Logging Approaches

[Flying Illini]

I don't log any flown entirely in VMC
I don't log any that only fly through several hundred feet of clouds...unless those clouds are on the ground and force me to fly to minimus.
I DO log any that start in IMC, even if we break out at 600' AGL (but not those where we break out at 2000' AGL. Is that illegal?

Can I only log the approaches that are to minimums?

 

[Pickle]

I think that as long as you have any amount of IMC after being cleared for the approach, you can log the approach.

I don't think that you have to go down to mins for it to count.

 

[ilkwamh2]

Yo Illini,

I remember talking this over with "the shark" if you remember who she is. You legally flew an approach if you have passed the final approach fix. So basically, if you are suppose to intercept glide slope at 2000' feet, and at 1999' you brake out of the clouds, you technically can count that as an approach. I certainly wouldn't though...so for me, it's at my discretion. I'd say that anytime the visibility is 3 miles or less or the ceiling is 1000' or less I would log it. By the way, how's Champaign, are you sucking DEE's nuts??? I bet the ladies are though.

-W

 

[minitour]

I think that as long as you have any amount of IMC after being cleared for the approach, you can log the approach.

I don't think that you have to go down to mins for it to count.

Good way to think about it.

Consider this...

If you were REALLY down to minimums (thinking visibility - not MDA/DH clouds)...wouldn't you be going missed most of the time? Any math junkies out there could probably figure out a probability on how many approaches you'd actually get in if the visibility were at minimums (since that's what counts on the plate)...just an assumption on my part though...

However...if you're using instruments to keep the greasy side down, it's instrument time...log the approach...JMHO

-mini

 

[Swerpipe]

Wx at mins results in missed approach?

Good way to think about it.

Consider this...

If you were REALLY down to minimums (thinking visibility - not MDA/DH clouds)...wouldn't you be going missed most of the time?

-mini

No, if the weather is at minimums or better you would probably make it. On non-precision approaches you may have to circle, depending on the runway lighting and airport geometry. If I counted the approaches I've flown, I would guess that we've been able to get in on more than 95% of the ones that were at "minimums". The most significant factor in the ones we didn't get in was indadequate runway lighting or the weather being less than "advertised".
BTW log the approach if you are IMC past the FAF and cleared for the approach.

 

[minitour]

...BTW log the approach if you are IMC past the FAF and cleared for the approach.

Cool info about the circling, visibility, etc...

Just wondering if there's a legal interpretation or reg somewhere about the IMC past the FAF & Cleared?

So if you were doing hood work with a safety pilot and was cleared for the approach, you could take off the hood just past the FAF and log the approach?

Also, does that apply then to -IIs too, who get to log approaches the students fly in IMC?

Not saying you're wrong...just looking for clarification and curious...

-mini

 

[JeffSKDTW]

Just wondering if there's a legal interpretation or reg somewhere about the IMC past the FAF & Cleared?

There is no opinion specifically on point relating to ~when~ to log an approach, that I'm aware of. The best I know of is an opinion that indicates that the approach "procedures" must be flown to minimums (note: it does not appear to say that it must be in IMC to minimum).

January 28, 1992

(no name given)



This is in response to your October 24, 1991, letter in which you asked several questions about certain Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

.....

edited for brevity

.....

Second, you questioned how low a pilot must descend (i.e., minimum descent altitude or decision height or full stop landing) on the six instrument approaches he must log to meet the recent IFR experience requirements specified in FAR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) (14 CFR Sec. 61.57 (e)(1)(i)). You also asked if an instrument approach "counts" if only part of the approach is conducted in actual IFR conditions. Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) states that:



No pilot may act as pilot in command under IFR, nor in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless he has, within the past 6 calendar months - (i) In the case of an aircraft other than a glider, logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved, including at least six instrument approaches, or passed an instrument competency check in the category of aircraft involved.



For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height.

...

edited for brevity

.....

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information in this regard.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne

Assistant Chief Counsel

There is probably good reason why the FAA does not spell out ~exactly~ the amount of IMC required in order to count the approach for currency--there are simply too many variations. The FAA considered spelling this out in 1997 when they rewrote the regs; however, they chose not to.

Many rely on a 'Rule of Reason' to measure whether the approach counts.

 

[Atccfi]

Quote:

"Also, does that apply then to -IIs too, who get to log approaches the students fly in IMC?"



The way I look at it, When I am doing an approach with a student, IMC or not, and we descend to minimums I log it. I am PIC as the instructor, and should anything go wrong, it would come back to me. So if I am responsible for the outcome do I not have the right to log it? What do other -IIs log?

