Acting as Safety Pilot

MidlifeFlyer said:
Bottom line - the inspector needs recurrent training.

Sorry, I don't but the "yes, it's perfectly legal, and, yes, the FAA officially says it's the right way to do it, but some guy into abusing power might not like it" as a basis for not doing something correctly.

What if he didn't happen to like that you logged solo time when you were on your solo cross countries?
Click to expand...

Its amazing how many people here seem to be OK with the FAA doing whatever they want when it comes to enforcing the regulations. It's especially surprising when you consider how rabid some people here can be towards airline management even coming close to abusing their powers. It's so weird how I see posters here always seem to be so willing to keel over for the FAA.

The rules are not only there for the FAA to use against us. They are also there to protect us against the FAA acting arbitrarily. If it's not illegal per the FARs, it's legal. Period. There's absolutly no excuse for letting the FAA bust you over something that is not against the rules.
 
Well, generally, the FAA is the yin and yan of regulations and enforcement.

They're also know to do contradictory things as well.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Well, generally, the FAA is the yin and yan of regulations and enforcement.
Click to expand...
But still, theres a process they have to go through. They can't just up and start changing regulations to fit their daily needs. Anyways, airline managers are the "yin and yang" of their company's policies as well, but that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.

They're also know to do contradictory things as well.
Click to expand...

FAA employees are knows to do contradictory things.
 
Well, the Feds have a process, but in the meantime, they're judge, jury and executioner.

The company, sans a formal PWA is the same, but if you've got representation, they're at least just the executioner and there are mixed panels of judge and jury.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Well, the Feds have a process, but in the meantime, they're judge, jury and executioner.
Click to expand...
It's really not that bad, Doug. The FAA line people you deal with - inspectors, examiners, POIs - are the cops. There are good ones and bad ones. But once you get to the real prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, you tend to mostly be dealing with people do play by the rules.

There are obvious times for discretion. Confronted with a disagreement over logging with an Examiner during a checkride the correct response is "Yes sir. You're probably right." In the POI situation, it might be more politically correct in an argument over technique. both equally correct, to agree.

But really, I have to go along with butt's thought that
There's absolutly no excuse for letting the FAA bust you over something that is no against the rules.
Click to expand...
. (Although that's not completely accurate.)
 
What is in the regs is either the min. requirements or legal to do.
Doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that it is a sensible thing to do.
SIC time in a single pilot aircraft looks fishy, legal or not.
In regards to a potential future employer, not necessarily an FAA inspector.


According to the FAR's it is legal to not fly for two years( minus one day) do three night landings and take your entire family on a night cross country over water with three miles visibility. Doesn't mean you should do that either.

Logging SIC time as described above is in my opinion the least desirable way to increase your time.
 
CDVdriver said:
What is in the regs is either the min. requirements or legal to do.
Doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that it is a sensible thing to do.
SIC time in a single pilot aircraft looks fishy, legal or not.
In regards to a potential future employer, not necessarily an FAA inspector.
Click to expand...

How are people supposed to know what is sensible from one person to the next? You may not like it, but I'm sure there are tons of people out there who have absolutly no problem with it based on the fact that the FAA allows it. If you're interviewing me for a job, how am I supposed to know what times I should have logged or not logged to come off as "sensible" in your eyes?

Don't you think there should be a common metric everyone should use to determine whats loggable and whats not loggable to take all the guess work out? One already exists, it's called the FAR's.

According to the FAR's it is legal to not fly for two years( minus one day) do three night landings and take your entire family on a night cross country over water with three miles visibility. Doesn't mean you should do that either.
Click to expand...

This is a pet peeve of mine. You're comparing apples with oranges. Logging flight time is a legal topic. Flying without currency is a safety topic, and shouldn't even be mentioned here. Just because you feel logging the time is "fishy", it doesn't mean someone's safety is being compromised.

Just this morning, I got to fly a C172 from the left seat for the first time in about 2 years. I thought I was going to have trouble getting the hang of it, but I was surprised how quickly it came back to me. A few years ago, I had to take 6 months off from all flying because of a medical issue. On my first flight back, it was as if I never took a break at all. Then again, there has been times when I've taken a weekend off, and had to knock rust off when I got back. I think it perfectly reasonable (and the FAA agrees with me) for a pilot to not fly for 2 years, go up solo for 0.4 to get 3 full stops landings, and be able to safely fly passengers. It may not be enough for some people to be able to fly safely, but I'm not going to say that the minimum is never enough for anybody.
 
CDVdriver said:
Logging SIC time as described above is in my opinion the least desirable way to increase your time.
Click to expand...

BINGO. An hour here or there might not be a big deal, but if you are planning on doing a lot of safety pilot time, just get the endorsement.
 
OK, rather than steal another thread with the question, I'll post it here.

On a few sites, you hear about training in IMC conditions to gain as much experience and insight as possible flying IFR.

My question is can a pilot who is IFR current and rated be a safety pilot for someone else in IMC? Does it only have to be a CFI-I to do so?
 
MFT1Air said:
OK, rather than steal another thread with the question, I'll post it here.

On a few sites, you hear about training in IMC conditions to gain as much experience and insight as possible flying IFR.

My question is can a pilot who is IFR current and rated be a safety pilot for someone else in IMC? Does it only have to be a CFI-I to do so?
Click to expand...

in your example the instrument-rated pilot is the acting pilot in command and is the only 'required crewmember', so the answer is 'no'. were he a flight instructor, the person could log 'pic' as 'sole manipulator of the controls' and 'dual received', assuming they are already a certificated pilot. in your example, however, the safety pilot is assumed to not be an instructor and thus there is no basis for the other pilot to legally log the flight time in imc.
 
exleardriver said:
in your example the instrument-rated pilot is the acting pilot in command and is the only 'required crewmember', so the answer is 'no'. were he a flight instructor, the person could log 'pic' as 'sole manipulator of the controls' and 'dual received', assuming they are already a certificated pilot. in your example, however, the safety pilot is assumed to not be an instructor and thus there is no basis for the other pilot to legally log the flight time in imc.
Click to expand...

