At the time of this writing, I’m in the midst of “Return to Flight” training, sometimes also known as “Rusty Pilot” training. The rust is coming off, and I’ve made it to the first milestone by earning a Flight Review entry in my logbook. I’m flying with Civil Air Patrol, so the next step is to work through an internal check-ride to use their airplane, known within CAP as the “Form 5.” Airplane availability has been an issue, so I’m also working on a High Performance endorsement and Technologically Advanced Aircraft training with the Garmin G1000. I hope to be able to get the Form 5 in a Cessna 182 after just a few more lessons.
The process of returning to active pilot status and now working on the High Performance endorsement has dragged me into a many-decades-long debate among pilots: when to log Pilot-in-Command (PIC) time. It’s no small debate, either. I’ve debated with my own flight instructor. I’ve looked at decades-old internet forum discussions. I’ve read articles written by well-respected aviation organizations such as the AOPA. I’ve even dug into both the regulation itself, and letters of interpretation put out by the FAA. (I’ll cite as many as I can here, with both direct and archive links for reference long into the future.)
Two Definitions
The debate rages because the terminology is unnecessarily confusing. The Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) has two different definitions of “Pilot-in-Command.”
There is one definition that is Legal. This is the term used most often in the FAR.
Pilot in command means the person who:
(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.
14 CFR – Chapter 1 – § 1.1 General Definitions
This appears pretty cut-and-dry. Other references within the FAR get into things like Flight Reviews, medical certificates, and currency (required number of take-offs and landings in order to carry passengers.) Under most circumstances, this definition governs.
However, section 61.51 of the FAR that addresses logbooks specifically. This is where things start to get confusing, because a second definition of “Pilot-in-Command” is introduced. This is not the Legal definition, this is the Logbook definition.
A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-
The following subsections describe the situations in which PIC time can be logged.
Before going any further, I’d like to point out that the subsections listed below 61.51(e)(1) do not merely refer back to § 1.1. Rather, they list numerous situations where someone may enter the time flown into the PIC column of his or her logbook.
The confusion in my own situation arose in that this is my second time entering training following a period of currency lapsing. I not only needed practice to get comfortable flying again after a multi-year hiatus, I needed a Flight Review in order to be legal to fly again; to act as PIC under the § 1.1 definition. The first time I had done such training, back in 2009-2010, my instructor logged my time as PIC. This time around, I have a different instructor with a different understanding, who has not logged it as PIC. This research I’ve been doing has been to come to a better understanding myself, but then to also hopefully convince him. He has been entering the time into my logbook, and signing the entries as a CFI. Even though I believe we should go back and put the time into the PIC column, I will leave it to him to make the change once I’ve convinced him, as I do not want to alter any entry with a CFI signature. (If I can’t ultimately convince him, then I’ll let the issue go. The PIC time would be really nice, but respecting the instructor/student relationship and the integrity of another man’s signature is more important to me. – Update 3/20/2024: I did manage to convince him, and have retroactively logged all my time as PIC, with his blessing.)
The subsection of FAR 61.51(e)(1) that is relevant to my own situation, and most common in General Aviation, is (i):
Except when logging flight time under § 61.159(c), when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
My research on the issue quickly brought me to the article “Logging Pilot-in-Command (PIC) Time” by the AOPA (also: December 2023 Web Archive snapshot). This article was quite helpful to me in getting to the bottom of the issue. Though there is a mental hurdle with this issue of two definitions that is hard to get over, no matter how clear it’s explained. I didn’t get it at first, and I’ve explained it to a few people that either didn’t get it right away, or didn’t get it at all (yet, anyway.) I can’t over-stress the first few paragraphs; or the nature of dual-definitions.
Once we get passed the definitional confusion, we get to these two paragraphs:
Why do the FARs allow more than one pilot to log PIC time when there can only be one PIC on a given flight? To help pilots build PIC time toward the furtherance of other certificates and ratings. This is also helpful in fulfilling insurance requirements for PIC time.
A pilot, whether acting as PIC or not, may log PIC time anytime in which he/she is sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he/she is rated (FAR 61.51). This is true regardless of weather conditions, whether VFR or IFR, simulated or actual.
We’re starting to see the second definition present itself. If there can be only one (legal) PIC on a flight, how can more than one pilot log PIC time?
The next paragraph is what caused the light to start going off in my own head.
Rated, by FAA interpretation, means that the pilot has the appropriate category, class, and type (if required) privileges on his/her pilot certificate for the aircraft being operated. Period. Note that “rated” does not require the pilot to have an instrument rating, a current medical, recency of experience, flight review, or required endorsements (such as tailwheel or high performance). “Privileges” often refer to sport pilots because sport pilot certificates are not issued to pilots with category and class ratings. Rather, an endorsement for the category, class, and make and model of aircraft is placed in the sport pilot’s logbook.
*Bold text mine.
