Chance to fly SIC - Question

[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).

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: PIC v. SIC

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.

I agree. But sometimes they can't log PIC. Just a couple of scenarios, some regulatory some not:

The safety pilot:

1. Doesn't have the necessary endorsements to act as PIC on the flight.

2. Doesn't have an instrument rating and the flight will be done on an instrument flight plan.

3. Doesn't have the required currency (landing currency, night landing currency, lack of flight review, etc) to act as PIC on the flight

4. Doesn't qualify to act as PIC due to club or FBO rules or insurance requirements.

5. Has very little time in type and doesn't feel qualified to act as PIC in the airplane.

 

[bobbysamd]

Acting v. acting

The safety pilot:

1. Doesn't have the necessary endorsements to act as PIC on the flight.

2. Doesn't have an instrument rating and the flight will be done on an instrument flight plan.

3. Doesn't have the required currency (landing currency, night landing currency, lack of flight review, etc) to act as PIC on the flight

4. Doesn't qualify to act as PIC due to club or FBO rules or insurance requirements.

5. Has very little time in type and doesn't feel qualified to act as PIC in the airplane.

At one time, there was nothing in the regs that permitted logging safety pilot time as second-in-command. The issue still turns on who bears responsibility for the flight, e.g., who would be pilot-in-command under the circumstances of the flight.

Someone who is flying hooded in visual conditions certainly cannot watch for traffic and take any evasive action, if needed. That is why a safety pilot is taken along. Responsibility for the safety of the flight rests with that person. Therefore, he/she is pilot-in-command, for at least as long as he/she is responsibile for the flight's safety.

Thus, even though that person might be writing second-in-command time in his/her logbook and if there is a near-miss or some other incident in which the FAA is interested, the FAA will look to that person and not necessarily at the supposed pilot-in-command, whose head was buried under the hood. The safety pilot will bear the responsibilty for whatever action, or inaction, was taken.

I would be surprised if a club or other insurance-conscious entity would let an apparently unqualified pilot serve as a safety pilot for hoodwork, but, I guess, things like that can happen. If it were me, I'd be sure I was fully current and qualified before agreeing to serve as a safety pilot under any situation, just to protect my own rear.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Acting v. acting

Someone who is flying hooded in visual conditions certainly cannot watch for traffic and take any evasive action, if needed. That is why a safety pilot is taken along. Responsibility for the safety of the flight rests with that person for. Therefore, he/she is pilot-in-command, for at least as long as he/she is responsible for the flight's safety.

Thus, even though that person might be writing second-in-command time in his/her logbook and if there is a near-miss or some other incident in which the FAA is interested, the FAA will look to that person and not necessarily at the supposed pilot-in-command, whose head was buried under the hood. The safety pilot will bear the responsibility for whatever action, or inaction, was taken.

I agree. Like any crewmember, the safety pilot has official duties with respect to the safety of flight. And, if a mishap occurs, every crewmember is likely to have to explain how his or her duties were fulfilled. But which of several pilots has ultimate responsibility for flight safety, in the absence of regulatory disability, is a matter of choice.

BTW, so far, I've never seen an FBO policy that required anything more of safety pilot qualifications than the FAA does.

 

[Timebuilder]

BTW, so far, I've never seen an FBO policy that required anything more of safety pilot qualifications than the FAA does.

Neither have I.

It DOES make sense, though, to not only meet, but exceed the requirements of the FAA when you can, such as the IFR currency requirements, which are pretty darned minimal, and also to be "fully current and qualified" when serving as a safety pilot.

 

[BellyFlyer]

Re: Re: PIC v. SIC

Here we go again.......

I agree. But sometimes they can't log PIC. Just a couple of scenarios, some regulatory some not:

The safety pilot:

1. Doesn't have the necessary endorsements to act as PIC on the flight.

You don't need endorsements to log PIC.

2. Doesn't have an instrument rating and the flight will be done on an instrument flight plan.

You don't need an instrument rating to log PIC time or instrument time, actual or simulated, under IFR or in the clouds.

