Chance to fly SIC - Question

[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.

 

[bobbysamd]

Seneca PIC v. SIC

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.

. . . . and that's the long and short of it for BoDean's purposes.

If the guy lets him fly the plane, he can log all the time during which he is flying the airplane as PIC and multi. Night, too, if it is at night.

For the record, I agree 100% with Avbug's comments about logging as "SIC" time spent as a safety pilot:

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.

(emphasis added)

You can log the time as PIC. You shall log the time as PIC. Why anyone would want to log as SIC time that is legally loggable as PIC is beyond me. Thanks, Avbug.

 

[midlifeflyer]

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.

That's the problem with simple. It's so often wrong. For example, it's extremely clear, and has been so for years, that a safety pilot who is not acting as PIC may log SIC, even in a CE-152. Some people don't like the idea, but that's the way it goes. The "why would anyone want to" is another question. I wouldn't, but, to each his own.

 

[avbug]

SIC time most certainly may be logged in a Seneca. Put a Seneca under Part 135 under IFR, and unless the PIC holds a single pilot IFR-with-autopilot authorization, a SIC is required. In such a case, not only can the SIC log SIC, but should log SIC.

14 CFR 61.51(f)(2) is the reference applicable to the logging of safety pilot time as second in command. While not a command position, it is a pilot position (eg, "safety pilot"). The FAA did not intend to prevent pilots from logging SIC, nor did the FAA intend to require pilots to comply with the SIC requirements of 61.55, in order to act as PIC. However, the FAA never intended it to be a position designed to log PIC, either. The intent of the regulation clearly is a safety position. Also quite clear is that the FAA never crafted the language of 91.109 to state that a second in command is required, but only a safety pilot.

In preamble to the Federal Register (62 FR 16249-16251), note is made that the FAA has noted the concerns of AOPA and others, and has modified 61.51(f)(2) to permit safety pilots to log SIC time.

This is important; it's permitted, but was never the intent of the regulation. For those intending to do so, it's legal. It's not necessarily particularly appropriate, especially in the eyes of employers for those intending to progress to a flying career. If you're going to log the time, why not simply be designated PIC, and log PIC. That's all you need to put. Logging SIC in a small airplane looks funny at a minimum, and unless it's been logged in accordance with flights under Part 135, it may raise eyebrows. If it's logged as PIC, you needn't explain the time, just log it, and it will not raise any questions. PIC time is more valueable to you anyway...logging SIC in the case of a safety pilot only causes questions and advances you not a whit.

Labbats, if you find that abrasive, you must have tender skin. On the sandpaper scale, I run about 00, and in person, hurt just about as much. Don't take it personally.

 

[CaSyndrm]

Avbug did you post stuff on a message board years ago for Trans States Airlines. I seem to remember the name.

 

[avbug]

You know, out of thousands of posts made over the years, that one probably stands out above any other. You think?

You've got to be joking.

 

[labbats]

scccrrrrraaatttcchhhhhhh

 

[bobbysamd]

Logging SIC time

SIC time most certainly may be logged in a Seneca. Put a Seneca under Part 135 under IFR, and unless the PIC holds a single pilot IFR-with-autopilot authorization, a SIC is required. In such a case, not only can the SIC log SIC, but should log SIC.

Of course, for purposes which require an SIC, i.e. Part 135. In this situation, which people apparently are not comprehending, the orginal poster, BoDean, simply has an opportunity to ride along with someone in a Seneca who is flying out and back for a meeting. Just an ordinary flight. He is simply trying to determine if he might be able to count any of the time legitimately.

It's not that complicated an issue.

 

[CaSyndrm]

I could be wron but I'm remembering lot's of heated discussions and animosity towards you back then.

 

[bobbysamd]

PIC v. SIC

I could be wron but I'm remembering lot's of heated discussions and animosity towards you back then.

That was last fall. I couldn't understand why someone would want to log safety pilot time as SIC when it can be logged legally as PIC. The way I understand the regs, when read in their entirety, was that SICs are intended for aircraft that, in fact, require a two-person crew or under the non-Part 91 regs under which they operate.

I know that some of the regs have changed in the last eleven years, but I still couldn't understand why someone would give up PIC time when it is so important for career-building and otherwise.

Animosity? People have their opinions, including me, and sometimes resent it when a contrary, but factual, opinion is presented. I work in law. I try to persuade by facts, logic and common sense, and legal authority, if necessary. By the same token, I can be persuaded the same way.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

I would have logged some SIC time had I a safety piloted for a friend in a complex aircraft (I don't have complex endorsement).