Safety Pilot - Required to log?

E6BAV8R

E6BAV8R

Well-Known Member
I searched through a good portion of the threads on "logging PIC". However, I couldn't find any that dealt with requiring to log the safety pilot time. Yes, you are logging the PIC as a safety pilot, but are you really required to log it as 'safety pilot time'? This is mainly dealing with buying the multi-engine times. However, If I do buy the 100-hour block, and saying 50 of it will be safety pilot time, is it really that big of a deal? I dont have any other safety pilot time that would be a factor (IPC currency every so often). Would they see 50 hours of safety pilot as a big deal - maybe since it is the "precious" multi-time?

I also contacted my friends dad that is a CA at AE and he said he wasn't too sure either on AE's take. The response he gave, and I agree, would practically depend on how much the company is hiring. I'm going to try and get the number to the AE recruiting office as well.
 
I searched through a good portion of the threads on "logging PIC". However, I couldn't find any that dealt with requiring to log the safety pilot time. Yes, you are logging the PIC as a safety pilot, but are you really required to log it as 'safety pilot time'? This is mainly dealing with buying the multi-engine times. However, If I do buy the 100-hour block, and saying 50 of it will be safety pilot time, is it really that big of a deal? I dont have any other safety pilot time that would be a factor (IPC currency every so often). Would they see 50 hours of safety pilot as a big deal - maybe since it is the "precious" multi-time?
Click to expand...

Why would it matter if you logged it as 'safety pilot time' or not? You are not required to build a column in your logbook or even mention in the remarks section that you are safety pilot. Just log the flight as PIC flight time. You are able to log PIC because you are required to be there by 14 CFR 91.109(b). Now the other guy logging hood time has to list you as a safety pilot, technically. Check out 14 CFR 61.51 and 91.109(b). Hope this helps.

Murph
 
"Now the other guy logging hood time has to list you as a safety pilot, technically"

And aren't you, during 50 of those 100 hours, the "other" guy?
 
DE727UPS said:
"Now the other guy logging hood time has to list you as a safety pilot, technically"

And aren't you, during 50 of those 100 hours, the "other" guy?
Click to expand...
But being the "other" guy isn't the problem, right? If you are the guy with the flight controls and the hood on, anyone would accept that time.
 
Instead of getting all of this confused, try only logging the time you're in charge of the airplane. This'll keep you honest in the eyes of the airlines, and it'll keep your logbook easy to keep track of. Most airlines only accept that PIC time where you're in charge....some just downright don't like safety pilot time period.
 
So if you're safety pilot, you don't need any special comment in the ole logbook?

If I don't need to write "SP" or something there's no way in hell I'm going to.
 
Ok folks. Help me out here, because I think that there has been a policy shift as to logging PIC versus SIC for being a safety pilot.... Reason is that if you look. The only stated verbage about a safety pilot is listed under SIC under 61.55 (f)(4) Designated as a safety pilot for the purposes required by 91.109(b)which states the other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot cert with cat and lass rating appropritate to the a/c being flown...

If I read that right..... Safety Pilots are now SIC only and not PIC..... Anyone????
 
frog_flyer said:
So if you're safety pilot, you don't need any special comment in the ole logbook?

If I don't need to write "SP" or something there's no way in hell I'm going to.
Click to expand...

While I don't think that you have to write SP or anything like that in the remarks of your logbook, It's likely that a cross country flight logged without any TO's/Landings/Approaches will probably stand out as safety pilot time anyway.
 
According to 61.55 A person may serve as a second-in-commend of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations that require a second-in-command. I would assume (i know the dangers of that) that this requires the second pilot, so would be an exception?????? Anyone else with thought or insight????? Makes sense, but since when has that mattered in gov't.....:)
 
The just of it is this -

The person who is serving as a safety pilot may choose to act as the legal PIC and log the time as PIC per 61.51(e)(1)(iii), or otherwise they may log it as SIC under 61.51(f)(2) but none of the safety pilot time is required to be logged. If the safety pilot is going to act as PIC for the flight that person must hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating for the aircraft to be flown per 61.31(d)(1).

Basically, it comes down to the safety pilot being a required crewmember under 91.109(b) when another pilot is "under the hood".
 
If I don't need to write "SP" or something there's no way in hell I'm going to.
Click to expand...
While I don't think that you have to write SP or anything like that in the remarks of your logbook, It's likely that a cross country flight logged without any TO's/Landings/Approaches will probably stand out as safety pilot time anyway.
Click to expand...
Thats what my main concern here was. If the TO/Landings were the main deal, why not just have the SP for the flight do 1 touch and go at the airport before departing on the X-Country or whatnot. That way the safety pilot will have 1 TO/Landing, and the "hood" pilot will have his TO/Landing as usual; both will then get to the log the PIC like normal and the "SP" time won't stand out if its not noted in the logbook.

Which is the next thing; is SP required to be logged? I couldn't find it in the FARs but there are better people here with the FARs than I am.
 