 

[Swerpipe]

CFII logging

Cool info about the circling, visibility, etc...

Just wondering if there's a legal interpretation or reg somewhere about the IMC past the FAF & Cleared?

So if you were doing hood work with a safety pilot and was cleared for the approach, you could take off the hood just past the FAF and log the approach?

Also, does that apply then to -IIs too, who get to log approaches the students fly in IMC?

Not saying you're wrong...just looking for clarification and curious...

-mini

Hey mini,
There is only 1 PIC in the airplane (for a non CFII safety pilot). The only exception is when a safety pilot is there because you have the hood on and can not maintain visual separation from other aircraft in VFR,then in that case he is SIC because he is required. The second you take your hood off his requirement goes out the window and there is only 1 PIC on the aircraft, no SIC. A CFI can also log PIC, that is the only exception to having 2 pilots log PIC together but he must be giving dual instruction. The II can log the approach if it was done in actual not simulated otherwise he is instructing in VFR and looking out the window for traffic. The student can log the approach if he/she was hooded.
If you take the hood off past the FAF you don't need the safety pilot and you are just VFR simulating an approach in visual conditions but you are not simulating instruments.
If you take the hood off after the FAF you shouldn't log the approach. Because you are not "shooting" the approach. Obviously, this is an honor system like everything else in aviation. If that were your attitude then why don't you just log 6 approaches and not bother and then you are "legal". You would just be fooling yourself. You would be legal but perhaps dead when you do it in actual. In the real world I log it when I feel that we (as a crew) "flew the approach" regarless of the weather. For instance, one of the airports we service gets hazy in the afternoon and with 2 mile visibility the approach really takes us to minimums (loc approach). The call outs and the approach is just like if we were in the soup. "Right before the MAP the copilot says "field in sight", "vacating MDA, flaps full". We land and when we taxy back away from the Sun it's hard to believe that we acutally had to "fly" the approach. Guess what? We log it. Sometimes we are cleared for an ILS and I have the runway at the OM. Even though I fly down on the loc/gs, I don't log it because it doesn't feel that we flew it. Also, our call outs are different depending on whether we have the airport and ground in sight or not. We have visual and instruments call outs. So if we switch to visual call outs then we don't log it.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

logging the approach

Years ago the concept was to log an approach if, at any time from the IAF to landing (or MAP), you went IMC.

If you were being vectored, then you could log the approach if you went IMC during any part of the vectoring to the landing (again, or MAP if needed).

 

[minitour]

Hey mini,
There is only 1 PIC in the airplane (for a non CFII safety pilot). The only exception is when a safety pilot is there because you have the hood on and can not maintain visual separation from other aircraft in VFR,then in that case he is SIC because he is required...

If the pilot flying is under the hood, then he cannot act as Pilot in Command.

He can log it because he is rated in the aircraft and the sole manipulator of the controlls
[61.51(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person— (i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges;]


The safety pilot is PIC because he is responsible for the safety of the flight.
Thus, he is acting as Pilot in Command.


[1.1Pilot in command means the person who: (1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

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

It's the whole acting v. logging thing.

Everything else you said, I agree with you. I was just wondering how the interpretation of "IMC at the FAF and cleared for the approach" worked. Seemed like too many loopholes (the simulated IMC thing and taking the hood off after the FAF, etc.) but I can imagine that's the right call.

I can't imagine why someone would log an approach that they didn't really feel they had to use instrument skills to fly it. Like you said, if you do that enough times, you'll end up dead in the end.

-mini

PS
The -II question was about logging the approach in IMC. In other words, as a CFII, are you allowed to log an approach your student flies where he would log it as an actual IMC approach (assuming he were instrument rated and didn't need you)?

 

[Swerpipe]

You are misunderstanding the Safety Pilot function

If the pilot flying is under the hood, then he cannot act as Pilot in Command.

Hey mini,

This has been for years a point of confusion to many and many instructors fail to teach students the concept of PIC and SIC in aircraft requiring only 1 pilot when simulating instrument conditions.

Check out this link...
http://www.awp.faa.gov/new/fsdo/art_pilot.htm

To quote:
"Normally, a safety pilot, required by regulations, who scans for traffic for a pilot flying under simulated instrument conditions is not pilot-in-command and thus logs second-in-command. However, if the two pilots agree that the safety pilot is designated pilot-in-command, the safety pilot/pilot-in-command may log PIC since he is the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft. The pilot flying is "sole manipulator of the controls for which the pilot is rated"" and may also log PIC. Therefore, two private pilots may log PIC under these conditions. However, the safety pilot/pilot-in-command must realize that anything that occurs during the flight is his responsibility. Airspace violations, non-compliance with ATC instructions, near mid air collision, and runway incursions on the ground are all now charged to the safety pilot. A recent article in a monthly aviation publications discussed a flight where there was a violation and the two pilots disagreed who was pilot-in-command."

