Safety pilot - logging cross-country

[S Herman]

For IFR practice, in the situation where both pilots are logging PIC,
one as sole manipulator, the other as acting PIC, can both pilots log
cross-country (assuming the flight meets the length requirements) for
the purpose of meeting the requirements for the Instrument Rating?

[three-eight-hotel]

I'll leave the definitive answer to those who know better than I, but
my "uneducated" guess would be.... Yes.

PIC is PIC, and XCtry is XCtry... If you are PIC (either way) of an
aircraft on a flight that meets XCtry requirements, you can log that as
XCtry/PIC time.

Looking forward to the flurry of regs... ;-)

Best Regards,
Todd

[Jose]

> For IFR practice, in the situation where both pilots are logging PIC,
> one as sole manipulator, the other as acting PIC, can both pilots log
> cross-country (assuming the flight meets the length requirements) for
> the purpose of meeting the requirements for the Instrument Rating?

I'm not sure, but I suspect the answer may be "no", and one cannot dual
log all of the flight time either.

One can =be= PIC and still not be able to =log= PIC time. One may log
PIC time when one =is= PIC on a flight that requires more than one
pilot. IFR practice is such a flight, but only during the time the
pilot flying is under the hood, and (therefore) the safety pilot is a
required crewmember. Strictly speaking, this means that one (generally)
may not log PIC time when one is flying with a non-pilot friend and
letting that friend fly the airplane. Personally, I consider that
non-pilot friend to be an organic autopilot and I log the time. I'm
sure most other pilots do the same. It also means that in a safety
pilot situation, when the safety pilot is acting as PIC, but the flight
does not require two pilots (such as when the pilot flying takes the
hood off in VMC), the safety pilot who is also PIC may not =log= PIC
time. (remember, =being= and =logging= PIC are two different and
largely unrelated animals).

XC time useful towards ratings requires landings at two different
airports separated by specified distances. One cannot (in general) log
XC time for a flight that traverses thousands of miles and then lands at
the departure airport. This rasies the question of whether, in the case
of two pilots who each fly half of an otherwise legitimate XC flight,
either one could log XC time, if one does the takeoff and the other does
the landing. Similarly, it is not clear to me whether either pilot
could log XC time if one pilot does JUST takeoff and landing, while the
other pilot does all the cross country navigating while the first pilot
naps.

If the answer to this is "no" then I'd expect the answer to the original
question to also be "no" because (generally) one lands visually, and two
pilots are not required to land a spam can, so the safety pilot (acting
as PIC) could not be logging PIC time for the actual landing or takeoff.
It is true (and perhaps sufficient) that the safety pilot, acting as
PIC, might be able to log =flight time=, but I don't see any provision
in 61.51 for such time to be applied to ratings and such, since plain
vanilla flight time is not one of the kinds of time deliniated in the
section.

Now, what the regs =say=, what they =mean=, what they were =intended= to
mean, and how they are =followed= are four different things.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Gardner]

Maybe it's me, but I wouldn't consider for a moment logging a trip that I
had not personally planned and flown on my own.

Bob Gardner

"S Herman" > wrote in message
...
> For IFR practice, in the situation where both pilots are logging PIC,
> one as sole manipulator, the other as acting PIC, can both pilots log
> cross-country (assuming the flight meets the length requirements) for
> the purpose of meeting the requirements for the Instrument Rating?

[Hilton]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Maybe it's me, but I wouldn't consider for a moment logging a trip that I
> had not personally planned and flown on my own.

A few years ago, I figured that since I wasn't PIC for the takeoff and
landing, that I couldn't log XC PIC - assuming I was safety pilot and acting
as PIC while the other gyu was under the hood.

Then I read Part 61.1, and the time on a XC that you log PIC, you can also
log XC, assuming all the other requirements are met.

Hilton

[Andrew Sarangan]

You will get a variety of answers to this, but my answer is you cannot
count that time towards your IR.

A safety pilot is required only when the other pilot is wearing a view
liimting device. Since takeoffs and landings are done visually, a
safety pilot is not required during these portions. Therefore, you
could be PIC only during the enroute portion.

However, since a cross country flight must involve a takeoff and
landing, just the enroute portion does not qualify as XC time.

