Logging SFTY Pilot Time
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Back when I was flying GA - I thought I remembered signing for the aircraft too from the flight school. Is this not common? Did I remember wrong? How is this handled in your experience now? In this case - the private pilot who signed for the C-152 would fit the bill as you describe above. So if the safety pilot wanted to log that time as PIC then he would need to be the one to sign the plane out. Correct?
Under the regs and the official interpretations, in order to log PIC as a safety pilot, you need to be acting as PIC - be the one ultimately responsible for the flight.
That means a lot of things, some of which have nothing to do with FARs. For example, if the airplane is owned by Pilot A and he has insurance that requires the PIC to have a certain amount of time in type, he's probably not going to allow his safety pilot, who doesn't have enough time, to act as PIC and potentially void the insurance.
The flight school situation depends. Assume two pilots, both members of the flight school/FBO fully qualified to act as PIC under both the FARs and the school's policies.
The flight school may have a policy that only the member who signs for the airplane may act as PIC, in which case your supposition would be correct.
But it's probably more likely that the school's wants help its members build PIC time and has a policy that allows any member-pilot who would be authorized to sign for the airplane, to act as PIC in it no matter who signs it out.
It's a matter of there being more variation and flexibility in parts of the civilian world.
#32
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: E-175 FO
Posts: 72
So if the safety pilot wanted to log that time as PIC then he would need to be the one to sign the plane out. Correct?
There's no clear answer on that, because there's no clear issue. Generally, you assume Pilot In Command responsibility by saying, "I'm the pilot in command," or being told, "You're the pilot in command." .. and taking the authority and responsibility that such designation confers.
As you say above, it's not as black and white, when it comes to paperwork.. but when it comes to acting as PIC, it IS black and white.
Right? :>
-Fox
#33
On Reserve Forever
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Would you like fries with that gear, sir?
Posts: 270
could someone back the safety pilot x-c situation with real litature. i might have a situation like this in my book from about a year plus ago. i guess im not seeing the reasoning behind one pic getting x-c and the other can't. and i have seen many students go up and do this exact same thing. plus...what if the safety pilot did the landings, do you think that would change anything?
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
could someone back the safety pilot x-c situation with real litature. i might have a situation like this in my book from about a year plus ago. i guess im not seeing the reasoning behind one pic getting x-c and the other can't. and i have seen many students go up and do this exact same thing. plus...what if the safety pilot did the landings, do you think that would change anything?
General rule on logging PIC or SIC as a safety pilot:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...1993/Hicks.rtf
The rule on not logging cross country as a safety pilot:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...09/Gebhart.pdf
Both are links to the FAA Chief Counsel's interpretation site:
Regulations
Neither answers your specific question about what if the safety pilot does the landing. The safe answer is obviously "no." There are good reasons why the answer should be "yes" but (strictly IMO) the "no cross country" opinion is really an FAA policy decision that the Chief Counsel's office is supporting rather than a true legal analysis of the regs. You'd need to ask the FAA Chief Counsel's office and, IMO, they would come up with a way to give you a "no" answer.
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B744 FO
Posts: 375
Safety pilot time is not flight time
The safety pilot exists solely for the benefit of the pilot under the hood, not for the benefit of time-builders. Simply don't log it at all. You're not flying. You're looking out for the other guy so he can practice instrument flying in VFR conditions. Maybe the guy under the hood will feel grateful enough to sit as safety pilot for you when you want some instrument-reference practice.
It's not flighttime, don't log it. Timebuilders are all the same, trying to wring hours out of every poorly-worded FAR or shakey situation.
It's not flighttime, don't log it. Timebuilders are all the same, trying to wring hours out of every poorly-worded FAR or shakey situation.
#36
The safety pilot exists solely for the benefit of the pilot under the hood, not for the benefit of time-builders. Simply don't log it at all. You're not flying. You're looking out for the other guy so he can practice instrument flying in VFR conditions. Maybe the guy under the hood will feel grateful enough to sit as safety pilot for you when you want some instrument-reference practice.
It's not flighttime, don't log it. Timebuilders are all the same, trying to wring hours out of every poorly-worded FAR or shakey situation.
It's not flighttime, don't log it. Timebuilders are all the same, trying to wring hours out of every poorly-worded FAR or shakey situation.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MrBigAir
Aviation Law
21
11-06-2008 08:00 AM