Chance to fly SIC - Question

[BoDEAN]

Had a guy call me today. Needs someone to go with him in his 210 on a 30 min flight, so he can do a meeting, and fly back with him. Said he would offer me $100 dollars (Told him i just want the experience) but I won't argue if he wants to pay.

My question is.... Since I am multi rated, I would have to assume he will be PIC, and I will log this time as MULTI and SIC in my logbook? Does this sound "legal" to do? Sounds like a great opportunity for some IFR/Multi experience.

 

[labbats]

210 is single engine

BoDean, you've been on these boards a while now. You have to know how SIC logging works.

 

[BoDEAN]

Sorry, he has a Seneca. I was on the phone talking to someone about a 210, brain wasn't connected to the fingers.

 

[labbats]

Fair enough. But my second sentence should stand true. You can't log this flight unless you bring him some foggles bro.

 

[midlifeflyer]

210 is single engine

BoDean, you've been on these boards a while now. You have to know how SIC logging works.

I agree, but whenever someone gets what looks like an opportunity, our brains seem to turn to mush and we can only think about how we can take advantage of the time. Quite understandable.

BoDean, being multi-rated, but without a CFI-ME, given your scenario, the only time you can log on these flights are:

PIC for the time that he lets you fly the airplane (sole manipulator of the controls").

SIC if this guy goes under the hood.

That's it. Remember that the =only= time you may log SIC is if the aircraft certification =requires= more than one pilot or the type of operation =requires= more than one pilot.

A "business trip" is not an operation that requires more than one pilot. However wise it may be, the desire to have a second pilot on board does not make the second pilot "required".

 

[BoDEAN]

Correct.
He wants another pair of eyes in the plane. The weather is suppose to be IFR and he would like some additional resource in the plane per what he told me.

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

Safety Pilots-
The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently log as second in command that time during which he is acting as safety pilot. The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiation the flight that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight. If this is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with 61.51.

 

[BoDEAN]

No need for a "hood" if the whole flight will be in actual though...

 

[bigD]

No need for a "hood" if the whole flight will be in actual though...

If that's the case, you had better be the one at the controls if you plan on logging anything.

But even if you can't log it, you pulled in another hundred bucks, and you'll likely learn something in the process too!

 

[avbug]

If this is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with 61.51.

FAR 1.1? You sure about that. Read the regulation again.

The safety pilot, acting as PIC, may log PIC in accordance with 14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(iii). The authorization making this possible is 91.109(b), which requires a safety pilot (more than one crew member) during simulated instrument flight.

Note that "more than one crewmember" does not mean, state, nor imply "SIC." When one is safety pilot, one is not necessarily a second in command; SIC is not a command position, or expressely a SIC position. Simply another crewmember, like a flight engineer, loadmaster, or flight attendant.

The pilot "under the hood," acting as sole manipulator of the controls, may log the time IAW 14 CFR 61.41(e)(1)(i).

No need for a "hood" if the whole flight will be in actual though...

That's irrelevant if the flight is conducted as simulated instrument flight. If the pilot manipulating the controls is wearing a view limiting device, he is simulating instrument conditions, despite what may exist outside the airplane.

If you act as a pilot in command while fulfilling the duties of safety pilot in conditions less than VFR, or under IFR, you must be fully qualified to do so; you must be instrument rated, and have the appropriate recency of experience requirements met, as well as all other requirements necessary to legally act as PIC of the aircraft at that time.

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

FAR 1.1? You sure about that. Read the regulation again.

This and the other reply are strait from a FAR's explained book, interpreted by Lawyers.

FAR 1.1 General Definitions-
PIC means the person whom:
1. Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

2. Has been designated as PIC before or during the flight; &

3. Holds the appropriate category, class and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

 

[midlifeflyer]

FAR 1.1 General Definitions-
PIC means the person whom:

That's a great definition of the person who is acting as PIC - who has responsibility for the flight. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with logging anything - who may write numbers in a logbook column while sitting at a desk with a beer in his hand.

The entire universe of permissible logging is contained in 61.51. Unless 61.51 sends you there, any rule about who may act as PIC is irrelevant.

The safety pilot in simulated instrument conditions who is acting as PIC is allowed to because 61.51 says so, not because of anything in 1.1

If the book you are referring to says that one is permitted to log PIC by the simple fact that he or she =is= PIC without more, then it is wrong (and I'm 99% sure that it does not).

 

[Timebuilder]

Mark, is it possible he is making reference to the second part of 1.1, where an agreement is made before the flight as to the identity of the PIC? Wasn't there an interpretation about that allowing that person to log the time AS PIC?

I may be wrong, but I'll let you tell me if I am.

