"RST Engineering" > wrote in message .


Jim.....
You were mighty quick to jump onto BT's answer, and here you are also
picking at Slick's post. Just for the sake of accuracy, could you clarify a
couple of points for me?

1. You officiously quibbled over Slick's use of the term "stick time" - a
common item of aviation slang - but then you refer to some aircraft called
a "traumahawk". I've not heard of this model, and I knw you're not the kind
of guy to use slng terms - could you expand, please?

2. Could you please explain when the FAA started issuing "private ratings"?
I've not heard of any term like this in my near forty years in aviation -
except from some few folk who bandy terms about without really knowing
whereof they speak. But you seem such a knowledgable fellow, I don't think
you'd be in that sub-group, do you? Please clarify.

I've only ever flown Cessna products and I've come across an area I'm not
sure about. I have my private and I have flow 150/2 and 172's since I
starting my training. Now I might partner up with a guy in a Tomahawk next
weekend for a tour across the state. I don't have any formal training in any
Piper products, will I be allowed to log any stick time? I don't recall
exactly how the regs layout type certification. Do I have to be signed off
and have logged instruction to be PIC in the Tomahawk? Also if I only had
time in a 150, would I have to have instruction in a 152 before I could log
PIC?

One last question, If I fly simulated instrument with a safety pilot, does
the safety pilot have to sign my logbook? Thanks to everyone for your help
and response.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

No Dumb Questions.. just hard to interpret Regs..

You are qualified for Airplane Single Engine Land... a Tomahawk is an
Airplane Single Engine Land..
any time you have hands on stick.. that is PIC.. as far as the FAA is
concerned.. you don't need a specific sign off..

the insurance companies or rental FBO may have other ideas... specific make
and model sign offs are insurance company requirements..

If you are under the hood and have a rated pilot acting as a safety pilot,
then all you need is his name..
any time you are flying with hands on stick, with or without the hood, you
are PIC, any time you are under the hood, he may log PIC (acting pic) even
though he may never touch the stick.

BT

"Slick" > wrote in message ...
> I've only ever flown Cessna products and I've come across an area I'm not
> sure about. I have my private and I have flow 150/2 and 172's since I
> starting my training. Now I might partner up with a guy in a Tomahawk next
> weekend for a tour across the state. I don't have any formal training in
> any
> Piper products, will I be allowed to log any stick time? I don't recall
> exactly how the regs layout type certification. Do I have to be signed off
> and have logged instruction to be PIC in the Tomahawk? Also if I only had
> time in a 150, would I have to have instruction in a 152 before I could
> log
> PIC?
>
> One last question, If I fly simulated instrument with a safety pilot, does
> the safety pilot have to sign my logbook? Thanks to everyone for your help
> and response.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

"Slick" > wrote in message ...

> I've only ever flown Cessna products and I've come across an area I'm not
> sure about. I have my private and I have flow 150/2 and 172's since I
> starting my training. Now I might partner up with a guy in a Tomahawk next
> weekend for a tour across the state. I don't have any formal training in
> any
> Piper products, will I be allowed to log any stick time?

1. There is no definition of "stick time". I'm presuming you mean "can I
log any Pilot In Command Time".

2. Your private rating is undoubtably "airplane single engine land (ASEL)",
which means that you can fly ANY airplane (not glider or helicopter or...)
with a single engine (no twins or Ford trimotors) that was intended to fly
from a solid earth surface (no seaplanes) with no further instruction or
formal endorsement necessary...with a few exceptions:

a. Aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or over at maximum gross
certificated takeoff weight or aircraft powered by a turbojet engine require
a type rating in addition to the ASEL certificate.

b. Aircraft classified as "complex" (retractable gear, flaps, and
variable pitch prop) need an additional endorsement.

c. Aircraft classified as "high performance" (engines greater than 200
horsepower) need an ....

d. Aircraft classified as "high altitude" (service ceiling above
25,000' MSL) need an .....

e. Aircraft with a "type certificate required" on the manufacturer's
type certificate (extremely rare) need an ....

f. Aircraft with tailwheel style landing gear need an ....

(Look in your book of regulations, read section 61.31 carefully and you
will find all these requirements and the exact legalese of what they say.)


Examining the Traumahawk, you will find that sections a through f of this
reply do not apply, so no further legal requirements are required for you to
hop into the airplane and blast off into the wild blue.

HAVING SAID THIS, you will note that I said "legal" requirements. Hopping
into a totally unfamiliar aircraft with no introductory training is (a) not
clever and (b) will void most insurance policies. Whoever owns the aircraft
(either your friend or the FBO that is renting the aircraft) will have
something to say about who flies it and how much training is required.

Jim











I don't recall
> exactly how the regs layout type certification. Do I have to be signed off
> and have logged instruction to be PIC in the Tomahawk? Also if I only had
> time in a 150, would I have to have instruction in a 152 before I could
> log
> PIC?
>
> One last question, If I fly simulated instrument with a safety pilot, does
> the safety pilot have to sign my logbook? Thanks to everyone for your help
> and response.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

I count six errors in this answer. Can anybody count more?

Jim


"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:Z4Oce.113$fI.16@fed1read05...
> No Dumb Questions.. just hard to interpret Regs..
>
> You are qualified for Airplane Single Engine Land... a Tomahawk is an
> Airplane Single Engine Land..
> any time you have hands on stick.. that is PIC.. as far as the FAA is
> concerned.. you don't need a specific sign off..
>
> the insurance companies or rental FBO may have other ideas... specific
> make and model sign offs are insurance company requirements..
>
> If you are under the hood and have a rated pilot acting as a safety pilot,
> then all you need is his name..
> any time you are flying with hands on stick, with or without the hood, you
> are PIC, any time you are under the hood, he may log PIC (acting pic) even
> though he may never touch the stick.
>
> BT

Thank you very much.
"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:Z4Oce.113$fI.16@fed1read05...
> No Dumb Questions.. just hard to interpret Regs..
>
> You are qualified for Airplane Single Engine Land... a Tomahawk is an
> Airplane Single Engine Land..
> any time you have hands on stick.. that is PIC.. as far as the FAA is
> concerned.. you don't need a specific sign off..
>
> the insurance companies or rental FBO may have other ideas... specific
make
> and model sign offs are insurance company requirements..
>
> If you are under the hood and have a rated pilot acting as a safety pilot,
> then all you need is his name..
> any time you are flying with hands on stick, with or without the hood, you
> are PIC, any time you are under the hood, he may log PIC (acting pic) even
> though he may never touch the stick.
>
> BT
>
> "Slick" > wrote in message
...
> > I've only ever flown Cessna products and I've come across an area I'm
not
> > sure about. I have my private and I have flow 150/2 and 172's since I
> > starting my training. Now I might partner up with a guy in a Tomahawk
next
> > weekend for a tour across the state. I don't have any formal training in
> > any
> > Piper products, will I be allowed to log any stick time? I don't recall
> > exactly how the regs layout type certification. Do I have to be signed
off
> > and have logged instruction to be PIC in the Tomahawk? Also if I only
had
> > time in a 150, would I have to have instruction in a 152 before I could
> > log
> > PIC?
> >
> > One last question, If I fly simulated instrument with a safety pilot,
does
> > the safety pilot have to sign my logbook? Thanks to everyone for your
help
> > and response.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> > News==----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> > Newsgroups
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> > =----
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>I count six errors in this answer. Can anybody count more?

What? Too chicken to actually post what you think are the errors, in fear
someone might reply to your post, writing "I count seven errors in this
answer. Can anybody count more?"

Chicken. If you think he got something wrong, say what you think it is.
You're acting like a politician already.

> any time you are flying with hands on stick, with or without the hood, you
> are PIC, any time you are under the hood, he may log PIC (acting pic) even
> though he may never touch the stick.

Not quite.

You -are- PIC when you are the final authority on the conduct of the
flight (and are so qualified). You -may- -log- PIC if you are
appropriately rated and are sole manipulator (your hands unaided on the
stick).

Yes, two people can -log- PIC, but only one can -be- PIC.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> d. Aircraft classified as "high altitude" (service ceiling above
> 25,000' MSL) need an .....

New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an
endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>> d. Aircraft classified as "high altitude" (service ceiling above 25,000' MSL) need an .....
>
>
> New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?

Never mind, I found it. "pressurized".

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:34:17 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> d. Aircraft classified as "high altitude" (service ceiling above
>> 25,000' MSL) need an .....
>
>New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an
>endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?

Perhaps 61.31(g)?

"(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft
capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in
command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service
ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above
25,000 feet MSL), unless that person has received and logged ground
training from an authorized instructor and obtained an endorsement in
the person's logbook or training record from an authorized instructor
who certifies the person has satisfactorily accomplished the ground
training."

A strict reading of "operating pressurized aircraft capable" would not
be limiting to in-flight operation of said aircraft.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:28:16 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>>> d. Aircraft classified as "high altitude" (service ceiling above 25,000' MSL) need an .....
>>
>>
>> New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?
>
>Never mind, I found it. "pressurized".

Hmm... Missed that too, but are there many (any?) non-pressurized
airframes that have service ceilings above FL250?

Slick wrote:
> I've only ever flown Cessna products and I've come across an area I'm not
> sure about. I have my private and I have flow 150/2 and 172's since I
> starting my training. Now I might partner up with a guy in a Tomahawk next
> weekend for a tour across the state. I don't have any formal training in
any
> Piper products, will I be allowed to log any stick time?

For the time that you are the "sole manipulator of the controls", you can
log PIC, your friend can not log PIC (or SIC) even though he presumably is
acting as PIC.


> I don't recall
> exactly how the regs layout type certification. Do I have to be signed off
> and have logged instruction to be PIC in the Tomahawk?

No.


> Also if I only had
> time in a 150, would I have to have instruction in a 152 before I could
log
> PIC?

No, but it's probably a good idea.


> One last question, If I fly simulated instrument with a safety pilot, does
> the safety pilot have to sign my logbook? Thanks to everyone for your help
> and response.

No. BTW: If you are (acting as) PIC, then you log PIC, your friend logs
SIC. If your friend is (acting as) PIC, you both log PIC.

Hilton

ok.. so I left the word "log" out

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> any time you are flying with hands on stick, with or without the hood,
>> you are PIC, any time you are under the hood, he may log PIC (acting pic)
>> even though he may never touch the stick.
>
> Not quite.
>
> You -are- PIC when you are the final authority on the conduct of the
> flight (and are so qualified). You -may- -log- PIC if you are
> appropriately rated and are sole manipulator (your hands unaided on the
> stick).
>
> Yes, two people can -log- PIC, but only one can -be- PIC.
>
> Jose
> --
> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>"Slick" > wrote in message ...
>> I've only ever flown Cessna products and I've come across an area I'm not
>> sure about. I have my private and I have flow 150/2 and 172's since I
>> starting my training. Now I might partner up with a guy in a Tomahawk next
>> weekend for a tour across the state. I don't have any formal training in
>> any
>> Piper products, will I be allowed to log any stick time? I don't recall
>> exactly how the regs layout type certification. Do I have to be signed off
>> and have logged instruction to be PIC in the Tomahawk? Also if I only had
>> time in a 150, would I have to have instruction in a 152 before I could
>> log
>> PIC?
>>
>> One last question, If I fly simulated instrument with a safety pilot, does
>> the safety pilot have to sign my logbook? Thanks to everyone for your help
>> and response.
>>
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:09:33 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote in <Z4Oce.113$fI.16@fed1read05>::

>No Dumb Questions.. just hard to interpret Regs..
>
>You are qualified for Airplane Single Engine Land... a Tomahawk is an
>Airplane Single Engine Land..

With the exception of those aircraft that require the pilot to have a
Type Rating, airmen holding a private ASEL certificate may act as PIC
of any aircraft certified in that category and class.

>any time you have hands on stick.. that is PIC..

All time spent as sole manipulator of the controls is logable as PIC
time. PIC time is also logable by the pilot who is acting as the
responsible PIC, IINM.

>as far as the FAA is concerned.. you don't need a specific sign off..

Other than for those aircraft that require a Type Rating.

>the insurance companies or rental FBO may have other ideas... specific make
>and model sign offs are insurance company requirements..
>
>If you are under the hood and have a rated pilot acting as a safety pilot,
>then all you need is his name..
>
>any time you are flying with hands on stick, with or without the hood, you
>are PIC, any time you are under the hood, he may log PIC (acting pic) even
>though he may never touch the stick.

I believe the safety pilot usually logs SIC time in that situation,
but it would depend on who the pilots agreed would be responsible for
the flight.

I copied this out of a magazine several years ago when I was often
flying with another pilot:


Cockpit Resource Management

CRM is the effective use of all resources - hardware,
software, leadership, and humanware - to achieve safe and
efficient flight operation.

Don't divide duties as they are on most airlines. There, the
pilot becomes too dependent on a copilot, because the pilot simply
flys the aircraft, while the copilot does everything else -
radios, navigation, checklists, and backing up the pilot as to
proper altitudes and headings.

The CRM philosophy puts the onus on the pilot for
communications, checklists, and decision making. Decisions are
based on the concerns of the less comfortable pilot. The copilot
handles navigation, cross-checks the pilot's communication and
navigation frequencies for an instrument approach, and assures
that the altitude requirements are met at the final approach fix
and at minimums. The copilot still has plenty to do, managing the
aircraft's loran, RNAV radio, or handheld GPS moving map display
that is used as a backup. In addition, the copilot scans for
other traffic, keeps a running check on fields in which to land -
just in case - and keeps track of the nearest airport. The
copilot knows s/he is to support and backup the pilot and offer
help in emergency situations.

