Flying FAQ

The “golden key” to understanding the rules of logging PIC is to always keep in mind that the FAA treats “acting as pilot in command” and “logging pilot in command time” under FAR 61.51 as completely different concepts. It’s the difference between (1) having final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of a flight (commonly referred to as “acting as PIC”) and (2) writing numbers in columns on a piece of paper while sitting at a desk with a beer in your hand. They never mean the same thing and they have completely different rules. A pilot can be responsible for a flight and not be permitted to write those numbers down. A pilot can be technically nothing but a passenger in the FAA’s eyes and be permitted to write time in that PIC column. In some circumstances, two pilots may sit at that desk and write numbers in their logbooks, even though, quite obviously, only one can bear the ultimate responsibility for a flight.

The known universe of rules for logging time to show qualification for certificates, ratings and currency is contained in FAR 61.51. Unless 61.51 specifically directs you to it, answering a logging question by including the word “acting” or pointing to any other FAR is always a mistake. This is a simplified version of the rules of Part 61 PIC logging as they have been written in the FAR and repeatedly and consistently interpreted by the FAA Legal Counsel since at least 1980. It’s limited to student, recreational, private, and commercial pilots. CFIs and ATPs can fend for themselves. If they don’t know the rules, tough.

Rule 1. If you are a recreational, private or commercial pilot, you may log PIC any time you are the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft you are rated for. [61.51(e)(1)(i)] “Rated” means the category and class (and type, if a type rating is necessary for the aircraft) that is listed on the back of your pilot certificate. Nothing else matters. Not instrument ratings. Not endorsements for high performance, complex, or tailwheel aircraft. Not medical currency. Not flight reviews. Not night currency. Nothing. There are no known exceptions. Note that the rule is different for sport pilots who have endorsed “privileges” for aircraft in their logbooks insetad of ratings on their pilot certificates.

Rule 2. If you are a student, recreational, private or commercial pilot, you may log PIC any time you are the only person in the aircraft. [61.51(e)(1)(ii) and 61.51(e)(4)] This means that even without category and class ratings, you may log PIC time if you are solo. In addition to the obvious (student solo), it also means, for example, that if you are rated ASEL and solo in an AMEL or ASES, you may log the time as PIC.

Rule 3. If you are a private or commercial pilot, you may log as PIC any time you are acting as PIC (in charge) of a flight on which more than one pilot is required [61.51(e)(1)(iii)] More than one pilot may be required because the aircraft is not certified for single-pilot operations. But more common for us, it covers simulated instrument flight where a second “safety pilot” is required by the regulations while the “manipulator” is under the hood. [91.109(b)] If the two pilots agree that the safety pilot is acting as PIC, the safety pilot can log the time as PIC. An important, but often misunderstood part of this rule is that in order to act as PIC in this context, the pilot must be qualified to do so. That means being current and having the appropriate endorsements in addition to ratings.

Rule 4. Based on a unpublished and (so far) unverifiable 1977 Chief Counsel opinion, you may log PIC if you are acting as PIC and you are the only person on board with the necessary aircraft ratings. In other words, if no one else on board may log PIC time, the person acting as PIC may. Note that there is nothing whatsoever in 61.51 to support this interpretation. Although I received a copy from a source that I trust (sort of), there is some reasonable disagreement on whether it’s any good or even really exists. But it does answer the silly question: “Can I log PIC while I let my four year old niece fly the airplane?” Frankly, I can’t imagine that the FAA gives a hoot about this one way or another.

Rule 5. If you are a student, recreational, private, or commercial pilot and don’t fit into Rules 1-4, you may not log the time as PIC under FAR 61.51 even if you are acting as PIC. This is the bottom line that tells us how different the concepts of “acting as PIC” and “logging PIC time” can be. An example: An instrument rated and current private pilot files an instrument flight plan but lets her non-instrument rated friend do all of the flying. Let’s go a step further. Most of the flight takes place in IMC. The instrument rated pilot, who is clearly acting as PIC and responsible for everything is entitled to log nothing in the PIC column of her logbook under 61.51.

Keep them straight. Acting As PIC means duty, authority, and responsibility. Logging Part 61 PIC Time means putting numbers in columns on a piece of paper. Different purposes, different concepts, different rules.

Link to this FAQ

This is one of those FAA definitions that change depending on what you’re using the time for. Cross-countries fall into four groups. The first three groups are all contained in 61.1(b)(3).

Group 1: General Definition: A cross country flight is one in which you land at another airport that you didn’t accidentally bump into. There are no distance requirements.

Group 2: In order to “Count” for Most Certificates or Ratings: Same as the general definition, except at least one of the places where you land has to be more than 50 NM from where you started the flight. This applies to the private and commercial certificates, and the instrument rating.

Group 3: In order to “Count” for ATP: Same as for Most Certificates or Ratings, except you don’t have to land anywhere

Group 4: Apart from there are the “special cross countries” that are part of the experience requirement for certain certificates and ratings. One example is the private pilot certificate requirement for 150 total distance solo cross country with at least one 50 NM leg (61.109(a)(5)).