In reality, it would be fooling to log PIC XC time for any flight that
you did not plan yourself.

[Jose]

> Then I read Part 61.1, and the time on a XC that you log PIC, you can also
> log XC, assuming all the other requirements are met.

Well, consider:

61.1(a)(3) Cross country time means ... time acquired during a flight -
(C) that includes a landing...

Is it the flight that has to include the landing, or the time? The
sentence (and the other similar ones) is ambiguous. It is the nature of
English, but creating unambiguous English is the job of lawyers, who
have failed in whatever attempt they made when creating the FARs.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Hilton]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> In reality, it would be fooling to log PIC XC time for any flight that
> you did not plan yourself.

Perhaps, but it seems like you're making up your own FARs. Your logic seems
to also imply that you're fooling yourself to log PIC while doing nothing
other than look out the window, but the FARs clearly say we can, and we do..

Hilton

[Doug]

In reality, it is the pilot, the instructor and the DE who must be
satisfied with the logging. Most instructors and most DE's are onboard
with both pilots logging PIC under this circumstance (but not all). Not
sure enough instructors or DE's have seen this approach to logging
cross country to know what they think. Also if you are headed for pro
pilot with a major airline, your logs will undergo scrutiny. Will they
be happy? Who knows. If you, your co-pilot, your instructor and your DE
are happy with it, go ahead and log it, if you really need the cross
country time. But realize you are logging something that is a bit of a
gray area and it may come back to bite you. Then again, maybe not.

Whatever you do, make sure you have the skills to plan a long cross
country flight through timezone changes, prevailing wind direction
issues, length of day issues, and weather issues to understand them and
be able to anticipate their effect on your flight. Also make sure you
can plan your flight into an airport you have never been to before and
all that entails. as well as deal with complicated airspace. If you can
accomplish this with your method and everyone will sign things off, you
may be ok.

No reason why BOTH of you cannot plan the flight seperately and compare
your plans and choose the best of both. Could be interesting and a good
learning experience.

[Andrew Sarangan]

Why do you say that I am making up my own FAR? Can you show that
logging PIC XC time as a safety pilot is consistent with the FARs?

[[email protected]]

Below is a copy of an FAA Chief Counsel written opinion:

==================
Legal Interpretation # 92-52

October 30, 1992

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,

/s/ Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/14/2005 08:48, wrote:

> Below is a copy of an FAA Chief Counsel written opinion:

How does answer the question set forth by the original poster?
His question was about logging x-country time, which the referenced
legal interpretation doesn't touch.

>
> ==================
> Legal Interpretation # 92-52
>
> October 30, 1992
>
> 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,
>
> /s/ Donald P. Byrne
> Assistant Chief Counsel
> Regulations Division
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Jose]

Hmmmm...

From Legal Interpretation # 92-52:

> 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.

This seems to say that the entire flight, including takeoff, landing,
and the part where the other pilot was sole manipulator while VFR and
not under the hood, could be loggable by the safety pilot as PIC time.
This implies that a pilot may log PIC time ("in accordance with FAR
1.1") when he acts as PIC, irrespective of the number of pilots
required, and irrespective of who is sole manipulator. This seems to
contradict FAR 61.51(e)(1), which in (iii) provides for time when acting
as PIC in a multi-pilot-required situation, but does not address
multi-pilot-used-but-not-required situations. By its omission there one
may infer it is intended to be omitted.

I wonder if the Chief Councel intended this contradiction. I've found
that Legal Interpretations are not all that well worded.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:01:37 -0800, Mark Hansen
> wrote:

>On 12/14/2005 08:48, wrote:
>
>> Below is a copy of an FAA Chief Counsel written opinion:
>
>How does answer the question set forth by the original poster?
>His question was about logging x-country time, which the referenced
>legal interpretation doesn't touch.

It does say:

> 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).

So, if the flight is XC, wouldn't this allow both (assuming the prior
PF/PNF/ultimate safety condition is met) to log both PIC and XC (but
no landings for PNF) time?

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/14/2005 09:40, Peter Clark wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:01:37 -0800, Mark Hansen
> > wrote:
>
>>On 12/14/2005 08:48, wrote:
>>
>>> Below is a copy of an FAA Chief Counsel written opinion:
>>
>>How does answer the question set forth by the original poster?
>>His question was about logging x-country time, which the referenced
>>legal interpretation doesn't touch.
>
> It does say:
>
>> 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).
>
> So, if the flight is XC, wouldn't this allow both (assuming the prior
> PF/PNF/ultimate safety condition is met) to log both PIC and XC (but
> no landings for PNF) time?