Pre-takeoff briefing is important for any flight; it can be
abbreviated, however, when another pilot is aboard. It can be as
simple as thinking out loud. If you expect the other pilot to
help with the flight, say so before takeoff. Spend several
minutes before the flight explaining to the non-pilot passenger
how to control the aircraft and how to communicate. Once in the
air, spend a few minutes letting the passenger fly. It is fun for
the passenger and gives the pilot another resource to use in case
of a medical emergency.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:34:17 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>Got a reg # I could look up?


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&sid=3efaad1b0a259d4e48f1150a34d1aa77&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.4.7.2
§ 91.1083 Crewmember emergency training

That doesn't happen to be true. Care to quote your FAR reference for two
people logging PIC at the same time?

Jim




>
> You -are- PIC when you are the final authority on the conduct of the
> flight (and are so qualified). You -may- -log- PIC if you are
> appropriately rated and are sole manipulator (your hands unaided on the
> stick).
>
> Yes, two people can -log- PIC, but only one can -be- PIC.

What the hell is wrong with the reg that I referenced in my original post?

Jim
\


> New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an
> endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?

You left out and inserted a potful more that was absolutel garbage.

Jim




"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:wZTce.164$fI.40@fed1read05...
> ok.. so I left the word "log" out
>

RST Engineering wrote:
> That doesn't happen to be true. Care to quote your FAR reference for
two
> people logging PIC at the same time?

There's an article on the AOPA web site (accessible to members only, I
believe) that covers this topic:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.html

FAR 61.51(e) describes who can log PIC time. In the case of a
simulated instrument flight, both the pilot under-the-hood (sole
manipulator of the controls) and the safety pilot (required crewmember
on a flight requiring more than one pilot, such as a simulated
instrument flight) can log PIC at the same time.

Charles.
-N8385U

That is ABSOLUTELY false. Did you really READ 61.51(e) or did you simply
parrot somebody that you didn't check for accuracy?

61.51 lists a whole LOT of folks that can log PIC time. Your scenario isn't
among them. Suggest that you READ rather than QUOTE.


Jim



> FAR 61.51(e) describes who can log PIC time. In the case of a
> simulated instrument flight, both the pilot under-the-hood (sole
> manipulator of the controls) and the safety pilot (required crewmember
> on a flight requiring more than one pilot, such as a simulated
> instrument flight) can log PIC at the same time.
>
> Charles.
> -N8385U
>

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:Z4Oce.113$fI.16@fed1read05...

> No Dumb Questions.. just hard to interpret Regs..

Nothing difficult at all. You simply need to READ them.

>
> You are qualified for Airplane Single Engine Land... a Tomahawk is an
> Airplane Single Engine Land..

And unless the Traumahawk is covered by one of the six execeptions of the
regulations, you are good to go. HOWEVER, it is clever to prove to yourself
that you don't fall into one of the exceptions.



> any time you have hands on stick.. that is PIC..

That is absolutely not true. If I ask my kid to hold onto the wheel while I
find the extra batteries, that does NOT make her the PIC. PIC is not only a
state of mind, it is a legal definition. If you are a certificated pilot
and I ask you to fly along with me as the PIC, I can ask you to fly the
airplane from Sacramento to Salt Lake while I sleep and I am still the PIC.
No matter that you flew the whole route, I am the PIC and am responsible for
the flight. When the fit hits the shan, the determination will be made as
to who was the PIC. It is NOT necessarily the person with their hands on
the controls.


>
> If you are under the hood and have a rated pilot acting as a safety pilot,
> then all you need is his name..

I'm sure my CFI-I Betty wouldn't appreciate that comment.


> any time you are flying with hands on stick, with or without the hood, you
> are PIC,

Absolutely not true, as noted above.



any time you are under the hood, he may log PIC (acting pic) even
> though he may never touch the stick.

Absolutely not true.


Jim

FAR61.51(e) Logging of Pilot in Command Time
61.51(e)(1)(ii) except for recreational pilot, who is ACTING as PIC of an
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certificate
of the aircraft OR THE REGULATIONS UNDER WHICH THE FLIGHT IS CONDUCTED.

with the scenario given... pilot one is under the hood, manipulating the
controls and logs PIC under 61.51(e)(1)(i).. sole manipulator

91.109(b) requires an appropriately rated safety pilot.... the regulation
under which the flight is conducted... therefore the flight requires two
pilots. and pilot two is ACTING PIC under 61.51(e)(1)(ii)...

My remarks : The agreement of ACTING PIC and ACTUAL PIC should be made in
advance between the two pilots... that such time that Pilot 1 is under the
hood, then Pilot 2 is ACTING PIC and makes decisions for safety.. from
ground.. from other traffic.. and any ATC requirements as required such as
reporting visual checkpoints or remaining clear of certain airspace.

BT

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> That is ABSOLUTELY false. Did you really READ 61.51(e) or did you simply
> parrot somebody that you didn't check for accuracy?
>
> 61.51 lists a whole LOT of folks that can log PIC time. Your scenario
> isn't among them. Suggest that you READ rather than QUOTE.
> Jim
>
>> FAR 61.51(e) describes who can log PIC time. In the case of a
>> simulated instrument flight, both the pilot under-the-hood (sole
>> manipulator of the controls) and the safety pilot (required crewmember
>> on a flight requiring more than one pilot, such as a simulated
>> instrument flight) can log PIC at the same time.
>>
>> Charles.
>> -N8385U
>>
>
>

except for the fact that you referenced it wrong..

61.31(g) Additional training required for operating PRESSURIZED AIRCRAFT
capable of operating at high altitudes..

It is not a "high altitude" endorsement.. it is a Pressurized Aircraft
endorsement

BT

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> What the hell is wrong with the reg that I referenced in my original post?
>
> Jim
> \
>
>
>> New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an
>> endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?
>
>

point of fact.. a few of the aircraft I fly .. or have flown in the past..
are capable of flight above 25,000ft.. and they are not pressurized... so a
"pressurized aircraft" endorsement is not required...

and there is no endorsement required for flying unpressurized above FL250..

and before you get your shorts in a twist.. I have altitude chamber
training, and I have pressure breathing equipment and training