So, they’re all cross country. And they all can be logged from the time that you are a student pilot. The problem is keeping track of them so you can total the ones that “count” in any given situation. Most new pilots tend to log only Group 2 since those are the ones that they will have to total up in the near future. Some set up two columns right away (Group 1 counts for 135 experience purposes). The lack of a landing in Group 3 is a well-deserved tip of the hat to military pilots who will often fly some distance without landing.

A session in a simulator, FTD or other device is not a “flight”. The confusion that leads to this frequently asked question comes about because there are a number of different definitions here. And “total time” is not one of them.

“Total Time” isn’t defined anywhere in the FAR. When the term is used, it’s not alone. For example, 61.109(a) requires 40 hours of “flight time” for the private certificate. On the other hand, the 61.159 aeronautical experience requirements for the ATP include “at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot” So there’s really no such thing as “TT” standing by itself. It’s usually combined with either “pilot time” or “flight time”. There is a world of difference between the two.

“Pilot time” is defined in 61.1(b)(12) and specifically includes simulator time.

that time in which a person – (i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember; (ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device; or (iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.

On the other hand, “flight time” is defined in FAR 1 as

Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing…

That does not include simulators. Even the best of them are not “aircraft.” They sit on the ground.

The bottom line in terms of what one writes in their logbooks is part regulatory and part bookeeping.

The regulatory part: Nothing that you are tracking to meet a “flight time” requirement or time a category, class, or type of “aircraft” should include time in a training device that sits on the ground.  If you think it’s valuable, and I suspect such things as time in a full motion Level D 737 simulator are, track them separately.

The bookkeeping part:  The logbooks I’ve seen don’t have a “total time” column. I’ve generally seen total “flight” time or “Total duration of flight,” and device time doesn’t belong there. If you really have a plain “total time” column, I guess you can treat it either way. But keep in mind, any column in which you combine them will have to be separated out the next time you fill in an 8710 application for a new certificate or rating and, probably, for other purposes as well

Updated May 20, 2019

If you look at 61.57(c) (instrument currency) you’ll see that the 6 instrument approaches that have to have been done in the prior 6 months must be “performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions…” Some of the other requirements have changed through the years, but this one has been with us for a while.

Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it? Except some idiot thought to ask, “How much actual is actual?” What if you pass through a single scattered cloud on the way down for a total of 5 seconds of “actual”? Can you count the approach?

Sometime in 1989 or 1990, it seems FAAviation News ran an article that said that you had to fly the approach to minimums in IMC in order for it to count. Someone wrote in pointing out the illogic of a rule that meant that a very experienced pilot who flew hard IMC all the time would probably not be able to log the approaches, since most approaches don’t involve breaking out at minimums. In the July/August 1990 issue, FAAviation News replied to the writer:

Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC, you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds.

Problem is that this answer doesn’t work either. Now, you’re on a feeder route to the IAF above the cloud deck when you’re cleared for the approach. You fly the full approach, enter the clouds just below glideslope intercept and break out at 200 AGL with 1/4 mile visibility. Oops! Sorry! You were not “cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC”. (You’re starting to see why I called the person who asked the “How much” question for the first time an idiot.)

In 1992, the FAA legal counsel chimed in:

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 Sec. 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.

Uh-oh! If you take the opinion at face value, there’s that reasoning again that essentially says that if you don’t go missed, you can’t log it.

There is a strong school of thought out there that says that what it “looks like” the FAA Chief Counsel said is not what was meant. Note that despite the question, although the answer says that you have to follow the procedure all the way (unless it’s not safe), it does not say that you have to follow the procedure all the way “in actual IFR conditions.” (You can see where this is much better fodder for arguments than anything else in the logging arena.) The camp that says that the legal counsel didn’t mean all the way in IMC (call them the “Rule of Reason” school) are essentially saying, “how much” is one of those things that the FAR leaves undefined. Not everything can be defined with precision. Try to think of all of the scenarios and come out with a reasonable rule that covers every probable (let alone possible) approach scenario. How many pages did you use?

Members of the Rule of Reason group have different personal standards, but they usually come down to whether flying the IAP involved enough IMC to require you to use your instrument piloting skills. Or, as aviation author Bob Gardner has put it, “You are the best judge of whether an approach has made you a more proficient instrument pilot or has just allowed you to fill a gap in your log.”

When Part 61 was revised in 1997, there was a proposal to write the rule to specifically say that approaches had to be flown to MDA or DA to count. They got a lot of comments, including one that said

One commenter suggests revising the definition to permit the pilot to terminate the approach prior to DH or MDA for safety reasons. Another commenter proposes to define “instrument approach” as ” * * * an approach procedure defined in part 97 and conducted in accordance with that procedure or as directed by ATC to a point beyond an initial approach fix defined for that procedure.” The commenter explains that this definition would allow for logging instrument approaches that require some portion of the published approach procedure to be followed in order for the pilot to establish visual references to the runway”

The FAA decided against the new requirement. Some point to the fact that the FAA posted this comment as support for the rule of reason approach. Whew!