So what about the time when the left-seat pilot is not under the hood.
It sounds to me like they are making an exception for this case. Can
the safety pilot be PIC even while the left-seat pilot is not under
the hood? ... seems like a stretch to me.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Bob Gardner]

To each his own, Hilton. Unless I am sitting in the left seat and doing all
the work, I do not log things just because I can find regulations that
support doing so. No logging of approaches performed by a student, no
logging of PIC if I'm really the safety pilot, etc.

Bob

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> Maybe it's me, but I wouldn't consider for a moment logging a trip that I
>> had not personally planned and flown on my own.
>
> A few years ago, I figured that since I wasn't PIC for the takeoff and
> landing, that I couldn't log XC PIC - assuming I was safety pilot and
> acting as PIC while the other gyu was under the hood.
>
> Then I read Part 61.1, and the time on a XC that you log PIC, you can also
> log XC, assuming all the other requirements are met.
>
> Hilton
>
>

[three-eight-hotel]

>> Can the safety pilot be PIC even while the left-seat pilot is not under
>> the hood?

I'm guessing, no, based on:
(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log instrument
time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft
solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument
flight conditions.

In simulated conditions, once the hood is removed, it would seem to me
that only one or the other could be PIC at that point???

So... I'm beginning to sway to the side of, logging XC as safety pilot
seems to be a stretch!

Another good argument for getting that instructor rating:
(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all
flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.

[Dave Butler]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> So what about the time when the left-seat pilot is not under the hood.
> It sounds to me like they are making an exception for this case. Can
> the safety pilot be PIC even while the left-seat pilot is not under
> the hood? ... seems like a stretch to me.

To begin with, there is no safety pilot when the pilot flying is not under the
hood. So your "Can the safety pilot..." question doesn't make sense.

Aside from that, there is no requirement that the acting PIC is actually
manipulating the controls. Anyone aboard with the proper credentials can act as PIC.

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/14/2005 10:25, three-eight-hotel wrote:

>>> Can the safety pilot be PIC even while the left-seat pilot is not under
>>> the hood?
>
> I'm guessing, no, based on:
> (g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log instrument
> time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft
> solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument
> flight conditions.
>
> In simulated conditions, once the hood is removed, it would seem to me
> that only one or the other could be PIC at that point???

Well, that was my argument. One way to interpret the regs is that
both would be able to log PIC, although only one could be PIC.

>
> So... I'm beginning to sway to the side of, logging XC as safety pilot
> seems to be a stretch!

Also, each pilot needs to decide what is the point of logging such
time. If it is to show that you have the experience necessary to
afford you an advanced rating, you would really want to have that
experience. Personally, I don't think flying as a safety pilot for
another pilot on a x-country flight provides me the same x-country
'experience' as making the flight myself.

>
> Another good argument for getting that instructor rating:
> (3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all
> flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Doug]

>...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....

The pilot under the hood can log PIC for "all of the flight time during
which he is sole manipulator of the controls". If he is not under the
hood, he can't log THAT flight time. So he can't log the landing
(unless they can figure out a safe way of landing with the pilot under
the hood being "sole manipulator of the controls").

Seems clear enough to me.

As for whether the pilot under the hood can log the flight time he logs
as PIC as crosscountry....who knows? THAT is not in the FARs either
way. So you are free to make your own interpretation, I guess, so long
as everyone who signs you off is also in agreement with you, with the
caveat that someone might disagree with your interpretation. And if
that someone is senior to you, it could cause problems.

Some situations aren't in the FARs. I own an Amphib and there is quite
a bit of ambiguity about exactly how to log it, mostly revolving around
do you log it as a Seaplane if you don't land on a lake on that flight?
And can a non-seaplane rated pilot someone else flying the plane
besides me) be legal as PIC in the plane (if otherwise legal in it as a
landplane)? I have my way of doing it, it is my interpretation, but
like I say, some things aren't in the FARs.

