Re: FAR:Safety Pilot & High Performance/Complex?

[Jim]

It is my understanding (always subject to correction) that as a safety pilot
you may log PIC time because you are indeed a required crew member for the
operation. However, to log PIC time you also must be qualified to act as
PIC of that particular aircraft.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


"FryGuy" > wrote in message
1...
> I have a couple of questions that are unclear to me regarding being a
> safety pilot and operating high performance and/or complex aircraft. I've
> tried looking these up in the 2003 FAR but I wasn't able to find a good
> answer to my questions. If you could give me the reference in the FAR if
> there is one I would appreciate it. Here they are:
>
> 1) I have a friend who needs to go practice some IFR approaches to stay
> current. I am a private pilot ASEL. I'm pretty sure that it is not a
> problem with me being his safety pilot but he told me I can log the time
> PIC. Is this correct?
>
> 2) What are the requirements for complex and high performance aircraft? I
> thought that an endorsement was required for planes with retractable gear
> and a adjustable prop and another for planes with a greater than 200
> horsepower engine. In my log book I see an endorsement line for the HP
> (there isn't a FAR reference though) but not for the complex. I looked up
> "complex" in the FAR and could not find anything regarding this.
>
> 3) Ok, now the combination of the two. Lets say I do need an endorsment
> for the complex/HP aircraft. Can I log time as the safety pilot in this
> plane if I haven't yet gotten the endorsment for complex/HP? 91.109.b.2
> says the safety pilot just needs to be a private pilot with the
appropriate
> category and class ratings.
>
> Thanks for the information!
>
> Jeff Frey

[John T]

"Jim" > wrote in message

>
> However, to log PIC time you also
> must be qualified to act as PIC of that particular aircraft.

It is not required that you be qualified to be PIC of a particular aircraft,
only the category and class of the aircraft. As an example, if you don't
have a high performance endorsement, you will be hard pressed to find an FBO
to rent you a C182. However, you could still be a safety pilot in that
plane (and log PIC for the time actually spent as safety pilot) if you have
a PP-ASEL certificate.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[John T]

"FryGuy" > wrote in message
1
>
> 1) I am a private pilot ASEL. I'm pretty sure that it is
> not a problem with me being his safety pilot but he told me I can log
> the time PIC. Is this correct?

Yes, you may log the time actually spent as a safety pilot as PIC.

> 2) What are the requirements for complex and high performance
> aircraft?

Separate endorsements are needed for high performance and complex airplanes.

14 CFR 61.31
(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except
as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot
in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable landing
gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the case of a
seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller)...
(f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may
act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with an
engine of more than 200 horsepower)...

> 3) Can I log time as the safety
> pilot in this plane if I haven't yet gotten the endorsment for
> complex/HP? 91.109.b.2 says the safety pilot just needs to be a
> private pilot with the appropriate category and class ratings.

You've answered your own question. :) The safety pilot needs to be rated
in the category and class of the aircraft.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[John T]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com
>
>> 3) Can I log time as the safety
>> pilot in this plane if I haven't yet gotten the endorsment for
>> complex/HP? 91.109.b.2 says the safety pilot just needs to be a
>> private pilot with the appropriate category and class ratings.
>
> You've answered your own question. :) The safety pilot needs to be
> rated in the category and class of the aircraft.

Actually, now that I re-read the FAR sections I quoted (61.31), I think Jose
may be right. This sounds like a good question to fire off to the local
FSDO and/or AOPA.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[john smith]

FryGuy wrote:
>
> I have a couple of questions that are unclear to me regarding being a
> safety pilot and operating high performance and/or complex aircraft. I've
> tried looking these up in the 2003 FAR but I wasn't able to find a good
> answer to my questions. If you could give me the reference in the FAR if
> there is one I would appreciate it. Here they are:
>
> 1) I have a friend who needs to go practice some IFR approaches to stay
> current. I am a private pilot ASEL. I'm pretty sure that it is not a
> problem with me being his safety pilot but he told me I can log the time
> PIC. Is this correct?

Cannot log PIC but can log Second in command.

> 2) What are the requirements for complex and high performance aircraft? I
> thought that an endorsement was required for planes with retractable gear
> and a adjustable prop and another for planes with a greater than 200
> horsepower engine. In my log book I see an endorsement line for the HP
> (there isn't a FAR reference though) but not for the complex. I looked up
> "complex" in the FAR and could not find anything regarding this.

Depends on the owner's insurance company's requirements for that
particular aircraft.

> 3) Ok, now the combination of the two. Lets say I do need an endorsment
> for the complex/HP aircraft. Can I log time as the safety pilot in this
> plane if I haven't yet gotten the endorsment for complex/HP? 91.109.b.2
> says the safety pilot just needs to be a private pilot with the appropriate
> category and class ratings.

Airplane, single engine land. What does your certificate say? Does it
say high-performance or complex?

[Jim]

I "think" John Lynch's take on the question is that you must have the
appropriate endorsements to log PIC when acting as safety pilot. If the
safety pilot does not act as the legal PIC he/she does not need the proper
endorsements, however they may not log the safety pilot time as PIC. New
question: Is there ever a case when you can log PIC time when you aren't
both properly rated and endorsed?