So, this has to be understood before the flight. If you "designate" the Safety Pilot as PIC then if you violate airpace the safety pilot is liable otherwise he is just providing traffic separation. You are assuming that default position is that the safety pilot is PIC and that is not true. The default position is that the safety pilot is SIC not PIC.

"The -II question was about logging the approach in IMC. In other words, as a CFII, are you allowed to log an approach your student flies where he would log it as an actual IMC approach (assuming he were instrument rated and didn't need you)?"
If the pilot is instrument rated and the CFI is not needed and he is not providing instruction i.e. he is a passenger then he can not log PIC, or instrument time or approaches. However if the PIC says I need help with my cockpit procedures and they agree that the instructor is providing instruction then he can log it. If something happens, the instructor is liable in that case.

 

[avbug]

Wow. A whole lot of misinformation here. JeffSKDTW posted the correct information and legal interpretation, which requires that the approach be flown to minimums in instrument conditions (simulated, or actual) in order to qualify for recency of instrument experience.

Flying part of an approach in instrument conditions does not qualify the approach for recency of experience; you must fly in in instrument conditions to minimums to count the approach, per the FAA legal interpretation by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel. Meteorological conditions are irrelevant; the conditions may be actual or simulated, but the approach must be flown by reference to instruments, and must be flown in that condition to minimums to mee the legal requirement for a qualifying approach.

If the pilot flying is under the hood, then he cannot act as Pilot in Command.

Incorrect. A pilot operating "under the hood" may indeed act as pilot in command. Per 14 CFR 91.109(b), a safety pilot is required, but the safety pilot need not be pilot in command. If the pilot under the hood is qualified to act as PIC, he or she may do so.

The safety pilot is PIC because he is responsible for the safety of the flight.
Thus, he is acting as Pilot in Command.

Only if designated as PIC by mutual agreement, and only if qualified to act as PIC. The purpose of the safety pilot is not to assume responsibility for the safety of the flight, but to look for traffic. Only if designated as PIC does the safety pilot become responsible for the safe outcome of the flight. If the peson wearing the view limiting device (under the "hood") may act as PIC, in which case that person bears responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight.

A CFI can also log PIC, that is the only exception to having 2 pilots log PIC together but he must be giving dual instruction.

Incorrect. Two pilots may log PIC at the same time when neither one is a flight instructor. Read your regulations. A pilot under the hood may log PIC as sole manipulator, while the safety pilot (if acting as PIC by mutual designation) may log PIC as pilot in command of an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember (91.109(b)). Both private pilots, both logging PIC.

There is never more than one pilot in command aboard. Two people may log PIC, but there is only ever one pilot in command.

 

[minitour]

You are assuming that default position is that the safety pilot is PIC and that is not true. The default position is that the safety pilot is SIC not PIC.

So you mean to tell me that you'd go up under the hood with a safety pilot and NOT have him be responsible for the safety of the flight (traffic avoidance, airspace, etc.)? If I'm going to go up with a Safety Pilot, he's definitely going to be acting as PIC. I can't see why you would want to be under the hood acting as PIC as well as sole manipulator.

But yes, you are right. If you did it that way then the safety pilot would be SIC and not PIC...I can't imagine SIC in a 172 going over very well in an interview, but if that's how you want to work it with your safety pilot, then all is well...

The purpose of the safety pilot is not to assume responsibility for the safety of the flight, but to look for traffic.

Your definition of a safety pilot, I'd call a passenger. You're saying that the safety pilot has no responsibility what so ever. He's supposed to look for traffic, well as Pilot In Command, that's your responsibility. You are responsible for the safety of the flight, and that includes not running into someone.

...If the pilot is instrument rated and the CFI is not needed and he is not providing instruction i.e. he is a passenger then he can not log PIC, or instrument time or approaches. However if the PIC says I need help with my cockpit procedures and they agree that the instructor is providing instruction then he can log it. If something happens, the instructor is liable in that case.

I realize that...I'll try again since I can't seem to type what I'm thinking...

Okay so we've got a PPL NOT instrument rated. A CFII and this pilot go up to shoot approaches working on his instrument ticket. The instructor filed IFR and they got their clearance, etc.