OK, that makes sense to me. Now, slight twist simply for clarification only. Two instrument rated pilots; one under the hood. For the sake of argument, they are both current and simply honing their skills. Is there still such a thing as a safety pilot in that situation where both can claim PIC time? Now, I say this because maybe the IMC is no where near minimums or DH, so one person is under the hood to shoot approaches to that minimum . . .as a hypothetical.
 
MFT1Air said:
OK, that makes sense to me. Now, slight twist simply for clarification only. Two instrument rated pilots; one under the hood. For the sake of argument, they are both current and simply honing their skills. Is there still such a thing as a safety pilot in that situation where both can claim PIC time? Now, I say this because maybe the IMC is no where near minimums or DH, so one person is under the hood to shoot approaches to that minimum . . .as a hypothetical.
Click to expand...

in vmc conditions where one pilot is 'honing skills' and the other acting as safety pilot, understand that the safety pilot could log either pic or sic time depending upon who prior to the flight is designated as the acting pic. if our 'honer' is designated pic, and thus 'responsible for the flight', his safety pilot may log it as sic, as he is stll a 'required crewmwmber' - the ' honer' can't see other traffic. however, if the safety pilot assumes responsibility of the flight as the 'designated pic', then the safety pilot may log pic..and the 'honer' may log pic as 'sole manipulator of the controls'. hope this helps.
 
It does to me; it did to me previously. Thanks. Your post is in line with what I thought. Perhaps I misunderstood another poster who says it can't be done.;)

Thanks again.
 
MFT1Air said:
It does to me; it did to me previously. Thanks. Your post is in line with what I thought. Perhaps I misunderstood another poster who says it can't be done.;)
Click to expand...
Despite the fact that the FAA clarified the safety pilot issue a long time ago, it's still one of those debated topics. To summarize the way the FAA has interpreted it as simply as possible:

FAR 91.109(b) requires a safety pilot when the flying pilot is in simulated instrument conditions. The FAA has interpreted this to mean that simulated instrument flight is a flight that requires more than one pilot.

FAR 61.51(e)(1)(i) allows the aircraft-rated sole manipulator to log PIC time regardless of who is the real pilot in command of the flight.

FAR 61.51(e)(1)(iii) allows the safety to log PIC ("more than one pilot is required under ... the regulations under which the flight is conducted") but =only= is the safety pilot is the one who is acting as pilot in command of the flight.

FAR 61.51(f)(2) allows the safety pilot who is not the one who is acting as pilot in command to log SIC ("more than one pilot is required under ... the regulations under which the flight is conducted")

The one area in which I might disagree a bit with exlear is what happens in non-visual conditions ("actual"). If the sole manipulator continues to stay under the hood, I think it's still simulated instrument flight. I can't think of many good reasons for the flying pilot to keep the hood on in these situations, but if he does, a safety pilot is still required.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
The one area in which I might disagree a bit with exlear is what happens in non-visual conditions ("actual"). If the sole manipulator continues to stay under the hood, I think it's still simulated instrument flight. I can't think of many good reasons for the flying pilot to keep the hood on in these situations, but if he does, a safety pilot is still required.
Click to expand...

lol..no, we agree..it's why i stipulated vmc conditions specifically..because i couldn't think of many good reasons for hood-flying in imc either. :)
 
exleardriver said:
lol..no, we agree..it's why i stipulated vmc conditions specifically..because i couldn't think of many good reasons for hood-flying in imc either. :)
Click to expand...

I see it as well. I tried to use the critical landing phase as an example where actual weather placed you in vmc on say the FAF phase, but the IAF is IMC. The hood pilot is always flying as expected, but don't you think it's too minute a detail to determine during an approach phase when they were or were not vmc/imc to calculate PIC/safety pilot time particularly if you're practicing multiple approaches? I'm sure people do to the nth decimal for exactness, but it still PIC for both pilots.
 
exleardriver said:
lol..no, we agree..it's why i stipulated vmc conditions specifically..because i couldn't think of many good reasons for hood-flying in imc either. :)
Click to expand...
I still can't tell if we agree or not.

I'm suggesting that whether or not in vmc conditions, if the flying pilot is under the hood, the safety pilot is required and may log the time.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I still can't tell if we agree or not.

I'm suggesting that whether or not in vmc conditions, if the flying pilot is under the hood, the safety pilot is required and may log the time.
Click to expand...

Interesting concept. I certainly don't have the in-depth knowledge of the regs to argue the point, as much as my head wants me to. I thought about using logic instead, but I know how far that would get me in these types of conversations!

:D
 
"If the sole manipulator continues to stay under the hood, I think it's still simulated instrument flight. I can't think of many good reasons for the flying pilot to keep the hood on in these situations, but if he does, a safety pilot is still required"

Interesting concept. Not sure the Feds would see it that way and they are the ones that count. Not to mention that it's not the popular belief in how this works and you might have to explain it to an interviewer one day. If I were a young up and coming pup using the "safety pilot loophole" to save money logging multi time, I don't think I'd log any IMC safety pilot time.

Now, if you showed me an FAA interp to back it up, and a guy was willing to carry it around to all his interviews, just in case, then that would change my opinion.

Interesting concept, though....I like the way you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top