FAR:Safety Pilot & High Performance/Complex?

There is no regulatory requirement that you be able to act as PIC in order
to log PIC under any circumstances.
[...(^-1)]
A strict reading of these two [quoted below] 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.


In this case, I think not.


(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;


Well, this doesn't apply to a safety pilot, unless the flight is already going
badly.


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


Doesn't apply to a safety pilot. I'll let you figure out why.


(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.


So we're left with this. In this case the safety pilot must be able to act as
PIC. He or she can't do this unless they have the endorsements appropriate to
the aircraft (i.e. if high performance, tailwheel, or whatever).

So, you can't log PIC as a safety pilot unless you ARE PIC, and have the
(necessary) endorsements to act as PIC.

Jose



(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"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?

"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.

"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

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

"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.

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

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

"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

"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...