BT

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:NIYce.387$fI.10@fed1read05...
> FAR61.51(e) Logging of Pilot in Command Time
> 61.51(e)(1)(ii) except for recreational pilot, who is ACTING as PIC of an
> aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type
> certificate of the aircraft OR THE REGULATIONS UNDER WHICH THE FLIGHT IS
> CONDUCTED.
>
> with the scenario given... pilot one is under the hood, manipulating the
> controls and logs PIC under 61.51(e)(1)(i).. sole manipulator
>
> 91.109(b) requires an appropriately rated safety pilot.... the regulation
> under which the flight is conducted... therefore the flight requires two
> pilots. and pilot two is ACTING PIC under 61.51(e)(1)(ii)...
>
> My remarks : The agreement of ACTING PIC and ACTUAL PIC should be made in
> advance between the two pilots... that such time that Pilot 1 is under the
> hood, then Pilot 2 is ACTING PIC and makes decisions for safety.. from
> ground.. from other traffic.. and any ATC requirements as required such as
> reporting visual checkpoints or remaining clear of certain airspace.
>
> BT
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That is ABSOLUTELY false. Did you really READ 61.51(e) or did you simply
>> parrot somebody that you didn't check for accuracy?
>>
>> 61.51 lists a whole LOT of folks that can log PIC time. Your scenario
>> isn't among them. Suggest that you READ rather than QUOTE.
>> Jim
>>
>>> FAR 61.51(e) describes who can log PIC time. In the case of a
>>> simulated instrument flight, both the pilot under-the-hood (sole
>>> manipulator of the controls) and the safety pilot (required crewmember
>>> on a flight requiring more than one pilot, such as a simulated
>>> instrument flight) can log PIC at the same time.
>>>
>>> Charles.
>>> -N8385U
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

If you are able to be a PIC in a Airplane Single Engine Land, then you
can fly a Tomahawk and be/log PIC. If you are "current" then you can
carry passengers. The FAA does not have restrictions on being trained in
one plane, then flying another. I'm sure if you bent or broke the plane,
they could say you were careless and reckless, but they don't explicitly
require a checkout in every type you are gonna fly.

Wether the INSURANCE company will cover you (without having any
instruction in type) is another matter. Most every place that I have
flown at (rented from..) requires a checkout in every major type of
plane they have for you to rent planes in those types...

For instance.. the high wing Cessna's... I could check out in their
Arrow and fly all their cherokee airframes..

I could likewise check out in the 182 and fly all their cessna's.

(the above two examples assume you have your one-time complex and High
Performance endorsements)

Dave

Slick wrote:

> I've only ever flown Cessna products and I've come across an area I'm not
> sure about. I have my private and I have flow 150/2 and 172's since I
> starting my training. Now I might partner up with a guy in a Tomahawk next
> weekend for a tour across the state. I don't have any formal training in any
> Piper products, will I be allowed to log any stick time? I don't recall
> exactly how the regs layout type certification. Do I have to be signed off
> and have logged instruction to be PIC in the Tomahawk? Also if I only had
> time in a 150, would I have to have instruction in a 152 before I could log
> PIC?
>
> One last question, If I fly simulated instrument with a safety pilot, does
> the safety pilot have to sign my logbook? Thanks to everyone for your help
> and response.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:Z4Oce.113$fI.16@fed1read05...
>
>> No Dumb Questions.. just hard to interpret Regs..
>
> Nothing difficult at all. You simply need to READ them.

Maybe you should read them...

>
>>
>> You are qualified for Airplane Single Engine Land... a Tomahawk is an
>> Airplane Single Engine Land..
>
> And unless the Traumahawk is covered by one of the six execeptions of the
> regulations, you are good to go. HOWEVER, it is clever to prove to
> yourself that you don't fall into one of the exceptions.
>

I guess you don't know what a Tomahawk is but what 6 exceptions do you refer
to?

>
>> any time you have hands on stick.. that is PIC..
>
> That is absolutely not true. If I ask my kid to hold onto the wheel while
> I find the extra batteries, that does NOT make her the PIC. PIC is not
> only a state of mind, it is a legal definition. If you are a certificated
> pilot and I ask you to fly along with me as the PIC, I can ask you to fly
> the airplane from Sacramento to Salt Lake while I sleep and I am still the
> PIC. No matter that you flew the whole route, I am the PIC and am
> responsible for the flight. When the fit hits the shan, the determination
> will be made as to who was the PIC. It is NOT necessarily the person with
> their hands on the controls.

please re read 61.51(e)(1)(i).. sole manipulator in an aircraft that he is
rated in.. may log PIC.. even if you think he is not ACTING PIC.. because
you, the PIC, is sleeping and think you are in charge.

>
>
>>
>> If you are under the hood and have a rated pilot acting as a safety
>> pilot, then all you need is his name..
>
> I'm sure my CFI-I Betty wouldn't appreciate that comment.
>
generic "his",, get real..

>
>> any time you are flying with hands on stick, with or without the hood,
>> you are PIC,
>
> Absolutely not true, as noted above.

re read 61.51(e)(1)(i) as noted above...
>
>
>
> any time you are under the hood, he may log PIC (acting pic) even
>> though he may never touch the stick.
>
> Absolutely not true.
>
re read 61.51(e)(1)(ii) as reported in another post...
>
> Jim
>

BT

Nope. Read the section on Second In Command again.


BZZZT.


Jim


> 91.109(b) requires an appropriately rated safety pilot.... the regulation
> under which the flight is conducted... therefore the flight requires two
> pilots. and pilot two is ACTING PIC under 61.51(e)(1)(ii)...

Sonny, I was altitude rated while you were still in liquid form.

Jim


> and before you get your shorts in a twist.. I have altitude chamber
> training, and I have pressure breathing equipment and training

BTIZ wrote:

>
> If you are under the hood and have a rated pilot acting as a safety pilot,
> then all you need is his name..
> any time you are flying with hands on stick, with or without the hood, you
> are PIC, any time you are under the hood, he may log PIC (acting pic) even
> though he may never touch the stick.
>
> BT
>

This is a NIT-pick but its an IMPORTANT one..

The Safety pilot is considered a required crew-member and under that
role is considered Second In Command or SIC. So he can log it as SIC.

If the pilot-flying (hood pilot) AND the Safety Pilot BOTH agree that
the Safety Pilot "IS" the "Pilot in Command" for the period the
pilot-flying is under the hood, THEN the safety pilot can log it as PIC.
You need to agree beforehand. This is usually not of consequence UNTIL
or UNLESS something goes wrong: you break or bend something, the plane
busts airspace, a near-midair occurs and is reported.. etc..

That can expose the Safety Pilot to accountability as the PIC.

Reality is.. the hood pilot and the safety pilot both log and claim
PIC.. just understand what the implications are when you do it.

Dave

From the FAA website, part 61 FAQ (Word format). The FAA appears to
validate the scenario of both a safety pilot and hood-pilot both LOGGING
PIC.

In another question/response, the FAA is careful to emphasize not to
confuse "BEING" the PIC with "Logging PIC time).

QUESTION: I have two instrument students who wish to build time to
credit for the 50 hours of cross-country PIC flight time required for
the instrument and commercial certificates. They intend to fly
cross-country flights together, trading off legs with one flying as
safety pilot and the other manipulating the controls while under the
hood. I've counseled them that the safety pilot may log the time as PIC
only for the duration the manipulating pilot was under the hood and can
not count the flight as cross-country towards the instrument and
commercial rating requirements. Is it acceptable for the safety pilot
PIC flight time to count towards these specific cross-country requirements?

