Jump to content

Commercial requirements question.....


Recommended Posts

Flybull, I fully agree with your post regarding the difference between acting and logging of PIC, and how that allows the PPL to log the time, while the other pilot is acting PIC.

 

However, it's the acting PIC that is important to claw your way up the commercial pilot food chain.

It only remains to be asked whether there is any difference in the logbook between these. 61.51 does not differentiate, and so to anyone looking at your logbook, they can't tell whether you acted as PIC or served (simply manipulated the controls).

 

I could go and fly like this for 10,000 and at the end of that, I'd have 10,000 hours of PIC time in my logbook although I acted for 0hrs as PIC!

 

Furthermore, I would be interested in the logbooks of the PPL and the CPL of these flights, as only the pilot who is manipulating the controls can log PIC time. i.e. If the PPL manipulates the controls for 100% of the flight, the CPL cannot log any time at all, even though he is 'acting' as PIC for 100% of the flight as he does not meet any of 61.51(e)

 

This is fine if the CPL has all the hours he ever wanted, but I'm sure that most would want to log more, and do illegally log PIC at the same time as the PPL does!

 

Joker

 

 

Added: svrider,

 

I disagree with you in part here.

 

You are right that both pilots cannot log PIC, as I explained above. Actually, Flybull never said 'both pilots could log PIC'.

 

However, you said that you cannot log PIC unless you acted as PIC. This is wrong. You can log PIC anytime you are the 'sole' manipulator of the controls' 61.51(e)(1)(i), even though you are not the pilot with the 'final authority of the flight' (acting as PIC).

 

You are right, that a PPL cannot 'act' as PIC when paying passengers are concerned 61.113. But there is nothing to stop that PPL 'serving' as PIC (manipulating the controls) and therefore logging PIC when paying passengers are on board. This goes down to what I said in red (and what you hinted at). The logbooks don't differentiate between acting or serving.

 

Lastly, the question of whether a CFI can give instruction whilst also conducting a tour, or doing traffic reporting is a grey 'undefined' area. I personally think it is irresponsible and possibly (not good instruction) and I think it wouldn't really hold up in court.

 

Joker

 

As for Flings 'poser' there, I don't 100% understand the question, but let me think about it!

 

There are only a 3 ways I can see that 2 pilots may log PIC time at the same time.

 

The first is 61.51(e)(3) - the case of the authorised instructor.

The second is 61.51(e)(1)(iii) where the aircraft requires two crew members. Therefore the Captain can log all that time as PIC and the co-pilot could log PIC when manipulating the controls if suitably PIC rated in that aircraft.

The last is 61.51(e)(2) where an ATPL captain can log the time. Again, another pilot may log the time at the controls.

 

So no, you don't have to be a CPL to be able to log PIC time while a PPL does. However, you must meet one of the two other conditions....???!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

svrider, I should have been more detailed - the person buying the PIC time is a rated pilot in the aircraft they are flying.

 

flybull, it's logged PIC that matters - what doesn't matter is what (legitimate) means you acquired it. To a commercial operator (and more importantly, to their insurance company), a CFI's 1,000 PIC hours are 100% valuable - that's the 500 where they were handling the controls, and the 500 where they monitored their students doing the same.

 

Joker, I'm not trying to find a way a non-instructor can log PIC if not operating the controls (wow is that like a triple negative? Well you know what I mean). I'm just tossing out the question, could a helicopter owner or operator who is not a CFI sell PIC time to a private helicopter pilot? Let's assume the owner/operator is unconcerned about their own logbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay FW, I'll take a shot at this.

 

I don't see any problem if an owner/operator wants to sell flight time in their AC.

 

I can go to the flight school where I did my training and rent an R-22 for an hour or a day. I log all of the time as PIC no matter who is riding shotgun. (provided that is all they are doing) If I want to take my friend for a ride (he happens to have a CPL) I'm still going to log the time because I'm paying all of the costs and manipulating the controls 100% of the time. If we split the costs 'pro rata', and I do all the flying, I log all the time. If we share the flying duties and costs 50/50, then we split the time 50/50.

