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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim" wrote in message news 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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |