Archie wrote:
I’m glad they haven’t, because you know what they say about “A boat can’t have two captains”. EASA rules precisely follow that little piece of insight generated long ago it seems. One PIC for the flight means the authority gradient is clearly defined, and there is no question about who has the last word for the duration of the flight should there be any confusion.
And as we all know, NTSB stats show the US to have the most dangerous GA community on the planet, and FAR more dangerous than Europe……. right.?! 
In the US, we have the concept of “Acting as PIC” which is differentiated from logging of PIC. The latter is often the rated pilot who is solely manipulating the controls who may be different from the pilot acting as PIC. In many cases, the pilot “Acting as PIC” may not log time as PIC when they are not the sole manipulator of the controls. There are a few notable exceptions, for example a flight instructor may log the time as PIC when they are providing dual instruction even though they are not manipulating the controls. The other exception is when the pilot “Acting as PIC” is also a safety pilot.
Assume pilot A is rated for the aircraft category and class, has no medical, and is not endorsed for complex or high performance aircraft is flying in a Beechcraft G36. The safety pilot B is rated, current, has all endorsements, is IFR rated and a current medical. They conduct a cross country flight under an IFR flightplan. Conditions are VMC for most of the flight, but there is a high cloud deck (1000 AGL to 5000 AGL) thru which the aircraft must fly on departure and on descent. The safety pilot B must “Act as PIC” for the entire flight. Assume that pilot A flies the entire flight. Pilot A may log the entire flight as PIC. Pilot A will log the time under the hood as simulated instrument flight. Pilot A will log the time passing thru the cloud deck as actual instrument flight time. Pilot B will only log the time as PIC when Pilot A is under the hood and not in the clouds. Pilot B would have to file the flightplan (his name would appear as PIC on the form) as it is an IFR flightplan. Pilot B could not log the time from brake release to takeoff to the point where the hood was put on to Pilot A. Pilot B would log the time that pilot A was using the hood to simulate IFR, but would have to exclude the time that they were actual IFR. Pilot would also exclude the time from when Pilot A removed the hood to land up until the aircraft came to rest. Pilot B could not log cross country time although pilot A could.
If Pilot A was not rated in a Single engine Land, then they could not log any of the time at all. This might apply to some very experienced airline pilots with a military background that only have a multiengine rating on their certificate.
Great post, NCYankee.
I suspect a big reason why Europe has problems with this is because of the natural distrust of individuals here, by the “system”. And it’s true that “Parker pen time” has featured in the logbooks of many commercial pilots – probably undiscovered in nearly all cases, too. And that in turn is the result of the requirements to build hours at every step even if one builds them in something completely irrelevant e.g. an instructor flying a C150 to build hours towards the ATPL.
NCYankee wrote:
Act as PIC
Thanks NCYankee, a system that requires a lot of explanation, but you did a good job…
In your example there is still only one person “Acting as PIC” for the entire flight i.e. one captain on the ship for the whole flight. Earlier you mentioned that PIC’s could switch during the flight. Did you mean that as being just for logging purposes as you’ve described in your last post, or are there actually other situations where the actual “captain” switches during the flight?
Not that it’s relevant for EASA purpose, but out of interest.
In US regulation, anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted.. The regulations only specify the criteria for who may “Act as PIC” but don’t determine who is “Acting as PIC”. In other words, there is no requirement for declaring who is “Acting as PIC” when more than one pilot is qualified to “Act as PIC” on the same flight. Usually this is by agreement between the pilots involved. I can’t find anything prohibiting pilots changing their roles during a flight. There are some practical examples where this may happen. Assume that both Pilot A and B are qualified to “Act as PIC”. A flight is being conducted under VFR and pilot A is “Acting as PIC” while flying his own aircraft. Pilot A is not instrument rated but Pilot B is. Weather that was not forecast is encountered near the destination that would require an instrument approach or a diversion to a VFR alternate. Pilot B agrees to “Act as PIC” for the remainder of the flight and air files for an IFR clearance. Who actually flies the aircraft during the approach is a decision made by pilot B, as he is responsible now for the safety of the flight. Pilot A has voluntarily transferred who is acting as PIC to Pilot B. If Pilot A or Pilot B were uncomfortable with this, Pilot A would simply not agree to the transfer and would divert to a VFR airport.
Since it is not clear who is “Acting as PIC” on a flight when either pilot qualifies for it, in some cases there is a written agreement left behind at the departure airport. This is a CYA maneuver. When I provide flight instruction thru the BPPP (Beechcraft Pilot Proficiency Program), they require this for liability reasons, but the FAA could care less although if there ware an accident/incident it would establish who was acting as PIC.
NCYankee wrote:
In US regulation, anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted
I think it’s a common myth to state that elsewhere this isn’t the case as Peter pointed out recently…
And I think it is actually stated that pilots can change their roles during a flight. A google search found FAA Part I where it says: Pilot in command means the person who: … has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight;" This isn’t stated as such in EASA land.
It’s interesting to hear about the subtle nuances between the various respected National Aviation Authorities. Thanks for taking the time to explain!