[John T]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> Can you show that
> logging PIC XC time as a safety pilot is consistent with the FARs?

Sure. If I'm the safety pilot, I can log "Pilot in Command" time while the
hooded pilot logs "Pilot in Control" time. If we reach the destination
(say, 60nm away) where I assume control and land, I can log the flight as
PIC and XC.

Now, just because I can doesn't mean I would or should. I've mabye logged a
third of the time I've spent as a safety pilot - and those were when a
friend would be maintaining currency and not just proficiency.

It's my opinion that one should not try to game the system by sitting right
seat for a friend and then try to log that as time toward a new rating. The
point of the regs is to ensure you have the experience necessary and simply
making sure the greasy side stays down and nobody swaps paint doesn't
qualify as flight experience, IMHO.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[three-eight-hotel]

>> Personally, I don't think flying as a safety pilot for
>> another pilot on a x-country flight provides me the same x-country
>> 'experience' as making the flight myself

In general, I agree, and based on my most recent interpretation of the
regs through this discussion and further looking at the regs, I would
say that it would definitely be a stretch to log XC PIC time while
acting as a safety pilot.

As far as "experience" goes, though... If you participate in the
planning of the flight and are involved in making sure the flight stays
on track, I don't see how you get any less experience out of the flight
than the manipulator of the controls. Once that bird is airbourne, it
pretty much flies itself and we merely become navigators. I think both
occupants benefit equally from an experience standpoint.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and actually agree on what's
loggable and what isn't. I'm just suggesting that as a right seat
passenger, of any flight, I feel like I gain valuable experience (even
though I can't log it) and only feel deprived of any landing
experiences.

Best Regards,
Todd

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/14/2005 10:50, three-eight-hotel wrote:

>>> Personally, I don't think flying as a safety pilot for
>>> another pilot on a x-country flight provides me the same x-country
>>> 'experience' as making the flight myself
>
> In general, I agree, and based on my most recent interpretation of the
> regs through this discussion and further looking at the regs, I would
> say that it would definitely be a stretch to log XC PIC time while
> acting as a safety pilot.
>
> As far as "experience" goes, though... If you participate in the
> planning of the flight and are involved in making sure the flight stays
> on track, I don't see how you get any less experience out of the flight
> than the manipulator of the controls. Once that bird is airbourne, it
> pretty much flies itself and we merely become navigators. I think both
> occupants benefit equally from an experience standpoint.

The difference, in my opinion, is in who is taking responsibility
for the planning, nav, control, etc. of the flight. In the case where
there are two pilots sharing the duties, is either one really taking
responsibility? I know they can decide in advance who will be PIC,
but when you get right down to it, only one person really planned
that flight; only one person really flew it; only one person really
landed, etc.

It's similar, in my mind, to a primary student going out for his first
solo - that is the first time he is really responsible for the control
of the airplane, even though the instructor may not have touched the
controls in some time.

>
> I'm not trying to be argumentative, and actually agree on what's
> loggable and what isn't. I'm just suggesting that as a right seat
> passenger, of any flight, I feel like I gain valuable experience (even
> though I can't log it) and only feel deprived of any landing
> experiences.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue with you ;-)
Every time I get involved with a thread here, I learn something.
What a great resource!

>
> Best Regards,
> Todd
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[[email protected]]

Dave Butler > wrote:
: To begin with, there is no safety pilot when the pilot flying is not under the
: hood. So your "Can the safety pilot..." question doesn't make sense.

: Aside from that, there is no requirement that the acting PIC is actually
: manipulating the controls. Anyone aboard with the proper credentials can act as PIC.

I feel obligated to point out the parallel situation of "safety pilot" logging
PIC. Consider a MEL-rated pilot acting as PIC with his buddy with SEL-rating flying
while enroute. Neither one can legally log PIC time if you interpret the regs
literally. The acting PIC cannot because he's not physically manipulating the
controls. The SEL-rated guy cannot because although he is manipulating the
controls, he is not rated in the aircraft.

