Chance to fly SIC - Question

[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?

 

[Northern Lights]

So what did you do?

Hey BoDean! How did it all turn out? Did you go on the flight? Did you log it as anything?

Just curious.

 

[flx757]

And did that half hour of MULTI SIC time make any difference in the big scheme of things whatsoever, other than what learning may have transpired?

 

[bobbysamd]

Acting v. "Acting" - Scary

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 . . .

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?

I have my ATP, but I haven't flown since 1993. (I had renewed my medical, but it went out in December). And I could serve, legally, as someone's safety pilot??!!?? Yes, I did read the reg.

There comes a time when good judgment trumps regulatory permissiveness. To paraphrase the expression, if nominated I will not go and if selected I will not fly.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

Re: Acting v. "Acting" - Scary

I have my ATP, but I haven't flown since 1993. (I had renewed my medical, but it went out in December). And I could serve, legally, as someone's safety pilot??!!?? Yes, I did read the reg.

There comes a time when good judgment trumps regulatory permissiveness. To paraphrase the expression, if nominated I will not go and if selected I will not fly.

It is perfectly legal to do some solo PIC flying after 3 hours of CFI work and going to a WINGS progam 10 (or 20) years since your last time in an aircraft if you have a current medical. Hell, you could even log 3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop and carry passengers along with you on your next flight!

I totally understand that legal doesn't equal smart and I am not asking if it is smart. I was asking why it is legal. I always assumed once you lost your pilot currency, you would lose the ability to log PIC and anything like it (I assumed SIC was like PIC only a lesser version of it).

 

[bobbysamd]

Acting v. "Acting"

I have my ATP, but I haven't flown since 1993. (I had renewed my medical, but it went out in December). And I could serve, legally, as someone's safety pilot??!!??

It is perfectly legal to do some solo PIC flying after 3 hours of CFI work and going to a WINGS progam 10 (or 20) years since your last time in an aircraft if you have a current medical. Hell, you could even log 3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop and carry passengers along with you on your next flight!

(emphasis added)

That's a horse of a different color. By fulfilling those requirements, I would then be current and would have no qualms about serving as safety pilot. As part of my three hours, I would ask my instructor to let me practice out of the right seat (although, after spending as many hours as I have in it, it might seem more natural than the left! ). But, given the example above, although it might be legal, there is no way I would accept a request to be safety pilot.