 

[labbats]

If I recall right, it has to be VFR for the safety pilot to log the other guy under the hood. Why do you need a safety pilot looking for traffic in IMC?

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

If I recall right, it has to be VFR for the safety pilot to log the other guy under the hood. Why do you need a safety pilot looking for traffic in IMC?

I agree, you are no longer a required flight crew member.

 

[avbug]

Again, wrong.

Simulated instrument flight is simulated instrument flight, regardless of the rules under which the flight is conducted. VFR vs. IFR speaks nothing of condition, only of regulation. That's why it's called Visual Flight RULES, vs. Instrument Flight RULES.

Weather the flight is conducted in conditions less than VFR, however, is irrelevant. If the pilot manipulating the controls is doing so as simulated instrument flight, by wearing a view limiting device, a safety pilot is needed.

The safety pilot is not there to take over in the event that the pilot manipulating the controls has a mental sneeze. The safety pilot is there to look for traffic and to back up the pilot manipulating the controls.

Weather a flight is IFR or VFR, IMC or VMC, a pilot is always beholden to the obligation to see and avoid. Period. If the pilot is manipulating the controls by restricting vision in simulated instrument flight, then the safety pilot is still required by 91.109(b). 91.109 says nothing about external conditions, only about simulated instrument flight. A pilot manipulating the controls in IMC is still simulating instrument flight...he can't see out, he's still required to have a safety pilot.

14 CFR 1.1 provides no authority to log flight time, nor does it provide any authority to act as pilot in command, nor does it make any provision or set any authority to require or permit more than one crew member.

91.109(b) sets the requirement for a safety pilot, and 61.51 sets the terms and conditions of logging flight time. Read the regulation.

1.1 consists of definitions, only. Nothing more. It is used to clarify terms used throughout the regulation. Further, there is a big difference between logging flight time or pilot time, and acting as pilot in command.

Mark, is it possible he is making reference to the second part of 1.1, where an agreement is made before the flight as to the identity of the PIC? Wasn't there an interpretation about that allowing that person to log the time AS PIC?

Only under very narrowly defined circumstances. If the pilot manipulating the controls is wearing a view limiting device, a safety pilot is required. If the safety pilot is qualified to act as PIC, and is designated as such prior to commencement of the flight, by mutual agreement or assignment, then the safety pilot may log PIC in accordance with 61.51(e)(1)(iii). At the same time, the pilot manipulating the controls may log PIC IAW 61.51(e)(1)(i).

 

[labbats]

avbug, you may be knowledgable, but you come off rather abrasive.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Mark, is it possible he is making reference to the second part of 1.1, where an agreement is made before the flight as to the identity of the PIC? Wasn't there an interpretation about that allowing that person to log the time AS PIC?

I think you're right. My answer was probably shorter (unusual for me) that it should have been. The safety pilot as PIC is one of those instances where "61.51 sends you there". 61.51 allows the safety pilot to log PIC is he is also acting as PIC - so it''s telling you that you have to look elsewhere in order to determine who is acting as PIC.

labbats saidIf I recall right, it has to be VFR for the safety pilot to log the other guy under the hood. Why do you need a safety pilot looking for traffic in IMC?

There have been some interesting arguments about this one. Remember that being in conditions less than VFR doesn't mean that you can't see anything. In addition to the obvious popping in and out of clouds, consider that clear of clouds with 4 miles vis above 10,000' is "in IMC".

And any time you can see anything there is an obligations to see and avoid. If the flying pilot chooses to be hooded, he is in "simulated instrument conditions" and still needs a safety pilot for those times when visibility would permit "see and avoid".

FWIW, I think the question comes down to how much of that safety pilot time is loggable rather than whether it can be logged at all.

 

[BellyFlyer]

A LOT of misinformation

It is amazing how much misinformation is passed around here as gospel. I do not claim to know everything, but I am quite confident in this area. I agree with Avbug, mostly:

1. The safety pilot is required when a view limiting device is in use, regardless of meteorological conditions.

2. The PIC must be determined before the flight, but may be changed at any time by mutual agreement. You could literally be in command and then not in command in the same minute during your flight.

Of course, all these possibilities create a wide variety of logging scenarios. Pt 61 and Pt 91 address this, as well as several FAA Chief Counsel Legal Opinions. And, none of this can tell you whether it's "smart" to log "this" or "that" time.

For anyone wanting to seriously look into these scenarios (and others), do yourself a favor and look at www.propilot.com

 

[CaSyndrm]

What ever happened to the KISS method. It should apply to some of these questions and answers.

YOU CAN NEVER LOG SIC IN A SENNECA. PERIOD.