 

Here's one for 'ya

 

Lets pretend that I own a helicopter and I've got more money than God. My friend has a PPL and he wants to borrow my helicopter to do some solo flights. He racks up 100 hrs of PIC and buys me dinner as a 'thank you'. Because he is not carrying PAX, this is legal. Or is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets pretend that I own a helicopter and I've got more money than God. My friend has a PPL and he wants to borrow my helicopter to do some solo flights. He racks up 100 hrs of PIC and buys me dinner as a 'thank you'. Because he is not carrying PAX, this is legal. Or is it?
You are free to lend a rated pilot your aircraft, and they are free to buy you dinner. Since there is no business being carried out, the FAA would be patently disinterested. This would not fall under the "flight time is compensation" interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fling / Lockedcj7,

 

could a helicopter owner or operator who is not a CFI sell PIC time to a private helicopter pilot?

 

I own a helicopter and I've got more money than God. My friend has a PPL and he wants to borrow my helicopter to do some solo flights. He racks up 100 hrs of PIC and buys me dinner as a 'thank you'.

 

I think these are quite similar questions.

 

Regarding the first scenario, what's the difference between this and any other aircraft rental company? The owner rents the helicopter to the PPL, and says, "Can I come along for the ride?"

 

In the second scenario, a different owner (who is very kind) says to his PPL friend, "Yeah, go ahead use my baby, but don't break her!"

 

There's nothing wrong with either of these cases. However, I am racking my brain as to whether the pilot must pay at least a pro-rata share in both or either of the cases. There is a legal opinion saying that 'free' flight time counted towards a further certificate or rating is a form of compensation.

 

Joker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with either of these cases. However, I am racking my brain as to whether the pilot must pay at least a pro-rata share in both or either of the cases. There is a legal opinion saying that 'free' flight time counted towards a further certificate or rating is a form of compensation.

 

Joker

 

so if the pilot pays for the fuel then it's legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are free to lend a rated pilot your aircraft, and they are free to buy you dinner. Since there is no business being carried out, the FAA would be patently disinterested. This would not fall under the "flight time is compensation" interpretation.

 

The only possible way this could be illegal is if the owner said, "I'll let you fly for 100 hours if you buy me dinner at the end of it." Then it would be compensation, but I don't think the FAA would care in that situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with either of these cases. However, I am racking my brain as to whether the pilot must pay at least a pro-rata share in both or either of the cases. There is a legal opinion saying that 'free' flight time counted towards a further certificate or rating is a form of compensation.
The question is, compensation for what? The pilot receiving the free flight time is performing no service for the owner of the aircraft, or anyone else. Yes the PPL is benefitting from getting the flight time, but they're not gaining from the flight itself - nobody is. Therefore it's not compensation for flying services, it's just free flying.

 

Now if that PPL takes a camera along to get a picture of Bigfoot and sell it for $10,000...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if that PPL takes a camera along to get a picture of Bigfoot and sell it for $10,000...

 

That would only be a problem if the intent was to take the picture. If he happened to have the camera, and happened to snap a shot of Bigfoot, then the business is incidental. Proving the flight was incidental would be the hard part...

Edited by PhotoFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fling (et al),

 

Yes, my brain has been racked, and I concur that there is nothing wrong with these flights. There has been no service performed by the PPL, and so the fact that the time is free is irrelevent.

 

In the first case (Fling's), the owner is simply renting the helicopter and jumping in for the ride.

 

In the second case, it is simply a case of a very nice owner with (as said) more money than sense. Or it could be a father, letting his son fly the aircraft.

 

As for the 'Bigfoot' photo, well I don't think this is a problem so long as the PPL has not been commissioned by anyone to photograph Bigfoot! If he simply goes out and takes pictures (and Bigfoot was in one and he makes millions on that), then not a problem.

 

Joker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only possible way this could be illegal is if the owner said, "I'll let you fly for 100 hours if you buy me dinner at the end of it." Then it would be compensation, but I don't think the FAA would care in that situation.

 

 

Actually, it is quite legal for you to rent your aircraft to someone without having to be a CFI. I own a flight school and am not a CFI (didn't want to spend money renting someone else's R22 for 50 hours before opening for business). I have numerous students that pay me to fly the helicopter that I have sitting on the ramp and there is nothing in the FAR's that state that you have to be a CFI to own a flight school. Just make sure that you are operating as a legal business for the rental of aircraft and have the proper insurance.