ANSWER: Ref. §§ 61.1(b)(3)(ii), § 61.51(e)(1)(iii); No. Your advice
is good. The pilot performing the takeoff and landing, i.e., conducting
flight in an appropriate aircraft per the definition of cross-country,
is the person acquiring the cross-country credit. A safety pilot can
not possibly log 100% of a flight since during visual operations
[takeoff, landing, etc.] the safety pilot services are not required.
The person that acts as safety pilot is no more than a passenger during
the VFR portions of the flight. There is no logic, common sense or
regulatory provision for a passenger, even a part time safety pilot, to
log cross-country flight time.
{Q&A-536}


RST Engineering wrote:

> That is ABSOLUTELY false. Did you really READ 61.51(e) or did you simply
> parrot somebody that you didn't check for accuracy?
>
> 61.51 lists a whole LOT of folks that can log PIC time. Your scenario isn't
> among them. Suggest that you READ rather than QUOTE.
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>>FAR 61.51(e) describes who can log PIC time. In the case of a
>>simulated instrument flight, both the pilot under-the-hood (sole
>>manipulator of the controls) and the safety pilot (required crewmember
>>on a flight requiring more than one pilot, such as a simulated
>>instrument flight) can log PIC at the same time.
>>
>>Charles.
>>-N8385U
>>
>
>
>

>
> Maybe you should read them...

I've been reading them...and teaching them for over forty years. And you?

>>
>
> I guess you don't know what a Tomahawk is but what 6 exceptions do you
> refer to?

I expect that I've got more PIC hours in Tomahawks than you have total.
Something on the order of 900 hours. You, sir?

>
> please re read 61.51(e)(1)(i).. sole manipulator in an aircraft that he is
> rated in.. may log PIC.. even if you think he is not ACTING PIC.. because
> you, the PIC, is sleeping and think you are in charge.

Let's take this to another thread, one on point. You have the same
misguided interpretation that a lot of pilots have. It may be informative
to the group to clear this up once and for all.

>>
> generic "his",, get real..

Sexist pig. Get into this century.

>
>>
>>> any time you are flying with hands on stick, with or without the hood,
>>> you are PIC,
>>
>> Absolutely not true, as noted above.
>
> re read 61.51(e)(1)(i) as noted above...

Reread the WHOLE of 61.51 and get a life....



Jim

It IS a nit-pick, and an important one.

The pilot under the hood can log PIC time and the safety pilot can log
second in command time.

The safety pilot can log PIC time and the pilot under the hood can log
second in command time.

They CANNOT BOTH LOG PIC time at the same time.

Jim




> This is a NIT-pick but its an IMPORTANT one..

RST Engineering wrote:


>
>>If you are under the hood and have a rated pilot acting as a safety pilot,
>>then all you need is his name..
>
>
> I'm sure my CFI-I Betty wouldn't appreciate that comment.
>
>
> Jim
>
>

Jim... Instruction is logged with an endorsement by the instructor.
Safety Pilot just requires recording of the name.. (and that means it
can be in anyone's handwriting). Chapter and verse below. I am presuming
you are contesting the signing versus recording of the name, not the
gender issue you also seem to be alluding to.

Dave

61.51.g.3.ii

(3) For the purposes of logging instrument time to meet the recent
instrument experience requirements of §61.57(c) of this part, the
following information must be recorded in the person's logbook—

(i) The location and type of each instrument approach accomplished; and

(ii) The name of the safety pilot, if required.

61.51.H.2.i

(h) Logging training time. (1) A person may log training time when
that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an
aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.

(2) The training time must be logged in a logbook and must:

(i) Be endorsed in a legible manner by the authorized instructor; and

RST Engineering wrote:

> They CANNOT BOTH LOG PIC time at the same time.

under which regs? if you mean good ol' FAA, then
you are wrong;

--Sylvain

ps actually, I once was in a flight where three of
us did log PIC time *at the same time* and perfectly
legally: exercice to the readers: describe the situation :-)

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> They CANNOT BOTH LOG PIC time at the same time.
>
> under which regs? if you mean good ol' FAA, then
> you are wrong;


I don't think so, but entertain me.


Jim






> ps actually, I once was in a flight where three of
> us did log PIC time *at the same time* and perfectly
> legally: exercice to the readers: describe the situation :-)

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> > under which regs? if you mean good ol' FAA, then
> > you are wrong;
>
> I don't think so, but entertain me.

Consider yourself entertained.

Two relevant excerpts from the Part 61 FAQ:

-------------------
QUESTION: In the December 1997 edition of 'AOPA PILOT,' specifically page
22, 'AOPA ACCESS,' the question was asked: 'If I am flying as a safety
pilot, can I log that time as pilot in command?' AOPA's answer is: 'Yes.
There had been talk during the rewrite process of changing this to specify
only second-in-command time, but the final rule left logable safety pilot
PIC time intact. Requirements remain being rated in category and class. You
are allowed to log safety pilot PIC time because your eyes are required for
aircraft safety and therefore you become a required crew member. The pilot
under the hood can also log PIC time as 'sole' manipulator of the controls.'
§61.51(f)(2) seems pretty clear about safety pilots logging SIC rather than
PIC time. What does AOPA know that we don't???

ANSWER: Yes, the time can be logged as PIC. Reference §61.51(e)(1)(ii): The
safety pilot, who meets the qualifications set forth in §91.109(b) may log
it as PIC time because §61.51(e)(1)(ii) states, in pertinent part, '. . .
the regulations under which the flight is conducted. Note, we say 'may' but
he 'may' prefer to log it as SIC time. Your understanding is probably based
on the preamble discussion on page 16250, middle column, of the Federal
Register (62 FR 16250; April 4, 1997). We would highly recommend that you
also read the preamble discussion on page 16250, first column, of the
Federal Register (62 FR 16250; April 4, 1997).

Reference §61.51(e)(1)(i): The other pilot manipulating the controls, and
who meets the qualifications set forth in §91.109(a)(2) and (b)(3)(ii) may
log it as PIC time because §61.51(e)(1)(i) states, in pertinent part, 'Is
the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is
rated;'
{Q&A-95}

QUESTION: Is it true that a qualified pilot can log pilot-in-command time
for all flight time during which he acts as a required safety pilot per 14
CFR §91.109?

ANSWER: Yes, the safety pilot can log the time as PIC time in accordance
with §61.51(e)(ii) which states '. . . regulations under which the flight is
conducted.'
{Q&A-88}
------------

Why there are dozens of folks falling over themselves to get you elected to
any EAA position is beyond me. Hostile and ill-informed, not a great
combination. Certainly not the kind of person I'd like to see in a position
of responsibility for an organization I cared about.

Pete

RST Engineering wrote:

> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>RST Engineering wrote:
>>
>>
>>>They CANNOT BOTH LOG PIC time at the same time.
>>
>>under which regs? if you mean good ol' FAA, then
>>you are wrong;
>
>
>
> I don't think so, but entertain me.
>
>
> Jim
>
§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational,
private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that
flight time during which that person—

(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which
the pilot is rated or has privileges; <--- HERE IS WHAT THE PILOT FLYING
LOGS

(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is ACTING as pilot in command of
an aircraft on which MORE THAN ONE pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft or the REGULATIONS under which the flight
is conducted. <---- HERE IS WHAT THE SAFETY PILOT "MAY" LOG.