Same way with a non-pilot manipulating the controls. I believe the FARs
specify this as illegal so the SEL/MEL example may be illegal as well.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[three-eight-hotel]

So that means my seven year old daughter can't log PIC time for the
last XC trip we took to Columbia, CA? ;-)

I took off and landed, but she held the controls, on a trimmed
airplane... I guess that also means that since I did not manipulate
the controls during the enroute phase of the flight, I can't log PIC
time either??? Man... that's gonnna really screw up my logbook! ;-)

Serioiusly though... What about that? How many times do we take a
non-pilot friend flying and let them fly the plane? How are the regs
supposed to be interpreted in that case? This grey area seems to get
broader and broader!

Best Regards,
Todd

[Jose]

> Can
> the safety pilot be PIC even while the left-seat pilot is not under
> the hood? ... seems like a stretch to me.

The seat occupied isn't important; I take it you mean "pilot flying".
Given that, yes, the safety pilot can =be= PIC. It's the =logging= of
PIC time that is the issue. It sounds like he's trying to say "yes" and
not quite succeeding.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Same way with a non-pilot manipulating the controls. I believe the FARs
> specify this as illegal

Not for part 91, that I know of.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I had over a
> thousand hours in gliders out of gliding range of home, and
> many, many flights more than 50 nm from home, but the regs
> say it isn't XC because I didn't land.

How did you get out of the aircraft? Must've been a long step down.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:55:18 -0800, Mark Hansen
> wrote:

>On 12/14/2005 09:40, Peter Clark wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:01:37 -0800, Mark Hansen
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/14/2005 08:48, wrote:
>>>
>>>> Below is a copy of an FAA Chief Counsel written opinion:
>>>
>>>How does answer the question set forth by the original poster?
>>>His question was about logging x-country time, which the referenced
>>>legal interpretation doesn't touch.
>>
>> It does say:
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> So, if the flight is XC, wouldn't this allow both (assuming the prior
>> PF/PNF/ultimate safety condition is met) to log both PIC and XC (but
>> no landings for PNF) time?
>
>So what about the time when the left-seat pilot is not under the hood.
>It sounds to me like they are making an exception for this case. Can
>the safety pilot be PIC even while the left-seat pilot is not under
>the hood? ... seems like a stretch to me.

Plain-text: "If this is done, then the safety pilot may log all the
flight time as PIC time in accordance with FAR 1.1". So, as someone
else pointed out, PNF really isn't a "safety pilot" per-se, but is
more in that they accept ultimate responsibility for the flight and
can thus log *all* the flight time. Otherwise, they would just log
SIC for the time the PF is under the hood.

[[email protected]]

The FAQ's say "no", using the same logic as Andrew Sarangan.

However, it seems to me that you each could make a landing at the
destination airport and thus both meet the requirements of a X/C.

[Andrew Sarangan]

Once the safety pilot assumes control of the aircraft and lands, the
other pilot will obviously not be the sole manipulator. Therefore the
other pilot can only log PIC for the enroute portion. Since a XC flight
must involve a landing, I don't see how he could log the flight as XC.

[Hilton]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> To each his own, Hilton. Unless I am sitting in the left seat and doing
> all the work, I do not log things just because I can find regulations that
> support doing so. No logging of approaches performed by a student, no
> logging of PIC if I'm really the safety pilot, etc.

As long as you log a subset of what the FARs allow, I have no problem with
that - we know the FARs don't require that you log everything. Having said,
the issue here is what the FARs allow (and don't) and not what our opinions
or conventions are. For example, I don't necessarily agree that my friend
who has no complex endorsement should be able to log PIC-complex time when
he flies the Cutlass with me as a CFI next to him, but he can according to
the FARs, and when I instruct him, both the PIC and complex columns are
filled in.

Hilton

[Newps]

Hey Hilton,

How about answering my email to your company about the registration key.
I know you're in there.



Hilton wrote:
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>>To each his own, Hilton. Unless I am sitting in the left seat and doing
>>all the work, I do not log things just because I can find regulations that
>>support doing so. No logging of approaches performed by a student, no
>>logging of PIC if I'm really the safety pilot, etc.
>
>
> As long as you log a subset of what the FARs allow, I have no problem with
> that - we know the FARs don't require that you log everything. Having said,
> the issue here is what the FARs allow (and don't) and not what our opinions
> or conventions are. For example, I don't necessarily agree that my friend
> who has no complex endorsement should be able to log PIC-complex time when
> he flies the Cutlass with me as a CFI next to him, but he can according to
> the FARs, and when I instruct him, both the PIC and complex columns are
> filled in.
>
> Hilton
>
>

[John T]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com
>
> Once the safety pilot assumes control of the aircraft and lands, the
> other pilot will obviously not be the sole manipulator. Therefore the
> other pilot can only log PIC for the enroute portion. Since a XC
> flight must involve a landing, I don't see how he could log the
> flight as XC.

