Pic Time

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
800 Independence
Washington, D.C.
Attention: Chief
Administration
Ave. S.W.
20591
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
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
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

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

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

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.
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.
(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
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.
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.
Sincerely,
/s/ Donald P. Byrne
Regulations and Enforcement Division

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.
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.
(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.
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.
Sincerely,
/s/ Donald P. Byrne

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
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
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

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

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.
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.
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

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
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 turbinepowered 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
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
Regulations & Enforcement Division
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
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
Regulations & Enforcement
Division
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

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

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

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
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
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
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

Office of the Chief Counsel

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 pilotin-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
flight is conducted.
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
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
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.
(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.
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
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 B707), 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
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
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.
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
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
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-InCommand 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.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Enclosures

Pic Time

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pic Time

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LOGGING TIME - LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS

The following information is a compendium of legal interpretations culled from

Legal Interpretation # 92-68

Second, you questioned, "can a non-instrument rated private pilot

pilot certificate. Another example is pilot service, where a

Legal Interpretation # 92-52

B) ...in actual instrument conditions? C) ... under the hood in

Legal Interpretation # 92-46

In your letter, you pose the following scenario: under a part

Legal Interpretation # 92-40

(1) Pilot in command means the pilot responsible for the

Legal Interpretation # 92-14

SIC for Part 135 operations in IFR conditions, the autopilot

This interpretation has been prepared by Arthur E. Jacobson,

Legal Interpretation # 92-5

at least 3 of which were in flight in the

Fifth, you asked who is responsible for obtaining clearance

experience, not merely an instrument rating.

Aviation and Commercial Division, to Chief, Flight Standards

that a private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of

gain or advantages were desired, any of these pilots could

Legal Interpretation # 90-7

Legal Interpretation # 89-24

The tacit basis for including spin recognition and recovery in

Can a student pilot log solo time as pilot-in-command time

time spent as sole manipulator of the controls regardless of the

Legal Interpretation # 88-13

In addressing the question presented in your letter, the meaning

(FAR). You pose the following questions:

Dear Mr. Elliott:

informing GA News of our interpretation.

Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft

Legal Interpretation # 79-39

Legal Interpretation # 79-12

Legal Interpretation # 78-31

paragraph (1) of that section, except for certain experience in

certificate, or "sign off," for instrument instruction if the

Responsibility and authority of the pilot in

Section 61.51(c)(2) Pilot-in-Command flight time. (i) A

(iii) A certificated flight instructor may

addition to other certificates and ratings, does not transfer the

Acting Assistant Chief Counsel

Legal Interpretation # 77-38

June 15, 1977

(iii) A certificated flight instructor (CFI) may log

Pilot-in-command flight time.

We stress, however, that here we are discussing logging of

possession of a private pilot certificate and merely being the

which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to

You might also like