Now, they break out of IMC just past the FAF after being cleared for the approach (which is what you said constitutes a loggable approach), does the CFII get to log the approach?

He's entitled to log any approach his student flies in IMC and any instrument time in actual IMC, so does he get to log this approach?

(When I said "assuming he's instrument rated" what I meant was, he would log the approach one he/she's got the instrument ticket, flying alone, as PIC, etc.)

Hope that helps...I realize I'm not being really clear with what I'm asking...

-mini

 

[minitour]

...just wanna add.

I realize you're both legally correct, but legal doesn't equal safe folks.

I find it difficult to believe (and even after re-re-re-re-reading the regs) that there would be a reg saying "oh yeah, go under the hood so you depend on someone else to see traffic but not have them responsible for it" and then the "reckless and careless" rule too.

Seems like if you are responsible for not hitting anything, you should have to be able to see it, no?

I dunno...that's me trying to make common sense out of a bunch of rules that make no common sense...

-mini

 

[avbug]

Your definition of a safety pilot, I'd call a passenger. You're saying that the safety pilot has no responsibility what so ever. He's supposed to look for traffic, well as Pilot In Command, that's your responsibility. You are responsible for the safety of the flight, and that includes not running into someone.

Duh. That's the whole point of having a safety pilot. Think about it. The PIC is always responsible. If the PIC is under the hood wearing a view limiting device, engaging in simulated instrument flight, in order to satisfy the see and avoid requirements, a safety pilot is required. If the safety pilot can't see adequately, the safety pilot may be supplemented by additional observers to ensure than an adequate lookout for traffic is maintained. The safety pilot's prime responsibility is to do what the person manipulating the controls cannot do; look for traffic.

The safety pilot is there to supplement the flight for the purpose of safety. Not to take responsibility for the safety of the flight. Certainly the safety pilot may and should take his or her responsibility seriously. However, if the safety pilot is not the pilot in command, a matter to be decided between those occupying the control seats in the airplane as a matter of clear designation, the safety pilot does not have the legal authority to assume the responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight. That responsibility ALWAYS belongs to the pilot in command. The safety pilot may or may not be the PIC; this is a matter of designation that may be given to either the safety pilot or the pilot manipulating the controls.

Seems like if you are responsible for not hitting anything, you should have to be able to see it, no?

That is the whole point of having a safety pilot.

I find it difficult to believe (and even after re-re-re-re-reading the regs) that there would be a reg saying "oh yeah, go under the hood so you depend on someone else to see traffic but not have them responsible for it" and then the "reckless and careless" rule too.

You find it difficult to believe because there is no regulation that begins "oh yeah...". Don't be ridiculous. However, if you will read your regulations, you will clearly note that 91.3 ALWAYS provides that the pilot in command is responsible for the safe outcome of the flight, and holds the ultimate responsibility for that duty, as well as being the final authority for the operation of the aircraft. This rule is universal.

Regardless of weather the pilot in command is wearing a view limiting device, in instrument conditions, flying at night, in the daylight, eating a bagel, or counting backward from 100, the PIC is still responsible for the safe outcome of the flight.

In the case of simulated instrument flight, a safety pilot is required. The safety pilot is not the pilot in command, though by mutual agreement the safety pilot may agree to be pilot in command. A flight instructor is not automatically pilot in command, though many instructors wrongly believe so. Neither is a safety pilot.

You find a single case where a pilot has suffered enforcement action for acting as pilot in command while wearing a view limiting device, and employing the services of a safety pilot. You cannot do it, because this is entirely consistent with the regulation. The matter is not ambiguous; you simply don't understand it.

He's entitled to log any approach his student flies in IMC and any instrument time in actual IMC, so does he get to log this approach?

Negative. The instructor is not automatically entitled to log the approach. An instructor is entitled to log as instrument time all time spent acting as an authorized instructor while flying in instrument conditions. This regulation does not entitle the instructor to log the approach, nor should the instructor do so.

 

[Swerpipe]

Yeah, I wasn't specific

Incorrect. Two pilots may log PIC at the same time when neither one is a flight instructor. Read your regulations. A pilot under the hood may log PIC as sole manipulator, while the safety pilot (if acting as PIC by mutual designation) may log PIC as pilot in command of an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember (91.109(b)). Both private pilots, both logging PIC.

There is never more than one pilot in command aboard. Two people may log PIC, but there is only ever one pilot in command.

Hey AVBUG,

I was not specific but I was referring to having two people logging PIC on an IFR flight in IMC conditions. Only one can log since the safety pilot is not required. A CFI in this case could still log PIC if he is providing instruction. Should have made that clear.