QUESTION: According to § 91.109(b), a safety pilot must possess at
least a private certificate with appropriate category & class ratings. Is
it necessary for that safety pilot to be "current" in the aircraft
(landings, etc.)? Requirements of 61.55 specifically exempt safety pilots
[§ 61.55(d)(4)], but where are the safety pilot criteria actually spelled
out. Section 61.57 refers to pilot-in-command requirements, but a safety
pilot is not PIC, only a required crew member. Further, has there ever been
an interpretation that the safety pilot must be Instrument Rated for that
type of VFR operation?



ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(d)(1); § 61.51(e)(1)(iii), § 61.51(f)(2), §
61.3(c); § 61.56(c), § 61.57(c); A safety pilot is a "required crewmember"
and must hold at least a valid private pilot certificate with category and
class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown per § 91.109(b) and a
valid medical certificate per § 61.3(c). A valid pilot certificate is one
which has not been revoked or under suspension.



That person who is serving as a safety pilot may choose to act as the legal
pilot-in-command (per 14 CFR part 1) and log the time as PIC [per §
61.51(e)(1)(iii)], or otherwise log the time as SIC time [per §
61.51(f)(2)], but is not even required to log the time at all. However, the
safety pilot's name must be logged by the person practicing instrument
flight [per § 61.51(g)(3)(ii)]. If the safety pilot is going to act as the
legal PIC for the flight that person must ". . . Hold the appropriate
category, class, and type rating (if a class rating and type rating are
required) for the aircraft to be flown;" [per § 61.31(d)(1)]. ). And if
the flight is conducted in a high performance, complex, tail wheel, etc.
aircraft and the safety pilot is acting as the legal PIC that pilot must
have the appropriate endorsements that are required by § 61.31(e), (f)
and/or (i), as appropriate. This could be a reason why a safety pilot might
only be able to serve as an SIC and log it as SIC time.



And assuming the operation is a simulated instrument flight (as in the case
the flight is performed in VMC conditions under VFR), the safety pilot would
not need to hold an instrument rating. If any portion of the flight were
conducted on an IFR flight plan (e.g., in and out of the clouds and/or even
on an IFR flight plan) at least one of the pilots must have an instrument
rating and the § 1.1 PIC must be instrument current in accordance with §
61.57(c) and be Flight Review current in accordance with § 61.56(c).



"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Jim" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > However, to log PIC time you also
> > must be qualified to act as PIC of that particular aircraft.
>
> It is not required that you be qualified to be PIC of a particular
aircraft,
> only the category and class of the aircraft. As an example, if you don't
> have a high performance endorsement, you will be hard pressed to find an
FBO
> to rent you a C182. However, you could still be a safety pilot in that
> plane (and log PIC for the time actually spent as safety pilot) if you
have
> a PP-ASEL certificate.
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
> __________
>
>
>

[Jim]

Bingo. Nice job Todd.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Moore > wrote:
>
> >"John T" wrote
> >> Actually, now that I re-read the FAR sections I quoted (61.31),
> >> I think Jose may be right. This sounds like a good question to
> >> fire off to the local FSDO and/or AOPA.
> >
> >Yes John, you were incorrect, and we have beat this subject
> >to death at least three times during the past six months.
>
> Actually, John T was wrong with both his answers. The first
> time he answered the wrong question and got it wrong. The
> second time he answered the same wrong question and got it
> right, but it's still not the correct answer to the original
> third question that was asked. The correct answer to the
> original third question is "yes."
>
> The question that was asked was:
>
> "3) Ok, now the combination of the two. Lets say I do need
> an endorsment for the complex/HP aircraft. Can I log time
> as the safety pilot in this plane if I haven't yet gotten
> the endorsement for complex/HP? 91.109.b.2 says the safety
> pilot just needs to be a private pilot with the appropriate
> category and class ratings."
>
> The answer is yes, he can log the time as "safety pilot"
> provided he has the appropriate category and class ratings.
> The time should be logged as SIC (Second in Command) time
> because the applicable regulations require two pilots. SIC
> time is not useful for much, but it is recognized in the
> FAR's. As the other posts point out, it cannot be logged as
> PIC time, but that isn't the question that was asked (even
> though it's likely that was the question that he *meant* to
> ask :-)
>
> Todd Pattist
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

[John T]

"FryGuy" > wrote in message
1
>
> 1) I'm pretty sure that it is
> not a problem with me being his safety pilot but he told me I can log
> the time PIC. Is this correct?
>
> 3) Ok, now the combination of the two. Lets say I do need an
> endorsment for the complex/HP aircraft. Can I log time as the safety
> pilot in this plane if I haven't yet gotten the endorsment for
> complex/HP?

According to AOPA:
<quote>
We have a letter of interpretation from the FAA on this topic. According to
the letter, a safety pilot who does not have a complex or high-performance
endorsement can act as such, assuming they are appropriately rated in the
aircraft (ASEL, etc). However, because they do not have the appropriate
endorsement, they cannot act as PIC. This means the safety pilot would have
to log SIC for the flight.
</quote>

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[John T]

"Jim" > wrote in message

>
> I "think" John Lynch's take on the question is that you must have the
> appropriate endorsements to log PIC when acting as safety pilot. If
> the safety pilot does not act as the legal PIC he/she does not need
> the proper endorsements, however they may not log the safety pilot
> time as PIC.

Yeah, I already posted a retraction on my first answer. SIC would be
allowed under these circumstances, though.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[John T]

"john smith" > wrote in message

>
> Airplane, single engine land. What does your certificate say? Does it
> say high-performance or complex?