Update: In 2015, the FAA published InFO 15012, Logging Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) in an effort to “clarify the conditions under which a pilot may log an IAP in his or her logbook.” Comes down to encountering actual at or inside the FAF. A laudable effort. While Bob Gardner might quibble about whether passing though that one cloud for five seconds should count, at least it’s an objective standard, easy to apply.

The trouble with “night” is that the way the FAA treats what we consider night changes. It’s used a bit different for position light requirements, “night” landing currency, and general use. We sometimes talk about “night” having multiple FAA definitions. In reality there is only one FAA definition of the word, which appears in FAR 1. Night means the time between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the American Air Almanac, converted to local time. So, when the word “night” is used in a regulation, this is what it means unless the regulation says something different. So, for general logging of night flight time for certificate requirements, including the landings, I would use this definition. I would also use this definition for all FAR purposes, like night VFR visibility requirements, fuel reserves, etc.

For “night” passenger-carrying currency purposes, we’re talking about the regulation saying “something else”, in this case 1 hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise (61.57). But that time frame limitation describes a certain part of the “night.” It doesn’t have any effect on the overall definition of “night”. And it only applies to currency requirements for carrying passengers as PIC during a certain part of the “night”. It doesn’t apply to anything else. Finally, there’s the aircraft lights rules from 91.208, requiring lighted position lights “during the period from sunset to sunrise” (different in Alaska). That regulation doesn’t use the word “night” at all.

Oh, one more thing. Most of us don’t carry around the American Air Almanac (in fact, I don’t even know anyone who has seen one!). The next best choice is the U.S. Naval Observatory web site

It depends. If the safety pilot is also acting as PIC (in charge of the flight), then the safety pilot may log PIC time while the flying pilot is under the hood. If not, the safety pilot is permitted to log second-in-command time. To understand the answer, make sure that you first understand the “golden key” to logging mentioned in the general logging PIC FAQ – the FAA treats “acting as pilot in command” and “logging pilot in command time” under FAR 61.51 as completely different concepts. Unless 61.51 specifically directs you to it, answering a logging question by including the word “acting” or pointing to any other FAR is always a mistake.

Logging PIC time as a safety pilot is one of those times that 61.51 tells you to look somewhere else. As usual, let’s start with 61.51. 61.51(e)(1)(iii) tells us that if you are a private or commercial pilot, you may log as PIC any time you are acting as PIC (in charge) of a flight on which more than one pilot is required by the regulations. More than one pilot may be required because the aircraft is not certified for single-pilot operations. But there are other situations as well. One is set up for us by 91.109(b):

No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless … The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

So, a second “safety pilot” is required by the regulations while the “manipulator” is under the hood. If the two pilots agree that the safety pilot is acting as PIC, the safety pilot can log the time as PIC.

An important, but often misunderstood part of this rule is that in order to act as PIC in this context, the pilot must be qualified to do so. That means being current and having the appropriate endorsements in addition to ratings. Think it’s a little sneaky? Trying to get around the rules by looking for technicalities? Here’s what the FAA Chief Legal Counsel said about it decades ago in a 1993 interpretation letter sent to Steve Hicks:

In your second question you ask “how 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.

That was back in 1993. The specific FAR 61.51 subparagraph has changed but the substance has not. As with most logging questions, the FAA has been incredibly consistent since then,  applying the same rules to a series of safety pilot scenarios almost 20 years later in an interpretive letter to William Trussell.

Since 61.51 allows more than one pilot to log PIC time at the same time, it’s tempting to think that the same holds true for logging cross country time.  If. for example, a rated flying pilot and a non-flying safety pilot who is acting as PIC may both log PIC time,  can’t they both log cross country time as well?

For the most part, the answer is no.  The FAA Chief Counsel has given an  unequivocal thumbs down to more than one plain vanilla Part 91 pilot logging cross country time on the same cross country flight (there is probably an exception for CFIs during dual cross country training flights but even that is not completely clear at this point). The various opinion letters cite different rationales, but ultimately, it comes down to this:

only the pilot who performs the takeoff , en route portion, and the landing
on a cross country flight may log the cross country time

at least when the flight is not a “true” 2-pilot operation (see the Glenn Opinion below).

So, for example:

• A safety pilot may not log cross country time because he or she is not a required crewmember for the entire flight.  2009 Gebhart Opinion.
• When pilots switch sole manipulator duties in the air, neither may log the cross country time. 2009 Hilliard Opinion.

Other opinion letters in the series include the 2009 Glenn Opinion, which reviews multiple similar scenarios.  It is Glenn which allows both pilots in aircraft or Part 135 ops required more than one pilot to log cross country time because both are required crewmembers for the entire flight.

Yes.

The long-argued controversy over this question is ended.

