Safety pilot - logging cross-country

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'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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

: 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 *
************************************************** ***********************