Would the certificate ever say "high-performance" or "complex"? Or would
that be just the logbook?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[gross_arrow]

FryGuy > wrote in message >...
> I have a couple of questions that are unclear to me regarding being a
> safety pilot and operating high performance and/or complex aircraft. I've
> tried looking these up in the 2003 FAR but I wasn't able to find a good
> answer to my questions. If you could give me the reference in the FAR if
> there is one I would appreciate it. Here they are:
>
> 1) I have a friend who needs to go practice some IFR approaches to stay
> current. I am a private pilot ASEL. I'm pretty sure that it is not a
> problem with me being his safety pilot but he told me I can log the time
> PIC. Is this correct?
>
> 2) What are the requirements for complex and high performance aircraft? I
> thought that an endorsement was required for planes with retractable gear
> and a adjustable prop and another for planes with a greater than 200
> horsepower engine. In my log book I see an endorsement line for the HP
> (there isn't a FAR reference though) but not for the complex. I looked up
> "complex" in the FAR and could not find anything regarding this.
>
> 3) Ok, now the combination of the two. Lets say I do need an endorsment
> for the complex/HP aircraft. Can I log time as the safety pilot in this
> plane if I haven't yet gotten the endorsment for complex/HP? 91.109.b.2
> says the safety pilot just needs to be a private pilot with the appropriate
> category and class ratings.
>
> Thanks for the information!
>
> Jeff Frey



the reg you are looking for is 61.31, paragraphs (e) and (f). basically,
what jose said is correct -- you may serve as safety pilot without the
endorsements required by 61.31, but you may not act as pic, and therefore
cannot log the time as pic. you can, however, log the time as sic. once
you get the endorsement(s) you can log pic if you act as pic, which must
be by prior arrangement with the flying pilot. [anytime two pilots are
in an aircraft, it is a good idea to settle who is pic prior to the
flight. it is also a good idea to discuss which duties each will perform.]

hth,

g_a

[Roger Halstead]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:06:25 GMT, "John T" > wrote:

>"FryGuy" > wrote in message
1
>>
>> 1) I am a private pilot ASEL. I'm pretty sure that it is
>> not a problem with me being his safety pilot but he told me I can log
>> the time PIC. Is this correct?
>
>Yes, you may log the time actually spent as a safety pilot as PIC.
>
>> 2) What are the requirements for complex and high performance
>> aircraft?
>
>Separate endorsements are needed for high performance and complex airplanes.
>
>14 CFR 61.31
>(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except
>as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot
>in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable landing
>gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the case of a
>seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller)...
>(f) Additional training required for operating high-performance airplanes.
>(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, no person may
>act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane (an airplane with an
>engine of more than 200 horsepower)...
>
>> 3) Can I log time as the safety
>> pilot in this plane if I haven't yet gotten the endorsment for
>> complex/HP? 91.109.b.2 says the safety pilot just needs to be a
>> private pilot with the appropriate category and class ratings.
>
>You've answered your own question. :) The safety pilot needs to be rated
>in the category and class of the aircraft.

IE Single engine land.

OTOH, I fly high performance/complex/retract. Now days I only care
that the safety pilot know what they are doing. When I was a
beginning student, I wanted some on in the right seat who could take
over if I screwed up. I want a pair of eyes that are busy looking
outside and at least somewhat familiar with the system.

Even now, although I say I only want a set of eyes and ears, the first
time someone serves as safety pilot with me, we go out and spend an
hour doing maneuvers so they can get familiar with the airplane and
its characteristics and that includes stalls and emergency procedures.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[David Reinhart]

It's just a logbook entry.

Dave Reinhart


John T wrote:

> "john smith" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Airplane, single engine land. What does your certificate say? Does it
> > say high-performance or complex?
>
> Would the certificate ever say "high-performance" or "complex"? Or would
> that be just the logbook?
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
> __________

[Robert Moore]

Andrew Koenig wrote

>>> Unless you hold an instructor or ATP certificate, you can only
>>> log PIC time for the period during which you are the sole
>>> manipulator of the controls.
>
> Robert> Not true... if more than one pilot is required (pilot
> and safety Robert> pilot) either one may be the PIC and log PIC.
>
> Hmmm... other posters differ from you on that.

In what respect do they differ? If it is my airplane and I am
the pilot flying with a hood on, I tell the safety pilot that I
am the PIC and I log PIC on two accounts. First I am the sole
manipulator of the controls and second because I AM the PIC. He
logs SIC. Second case, I am the pilot flying and I tell the
safety pilot that he is the PIC for the flight. I log PIC since
I am the sole manipulator of the controls AND he logs PIC because
he really is the PIC. See my original statement.
>
>>> I think you're right -- you need separate endorsements for
>>> each kind of high-performance airplane.
>
> Robert> Not true, an endorsement in a Cessna 210 is good for a
> Bonanza.
>
> That's because a Cessna 210 is both kinds at once, so if you're
> endorsed for a 210, you effectively have both endorsements.
>
> On the other hand, if you're endorsed for a Cessna 177RG, I
> don't think that endorsement is valid for a 182.

You are confusing "High Performance" and "Complex". The C-182 is
both complex and high performance. The C-177RG is only complex.
A "complex" endorsement is good for all complex airplanes, a "high
performance" endorsement is good for all types of high performance
airplanes.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII

[journeyman]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:41:21 GMT, Robert Moore > wrote:
>
>You are confusing "High Performance" and "Complex". The C-182 is
>both complex and high performance. The C-177RG is only complex.

Surely you mean the C-182RG is both complex & high perf. The C-182 is
only "high performance". The C-177RG is, of course, "complex" but not
"high performance".

>A "complex" endorsement is good for all complex airplanes, a "high
>performance" endorsement is good for all types of high performance
>airplanes.

True.


Morris

[Robert Moore]

(journeyman) wrote

> Surely you mean the C-182RG is both complex & high perf. The
> C-182 is only "high performance". The C-177RG is, of course,
> "complex" but not "high performance".

Yep! A slip of the fingers. :-)

Bob Moore

[JerryK]

> You can act as safety pilot without having the high performance or complex
> endorsements. All you need is to have at least a PPC and be rated in the
> a/c. (91.109(b)(1)).
>

Here is a wrinkle what if you are rated in category and class, but not
current? Ex. you have not landed in class and cat lately. Can you still
act as safetly pilot?

[FryGuy]

Ok, I think I understand now and I'm going to try and summarize what I've
gathered from reading the other posts in this thread. Thanks for
everyone who answered me even though I know this dead horse has been
beaten in the past. Please let me know if I'm wrong.

> 1) I have a friend who needs to go practice some IFR approaches to
> stay current. I am a private pilot ASEL. I'm pretty sure that it is
> not a problem with me being his safety pilot but he told me I can log
> the time PIC. Is this correct?

Yes, the pilot flying in simulated instrument conditions will log PIC
because he is the sole manipulator of the controls and I will log PIC
because prior to the flight I was designated as the PIC and the safety
pilot. I can only log PIC if I'm properly rated for the aircraft that we
are flying.

> 2) What are the requirements for complex and high performance
> aircraft? I thought that an endorsement was required for planes with
> retractable gear and a adjustable prop and another for planes with a
> greater than 200 horsepower engine. In my log book I see an
> endorsement line for the HP (there isn't a FAR reference though) but
> not for the complex. I looked up "complex" in the FAR and could not
> find anything regarding this.

61.31(e) and (f). Thanks for helping me find this. I think the Index
should point to these for "Complex" and "High Performance". I have the
ASA 2003 FAR/AIM and couldn't find it right off the bat.

> 3) Ok, now the combination of the two. Lets say I do need an
> endorsment for the complex/HP aircraft. Can I log time as the safety
> pilot in this plane if I haven't yet gotten the endorsment for
> complex/HP? 91.109.b.2 says the safety pilot just needs to be a
> private pilot with the appropriate category and class ratings.

This is kind of answered in the first question but to clear it up I can
log the time as safety pilot as long as I meet the category and class
requirements. To log PIC in a complex or high perfomance aircraft I must
be properly rated. Otherwise I would be considered SIC.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:43:09 -0700, "JerryK" >
wrote:

>Here is a wrinkle what if you are rated in category and class, but not
>current? Ex. you have not landed in class and cat lately. Can you still
>act as safetly pilot?

Of course you can. There is no requirement to be current. 91.109 says
"rated". In addition 61.55(d) specifically exempts safety pilots from the
requirements of 61.55.

You do need a current medical, though.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 00:33:21 GMT, FryGuy > wrote:

>This is kind of answered in the first question but to clear it up I can
>log the time as safety pilot as long as I meet the category and class
>requirements. To log PIC in a complex or high perfomance aircraft I must
>be properly rated. Otherwise I would be considered SIC.

I think you understand it but the use of "rated" in this context is
confusing the issue, since that term is used in 91.109 in a different way
than you appear to be using it.

Rated in this context just refers to category and class (i.e. aircraft,
single-engine land).

To log PIC as a safety pilot, in addition to being "rated", you must also
be current, have the proper endorsements and so forth. In addition, if the
pilot flying is also qualified to act as PIC, you must have made an
agreement with him that YOU would be the PIC. According to FAA legal
opinion, this agreement should be made prior to the flight.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[BTIZ]

is an endorsement for High Performance, without reference to certain FAR
paragraph a valid endorsement?

There are a variety of different endorsements, two of which you seem
concerned:
FAR61.31(e), Complex, defined as Retractable Gear, Flaps and Controllable
Pitch Propeller (example, Piper Arrow 200HP, Beech Sundowner 200HP,
retractable Cessna Skylane 235HP (also requires High Performance)) or a
Seaplane without the retractable gear but has controllable pitch prop and
flaps

FAR61.31(f), High Performance, Engine with MORE THAN 200HP (example, Beech
Bonanza 285HP, Fixed Gear Skylane 235HP) all of which normally have retract
gear, prop and flaps

Also there is:
FAR61.31(g), Pressurized Aircraft at High Altitudes
FAR61.31(i), Tail Wheel aircraft
FAR61.31(j), Glider, for different launch methods

BT

"FryGuy" > wrote in message
1...
> I have a couple of questions that are unclear to me regarding being a
snip
> 2) What are the requirements for complex and high performance aircraft? I
> thought that an endorsement was required for planes with retractable gear
> and a adjustable prop and another for planes with a greater than 200
> horsepower engine. In my log book I see an endorsement line for the HP
> (there isn't a FAR reference though) but not for the complex. I looked up
> "complex" in the FAR and could not find anything regarding this.
>
> 3) Ok, now the combination of the two. Lets say I do need an endorsment
> for the complex/HP aircraft. Can I log time as the safety pilot in this
> plane if I haven't yet gotten the endorsment for complex/HP? 91.109.b.2
> says the safety pilot just needs to be a private pilot with the
appropriate
> category and class ratings.
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:01:22 GMT, Andrew Koenig > wrote:

>>> Unless you hold an instructor or ATP certificate, you can only
>>> log PIC time for the period during which you are the sole
>>> manipulator of the controls.
>
>Robert> Not true... if more than one pilot is required (pilot and safety
>Robert> pilot) either one may be the PIC and log PIC.
>
>Hmmm... other posters differ from you on that.
>
>>> I think you're right -- you need separate endorsements for each
>>> kind of high-performance airplane.
>
>Robert> Not true, an endorsement in a Cessna 210 is good for a Bonanza.
>
>That's because a Cessna 210 is both kinds at once, so if you're endorsed
>for a 210, you effectively have both endorsements.
>
>On the other hand, if you're endorsed for a Cessna 177RG, I don't
>think that endorsement is valid for a 182.

The 177 has less than 200 HP?

If it does then the 182 might not be valid for the 177 RG.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:10:41 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld >
wrote:

>Rated in this context just refers to category and class (i.e. aircraft,
>single-engine land).

That should be "airplane, ..."


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Robert Moore]

Andrew Koenig wrote
> You're certainly right when you're talking about yourself
> because you have CFI and ATP certificates. But I still remember
> reading somewhere, probably in AOPA Pilot, that for rest of us
> mere mortals, only the sole manipulator of the controls can log
> PIC.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

From a Western Region FAA web site:

A private or commercial pilot may log PIC time when "acting as
pilot-in-command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is
required under the - - - - regulations under which the flight is
conducted". [61.51 (e)(1)(ii)]

Normally, a safety pilot, required by regulations, who scans for
traffic for a pilot flying under simulated instrument conditions is
not pilot-in-command and thus logs second-in-command. However, if
the two pilots agree that the safety pilot is designated pilot-in-
command, the safety pilot/pilot-in-command may log PIC since he is
the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft.
The pilot flying is "sole manipulator of the controls for which the
pilot is rated"" and may also log PIC. Therefore, two private
pilots may log PIC under these conditions. However, the safety
pilot/pilot-in-command must realize that anything that occurs
during the flight is his responsibility. Airspace violations, non-
compliance with ATC instructions, near mid air collision, and
runway incursions on the ground are all now charged to the safety
pilot. A recent article in a monthly aviation publications
discussed a flight where there was a violation and the two pilots
disagreed who was pilot-in-command.

Everyone in this thread would do well to check this web site.

http://www.awp.faa.gov/new/fsdo/art_pilot.htm


Bob Moore

[Jim]

as long as he's at least a PPL, rated in category and type, current,
including medical, endorsed and is required for the flight he may log PIC
time. He doesn't have to be an ATP or CFI or God. Mere mortals can
qualify.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Andrew Koenig" > wrote in message
...
> Robert> In what respect do they differ? If it is my airplane and I am
> Robert> the pilot flying with a hood on, I tell the safety pilot that
> Robert> I am the PIC and I log PIC on two accounts. First I am the
> Robert> sole manipulator of the controls and second because I AM the
> Robert> PIC. He logs SIC. Second case, I am the pilot flying and I
> Robert> tell the safety pilot that he is the PIC for the flight. I log
> Robert> PIC since I am the sole manipulator of the controls AND he
> Robert> logs PIC because he really is the PIC. See my original
> Robert> statement.
>
> You're certainly right when you're talking about yourself because you
> have CFI and ATP certificates. But I still remember reading
> somewhere, probably in AOPA Pilot, that for rest of us mere mortals,
> only the sole manipulator of the controls can log PIC.
>
> --
> Andrew Koenig,

[Jim]

I got my endorsement sometime in the late 80s and mine is one endorsement.
It was a ink stamp that the instructor had that called it a "High
Performance/Complex Airplane Endorsement". I did how ever do all my
training in a non high performance 200hp Piper Arrow.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
> FAR 61.31 says that no endorsement is needed if you have logged PIC
> time in that kind of aircraft (complex or high performance) prior to
> August 4, 1997. Does anyone remember what the required endorsement(s)
> was/were prior to this date? Were there 2 endorsements, or was there
> only one covering complex and high performance aircraft?
>
> More than once, I've wondered what the regs were prior to some change.
> Does anyone know of a web site that allows you to look up what the
> regs were on a certain date?

[C J Campbell]

As you have already seen, lots of people seem to remember private
interpretations or letters from the FAA ruling one way or another.

The regulations say that you have to be rated in category and class to act
as safety pilot. That means a pilot certified for airplane single engine
land can act as safety pilot in any single engine land airplane, from a
Pilatus PC-12 to a Cessna 152. The appropriate FAR says:

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight
unless --

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at
least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings
appropriate to the aircraft being flown.



There is no regulatory requirement that you be able to act as PIC in order
to log PIC under any circumstances. In fact the FARs are quite clear about
when you may log PIC:


(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A 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;

(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or

(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.



A strict reading of these two regulations would indicate that a private
pilot holding a certificated for single engine land airplanes may log PIC
for the time he is acting as safety pilot in a complex or high performance
airplane whether he is signed off for those airplanes or not. Others in the
FAA or anywhere else may differ in their personal opinions and may even have
written letters or articles stating their opinions, but those letters and
articles are just that: opinions. It should be remembered that many of these
people are attempting to enforce their opinion when they could not get their
ideas enacted in the regulations. They lost in committee and review, so now
they are attempting to mold public behavior through threats and
intimidation.

If the regulations do not mean what they say, then the regulations need to
be amended. Until then, the regulations have the force of law.

All of that being the case, my own personal opinion is that any pilot would
be very foolish to attempt to act as safety pilot in any airplane that he
was not fully qualified to operate. I think the regulations should be
changed. But right now the regulations are specific: you may act as safety
pilot and log PIC while doing it. There are no loopholes, gray areas, or
private interpretations here that make a convincing argument that the
regulations do not permit it.

[Ron Natalie]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> A strict reading of these two regulations would indicate that a private
> pilot holding a certificated for single engine land airplanes may log PIC
> for the time he is acting as safety pilot in a complex or high performance
> airplane whether he is signed off for those airplanes or not.

No a strict reading doesn't say that. He may be a safety pilot, as that requires
only ratings. He can not log safety pilot time as PIC time as he can not legally
be PIC.

[Bill Zaleski]

Ron is entirely correct on this. I have heard this many times during
pilot examiner school in OKC. The policy statements explained to me
from AFS-640 are very clear about this. You must be totally qualified
and legal to fly the bird by yourself in order to log PIC as a safety
pilot. (medical, category and class, flight review, and proper 61.31
endorsements) The regulations themselves are clear: In order to BE
the PIC and be the safety pilot, (and thats the only way a non-CFI,
non-manipulator can log PIC time in single pilot airplanes as a safety
pilot), you must meet ALL the prerequisites.


On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:47:33 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> A strict reading of these two regulations would indicate that a private
>> pilot holding a certificated for single engine land airplanes may log PIC
>> for the time he is acting as safety pilot in a complex or high performance
>> airplane whether he is signed off for those airplanes or not.
>
>No a strict reading doesn't say that. He may be a safety pilot, as that requires
>only ratings. He can not log safety pilot time as PIC time as he can not legally
>be PIC.
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

"Jim" > wrote in message >...
> It is my understanding (always subject to correction) that as a safety pilot
> you may log PIC time because you are indeed a required crew member for the
> operation. However, to log PIC time you also must be qualified to act as
> PIC of that particular aircraft.

Well you could log SIC, but to log PIC but must **BE** pilot in
command, not just qualified. To log SIC you only need cat/class/<type
if required>.

[Jim]

I'd agree with that. I got an additional endorsement when I got checked out
in a 182RG a couple years ago. However strange it may seem, the FBO's
insurance statement requires 100 hours in retractables or 10 hours
instruction in the 182RG, it doesn't mention high performance time
requirements. Obviously gear up landings are more common than torque roll
stall/spins on go-around.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...
> You are only grandfathered with the 1997 changes according to the
> airplane type that you got the previously lumped complex/high
> performance endorsement in. A close look at 61.31 (f) (2) indicates
> that the Arow endorsement will not suffice for high performance. The
> biggest reason that you might want to get re-endorsed are for
> insurance purposes.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:41:11 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>
> >I got my endorsement sometime in the late 80s and mine is one
endorsement.
> >It was a ink stamp that the instructor had that called it a "High
> >Performance/Complex Airplane Endorsement". I did how ever do all my
> >training in a non high performance 200hp Piper Arrow.
>

[Jim]

> No a strict reading doesn't say that. He may be a safety pilot, as that
requires
> only ratings. He can not log safety pilot time as PIC time as he can not
legally
> be PIC.


Right. Which brings me back to a question I had earlier. Is there ever a
circumstance that a pilot can log PIC time when he is not certified,
endorsed or current in that aircraft? I can't think of a case but maybe I'm
overlooking something.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

[Peter Duniho]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
> FAR 61.31 says that no endorsement is needed if you have logged PIC
> time in that kind of aircraft (complex or high performance) prior to
> August 4, 1997. Does anyone remember what the required endorsement(s)
> was/were prior to this date? Were there 2 endorsements, or was there
> only one covering complex and high performance aircraft?

It was basically the same as it is now, but not written as clearly. It
combined the "complex" and "high performance" in a single paragraph, using
the words "as appropriate" to cover the two different situations. While the
regulation wasn't intended as such, many people took it to mean that an
endorsement for a "complex" sufficed for flying a "high performance"
airplane, and vice a versa.

I presume that the grandfather clause in the new regulation is intended to
try to acknowledge that ambiguity. Even prior to the change, no one should
have been flying without the appropriate endorsement.

Pete

[Ron Natalie]

"Jim" > wrote in message ...

> Right. Which brings me back to a question I had earlier. Is there ever a
> circumstance that a pilot can log PIC time when he is not certified,
> endorsed or current in that aircraft? I can't think of a case but maybe I'm
> overlooking something.
> --
Sure there is. There are three ways to log PIC time (for those not CFIs or ATPs).

1. Sole occupant of the aircraft.
2. Sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated.
3. Pilot in command of a multipilot operation (under the regs/type certificate)

#1 doesn't require you to be rated in the aircraft. Your instructor can sign you off to go
solo on any pilot certificate (student or otherwise).

#2 doesn't require currency or endorsement requirements to be met provided there is
someone else aboard who is actually PIC.

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| > A strict reading of these two regulations would indicate that a private
| > pilot holding a certificated for single engine land airplanes may log
PIC
| > for the time he is acting as safety pilot in a complex or high
performance
| > airplane whether he is signed off for those airplanes or not.
|
| No a strict reading doesn't say that. He may be a safety pilot, as that
requires
| only ratings. He can not log safety pilot time as PIC time as he can not
legally
| be PIC.