(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log
second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(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. <---- HERE IS WHAT THE SAFETY PILOT LOGS IF HE IS NOT ACTING
AS PIC.

I'm not gonna get in a ****ing contest any further with ya. I asked
specifically about this when I got my ground instructor certs at the
FSDO and the FSDO was able to show me in the FAQ's where the safety
pilot AND the pilot-flying were able to both LOG PIC. Only ONE person
can BE the PIC. SEVERAL can log it at the same time.

Dave

"BTIZ" > writes:

> except for the fact that you referenced it wrong..
>
> 61.31(g) Additional training required for operating PRESSURIZED AIRCRAFT
> capable of operating at high altitudes..
>
> It is not a "high altitude" endorsement.. it is a Pressurized Aircraft
> endorsement

Here's the relevant part of 61.31(g):

(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized
aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except as
provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as
pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a
service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower,
above 25,000 feet MSL), unless that person has received and logged
ground training from an authorized instructor and obtained an
endorsement in the person's logbook or training record from an
authorized instructor who certifies the person has satisfactorily
accomplished the ground training.

It looks to me like that parenthetical is definitional; it is
*defining* a "pressurized aircraft" as any aircraft that has a service
ceiling or maximum operating altitude above 25,000ft MSL.

This is a Federal regulation; having a "pressurized aircraft" defined
in a way that has nothing to do with controlling the pressure within
the aircraft body is about par for the course, isn't it?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

I did read it, and the folks at AOPA who make understanding this stuff
their job seem to agree. The pilots do have to decide that the safety
pilot is the actual PIC with responsibility for the flight, but with
that done, they can both log PIC time.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/sftyplt.html

Charles.
-N8385U

RST Engineering wrote:
> That is ABSOLUTELY false. Did you really READ 61.51(e) or did you simply
> parrot somebody that you didn't check for accuracy?
>
> 61.51 lists a whole LOT of folks that can log PIC time. Your scenario isn't
> among them. Suggest that you READ rather than QUOTE.

> Here's the relevant part of 61.31(g):
>
> (g) Additional training required for operating pressurized
> aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except as
> provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may...
>
> It looks to me like that parenthetical is definitional; it is
> *defining* a "pressurized aircraft" as any aircraft that has a service
> ceiling or maximum operating altitude above 25,000ft MSL.

That's not the way I read it. There are pressurized aircraft capable of
water landings, and there are pressurized aircraft not capable of water
landings. The phrase "pressurized aircraft capable of water landings"
does not define a pressurized aircraft as one capable of water landings.

Similarly there are pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high
altitudes, and there are pressurized aircraft not capable of operating
at high altitudes.

The additional training in 61.31(g) would apply to pressurized aircraft
that are (also) capable of operating at high altitudes.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

BTIZ wrote:

> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message

>>That is absolutely not true. If I ask my kid to hold onto the wheel while
>>I find the extra batteries, that does NOT make her the PIC. PIC is not
>>only a state of mind, it is a legal definition. If you are a certificated
>>pilot and I ask you to fly along with me as the PIC, I can ask you to fly
>>the airplane from Sacramento to Salt Lake while I sleep and I am still the
>>PIC. No matter that you flew the whole route, I am the PIC and am
>>responsible for the flight. When the fit hits the shan, the determination
>>will be made as to who was the PIC. It is NOT necessarily the person with
>>their hands on the controls.
>
>
> please re read 61.51(e)(1)(i).. sole manipulator in an aircraft that he is
> rated in.. may log PIC.. even if you think he is not ACTING PIC.. because
> you, the PIC, is sleeping and think you are in charge.

Your confusion is between "being the PIC" and "logging PIC time". They
aren't synonymous. You can log PIC during times that you aren't the
pilot in command of the flight.


Matt

Nor I with you. We will have to agree to disagree. I thrashed this out
with my (then) GADO, now FSDO in San Diego when I got my CFI and my CGI, and
I've asked again when it came up about five years ago with my SAC FSDO.

The argument made, and with which I have to agree, that if there can only BE
one PIC then only one person can LOG it as PIC.

The Swiss have their cheese; we have FARs.

Jim





> I'm not gonna get in a ****ing contest any further with ya. I asked
> specifically about this when I got my ground instructor certs at the FSDO
> and the FSDO was able to show me in the FAQ's where the safety pilot AND
> the pilot-flying were able to both LOG PIC.

> The argument made, and with which I have to agree, that if there can only BE
> one PIC then only one person can LOG it as PIC.

If only the FARs were (intended to be) that simple.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

>> The argument made, and with which I have to agree, that if there can
>> only BE one PIC then only one person can LOG it as PIC.

That's right. And the reason it is right is THE (SINGLE, ONE) PIC is
the guy that gets sued when something goes wrong. 91.3 says he is the
ultimate authority for the safe conduct of the flight. It has nothing
to do with who is flying or who is logging.

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
>
>>> The argument made, and with which I have to agree, that if there can
>>> only BE one PIC then only one person can LOG it as PIC.
>
> That's right.

No, that's wrong (ignoring for the moment your messed-up attribution, which
is also wrong).

> And the reason it is right is THE (SINGLE, ONE) PIC is the guy that gets
> sued when something goes wrong.

What does that have to do with logging?

> 91.3 says he is the ultimate authority for the safe conduct of the flight.
> It has nothing to do with who is flying or who is logging.

That's true. But again, what does that have to do with logging?

Pete

They are not defining anything. They are saying, if you want to fly an
aircraft that is pressurized AND is capable of flight above 25,000 ft, you
need additional training and an endorsement. Don't try to make it
complicated, it really isn't.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...

> It looks to me like that parenthetical is definitional; it is
> *defining* a "pressurized aircraft" as any aircraft that has a service
> ceiling or maximum operating altitude above 25,000ft MSL.
>
> This is a Federal regulation; having a "pressurized aircraft" defined
> in a way that has nothing to do with controlling the pressure within
> the aircraft body is about par for the course, isn't it?

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Sonny, I was altitude rated while you were still in liquid form.
>
> Jim
>

Jim... there is no altitude rating or endorsement..

maybe that's your problem...

BT

isn't amazing when different FSDOs give different opinions.. and it appears
that the SanDiego FSDO disagrees with Washington, FAA HQ

BT

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Nor I with you. We will have to agree to disagree. I thrashed this out
> with my (then) GADO, now FSDO in San Diego when I got my CFI and my CGI,
> and I've asked again when it came up about five years ago with my SAC
> FSDO.
>
> The argument made, and with which I have to agree, that if there can only
> BE one PIC then only one person can LOG it as PIC.
>
> The Swiss have their cheese; we have FARs.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>> I'm not gonna get in a ****ing contest any further with ya. I asked
>> specifically about this when I got my ground instructor certs at the FSDO
>> and the FSDO was able to show me in the FAQ's where the safety pilot AND
>> the pilot-flying were able to both LOG PIC.
>
>

[top-posting fixed]

"Mike W." > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> It looks to me like that parenthetical is definitional; it is
>> *defining* a "pressurized aircraft" as any aircraft that has a service
>> ceiling or maximum operating altitude above 25,000ft MSL.