In this 2008 FAA Legal opinion, the FAA Chief Counsel’s office formally adopted the officially disowned Part 61 FAQ’s response to the question, saying:

The Chief Counsel’s office agrees that the earlier guidance reflects the appropriate interpretation of the regulations. The regulations expressly permit an authorized instructor conducting instrument instruction in actual instrument flight conditions to log instrument flight time (61.51(g)(2)). The only remaining issue is whether, even if properly logged, the approaches are considered to have been “performed” by the instructor within the meaning of section 61.57 (c)(l). The FAA views the instructor’s oversight responsibility when instructing in actual instrument flight conditions to meet the obligation of 61.57(c)(1) to have performed the approaches.

A lot of folks seems to think that a safety pilot has very little responsibility unless she also chooses to take on responsibility for the flight by acting as PIC. I’ve seen this issue discussed a number of times (which is, of course, why I have a FAQ on it).

There are two versions of this view of safety pilot responsibility.One is that the only job a safety pilot has is looking for traffic. The related one is that by choosing to also act as PIC, the safety pilot picks up a whole bunch of extra liability. Both views are apparently based on two concepts:

• A safety pilot picks up no responsibility for a flight unless he’s also PIC.

and it’s evil twin

• § 91.3(a) means that no one except the PIC has any responsibility for the safety of a flight

I don’t think either is true.

Of course being the hooded pilot’s “eyes” is the safety pilot’s primary role. But I’ve never been able to find the part of 91.109(b) that says that the safety pilot’s role is limited to seeing and avoiding other aircraft. On the other hand, I notice that a recreational (or sport) pilot cannot act as a safety pilot. That despite being able to carry passengers, being rated in category and class, and having a current medical. Wonder how come? Could it possibly be because the FAA wanted someone who was also trained more heavily in navigation and communication, the only two skill sets that separate the recreational from the private certificate?

I also notice that the airplane must have dual controls, and that if a throw-over is in the airplane, the safety pilot (whether or not the PIC!) is given the specific responsibility of determining whether the flight can be made safely. Sounds just a little more serious than “hey stupid, turn left!” So I really doubt that a safety pilot’s responsibility ends with empty skies.

And, although no doubt a safety pilot does pick up some additional responsibility when she chooses to act as PIC, I’m not really sure that, practically, it’s really that much. I ran a brief challenge in one or two groups: tell us about a case in which a safety pilot who was acting as PIC was held responsible for something solely on the basis that the pilot had assumed PIC responsibilities. I haven’t seen any. The closest is this an NTSB case that found as probable cause, “the pilot’s failure to maintain proper glide path during a practice instrument approach, which resulted in an in-flight collision with terrain. Contributory factors to the accident were the dark night light condition and the safety pilot’s inadequate monitoring of the practice approach.” The report is here.

Notice that there was no mention in the report of whether or not the safety pilot was acting as PIC. If anything, the reference to the safety pilot as “passenger” suggests that he was not. So, at least in that case, it seems the safety pilot is being held responsible for being a bad safety pilot. The lesson I get is, “If you are going to act as a safety pilot, don’t take it as a joke. It is an important job, so do it correctly.”

Here’s an example of something we’re all concerned with these days: Let’s say you are acting as safety pilot and the flying pilot busts, say a stadium TFR. I would expect the safety pilot to be looking at the possibility of a violation. But, again, that would be for not performing safety pilot duties properly and would have nothing to do with their status as PIC or not PIC or logging something or not logging something.

Updated May 20, 2019

If you look at 61.57(c) (instrument currency) you’ll see that the 6 instrument approaches that have to have been done in the prior 6 months must be “performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions…” Some of the other requirements have changed through the years, but this one has been with us for a while.

Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it? Except some idiot thought to ask, “How much actual is actual?” What if you pass through a single scattered cloud on the way down for a total of 5 seconds of “actual”? Can you count the approach?

Sometime in 1989 or 1990, it seems FAAviation News ran an article that said that you had to fly the approach to minimums in IMC in order for it to count. Someone wrote in pointing out the illogic of a rule that meant that a very experienced pilot who flew hard IMC all the time would probably not be able to log the approaches, since most approaches don’t involve breaking out at minimums. In the July/August 1990 issue, FAAviation News replied to the writer:

Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC, you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds.

Problem is that this answer doesn’t work either. Now, you’re on a feeder route to the IAF above the cloud deck when you’re cleared for the approach. You fly the full approach, enter the clouds just below glideslope intercept and break out at 200 AGL with 1/4 mile visibility. Oops! Sorry! You were not “cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC”. (You’re starting to see why I called the person who asked the “How much” question for the first time an idiot.)

In 1992, the FAA legal counsel chimed in:

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 Sec. 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.

Uh-oh! If you take the opinion at face value, there’s that reasoning again that essentially says that if you don’t go missed, you can’t log it.