We are starting to see that things like medical certificates, instrument ratings (while flying in IMC during training,) flight reviews, or endorsements matter in regard to the legality of the flight itself. However, §61.51, which deals with logbooks, is not concerned with legality of flight. It assumes that there is a pilot onboard who meets all of those requirements, and is the acting (legal) PIC.
I emailed an airline pilot that I’ve gotten to know through Civil Air Patrol to get his take on the PIC logging issue. Like many (most?) airline pilots, he is also a Certified Flight Instructor. In CAP, he’s also a check-pilot (he does the Form 5 flights that result in a member being authorized to fly their airplanes.) He replied with what I’d call the “grubby paws” clause. He said, “Since you have a private pilot certificate, you may log PIC time anytime you put your grubby paws on the yoke of a single engine land aircraft.”
The AOPA article is rather helpful; I encourage you to read it all for yourself. It gets into some examples of how two pilots on the same flight can log PIC time. The most common that comes up, and one I anticipate experiencing myself soon, is safety pilot for an instrument pilot practicing under Visual Flight Rules either for the purposes of maintaining currency or for training requirements toward an Instrument Rating.
Another article that was helpful to me is from IFR Magazine (also: October 2023 web archive snapshot.) Now, I’m not yet an IFR pilot, and not familiar with IFR magazine. However, there are some references within the article that are rock-solid authoritative. Nothing beats the FAA Interpretive Letters from which many of these articles derive their interpretations.
Before we get to those interpretive letters, I want to touch on a couple of things within the article itself. First, the author uses a term of his own creation to understand the issue: Golden Key. Once you understand the “golden key,” the whole issue starts to make much more sense. The “Golden Key” comes from the first interpretive letter that I’ll get into in a moment, the 1980 Jones letter. The article (not Jones letter) author says of it:
More than 38 years ago, the FAA Chief Counsel handed us the Golden Key and its rationale in the 1980 Jones Letter. “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…” It continues, “This is consistent with the purpose of Section 61.51 … to record aeronautical training and experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent flight experience requirements.”
Again, we’re seeing the duality of the definition of PIC. FAR 61.51 does not use the legal definition of PIC.
A few paragraphs later, the article author quotes 61.51(e)(1)(i), which I quoted above in the second & third quote boxes. The article then states:
That’s it. Do not read a single extra word into it. If you are a recreational, private, commercial or airline transport pilot, you may log PIC any time you are the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated. The rule says nothing about instrument ratings, high performance, complex, or tailwheel endorsements—”endorsements” are not “ratings”—medical currency, flight reviews, or anything else having to do with the authority to act as PIC, so none of them matter.
Again, like the AOPA article, we see that the only things that matter in regard to logging PIC time are being certified in the category, class, and type of the aircraft being flown (that would most commonly be Airplane, Single-Engine, and Land for General Aviation aircraft,) and being the “sole manipulator of the flight controls.” Everything else deals with the legal definition of PIC, and is not relevant to logging time, according to FAR 61.51.
Letters of Interpretation: What does the FAA say?
Now, at this point I’m pretty well persuaded. However, I’ve only really addressed FAR 61.51 and a couple articles about it. FAR 61.51 is like any other government regulation in that there is room for the logically minded to disagree on the interpretation. This is where I find the actual interpretive letters to be debate-stoppers. It’s one thing to have a regulation, but it’s another to have enforcement. Interpretive letters spell out how the Federal Aviation Administration intends to enforce the relevant regulations. What difference does it matter what I think the regulation says, if the FAA disagrees? So it’s very important to me, and to the debate, that we know what their view is.
I, and the IFR Magazine article, briefly mentioned the 1980 Jones Letter. The AOPA article did too, though it never names it by name; rather it alludes to it and then cites at the bottom “This document has been prepared from various reference to FARs and letters of interpretation from the FAA.”
The Jones letter answers a question asked by Winston Jones about logging time. It deals with the differences between legal PIC and logged PIC. It illustrates the thinking behind the why. Why does the FAA allow a pilot who is not the legal PIC to log the time as PIC?
I apologize that after extensive searching, I could not find the 1980 Jones Letter on the FAA website. There are other letters that have popped up in my research that are found on the FAA website, but mysteriously not the Jones Letter. For this reason, I’m quoting the letter in full. My source for this is a pilot’s web forum dating back to 2005 (Also found here – search in-page for ‘Legal Interpretation # 80-30’). I am posting under the assumption that it is a faithful copy of the original Jones Letter. Draw your own assumptions on the authority and faithfulness of this quote. Note also that the specific references within FAR 61.51 are slightly different. I assume they have changed since the 1980 version. What is now 61.51(e)(1)(i) was then 61.51(c)(2)(i).
OCT. 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 request 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 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 rating 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
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
We can see here how the AOPA came to the conclusion they did. The Jones letter spells out that the only requirements are that the pilot is certified in category, class, and type, and that he is the “sole manipulator of the controls.”
It also validates the “grubby paws” clause that my airline pilot friend referred to.