> They are not defining anything. They are saying, if you want to fly an
> aircraft that is pressurized AND is capable of flight above 25,000 ft, you
> need additional training and an endorsement. Don't try to make it
> complicated, it really isn't.


The regulations says:

no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft
(an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating
altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL)

I don't see any way to read that parenthetical as anything other than
a *definition* of "pressurized aircraft". I don't understand what you
think it means.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

BTIZ wrote:

> My remarks : The agreement of ACTING PIC and ACTUAL PIC should be made in
> advance between the two pilots...

There is no such thing as ACTING and ACTUAL PIC.

There is exacting person who is pilot in command.

What you are confusing is that the a person who is NOT pilot in command
can log pilot in command time if they are the sole manipulator of the
controls of an aircraft for which they are rated.

Wrong, they can both log PIC. The safety pilot can log PIC if he also
serves as PIC because the FAA says safey piloting is an operation which
requires multiple crew members read 61.51(e). The flying pilot logs PIC
because he is on the controls. Please understand that LOGGING PIC is
***DIFFERENT** than SERVING as PIC.
You need to read some of the FAA pubs, including the Lych FAQ.

-Robert, CFI

RST, I fly out of Sacramento too as a CFI. I usually work with FSDO
inspectors Nancy and John. Who have you been talking to?? I think
you've gotten some bad direction from the person you've been working
with at the FSDO..

-Robert, CFI

The last time I asked the question was at a training session some time ago,
and the particular person (now retired) said that there was room for
argument on either side, but that HIS interpretation was as I stated. I
haven't had a need for an update on that interpretation until it came up in
this ng, so I'll have to believe what I believe.

I can certainly ask my principal inspector next time I'm in the office for
another interpretation, but it will be just exactly that ... one more
individual inspector's opinion.

Does anybody have a definitive link to an opinion out of the Chief Counsel's
office on the matter? THAT should serve as the standard for FSDOs across
the country. Absent such an opinion, we go on individual interpretations,
no matter how high up the individual's chair sits in the hierarchy.

Jim
CFI, A&G; CGI



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> RST, I fly out of Sacramento too as a CFI. I usually work with FSDO
> inspectors Nancy and John. Who have you been talking to?? I think
> you've gotten some bad direction from the person you've been working
> with at the FSDO..
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

On Mon, 2 May 2005 13:01:47 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote in
>::

>I can certainly ask my principal inspector next time I'm in the office for
>another interpretation, ...

Just to add a little fuel to the fire, also ask the inspector if
either the student flying the simulated instrument maneuvers and/or
the safety pilot need to have a current medical certificate. § 91.109
doesn't cover that issue.

The Lynch FAQ says the safety pilot must have a current medical since
he's serving as a required crew member. The Lynch FAQ is what most FSDO
inpsectors carry around in their briefcase.

>From the FAA's web page...
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/pilots_instructors/=
index.cfm?docType=3Ddoc&docLink=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efaa%2Egov%2Favr%2Fafs %=
2Fafs800%2Fdocs%2Fpt61FAQ%2Edoc&docSize=3D2260&docName=3D14%20CFR%20Part%20=
61%20Frequently%20Asked%20%20Questions

(sorry, its a long link)

First, can a person who is not certified to serve as PIC log PIC...

QUESTION: Question about logging of pilot-in-command time. You asked
whether a pilot needs to have the appropriate 14 CFR =A7 61.31
endorsements before he or she can properly log pilot-in-command time
under 14 CFR =A7 61.51(e) when that pilot holds a private pilot
certificate with a single-engine land rating and is receiving training
in a single-engine land airplane that is also a complex or high
performance airplane. Can this person log the time he or she
manipulated the controls as pilot-in-command time.

ANSWER: Ref. =A7 61.51(e)(1)(i); =A7 61.51(e) governs the logging of
pilot-in-command time. This section provides, in pertinent part, that
a private pilot may log pilot-in-command flight time for that flight
time during which that person is the sole manipulator of the controls
of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated. (Emphasis added:
"aircraft for which the pilot is rated"). The term "rated," as
used under 14 CFR =A7 61.51(e), refers to the pilot holding the
appropriate aircraft ratings (category, class, and type, if a type
rating is required). These ratings are listed under =A7 61.5 and are
placed on the pilot certificate.

Therefore, based on the scenario given, a private pilot may log
pilot-in-command time, in a complex or high performance airplane, for
those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of
the controls because the aircraft being operated is single-engine land
and the private pilot holds a single-engine land rating.


Safety pilot logging...

ANSWER: Ref. =A7 61.113(a) and =A7 61.51(e)(iii); Yes, the Private Pilot
who is serving as a safety pilot and is acting as the PIC may log the
time as PIC flight time. And yes, that Private Pilot may use that PIC
flight time for the furtherance of a pilot certificate and rating under
Part 61. And no, that Private Pilot is not ". . . . carrying
passengers or property for compensation or hire;" nor is that Private
Pilot acting as a pilot in command ". . . for compensation or hire, .
.. . ." when he serves as a safety pilot. In accordance with
=A791.109(b)(1), it permits a person who holds a Private Pilot
Certificate with a category and class rating appropriate to the
aircraft being flown to serve as a safety pilot.

Shorter link here: http://babyurl.com/QYUUNt

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message oups.com...
>From the FAA's web page...
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/pilots_instructors/index.cfm?docType=doc&docLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efaa%2Egov%2Favr%2Fafs%2 Fafs800%2Fdocs%2Fpt61FAQ%2Edoc&docSize=2260&docName=14%20CFR%20Part%2061%20Frequently%20Asked% 20%20Questions

(sorry, its a long link)

First, can a person who is not certified to serve as PIC log PIC...

QUESTION: Question about logging of pilot-in-command time. You asked
whether a pilot needs to have the appropriate 14 CFR § 61.31
endorsements before he or she can properly log pilot-in-command time
under 14 CFR § 61.51(e) when that pilot holds a private pilot
certificate with a single-engine land rating and is receiving training
in a single-engine land airplane that is also a complex or high
performance airplane. Can this person log the time he or she
manipulated the controls as pilot-in-command time.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.51(e)(1)(i); § 61.51(e) governs the logging of
pilot-in-command time. This section provides, in pertinent part, that
a private pilot may log pilot-in-command flight time for that flight
time during which that person is the sole manipulator of the controls
of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated. (Emphasis added:
"aircraft for which the pilot is rated"). The term "rated," as
used under 14 CFR § 61.51(e), refers to the pilot holding the
appropriate aircraft ratings (category, class, and type, if a type
rating is required). These ratings are listed under § 61.5 and are
placed on the pilot certificate.

