Safety Pilot PIC Time Question
- Thread starter aifiji
- Start date
flyingmaniac
Well-Known Member
I believe it is only the time he was under the hood.
charlie1017
Well-Known Member
Soku39
Well-Known Member
SIC in a light single engine? I'm thinking try again. If someone can prove that such time does exist I'd be glad to change my stance.
germb747
Well-Known Member
I'm paraphrasing the verbage here, but SIC time is allowed as long as two pilots are required for the aircraft type or per the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
Since a safety pilot is required for hood work, they are entitled to log SIC.
Exactly. But theoretically (and in practice) the guy flying under the hood is logging PIC as sole manipulator and the safety pilot is acting as PIC (thus being able to log PIC).
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
==============================
61.51(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:
(1) ***; or
(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.
==============================
and the way its been officially interpreted in the safety pilot situation for about 15 years or so (part of the opinion dealing with safety pilot SIC rather than safety pilot PIC):
==============================
Responding specifically to your inquiry, the pilot that is under the hood may log PIC time for that time in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft, provided that he or she is rated for that aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently log as second-in-command (SIC) that time during which he or she is acting as safety pilot.
==============================
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...0/interpretations/data/interps/1993/Hicks.rtf
It's old stuff.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. There are a number of situations in which (1) the safety pilot is not eligible to act as PIC or (2) the pilots may decide that the the safety pilot will not act as PIC.
No argument there. But I would opine that the vast majority of people are playing this so both log PIC.
germb747
Well-Known Member
By the way, just because you are the PIC doesn't mean you can log PIC time. You must be the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft you are rated in. Thus one guy can't log PIC as the "acting PIC" while the other guy is logging PIC as the "sole manipulator". UNLESS, 1) the "acting PIC" is an authorized instructor performing instruction; or 2) the "acting PIC" has an ATP ticket and is engaged in operations requiring an ATP; 3) or the "acting PIC" is acting as PIC of an aircraft requiring more than one pilot (per type or reg).
It's dumb, I know, but that's 14 CFR 61.51. The FAA's definition of "PIC time" is much different than 1)what the airlines consider PIC time, and 2) what makes sense to most of us.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
One would think so. But time-building is not the goal of every pilot. On online forums, I've seen a lot of safety pilot qualification questions about whether a pilot without, for example, a complex endorsement, may act as safety pilot in a complex airplane. He may, but not as PIC. And in non-rental situations, I've seen pilots who state unequivocally that they are =always= PIC in the airplane they own. Even when that's not the case, I'm not sure I'm interested in voiding my aircraft insurance in case on an incident by leaving it open for them to argue that the pilot in the right seat who didn't meet Open Pilot Warranty requirements was in command.
You may be right, but I don't think the analysis is that easy.
I agree. As you pointed out, there are other questions outside of the mere logging of flight time that apply.
And for the safety pilot whose goal is not time-building, he can simply not log the flight. But I don't think that was the OP's intent.
Ramsey
Well-Known Member
"and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted."
I'll play devil's advocate...
2 crew members are not required for the type of flight conducted mentioned above.
The Safety pilot is required for the currency of the pilot under the hood but the flight could still be conducted without a second pilot which makes the second pilot not a required crew member.
It's not until the 1st pilot goes under the hood does the 2nd pilot become required and since going under is optional there is no SIC time. The safety pilot is the PIC as soon as the other goes under the hood and since that pilot is the sole manipulator both can log PIC time.
Yes, this is the general rule with the exceptions that include safety pilot time.
According the FAA:
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
If the airlines are more concerned with time actually spent as the PIC, then time spent acting as PIC as a safety pilot is more valuable than someone who is just logging PIC as sole manipulator of the controls.
Or is it the other way around? At first glance it would seem the pilot actually flying the airplane would be getting the "better" time.
The safety pilot cannot log anything until the other pilot is under the hood. Prior to that, the safety pilot is simply a passenger.
As to going under the hood being optional, I guess everything in life is optional. I would opt to log it as PIC.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
This is your opinion, but check out 91.109:
So, yes, it is optional, but once the person decides to put the hood on, 91.109 makes the other guy a required crewmember.
