🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is. Unless you agree in advance that the safety pilot will be the PIC, it is SIC time.
-Fox
Not PIC. Not SIC. Is it anything??
- Thread starter Indecision
- Start date
Yes, it is. Unless you agree in advance that the safety pilot will be the PIC, it is SIC time.
-Fox
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Listen, guys, knowledge is important. Researching answers before giving them is doubly so. Stop contributing to the entropy by putting what you've been told, your gut feelings, your hunches, your horse-sense, and your interpretations out there as factual statements. There are real answers to many of these questions, and they're actually pretty darn easy to find with only the tiniest bit of searching.
You could fill a library of books with things that "everybody knows" which are completely wrong. It makes every discussion a minefield for those who reject "tribal knowledge" and seek the source.
About the Safety Pilot = SIC (unless an agreement stands that the safety pilot is acting as PIC) thing, it's pretty clear:
14 CFR §61.51 (f) (2) + 14 CFR §91.109 (c) = SIC.
But don't take my word for it.
The Glenn LOI:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...louis glenn - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf
The Cato LOI:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...s/2014/cato - (2014) legal interpretation.pdf
The Trussel LOI:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...12/trussell - (2012) legal interpretation.pdf
The Creech LOI:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2013/creech - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf
The Hicks LOI:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../1993/hicks - (1993) legal interpretation.pdf
... ad nauseam. The FAA is probably nearly as sick of trying to get this information through to people as I am. But the larger point here is that you absolutely, positively need to research the things you say, and verify what you think you know. Don't take anyone's word for anything as your sole source, even if that person is otherwise trustworthy. People are fallible.
The information isn't kept locked away in secret tomes, with oracles to recite it to a chosen few, who then disseminate it to the world in a massive-scale game of "Telephone". The information is right there in the regs, the AIM, the ACs, and the LOIs. Publicly accessible to the entire world, if you just take the time to look.
-Fox
You could fill a library of books with things that "everybody knows" which are completely wrong. It makes every discussion a minefield for those who reject "tribal knowledge" and seek the source.
About the Safety Pilot = SIC (unless an agreement stands that the safety pilot is acting as PIC) thing, it's pretty clear:
14 CFR §61.51 (f) (2) + 14 CFR §91.109 (c) = SIC.
But don't take my word for it.
The Glenn LOI:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...louis glenn - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf
The Cato LOI:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...s/2014/cato - (2014) legal interpretation.pdf
The Trussel LOI:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...12/trussell - (2012) legal interpretation.pdf
The Creech LOI:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2013/creech - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf
The Hicks LOI:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../1993/hicks - (1993) legal interpretation.pdf
... ad nauseam. The FAA is probably nearly as sick of trying to get this information through to people as I am. But the larger point here is that you absolutely, positively need to research the things you say, and verify what you think you know. Don't take anyone's word for anything as your sole source, even if that person is otherwise trustworthy. People are fallible.
The information isn't kept locked away in secret tomes, with oracles to recite it to a chosen few, who then disseminate it to the world in a massive-scale game of "Telephone". The information is right there in the regs, the AIM, the ACs, and the LOIs. Publicly accessible to the entire world, if you just take the time to look.
-Fox
deadstick
Well-Known Member
A single, one-line entry subtracting those totals from whatever columns you filled in. Make it just like a checkbook entry.