That wasn't your question, though. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[nooneimportant]

"S Herman" > wrote in message
...
> For IFR practice, in the situation where both pilots are logging PIC,
> one as sole manipulator, the other as acting PIC, can both pilots log
> cross-country (assuming the flight meets the length requirements) for
> the purpose of meeting the requirements for the Instrument Rating?
>


What is the definition of a cross country.... I seem to recall something
along the lines of "A takeoff from one airport with a landing at another
airport utilizing pilotage, dead reckoning, radio nav or other means of
navigation. Kicker is this can include the little five minute hop from one
airport to a less busy one for landing practice... Now then... What are the
requirements for those cross country's for the instrument rating.... They
must be 50+NM right? Now consider this, you are acting as safety pilot on
someone elses cross country, the other person is under the hood. Who is
doing the landings? Hopefully its the guy under the hood so he/she can
practice an approach/breakout/landing sequence and thereby have a landing to
make their flight a cross country. So if they do the landing it must mean
that YOU didn't do the landing. So even though you were acting as PIC wile
the other person was under the hood, AND you may have covered more then
50NM, YOU did not perform the landing and therefor can NOT log it as XC.

[Hilton]

Newps wrote:
> How about answering my email to your company about the registration key. I
> know you're in there.

:) Gimme a hint at which email that was. We had a couple of emails get
marked as spam. Were you the one I sent an email (and key) to earlier
today? BTW: Make sure when you send an email, you say "I'm Newps" - I'll
make sure to get back to you ASAP.

BTW: WingX Version 1.7.5.0 (Beta) will be made available later this week.
It adds free weather (METARs, TAFs, winds aloft, temps aloft, etc), Seattle
Avionics Voyager and Anywhere Map support, adds a lot more runway
information, as well as numerous other improvements. If you're OK running
Betas, please try it out and let me/us know what you think.

Hilton

[Hilton]

Hilton wrote:
> BTW: WingX Version 1.7.5.0 (Beta) will be made available later this week.

I meant to add that 1.7.5.0 will be released as a patch so you must have
WingX already installed. We won't be selling 1.7.5.0 separately, it'll be
an update/patch (kinda like buying an XP machine and getting the patches).

Hilton

[Hilton]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Once the safety pilot assumes control of the aircraft and lands, the
> other pilot will obviously not be the sole manipulator. Therefore the
> other pilot can only log PIC for the enroute portion. Since a XC flight
> must involve a landing, I don't see how he could log the flight as XC.

Part 61.1:
(ii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements
(except for a rotorcraft category rating), for a private pilot certificate
(except for a powered parachute category rating), a commercial pilot
certificate, or an instrument rating, or for the purpose of exercising
recreational pilot privileges (except in a rotorcraft) under §61.101 (c),
time acquired during a flight...

Note "time acquired during a (XC) flight"; it is a XC flight, therefore you
may log the time acquired during it. It's as simple as that, black and
white; no mention of 'planning' in sight and nothing that says you must be
any form of required crewmember during the *entire* flight.

Hilton

[Stubby]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>
>>The difference, in my opinion, is in who is taking responsibility
>>for the planning, nav, control, etc. of the flight. In the case where
>>there are two pilots sharing the duties, is either one really taking
>>responsibility?
>
>
> Yes. The pilot acting as PIC takes responsibility.
>
>
>>I know they can decide in advance who will be PIC,
>>but when you get right down to it, only one person really planned
>>that flight; only one person really flew it; only one person really
>>landed, etc.
>
>
> The FAR's are quite clear. If you are acting as PIC, these
> are your responsibilities. You should not accept them
> lightly.
>
A flight has exactly one PIC. That person is the one responsible for
the safe conduct of the flight and is the one that will get sued when
something bad happens. I'm not sure the term "acting PIC" appears in
the FARs -- can someone quote the definition for me?