There is a strong school of thought out there that says that what it “looks like” the FAA Chief Counsel said is not what was meant. Note that despite the question, although the answer says that you have to follow the procedure all the way (unless it’s not safe), it does not say that you have to follow the procedure all the way “in actual IFR conditions.” (You can see where this is much better fodder for arguments than anything else in the logging arena.) The camp that says that the legal counsel didn’t mean all the way in IMC (call them the “Rule of Reason” school) are essentially saying, “how much” is one of those things that the FAR leaves undefined. Not everything can be defined with precision. Try to think of all of the scenarios and come out with a reasonable rule that covers every probable (let alone possible) approach scenario. How many pages did you use?

Members of the Rule of Reason group have different personal standards, but they usually come down to whether flying the IAP involved enough IMC to require you to use your instrument piloting skills. Or, as aviation author Bob Gardner has put it, “You are the best judge of whether an approach has made you a more proficient instrument pilot or has just allowed you to fill a gap in your log.”

When Part 61 was revised in 1997, there was a proposal to write the rule to specifically say that approaches had to be flown to MDA or DA to count. They got a lot of comments, including one that said

One commenter suggests revising the definition to permit the pilot to terminate the approach prior to DH or MDA for safety reasons. Another commenter proposes to define “instrument approach” as ” * * * an approach procedure defined in part 97 and conducted in accordance with that procedure or as directed by ATC to a point beyond an initial approach fix defined for that procedure.” The commenter explains that this definition would allow for logging instrument approaches that require some portion of the published approach procedure to be followed in order for the pilot to establish visual references to the runway”

The FAA decided against the new requirement. Some point to the fact that the FAA posted this comment as support for the rule of reason approach. Whew!

Update: In 2015, the FAA published InFO 15012, Logging Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) in an effort to “clarify the conditions under which a pilot may log an IAP in his or her logbook.” Comes down to encountering actual at or inside the FAF. A laudable effort. While Bob Gardner might quibble about whether passing though that one cloud for five seconds should count, at least it’s an objective standard, easy to apply.

First of all, you must have a stabilized descent. That means nailing your target airspeed and descent rate and maintaining them with very small pitch and power inputs. If you’re working hard at that part, ask you CFI to spend more time with you in slow flight. Without that stabilized descent you simply cannot develop any consistency when it gets to the end game of transitioning to the flare and touchdown.

I find that it often helps to think of the “flare” in two parts, the second of which is really the flaring part: “level off” and “flare”.

Leveling off involves flattening your downward motion – you transition the airplane from it’s descent to level flight. Thinking of it this way tends to help helps with ballooning problems since changing to the familiar level flight attitude tends to help avoid over-rotating. How high is the level off? Well, it’s usually somewhat lower, but you’re generally safe if you begin about a wing span off the ground – you want to level off into ground effect. The level off will start the process of bleeding off speed, and the final descent to the ground. Once it begins, you can start the flare.

The flare itself involves slowly (so you slow but do not stop the descent) bringing the nose up to the exact same position it was in when the mains left the ground on takeoff. I’ll repeat that. The flare itself involves slowly bringing the nose up to the exact same position it was in when the mains left the ground on takeoff. It’s easy to visualize and the best part is that if the nose is in that position, you will land mains first. (BTW, noticing my attitude when I take off is how I teach myself how to land an airplane type I never flew before).

Once you get the nose in that position, keep it there. Keeping it there will require you to continue to apply back pressure. It will also help you apply the correct amount of back pressure. I think that’s important to understand. CFIs constantly tell pilots to “hold it off” or continue pulling the yoke back. I know this is a standard instruction. I hear it all the time. It’s essentially correct, but I think it misses the point and leads to some very interesting ballooning as someone brings the stick all the way back because that’s the way it’s “supposed” to be done. But what happens when you bring the nose back to the takeoff position and do whatever is necessary to keep it there until it won’t stay up any more? Go back to slow flight. What happens? As the airplane gets slower, controls get less effective — more deflection is necessary to get the same effect. So you’re in the flare and getting slower and slower and slower. This means that in order to keep the nose in the same place, you need to pull back more and more and more. You don’t bring the yoke to your belly because that’s the way you’re =supposed to= do it, but rather it’s more or less the way you have to do it. If you do what is necessary to keep the same pitch attitude, you will be “holding it off”

Back in high school physics, you may have come across a concept called parallax, “the apparent displacement of an object as seen from two different points that are not on a line with the object”. Essentially it means that if you are trying to line up two points, you have to be in line with them or your perspective is skewed. In landing, we are trying to line up the center of the airplane with the runway centerline. If we were sitting dead center in the airplane, in line with the other two points, there would be no problem. But we are sitting a bit to the left, so it becomes more difficult. (BTW, CFI trainees tend to land to the right of the centerline for exactly the same reason)

Fortunately, the solution is easier than explaining the problem. Our eyes and brain are designed to adjust, if we do one simple thing: keep ourselves rather than the airplane centered. There are a number of ways to do this, using various parts of our body and the airplane. I teach three different ones due to differences in the way different people tend to visualize things:

• centerline between the feet and square to the chest
• centerline through the heart and square to the chest
• centerline through the center of and square to the yoke.

