Safety Pilot - Required to log?

[juskl]

Here is the problem..... The FAA needs to flat out put in writing if the Safety Pilot can log PIC. No where except for the section under the SIC is a safety pilot mentioned, other than 91-109 where it says that you need one for simulated IFR training..... No where does it give you the authority "saying may log PIC as a safety pilot" in the FAR. I think that alot has been left up to interpretation and it was purposfully left as a very gray area..... Lates face it.... All these time building programs (good as they may be), will lose it financially if this was enforced as SIC only (though it still counts to your total time just not PIC)..... Honestly, as in the different FSDO, Different answer, all would be solved if someone at the FAA would have the balls to come out and make a descision one way or the other.

 

[meritflyer]

There are SEVERAL regs that dont spell out their intent clearly. Nothing new.

 

[ananoman]

True, however I would only be giving dual-instruction when the other pilot was under the "hood". Also, I wouldn't have to state in his logbook, when I'm putting in the training time, the items that we covered while I was giving him dual-instruction would I? In 61.51 it lists the items that have to be logged when working towards a cert./rating and also towards flight currency. So if I'm giving instruction just to brush him up on some things but it isn't necessarily towards flight currency or a rating, would you be required to put what was covered?

While you are avoiding logging safety pilot time by doing this, it could possibly look worse in an interview than the safety pilot time (which many accept). If you don't actually work for the place where you do time building, it would look pretty strange to live in Idaho, then log 100 hrs of twin time, including 50 hrs of dual given in Florida. You could also get into a situation where the FBO's insurance will not cover an accident, since you are not an 'authorized instructor' under the policy.

I think some of you should worry more about how to make yourself a better pilot, than how to misrepresent time in your logbook so you can get a job at a company where you don't meet their minimums.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Here is the problem..... The FAA needs to flat out put in writing if the Safety Pilot can log PIC.

I think you're wrong. The problem is that people continue to argue about things that have already been settled. From an FAA Legal Opinion from 1992:

==============================
In your second question you ask "how shall two Private Pilots log their flight time when one pilot is under the hood for simulated instrument time and the other pilot acts as safety pilot?" The answer is the pilot who is under the hood may log PIC time for that flight time in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft, provided he is rated for that aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently log as second in command (SIC) that time during which he is acting as safety pilot.

The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiating the flight that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i).
==============================

Flat out enough?

Most of the "hot" logging issues were settled by official FAA interpretaions long ago long ago.

 

[S40_flyer]

I think you're wrong. The problem is that people continue to argue about things that have already been settled. From an FAA Legal Opinion from 1992:

==============================
In your second question you ask "how shall two Private Pilots log their flight time when one pilot is under the hood for simulated instrument time and the other pilot acts as safety pilot?" The answer is the pilot who is under the hood may log PIC time for that flight time in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft, provided he is rated for that aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently log as second in command (SIC) that time during which he is acting as safety pilot.

The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiating the flight that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i).
==============================

Flat out enough?

Most of the "hot" logging issues were settled by official FAA interpretaions long ago long ago.

THANK GOD someone finally put this to rest!

 

[Flying Ninja]

Not to add fuel to the fire but I think:

1. The FAA really should put this to rest in the form of an Advisory Circular. Hell, they put out enough documents under the AC system that it escapes me as to why they would overlook this one.

2. FAA Legal Opinion? I tried googling for this information and came up empty. Can you provide a link to the source to that clipping please? Thank you.

Incidentally, do you all think it would be worth a trip to the local FSDO to ask them for an official statement? Maybe I'll put that on my To Do list.

 

[SteveC]

Incidentally, do you all think it would be worth a trip to the local FSDO to ask them for an official statement? Maybe I'll put that on my To Do list.

Sure! Don't forget to ask for it in writing, on their letterhead.

Guarantee it'd be worth the effort.

 

[wheelsup]

Someone mentioned eagle not accepting SP time. I know for a fact, two of their current pilots (hired 2004 & 2005) built 50-75 hours of time building in a twin and split it as a safety pilot. Just an FYI.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

2. FAA Legal Opinion? I tried googling for this information and came up empty. Can you provide a link to the source to that clipping please? Thank you.

Sure.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...0/interpretations/data/interps/1993/Hicks.rtf

My source was a bit different, since I've had it for a long time, but last year the FAA finally began posting it's regulatory legal opinions online at
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/

The FSDO trip? Nope. That's like asking the cop on the street to explain your constitutional rights when he asks you to move along. FSDOs are notorious for mis-stating FAR requirements, even in writing. There was a famous one not too long ago when the Buffalo FSDO published it's own misinterpretation of the private pilot cross country requirements reg online. It came down pretty quickly.

On the other hand, interpreting the regs is FAA Legal's job.

 

[E6BAV8R]

Someone mentioned eagle not accepting SP time. I know for a fact, two of their current pilots (hired 2004 & 2005) built 50-75 hours of time building in a twin and split it as a safety pilot. Just an FYI.

IMO, I think a large part of if they accept it or not is based on how desperate they are for pilots... like about now.

 

[subpilot]

I am in the new hire class at Eagle right now and there are quit a few of us who have the SP time. With us the interviewers didn't even comment on this. I agree that the urgent need to get pilots right now has something to do with this because in the past they did care about SP time. Right now you don't even need 1000tt. I would apply if you have at least 800tt and 100me and I bet you get called in for an interview.