Specific to my current situation, the seven points numbered and listed state that my training flights can be logged as PIC. Number 4 is how I started; I was not current in the aircraft (though conditions of flight is not an issue, as I am/was not seeking currency in Instrument Flight Rules.) Currency would require a Flight Review, which was the primary purpose of my flight lessons. Having received the Flight Review, and now working toward a High Performance endorsement, number 6 applies.
During the course of writing this, I’ve done an immense amount of searching to find legal interpretations. Specifically, I was after the 1980 Jones Letter on the FAA website, which I have not found. However, I have read through every interpretation listed below, and a few more. There is enough substantiation of the “grubby paws” claws in these letters to thoroughly convince me of the appropriateness of logging time as PIC when in any training flight in which the pilot in training is licensed and certified in the category, class, and type of the aircraft being flown, and is the “sole manipulator of the controls.”
There are other situations where logging time as PIC is allowed in addition to training. The most common is when acting as a required safety pilot during simulated instrument flying. A pilot either training for an instrument rating, or practicing to maintain currency, and flying under Visual Flight Rules, is required to have a safety pilot in order to maintain separation from other aircraft. The safety pilot need not be instrument rated, either. See the AOPA article and the appropriate letters below for more specifics.
FAA Legal Interpretations
Below is a list of FAA Legal Interpretations addressing the logging of PIC time that I’ve found. If you’re interested in a situation that I haven’t addressed above, these interpretations may provide clarity to your specific situation.
- 1993 Hicks – Also here.
Addresses safety pilot situations. - 1999 Carpenter
Addresses logging time in an air carrier situation when a Second-in-Command performs maneuvers as the “sole manipulator of the controls.” While not relevant to most GA situations, it addresses the distinction between legal PIC and a crew member logging time as PIC. - 2015 Murphy
Addresses “sole manipulator of the flight controls” in the context of auto pilot usage.
Also addresses the purpose for logging time as demonstrating that the pilot has met the minimum requirements for a higher rating (specifically mentioning an ATP rating.) Murphy asked if he could log both SIC and PIC time for the duration of a flight in which he is the “sole manipulator of the flight controls,” and the FAA responds that it is essentially unnecessary given his rating. It does, however, address the practice of counting a night cross-country under both night flight and cross-country. Such practice is unquestionably allowed. - 2013 Richards
Addresses logging time in a High Performance airplane when a pilot is the “sole manipulator of the flight controls,” but does not possess a High Performance endorsement (but is flying with another pilot who is acting as legal PIC, and holds the proper endorsement.) States that he may, but refers to both 2009 Speranza and 2009 Herman for a more detailed explanation. - 2009 Speranza
Addresses two pilots flying IFR. Pilot A is legal PIC and holds an instrument rating. Pilot B is “sole manipulator of the flight controls” for a portion of the flight, but is not IFR rated. Pilot B may log the time as PIC for the time he is “sole manipulator of the flight controls,” but Pilot A may not because the flight is not one in which more than one crew member is required. (Note that Pilot A is not an instructor in this situation.) - 2009 Herman
Addresses logging PIC in a High Performance airplane while in training to receive the High Performance endorsement. - 2009 Haralson
Addresses logging PIC time to meet the minimum requirements of an Instrument Rating. [An] applicant for an instrument flight test may satisfy the required “50 hours of cross-country flight time as pilot in command” by crediting flight time with an instructor in actual instrument conditions during which time the applicant was the sole manipulator of the controls. - 2012 Trussell
Addresses safety pilot situations. Also addresses cost-sharing among private pilots normally required to pay the pro-rata share of expenses for flights in which they act as PIC. (A safety pilot does not have to pay the pro-rata share because there are no passengers on board the example flight.) - 2014 Cato
Addresses a situation where a Citation CE-525 that is sometimes rated as requiring two pilots, but in his specific case was rated as a single-pilot airplane. Can an ownner-mandated second pilot (holding an SIC-only rating) log time as SIC? (No, because an SIC is not required by regulation.) In unique situations aboard the same plane, can the second pilot log PIC or SIC time? (See letter for specifics.) - 2016 Dick
Slaps down a letter writer who disagrees with previous interpretation letters written by the FAA. Addresses Commercial and ATP pilots logging PIC time while in training under the supervision of an appropriately rated pilot. - 2011 Walker
Similar to Speranza, it addresses two pilots flying in IMC under IFR in which one pilot does not hold an IFR rating, but is the “sole manipulator of the controls” for a portion of the flight in actual IMC. - 2009 Hilliard
Addresses logging cross-country time on a flight in which two pilots share control of the airplane; Pilot A flies a portion of the flight and Pilot B flies the rest. At issue in the interpretation is the purpose of logging cross-country time. Since the purpose is to demonstrate that a pilot can take off from one airport, navigate another airport, and land the airplane, neither performs the entire cross-country so neither may log the time as cross-country. - 2013 Creech – Also here.
Addresses a safety pilot situation.