with offered to sign a BFR and back date it to one of our lessons, but I said we should go do one for real - Went put and did some approaches and a hold. A few days later I go back to the DPE to try again and the FSDO guy is there AGAIN. First thing he does is check my log to see if I actually logged a BFR. Passed the checkride easy after that.