Doesn’t matter if you like your nose or forehead or whatever better: the key is to line up something that is in the center of you rather than in the center of the airplane. Once we line ourselves up, then we use the rudder and ailerons as needed to keep us there.

Prove to yourself that it works: Pull the airplane out of its parking space and place it on a taxiway center line, absolutely centered and nose on the line. Get in. The taxi line will look like it’s between your legs (middle of your chest, centered with your nose…). Now move to the right seat – the taxi line will still be between your legs.

BTW, this is not the only way to solve the problem. In fact, it’s not the most common way. The more common way is to practice enough that you eventually figure out what the nose looks like when everything is fine. Only problem is that you have to figure it out all over again when you move into a different airplane and if you ever decide to become a CFI, have to figure it out all over again from the other seat when everything is reversed.

I think it’s great when people start talking about “slip all the way” vs. “kick it at the last minute” as thought they were two completely different things. In many online groups (not yours of course), the flame throwers start next and each side tells why it’s selected method is the best. Being completely wishy-washy (Charlie Brown is my hero), my take is somewhere in the middle: “Crab & Kick” and “Slip All The Way” aren’t different from each other. They’re opposite ends of a spectrum. When I teach crosswind landings (is there really any other kind?) here’s the approach I take:

1. As you turn final, you should still be in coordinated flight. That, at least initially, means crab in order to track the runway centerline. The direction and degree of the crab is a excellent indication of the general direction and strength of the wind. Comparison between this and the wind sock 300-400′ below will tell you a lot about what to expect (especially if they show the wind in opposite directions!)
2. At some point you will transition into a slip. That point may be very early on final, somewhere down the middle, or in the flare. Where you do it will be a matter of personal preferences and your preference may change depending on flight conditions. For example, if the wind is particularly strong and you haven’t had a lot of crosswind practice lately, you might set up the slip earlier to test control effectiveness. If you have passengers on board (especially in the back seat) you might transition into the slip later since passengers don’t tend to enjoy the yaw of a slip that much. Use your rudder to turn the airplane so that your chest is square with the centerline. Use the ailerons to keep the centerline right between your feet. Make the corrections you need to keep it that way: rudder for your chest; ailerons for your feet.
3. An important lesson to take home. Whether you transition to the slip at the last moment or a mile away, you have to move your ailerons into the crosswind correction configuration. And when you touch town, you must immediately moe the ailerons to the correct crosswind taxi position. If not, at best, you will sideload the airplane; at worst, the wind will lift your wing and/or push you off the runway. Most crosswind accidents happen once you are on the ground, not while you are still in the air The important things are pilot proficiency, pilot (and passenger) comfort level, safety, knowing that you have to transition to crosswind taxi on roll out, and understanding the aerodynamics involved in each end of the spectrum. (For example, a longer slip requires more power.)

So, some jerk broke into your car and along with the other stuff he took, walked away with your logbook. Fortunately, the FAA gives us some guidance on what to do.

Before getting to the guidance, though, the FAA gives you a potential baseline. Assuming you already have a certificate or rating that required you to prepare an 8710-1, there is an official record of your time until then and that you have met the training and requirements for that certificate or rating. The 8710-1 itself tells us:

RECORD OF PILOT TIME. The minimum pilot experience required by the appropriate regulation must be entered. It is recommended, however, that ALL pilot time be entered.

So, even though you don’t have to, it’s usually a good idea to put complete up-to-date totals in those flight time boxes, whether or not the box is required for the application.

Now to the guidance the FAA gives us… They are both from FAA Order 8900.1 – Flight Standards Information Management Systems (FSIMS).

The first is from Volume 5 (Airmen Certification), Chapter 1, Paragraph 5-172 (part of what used to be called the Air Transportation Operations Inspector’s Handbook.:

5-172. LOST LOGBOOKS OR FLIGHT RECORDS. Inspectors should advise airmen that they may reconstruct lost logbooks or flight records by providing a signed statement of previous flight time. 

A. Proof of Experience. Airmen may use the following items to substantiate flight time and experience:

•  Aircraft logbooks
•  Receipts for aircraft rentals
•  Operator records
•  Copies of airman medical files
•  Copies of FAA Form 8710-1, “Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application”

B. Obtaining File Copies. Airmen who have lost their logbooks or flight records may request copies of their files from the FAA by writing to the following: FAA Airmen Certification Branch, AVN-460 P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125 FAA, Aeromedical Certification Branch P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

NOTE: Inspectors should encourage pilots to complete the flight time sections of official record forms, even though it would not be required for that specific certificate. These records document a chronological development of flight time in case personal records become lost.