[[email protected]]

: or conventions are. For example, I don't necessarily agree that my friend
: who has no complex endorsement should be able to log PIC-complex time when
: he flies the Cutlass with me as a CFI next to him, but he can according to
: the FARs, and when I instruct him, both the PIC and complex columns are
: filled in.

I think that the complex endorsement thing is somewhere where the FAR's
actually do what seems to be the "right way." It's hard enough (in both convenience
and expense) to get the time necessary to satisfy *insurance* requirements these
days... let alone FAR-mandated time requirements. The ability to manipulate the
controls of an aircraft for which you are rated, yet not legally allowed to act as PIC
for (complex/high-performance, no BFR, no medical, etc) lets people fly cheaper and
gain more experience in flying and in different aircraft. If they had to rent a
suitable aircraft and instructor for absolutely everything, they would be much less
inclined to casually learn things at a slower rate. You can bet your ass that if I'm
paying over $150/hour to rent a complex aircraft and instructor to get an endorsement,
I'm not going to fly it a second longer than I have to. If I can fly in a friend's
complex for the cost of (half) the fuel and a burger, I'll enjoy the flight and learn
more. The FARs dictate minimum time, but it's the *experience* and *proficiency* of
the pilot that is the intent.

</rant>

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
: > Same way with a non-pilot manipulating the controls. I believe the FARs
: > specify this as illegal

: Not for part 91, that I know of.

I remember reading it in black-and-white, but now that I look back (and do a
quick search), I see I was probably reading part 121.545 or 135.115.

Interesting... it solves a loophole I had in my head for awhile about letting
non-pilots manipulate the controls. If you literally read the conditions under which
one may log PIC time, that is not loggable. I find it quite ****ty that a specific
letter had to clarify this situation as it's not in the FARs. Basically, when the FAA
thinks it's appropriate, "acting as PIC" consitutes being able to "log PIC"... it's
just never used that way in the FARs.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Hilton]

Hi,

> What is the definition of a cross country.... I seem to recall something
> along the lines of...
[zap]
> So even though you were acting as PIC wile the other person was under the
> hood, AND you may have covered more then 50NM, YOU did not perform the
> landing and therefor can NOT log it as XC.

I suggest reading the relavent FAR before coming to a conclusion.

Thanks,

Hilton

[Hilton]

Hi,

Sure, I understand the economics of it. But can my non-complex-endorsed
friend really make a judgement call about a gear failure? No. But as you
say, they are gaining experience in the aircraft. So why can't a student
log multi time then? It then becomes a question of semantics.

Having said all that, the key is to understanding and applying the FARs as
written and that means understanding that ACTING and LOGGING PIC are very
different things. Unfortunately, in my humble guestimation, a very low
percentage of pilots (including CFIs) don't understand/know the concept. I
only know it because of my involvement in these NGs.

Hilton


> wrote in message
...
>: or conventions are. For example, I don't necessarily agree that my
>friend
> : who has no complex endorsement should be able to log PIC-complex time
> when
> : he flies the Cutlass with me as a CFI next to him, but he can according
> to
> : the FARs, and when I instruct him, both the PIC and complex columns are
> : filled in.
>
> I think that the complex endorsement thing is somewhere where the FAR's
> actually do what seems to be the "right way." It's hard enough (in both
> convenience
> and expense) to get the time necessary to satisfy *insurance* requirements
> these
> days... let alone FAR-mandated time requirements. The ability to
> manipulate the
> controls of an aircraft for which you are rated, yet not legally allowed
> to act as PIC
> for (complex/high-performance, no BFR, no medical, etc) lets people fly
> cheaper and
> gain more experience in flying and in different aircraft. If they had to
> rent a
> suitable aircraft and instructor for absolutely everything, they would be
> much less
> inclined to casually learn things at a slower rate. You can bet your ass
> that if I'm
> paying over $150/hour to rent a complex aircraft and instructor to get an
> endorsement,
> I'm not going to fly it a second longer than I have to. If I can fly in a
> friend's
> complex for the cost of (half) the fuel and a burger, I'll enjoy the
> flight and learn
> more. The FARs dictate minimum time, but it's the *experience* and
> *proficiency* of
> the pilot that is the intent.
>
> </rant>
>
> -Cory
>
>
> --
>
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss *
> * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>