Therefore, based on the scenario given, a private pilot may log
pilot-in-command time, in a complex or high performance airplane, for
those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of
the controls because the aircraft being operated is single-engine land
and the private pilot holds a single-engine land rating.


Safety pilot logging...

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.113(a) and § 61.51(e)(iii); Yes, the Private Pilot
who is serving as a safety pilot and is acting as the PIC may log the
time as PIC flight time. And yes, that Private Pilot may use that PIC
flight time for the furtherance of a pilot certificate and rating under
Part 61. And no, that Private Pilot is not ". . . . carrying
passengers or property for compensation or hire;" nor is that Private
Pilot acting as a pilot in command ". . . for compensation or hire, .
.. . ." when he serves as a safety pilot. In accordance with
§91.109(b)(1), it permits a person who holds a Private Pilot
Certificate with a category and class rating appropriate to the
aircraft being flown to serve as a safety pilot.

When the Office of the Chief Counsel signs their John Henrietta to the
bottom of the Lynch FAQ, then it becomes the governing document. Until
then, it is the opinion (albeit a pretty good one) of a single person
writing the FAQ. And yes, I downloaded the whole damned thing and printed
it out.

I contend...there is as much argument on one side as the other, no matter
how the individuals within the FAA are reading the tea leaves today.

FAA inspectors can carry around as much as they wish in their briefcase.
Until OCC opines, the matter is open to interpretation. After that , it is
the courts that make the law.

Jim




"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The Lynch FAQ says the safety pilot must have a current medical since
> he's serving as a required crew member. The Lynch FAQ is what most FSDO
> inpsectors carry around in their briefcase.
>

Well, when you DO, come back and entertain us with them. Until then,
opinions are like assholes and sex ... everybody has one, and most of them
smell.

Jim



> However, there are Chief Council decisions based on these, I just don't
> have access to them in front of me.

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> The regulations says:
>
> no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft
> (an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating
> altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL)
>
> I don't see any way to read that parenthetical as anything other than
> a *definition* of "pressurized aircraft". I don't understand what you
> think it means.
>
(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable
of
operating at high altitudes.

They are defining the conditions under which you must acquire additional
training. If you wanted to operate a
pressuized aircraft that had a service ceiling of 20,000 ft, then no
additional training is needed.

I don't have opinions. I just quote from the FAA's web site. They get
to have an opinion too.

RST Engineering wrote:
> Well, when you DO, come back and entertain us with them. Until then,
> opinions are like assholes and sex ... everybody has one, and most of them
> smell.
>
>>However, there are Chief Council decisions based on these, I just don't
>>have access to them in front of me.

Here is the Chief Counsel decision on the matter:

---
October 30, l992


Mr. David M. Reid


Dear Mr. Reid:

Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1992, concerning the
logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time under the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR).

In your letter you ask four questions. First, you ask whether
there are "any circumstances when, during a normal flight, two
Private Pilots may simultaneously act as (and therefore log the
time as) Pilot-In-Command?" The answer is two private pilots may
not simultaneously act as PIC but they may, under certain
circumstances, simultaneously log PIC time.

There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC
time. PIC, as defined in FAR 1.1, means the pilot responsible
for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.
FAR 61.51 deals with logging PIC flight time, and it provides
that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that
flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the
controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the
sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC of an
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the
flight is conducted. It is important to note that FAR 61.51 only
regulates the recording of PIC time used to meet the requirements
toward a higher certificate, higher rating, or for recent flight
experience.

Therefore, while it is not possible for two pilots to act as PIC
simultaneously, it is possible for two pilots to log PIC flight
time simultaneously. PIC flight time may be logged by both the
PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft
during flight time in accordance with FAR 1.1, and by the pilot
who acts as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft
for which the pilot is rated under FAR 61.51. Enclosed please
find two prior FAA interpretations concerning logging of PIC
time. We hope that these will be of further assistance to you.

In your second question you ask "[h]ow 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). Enclosed please find a prior FAA
interpretation concerning the logging of flight time under
simulated instrument flight conditions. We hope that this
interpretation will be of further assistance to you.

In your third question you ask "[d]uring instrument training, how
shall a VFR Private Pilot log the following flight time: Pilot-In-
Command time, Simulated Instrument time, and Actual Instrument
time, when that pilot is...A)...under the hood? B)...in actual
instrument conditions? C)...under the hood in actual instrument
conditions?" The answer is the VFR private pilot may log all of
the flight time you described as PIC flight time under FAR
61.51(c)(2)(i) if he was the sole manipulator of the controls of
an aircraft for which he is rated. Under FAR 61.51(c)(4) the
pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during
which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to
instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight
conditions. Please note that the FARs do not distinguish between
"actual" and "simulated" instrument flight time. Enclosed is a
prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of instrument
flight time. We hope this interpretation will further assist
you.

Finally you ask "[d]oes FAR 61.57 affect how the VFR Private
Pilot shall log Pilot-In-Command time during instrument training,
either before or after meeting the 6/6/6 requirement, and if so,
how?" FAR 61.57 does not affect how a pilot logs PIC time during
instrument training; FAR 61.51(c)(2) and
(4) govern logging of instrument flight time. FAR 61.57(e)
provides currency requirements for acting as PIC under instrument
flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than the
minimums for visual flight rules (VFR). Enclosed
please find a prior FAA interpretation on instrument flight time
and FAR 61.57(e). We hope this interpretation will further
assist you.

We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

Sincerely,



Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

Enclosures

Now THAT does it for me unless somebody has a later CCO opinion or court
ruling.

Jim

RST Engineering wrote:
> Does anybody have a definitive link to an opinion out of the Chief
Counsel's
> office on the matter?

As a matter of fact, yes.
http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal3.html

Gee.. that sounds like the answer I gave... with the exception on SIC and
the discussion of who is PIC while under the hood.. I brief my "safety"
pilot.. that for periods of time when I am under the hood.. he is PIC.. and
he can log it as such... when I'm not under the hood.. I am PIC and he is a
pax...

BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> Does anybody have a definitive link to an opinion out of the Chief
> Counsel's
>> office on the matter?
>
> As a matter of fact, yes.
> http://www.propilot.com/doc/legal3.html
>

And the answer you gave was the simple opinion of another pilot. Had you
given a OCC opinion for the rest of us to read (admittedly written AFTER my
last briefing on the matter) you could have saved us a lot of time and
trouble. You are NOT the definitive answer to a legal question in and of
yourself.

Jim




"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:AfUde.9759$fI.7297@fed1read05...
> Gee.. that sounds like the answer I gave

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> [...] You are NOT the definitive answer to a legal question in and of
> yourself.

Nor are you. And yet, you claimed to be, just as you refused to accept
other's informed statements on the matter. I guess that makes you both a
hypocrite and a chicken.