 

The question about the photo flight is an interesting one. When I owned a scenic tour operation at Lake Tahoe that operated under Part 91 we often did photo flights. I did have one person from the Reno FSDO question whether it was legal and he was checking with the legal department of the FAA for clarification on the subject. I sold the operation at Lake Tahoe before I got the answer, but I'll check with the current owner (who was my business partner at the time) and see what the FAA told him. Almost everyone I know operates photo flights under Part 91. Of course, just because someone is doing it doesn't always make it legal.

 

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it is quite legal for you to rent your aircraft to someone without having to be a CFI. I own a flight school and am not a CFI (didn't want to spend money renting someone else's R22 for 50 hours before opening for business). I have numerous students that pay me to fly the helicopter that I have sitting on the ramp and there is nothing in the FAR's that state that you have to be a CFI to own a flight school. Just make sure that you are operating as a legal business for the rental of aircraft and have the proper insurance.

 

The question about the photo flight is an interesting one. When I owned a scenic tour operation at Lake Tahoe that operated under Part 91 we often did photo flights. I did have one person from the Reno FSDO question whether it was legal and he was checking with the legal department of the FAA for clarification on the subject. I sold the operation at Lake Tahoe before I got the answer, but I'll check with the current owner (who was my business partner at the time) and see what the FAA told him. Almost everyone I know operates photo flights under Part 91. Of course, just because someone is doing it doesn't alway

 

 

I was considering doing photo flights and tours(within 25nm) in my r22 so i would like to see what your friends have to say.It would be good info to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think fling is right on my scenario, and he made the point I was getting at. There is no compensation because the PPL has performed no service to be compensated for. The dinner is incidental and is just what friends do.

 

As for bigfoot, as others have stated, I don't see a problem unless the purpose of the flight was specifically to try to get that pic.

 

Two more from real life:

 

A student I know went on a long X-country and was on the controls the whole time. He paid the CFI for 4 hrs of dual but the A/C rental and fuel was paid for by someone else. At the destination, they picked up the client and he flew around with the CFI while the student sat in the airport. The student logged all of the XC time as dual received because he didn't have his PPL yet. Was/is this legal?

 

At the Robby school the total flight time was 1.3. The instructor preflighted, started and shutdown the A/C, made all the radio calls, made all the decisions and was on the controls about 25% of the time. He filled out the logbook for the student and handed it back. It read 1.3 PIC, 1.3 dual received. Was/is this legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for bigfoot, as others have stated, I don't see a problem unless the purpose of the flight was specifically to try to get that pic.
Excellent! I can finally sell that picture.
A student I know went on a long X-country and was on the controls the whole time. He paid the CFI for 4 hrs of dual but the A/C rental and fuel was paid for by someone else. At the destination, they picked up the client and he flew around with the CFI while the student sat in the airport. The student logged all of the XC time as dual received because he didn't have his PPL yet. Was/is this legal?
So the student got to go along on a ferry flight, paid the instructor for instruction, waited at the airport while the instructor discharged the actual purpose of the flight (I assume it was the client at the destination who was paying for the whole flight), then flew the return leg of the ferry. No problems there.
At the Robby school the total flight time was 1.3. The instructor preflighted, started and shutdown the A/C, made all the radio calls, made all the decisions and was on the controls about 25% of the time. He filled out the logbook for the student and handed it back. It read 1.3 PIC, 1.3 dual received. Was/is this legal?

Of course for the student to log any PIC with someone else in the aircraft, they must have been rated in helicopters. Anyway this is an age-old dilemma. Technically, the rated student should only log PIC for the time they were operating the controls for the purposes of flight, so they should only log 1.0 PIC, 1.3 instruction received.

 

You will find that most training flights are incorrectly logged, usually including startup/shutdown time and time where the rated pilot was not on the controls. IFR training flights are notorious - take a 1.7hr (on the Hobbs) flight where the helicopter might get off the ground 0.2 after it is started, hood goes on at about 0.3, and the CFI acts as autopilot for about half the flying. Then you have 0.1 shutdown on the other end. Yet you will see in the logbook the full 1.7 of simulated instrument and PIC time. The CFI as autopilot thing could be OK- if the aircraft had an actual autopilot, the pilot under instruction would be logging PIC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...