What you MUST log is minimal. Only experience you need to stay current or hours used to apply for a certificate or rating. Everything else is optional.

But no matter how you log safety pilot time, it's going to be fairly obvious what was going on. As was pointed out, there's the lack of takeoffs and landings. But let's say you go around the pattern at the destination, so you can log a takeoff and landing.

It will still be obvious what's going on because you still must log the name of your safety pilot while under the hood. So if your logbook shows a whole bunch of PIC cross country trips, with the "Remarks" field alternating between "Safety pilot--John Doe" and "blank"...hmmm....is it not going to be obvious you were doing a timebuilding program? Anybody with half a brain can tell what was going on.

I think the more important question to ask is how your prospective employer views safety pilot time--not what the best way is to "cover up" the fact that you logged a bunch of time as a safety pilot. If you're going to do a timebuilding program, fine...just find an employer who is cool with it, rather than try to hide it.
 
Then I want someone to show me the people who are paying 50% of the costs for 100hr block of a multi and only logging 50% of the time...
I mean what would be the point for schools like Skymates or other time buiding schools to offer 100hrs of multi for 50% of the costs if you couldn't log all of it. My view on it is that who is honestly going to care that you were a safety pilot during those hours. I mean are you going to put AP down in your logbook for the hours that the autopilot flew the plane? Let me know what you guys think... I've run into this a couple of times...becomes a confusing subject

Murph
 
murphfly said:
Then I want someone to show me the people who are paying 50% of the costs for 100hr block of a multi and only logging 50% of the time...
I mean what would be the point for schools like Skymates or other time buiding schools to offer 100hrs of multi for 50% of the costs if you couldn't log all of it. My view on it is that who is honestly going to care that you were a safety pilot during those hours. I mean are you going to put AP down in your logbook for the hours that the autopilot flew the plane? Let me know what you guys think... I've run into this a couple of times...becomes a confusing subject

Murph
Click to expand...

Even if the AP did fly the plane you are still the acting PIC - rather than the guy just logging the PIC; even though the difference is slight, it is a big difference to certain employers.

I think the more important question to ask is how your prospective employer views safety pilot time--not what the best way is to "cover up" the fact that you logged a bunch of time as a safety pilot. If you're going to do a timebuilding program, fine...just find an employer who is cool with it, rather than try to hide it.
Click to expand...

While I agree, it is somewhat disheartening to know that by trying to finish early and get my times to get to regionals, or wherever, that I'm disqualifying myself by trying to finish early and get where I want to be at a quicker rate. Especially if the regional is one that I was considering that I wanted to work for when I do get the time.
 
murphfly said:
I mean what would be the point for schools like Skymates or other time buiding schools to offer 100hrs of multi for 50% of the costs if you couldn't log all of it. My view on it is that who is honestly going to care that you were a safety pilot during those hours. I mean are you going to put AP down in your logbook for the hours that the autopilot flew the plane? Let me know what you guys think... I've run into this a couple of times...becomes a confusing subject

Murph
Click to expand...

The point of selling these time building programs is so the schools can make money......no other reasons. You have to realize that they're running a business to make a profit, and not to make sure that whatever you are buying is worth your money or even legal (in terms of logging). It's your responsibility to figure these things out.

There are airlines that'll tell you right off the bat that you should subtract any safety pilot time before putting your total time on your application...people do care.

As far as the autopilot, the last guy had it right. The PIC is still the PIC no matter who or what is flying the airplane. There is a reason you can't (at least shouldn't) log any PIC time as a 121 SIC. In my opinion, the only valid definition of a PIC or PIC time is that time when the pilot is in charge of the entire flight. Every airline I know about uses this definition. If you haven't gained the experience or haven't been designated as the PIC for the flight, there is no PIC time to be logged...period.

These time building programs are an awesome way to gain experience. If I was going to put my money on one of them, I'd personally only log the time I flew the airplane. The other 50 hours may not be logged, but I still will get the benefit of experience...and that is what you need when it comes to getting an airline job. You'll get a good experience base to make you a well rounded pilot.

Screwing up your logbook and putting a big question mark in the interviewer's brain isn't going to get you anywhere.
 
launchpad said:
Instead of getting all of this confused, try only logging the time you're in charge of the airplane. This'll keep you honest in the eyes of the airlines, and it'll keep your logbook easy to keep track of. Most airlines only accept that PIC time where you're in charge....some just downright don't like safety pilot time period.
Click to expand...
Um... just one thing. The safety pilot who logs PIC time =is= the pilot in charge of the airplane. Being in charge is part of the FAA requirement for logging safety pilot time as PIC.
 
I'm still confused why anyone is confused.

You buy a block of 100 hours of time building. 50 of it, you'll be acting as safety pilot. You're name will be in the logbook as the safety pilot for the sole manipulator. When you're sole manipulator, you'll need to include the safety pilots name, per FAR's.

It's obvious when you play the safety pilot game. There is no way around it. Whether or not your future employer cares is the real question.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top