Where does it say that in the regulations?

[C J Campbell]

"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...
| Ron is entirely correct on this. I have heard this many times during
| pilot examiner school in OKC. The policy statements explained to me
| from AFS-640 are very clear about this. You must be totally qualified
| and legal to fly the bird by yourself in order to log PIC as a safety
| pilot. (medical, category and class, flight review, and proper 61.31
| endorsements) The regulations themselves are clear: In order to BE
| the PIC and be the safety pilot, (and thats the only way a non-CFI,
| non-manipulator can log PIC time in single pilot airplanes as a safety
| pilot), you must meet ALL the prerequisites.
|

No dice. Policy statements and wishful thinking are not regulations. Show me
a regulation, please.

[Matthew Waugh]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> There is no regulatory requirement that you be able to act as PIC....
> ....
> (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.

What part of that is not clear to you? To log PIC as a safety pilot
(required crewmember) you must be "acting" as PIC and acting as PIC requires
a myriad of requirements, but in this case I refer you to 61.31 where the
phrase "act as PIC" is used extensively.

You keep saying "point me to the regulation" when you already quoted the
regulation.

Mat

--
Matthew Waugh
Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm

[Bill Zaleski]

Ron & Peter are exactly on point in this area. You need to stop
reading between the lines and take the FAR exactly as written. If you
want to BE the PIC, you must qualify as one just as any pilot must.
There is no automatic relief just because you are a required crew
member. Somebody has to qualify as PIC and there can only be one, but
both can LOG PIC, under the very clear regulation.




On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 02:30:52 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>> No dice. Policy statements and wishful thinking are not regulations. Show
>me
>> a regulation, please.
>
>You have the regulation in front of you. You quoted part of it. There is
>nothing that says that a person acting as safety pilot is acting as PIC.
>Furthermore, one must meet very specific requirements in order to act as
>PIC, and those include having appropriate endorsements and having a current
>medical.
>
>Your post indicates to me that you, for some reason, believe that acting as
>safety pilot automatically means you are also acting as PIC. It does not.
>The person under the hood may well be acting as PIC, even in visual
>conditions. If the safety pilot is not qualified to act as PIC (e.g.
>without appropriate endorsements, ratings, or current medical), then the
>person under the hood MUST be acting as PIC.
>
>Pete
>

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > No dice. Policy statements and wishful thinking are not regulations.
Show
| me
| > a regulation, please.
|
| You have the regulation in front of you. You quoted part of it. There is
| nothing that says that a person acting as safety pilot is acting as PIC.
| Furthermore, one must meet very specific requirements in order to act as
| PIC, and those include having appropriate endorsements and having a
current
| medical.
|
| Your post indicates to me that you, for some reason, believe that acting
as
| safety pilot automatically means you are also acting as PIC.

OK, you convince me. However, I never believed that the safety pilot was
automatically PIC.

[Robert Perkins]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 22:18:50 -0500, "Highfllyer" >
wrote:

>> Yah. That "more than" removed a lot of planes from the high
>> performance category.
>>
>
>I always thought it interesting that my current Stinson Reliant, that
>cruises at 100 knots on 300HP, is officially a "high performance" while my
>old straight 35 Bonanza with its E185 185 horsepower engine and controllable
>pitch prop that cruised at 160 knots was NOT "high performance."

I was told the high performance regs had more to do with left turning
tendencies, dangerous on the runway during takeoff for example, than
they did with cruising speeds.

Rob

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Many people" included the FAA. The official FAA opinion (before 1997)
> was
> > that a high performance signoff meant you were good to fly either a
> complex
> > or >200 HP aircraft. They did not differentiate (despite whatever the
> original
> > writer of the reg intended).
>
> I never saw that opinion. Was it actually published? Can you provide a
> citation? The wording of the regulation, because of the use of the words
> "as appropriate", seemed to pretty clearly mean one endorsement did not
> qualify for the other. Logically, it makes no sense that it would.

Ron is correct. The regulations were changed in 1997. We now have two
separate endorsements (the "high-performance" endorsement was added). Under
the old regs, there was only one.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> Ron is correct. The regulations were changed in 1997. We now have two
> separate endorsements (the "high-performance" endorsement was added).
Under
> the old regs, there was only one.

I know the regulations were changed in 1997. If you'd been paying
attention, you'd have noticed I said so.

But the previous regulation required the endorsement to apply to complex or
high-performance separately "AS APPROPRIATE". Nothing in the regulation
could be logically regarded to mean that an endorsement for high-performance
aircraft would apply to complex aircraft as well. The regulation took pains
to call out that the endorsement needed to be APPROPRIATE to the clause
referred to in the regulation. That is, complex OR high performance.

The new regulation is simply a clarified restatement of the old one. It's
not semantically different.

Pete

[Ron Natalie]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message ...

> | No a strict reading doesn't say that. He may be a safety pilot, as that
> requires
> | only ratings. He can not log safety pilot time as PIC time as he can not
> legally
> | be PIC.
>
> Where does it say that in the regulations?
>
61.51 (e)(1)(iii) ... is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft requring more
than one pilot...

When acting as pilot in command, you must meet the other requirements
of being pilot in command:

61.31(e)(1) ...no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane unless...