The second is in Volume 5 (Airman Certification), Chapter 2, Paragraph 5-321 tells us:

5-321. LOST LOGBOOKS OR FLIGHT RECORDS. Aeronautical experience requirements must be shown for a person to be eligible for the issuance or to exercise the privileges of a pilot certificate. A pilot who has lost logbooks or flight time records should be reminded that any fraudulent or intentional false statements concerning aeronautical experience are a basis for suspension or revocation of any certificate or rating held. The pilot who has this problem may, at the discretion of the ASI accepting the application for a pilot certificate or rating, use a signed and notarized statement of previous flight time as the basis for starting a new flight time record. Such a statement should be substantiated by all available evidence, such as aircraft logbooks, receipts for aircraft rentals, and statements of flight operators.

 I think you need to read both of those references together to get the full picture. I don’t think that the list under “Proof of Experience” in the second reference is exclusive, but that they are examples of the types of records that could be used to substantiate the notarized statement of flight time that the first reference talks about. To the list, I would add personal calendars, at least for the dates and events (like the day you received your complex endorsement), if not the hours. This is also where photocopies of logbook pages and electronic logbooks, personal or online, would be a great help.

Two final thoughts: If you are going to use personal records as a backup, the records used to reconstruct the logbook should be kept in a safe place. And, it’s not stated, but since a primary use of the reconstructed logbook will be to verify the information in an 8710-1, it would be a good idea to review what you did with the DPE who will be performing the practical test or with a local FSDO inspector.

FAR 91.403(a) provides that the “owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition. The balance of 91.403 and the regulations following it prohibit operating an aircraft that does not meet airworthiness requirements. As examples, 91.407 prohibits operation after maintenance without the proper maintenance entries and a return to service; 91.409 prohibits operation without a current annual inspection (or 100 hour inspection if applicable); 91.411 prohibits operation under IFR in controlled airspace without the required  altimeter/static inspections. Exactly who is an “operator” under the FAR tends to vary a bit depending on the context, but, at least with respect to a determination of airworthiness, the term encompasses “the piloting of aircraft” (see, i.e. FAR 1.1). So, aside from the PIC’s ultimate responsibility for the safety of flight under FAR 91.3, the FAA specifically imposes on the PIC the obligation to determine if the aircraft is airworthy.

So, how much can a renter pilot (or club member or aircraft borrower) rely on others including the owner or fleet operator? Not too much, according to the few cases on the subject.

Administrator v. Southworth, is a 1999 enforcement action in which a pilot was charged with a violation of 91.409(a)(1), operating a rental 152 without a current annual. The pilot argued  he was “justified in assuming that the aircraft was in an airworthy condition when it was offered for rent” and that “there is no requirement in the FAR that a pilot, before he rents an aircraft, check its logbooks to ensure that the aircraft has had all the requisite inspections.”

That was rejected by the NTSB. Pointing out that the pilot never even asked to see the logbooks, the NTSB tells us blind reliance on the owner/FBO — presuming without inquiry that an aircraft offered for rent would comply with all airworthiness requirements — was an unreasonable assumption to make and does not mitigate the PIC’s obligation to determine airworthiness.

So, how far does this obligation go? Does reliance at some point become reasonable? Can we rely on the aircraft inspection and maintenance summary sheet provided by some flight schools, FBOs and co-ownership groups as part of the dispatch documents to avoid the need for pilots to go into the aircraft logs on every flight? Unfortunately, the answer is a solid “maybe.”

The Southworth case appears to hold out some hope. It points out that the pilot merely assumed the airplane would be airworthy because it was being rented. There was no inquiry at all. Is there some inquiry that would make reliance on the FBO reasonable? In this respect, the NTSB decision distinguishes Southworth from an earlier “out of annual” case, Administrator v. Miller:

The instant case can be distinguished from Administrator v. Miller, 5 NTSB 407 (1985), where a respondent also had rented and operated an aircraft when it had not passed an annual inspection within the previous 12 months. We noted that Mr. Miller relied on his own personal experience with the plane over the previous six or seven years, representations by the owner regarding the condition of the aircraft, as well as “occasional reviews of its maintenance records,” when he assumed that the aircraft had been properly maintained.

Problem is, Miller does not give us any real comfort. The pilot in Miller, despite his general knowledge of the aircraft maintenance history and records, was still found to have violated the FAR. All he got for his efforts was a recognition that his transgression was unintentional and received a reduction in the sanction —  his pilot certificate was suspended for 15 days rather than 30.

So where does that leave us? Ultimately, it is our responsibility as PIC to ensure that the aircraft we fly and teach in meet airworthiness requirements. Faced with an airworthiness violation in a case where a pilot relied on an FBO or club dispatch sheet, would the FAA accept it as excusing the violation or will it have required the pilot to go further and personally check the aircraft logs? We don’t know. We do know they’re not always correct; I had a student who, for his private checkride, found that an “annual” had been signed by an A&P, but not by an IA. The airplane had flown for a few months without anyone noticing.

The safest regulatory answer is, of course, to check the maintenance logs. Perhaps a more practical answer is to use a “trust but verify” approach. If the organization you fly with provides a dispatch sheet, use it but at least periodically verify it’s accuracy. That will likely not eliminate the risk of a violation but may reduce it.

