If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 ews.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 __________ |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | June 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Enlisted pilots | John Randolph | Naval Aviation | 41 | July 21st 03 02:11 PM |