3. Doesn't have the required currency (landing currency, night landing currency, lack of flight review, etc) to act as PIC on the flight.

You don't need to be current in any way to log PIC. You don't even need a medical.

4. Doesn't qualify to act as PIC due to club or FBO rules or insurance requirements.

Logging PIC is not predicated on approval from an FBO or insurance company.

5. Has very little time in type and doesn't feel qualified to act as PIC in the airplane.

You need not feel qualified to act as PIC to log PIC. For example: logging PIC during the first couple of training flights in a complex or high performance airplane.

.......Just trying to curb the spread of misinformation.

 

[Timebuilder]

...all of which proves what I have said before: unlike other activities, where a log is a record of activity, in other words a recording of what acts have been accomplished, and by whom they were, we instead have a situation where the ACT of PIC and the LOG of PIC are two entirely disparate aspects of a flight.

Only a completely nonsensical bureaucracy could create something so different from common sense.

Need an example of common sense? Okay. You have a PIC, he records (logs) PIC time. There. See how simple?

The reasons (excuses) that this is not so simple is the direct result of all of the convoluted twists and turns created by endless regulations that even inspectors do not fully understand, nor are these regulations even intended to be understood.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Re: Re: PIC v. SIC

Here we go again.......
.......Just trying to curb the spread of misinformation.

Look at my post again. Those were all reasons why a safety pilot might not be able to log PIC. (As you obviously know, in order to =log= PIC, a safety pilot must also be =acting as= PIC.)

.......Just trying to curb the spread of misreading.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Only a completely nonsensical bureaucracy could create something so different from common sense.

We part company a bit on the "nonsensical" part. I agree with you that typically a log is a log of activity, and I think that those who add a column for "acting PIC" have the right idea.

But when we are talking about 61.51 logging, we are dealing with logging for the purpose of meeting requirements for a certificate, rating or currency. Perhaps it would have been much wiser to use a different term than PIC, but logged PIC merely reflects a policy decision about what counts toward certificates or ratings.

Take just one of those requirements as an example. One of the requirements for the single-engine commercial certificate is

==============================
(2) 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time, which includes at least -
(I) 50 hours in airplanes; and
(ii) 50 hours in cross-country flight of which at least 10 hours must be in airplanes.
==============================

So two guys get into a high performance airplane for a cross country. The owner of the airplane, who has the endorsements (NFP), decides to let his friend who does not have the endorsements (FP) do all the flying. Clearly, NFP is the pilot in command of the flight - he's the only one qualified.

There are definitely grounds for reasonable disagreement on whether the policy is correct, but I don't find it particularly "nonsensical" that the FAA allows the FP to count this time toward the requirements and does not allow NFP to do so.

 

[Timebuilder]

There are definitely grounds for reasonable disagreement on whether the policy is correct, but I don't find it particularly "nonsensical" that the FAA allows the FP to count this time toward the requirements and does not allow NFP to do so.

It's the policy part that I disagree with.

They have departed from normal logic, which is making a record of what events have occurred, and constructed their own "world" where a logbook entry is different in character from being a record of an event. That's the "nonsense" part. Only a bureaucracy would see itself as being justifed in taking such an extraordinary step.

It's a little like a check forger standing before a judge, attempting to say that the signature he placed on a check was not an attempt to defraud, but was placed there solely for the purpose of demonstrating his handwriting ability. How could a sensible person regard a record of PIC be anything else but a representation that the act of being PIC had occurred?

I understand why the situation exists as it does. I simply think that the situation that requires this departure from recordkeeping, in its truest sense, is a symptom the government tendency to talk out of both sides of its mouth.

And I think that qualifies as "nonsense."

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

Re: Re: PIC v. SIC

The safety pilot:

. . .

3. Doesn't have the required currency (landing currency, night landing currency, lack of flight review, etc) to act as PIC on the flight

Could you explain how this works? Is it an issue in how the logging of PIC vs SIC works?

So I could legally take someone with a private from 1980 (assume current medical) and hasn't flown since and have him be my safety pilot?