PLEASE NOTE: This review of the responsibility of a renter pilot for aircraft airworthiness violations was prepared for general information purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. Legal advice depends on the specific circumstances of each situation. As a general review, the information may not be up-to-date and cannot be applied to any specific set of circumstances. Thus, it cannot replace the advice of an attorney. No attorney-client relationship is being created by this review nor should any such relationship be implied. If you require legal advice, you should consult with a competent attorney authorized to practice in your state.

This is intended to be a 20,000 foot conceptual overview to help you answer questions which may come up rather than a detailed Q&A. It is the way I teach it. It works better one-on-one since there are always questions, but here goes…

Commercial Pilot vs. Commercial Operator

The single most important thing to learn is:

there is a difference between the privileges of a commercial “pilot” certificate
and the requirements for engaging in a commercial “operation.” 

If you fly for compensation (and there is no FAR 61.113 private pilot exception), you are exercising a “commercial pilot” privilege. If you provide both pilot and airplane to transport other people or their property for compensation, you are engaged in a “commercial operation.”

The FAA refers to this as the “single source” rule: A single source supplying both aircraft and crew to provide transportation to someone else in exchange for any form of compensation requires an operating certificate unless it’s an activity excepted by FAR 119.1(e), some other specific FAR exception, or a waiver. “Holding out” and the distinction between public and private carriage are irrelevant to this.

Two simple examples to illustrate the difference:

1. If you are hired as a corporate pilot to fly a company airplane or to ferry someone else’s airplane, you are only providing commercial “pilot” services. Their airplane; your services.
2. If you take your Cessna 182 and start doing air tours or start flying your neighbors to their vacation spots in exchange for something of value, you are engaged in a commercial “operation.” Your airplane and your services.

Get that difference, and you are way ahead of most in understanding this stuff.

From there, move to FAR 119.1(e). Most commercial “operations” (providing aircraft and pilot) require an operating certificate of some type. Might be Part 135 (charter and some smaller airlines), 121 (the big airlines), but some kind of operating certificate. FAR 119.1(e) is a list of commercial operations which do not require an operating certificate. That “air tour?” Being listed in 119.1(e) means “no operating certificate required,” although there are other requirements. Transporting that cargo? There is no 119.1(e) exception, so you need an operating certificate.

Common vs. Private Carriage

There are two other, related, concepts you need to understand. One is the difference between “common” and “private” carriage. “Carriage” just means providing airplane and pilot to transport persons or property. “Common” means offered to the public, or, as the FAA puts it, a segment of the public. “Private” means only with a very select few.

The difference between the two is the other important concept – “holding out.” I mention it last because It’s always used as though it is some evil thing. But all it really means is “letting people know.” “Holding out” makes it “public.”

If all that leaves you thinking the lines are blurry, you are right. After all, how does anyone know you are available to transport them in “private” carriage unless you let them know? The reality is, it doesn’t make any practical difference. The fact that “carriage” is private does not mean you can do it with just a commercial pilot certificate. FAR 119.23 says “private” carriage requires an operating certificate, with some exceptions. Operating certificates for “noncommon” or private carriage are also mentioned in 119.5.

Here is a Part 135 Private Carriage operating certificate. Bottom line, public or private, if you provide airplane and pilot for a purpose other than one listed in 119.1(e) , you need some type of operating certificate. But you still have to understand the difference between common and private carriage because it gets tested.

For a commercial checkride, I wouldn’t worry too much about more than understanding and being able to apply these basics – (1) your privileges are as a commercial pilot; (2) they don’t automatically allow you to engage in a commercial operation; and (3) there needs to be some specific regulatory authority to engage in a commercial “operation,” such as one of the activities permitted by 119.1(e) or under a Part 135 operating certificate.

AC 120-12A – Private Carriage versus Common Carriage of Persons or Property.

This is a bit of a warning. Our studies and the FAA always direct to AC 120-12A. This Advisory Circular was last edited in 1986, more than 35 years ago. It contains an excellent discussion of the elements of holding out and the difference between private and common carriage. But it desperately needs an update – in a number of places it seems to treat private carriage as a Part 91 operation which does not require an operating certificate. If that was ever correct, it is not true in 2022.

Yeah, I know. It’s complicated. That’s why lawyers get paid big bucks to draft things like leases between a parent company and its 100%-owned subsidiary that provides flight services only to its parent company – about as “private carriage” as you can get. Done correctly, it’s Part 91. Do it wrong and the subsidiary is a “flight department company” which requires a Part 135 certificate.

Fortunately, it’s mostly about understanding the basics such as, “does your commercial certificate allow you to take your neighbor and his family to their vacation destination in an airplane you own or rent and be paid for it? The answer to this common checkride question is “no” since that would be a commercial “operation” and require a Part 135 operating certificate. Truth is, most DPEs don’t understand more than the basics either.