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 21:58:42 -0500, "Highfllyer" >
wrote:

>Nah. The regulation says "properly rated in category and class". Category
>and class is "single engine" and "land."
>
>High performance signoff is an endorsement and not a rating and does not
>change your "rating" in any way.
>
>It is one of those things that is open to interpretation. Remember when the
>safety pilot regs were written there were no such things as "endorsements"
>for "complex or high performance."
>
>I have no such "endorsements" in my logbooks and I doubt I ever shall. I
>normally fly a 300 HP taildragger! :-)

Me neither and the FAA went on record some years ago that the safety
pilot does not have to have the high performance/complex
endorsement(s) As I mentioned earlier, I do take first time safety
pilots for me, out and give them a good familiarization on how to fly
the Deb.

Now as the safety pilot is "required" I could care less how they log
it. They are "to me", essentially PIC at least part of the time.
I enter their name in my log and leave it up to them how ever they
want to log it in theirs.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)


>
>
>"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>> "Jim" > wrote in message
>>
>> >
>> > I "think" John Lynch's take on the question is that you must have the
>> > appropriate endorsements to log PIC when acting as safety pilot. If
>> > the safety pilot does not act as the legal PIC he/she does not need
>> > the proper endorsements, however they may not log the safety pilot
>> > time as PIC.
>>
>> Yeah, I already posted a retraction on my first answer. SIC would be
>> allowed under these circumstances, though.
>>
>> --
>> John T
>> http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
>> __________
>>
>>
>>
>

[Simon]

There is a difference between (1) serving as pilot in command, (2) acting as
pilot in command, and (3) logging pilot in command. The last two apply to
part 91 operations. Logging pic and acting as pic are not related.

Simon
AWP-FSDO-SDL

[Simon]

Acting as pilot in command is the situation where the pilot is (in his or
her mind) the pilot in command. Logging is independant of acting, you are
correct, in the USA there is a tenuous relationship betwee the two. Serving
as pilot in command does not apply to part 91 operations, as I mentioned in
the relevant post. It is a concept used in air carrier regulatory parts, and
may include time serving as (rated but not yet fully qualified) pic (as in
incomplete IOE) when someone else, such as an IOE check airman, is THE pic,
and this time applies to things like high minimums. That is a very short
summary and does not include the exceptions, wherefores, herinafters,
limited to's, and so on. I include it because it provides a more complete
picture of the concepts discussed.

Fly safe

Simon
AWP-FSDO-SDL

[Robert Moore]

"Simon" wrote

> Acting as pilot in command is the situation where the pilot is
> (in his or her mind) the pilot in command. Logging is
> independant of acting, you are correct, in the USA there is a
> tenuous relationship betwee the two. Serving as pilot in command
> does not apply to part 91 operations, as I mentioned in the
> relevant post. It is a concept used in air carrier regulatory
> parts, and may include time serving as (rated but not yet fully
> qualified) pic (as in incomplete IOE) when someone else, such as
> an IOE check airman, is THE pic, and this time applies to things
> like high minimums. That is a very short summary and does not
> include the exceptions, wherefores, herinafters, limited to's,
> and so on. I include it because it provides a more complete
> picture of the concepts discussed.

I think that you still have your words mixed-up. Quoting from
FAR 121 concerning Operating Experience:

"Section 121.434: Operating experience, operating cycles, and
consolidation of knowledge and skills.
(a) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person
serve as a required crewmember of an airplane unless the person
has satisfactorily completed, on that type airplane and in that
crewmember position, the operating experience, operating cycles, and
the line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and
skills, required by this section, except as follows:

(1) Crewmembers other than pilots in command may serve as provided
herein for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section.

(2) Pilots who are meeting the pilot in command requirements MAY
SERVE AS SECOND-IN-COMMAND.

(c) Pilot crewmembers must acquire operating experience and operating
cycles as follows:

(1) A pilot in command must --

(i) PERFORM THE DUTIES of a pilot in command under the supervision of
a check pilot;"

No instance of "acting as pilot-in-command" was found in Part 121.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[Simon]

I agree. Serving is a 121 concept. Acting is a part 91 concept which applies
to 121 also. The 61.51 provision for logging pic while acting as pic for
those operations requiring the use of an ATP is one such example where
acting as pic applies to 121. My point was not that acting applied to 121
but that serving was a third category of pic.

[Peter Duniho]

"Simon" > wrote in message
...
> I agree.

Do you?

> [...] My point was not that acting applied to 121
> but that serving was a third category of pic.

Hmmm...it seems that you don't agree after all. "Serving" is not a category
of PIC at all.

Pete

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:04:54 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Simon" > wrote in message
...
>> I agree.
>
>Do you?
>
>> [...] My point was not that acting applied to 121
>> but that serving was a third category of pic.
>
>Hmmm...it seems that you don't agree after all. "Serving" is not a category
>of PIC at all.
>

To me only one thing matters...It only takes Airplane, Single Engine
Land for some one to fly as safety pilot with me in my high
performance/complex/retract. It's up to them how they log it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>Pete
>

[Simon]

a good philosophy.
G3ROW WB7ULT

[Ron Natalie]

"Simon" > wrote in message ...
> Acting as pilot in command is the situation where the pilot is (in his or
> her mind) the pilot in command. Logging is independant of acting, you are
> correct, in the USA there is a tenuous relationship betwee the two.

Agreed.

> Serving
> as pilot in command does not apply to part 91 operations, ..

Oh, you mean "pretending to be PIC."