"Flying part of an approach in instrument conditions does not qualify the approach for recency of experience; you must fly in in instrument conditions to minimums to count the approach, per the FAA legal interpretation by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel. Meteorological conditions are irrelevant; the conditions may be actual or simulated, but the approach must be flown by reference to instruments, and must be flown in that condition to minimums to mee the legal requirement for a qualifying approach."
Can you post a reference that specifies that an approach must be IMC or simulated to minimums to be logged. While as Captains we receive an instrument check every 6 months our Copilots don't. An approach that is IMC exactly to minimums are rare and not the norm. For example you break out at 300 AGl and get the runway in sight. If you are flying in less than VFR conditions into the airport and using instrument call outs and procedures, how is that not an approach? Please provide a link, I really would like to see it.

 

[minitour]

Hey AVBUG,

I was not specific but I was referring to having two people logging PIC on an IFR flight in IMC conditions. Only one can log since the safety pilot is not required. A CFI in this case could still log PIC if he is providing instruction. Should have made that clear.

now I gotcha (both)...

Thanks for clearing that up...aparently I had the gist of it, but not "The Rest of the Story"

Thanks guys

-mini

*edit*

PS
avbug - If you really think I was being literal when I said a reg started "bla bla"...ya need to re-think it man...no need to take me literally when it's obviously rediculous

 

[nosehair]

Hey mini,

If the pilot is instrument rated and the CFI is not needed and he is not providing instruction i.e. he is a passenger then he can not log PIC, or instrument time or approaches. However if the PIC says I need help with my cockpit procedures and they agree that the instructor is providing instruction then he can log it. If something happens, the instructor is liable in that case.

Not true, in this scenario. If the designated PIC says "I need instruction in these procedures", he is only asking for instruction from a passenger who can become an instructor - not automaticly becoming the PIC at that point. An instructor can ride with a PIC and provide instruction, and NOT be the PIC (but still LOG PIC).
If the PIC sees that he needs instruction so much that he isn't capable of ACTING as PIC, then he should ask the instructor to become the PIC for this flight or period of instruction. The CFI should also require this if the instruction is obviously distracting the designated PIC from ACTING as PIC.

 

[JeffSKDTW]

So you mean to tell me that you'd go up under the hood with a safety pilot and NOT have him be responsible for the safety of the flight (traffic avoidance, airspace, etc.)? If I'm going to go up with a Safety Pilot, he's definitely going to be acting as PIC. I can't see why you would want to be under the hood acting as PIC as well as sole manipulator.

Mini -

Sometimes you have to.

A question back to you--do you realize that a particular pilot may be qualified to be a safety pilot but ~not~ be qualified to be the acting PIC? In such a case, then the FP (under the hood) ~must~ be the acting PIC. For instance, aircraft is a complex single engine land aircraft. The flying pilot is a PPSEL with a complex endorsement, is current, and is under the hood. The safety pilot is a PPSEL ~without~ a complex endorsement. In the case, the safety pilot is qualified to be the safety pilot; however, he can not be ~acting~ PIC for the flight (to act, you need all of the necessary endorsements). The flying pilot is the only one who can be ~acting~ PIC.

 

[milflyboy]

These PIC discussions are always funny. According to Part 1 the PIC doesn't even have to be in the cockpit.

I wonder why there are different definitions. (Part1/Part61)

 

[JeffSKDTW]

I wonder why there are different definitions. (Part1/Part61)

To give people stuff to argue about in online forums--like the "with you" debate and the Piper v. Cessna debate.

 

[JRSLim]

Caveat

91.109(B)(3)(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely

Now, while this is concerning throwover controls, it tells me that by agreeing to be safety pilot, one assumes responsibility and is automatically acting as a PIC. It doesn't specify anything about being responsible for only traffic, it states dead on that the safety pilot is fulfilling a required job. Plus, why would a Private Pilot certificate be required if only a traffic observer was needed. By definition the Safety pilot is responsible for the safety of the flight.



Or you could just be like an ATP I saw log an approach - in VMC - with his unrated girlfriend as safety pilot.

 

[nosehair]

91.109(B)(3)(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely

By definition the Safety pilot is responsible for the safety of the flight.

You're not grasping the concept of PIC, or Safety Pilot.
If I'm the PIC, the pilot who is in Command of the flight, and therefore responsible for the entire operation of the flight, I still can delegate some authority to another crewmember. Let's say I delegate to the co-pilot the responsibility of lowering the landing gear at the outer marker. I want him to automaticly move the gear handle to the down position, and do the required checks to insure the gear is down and locked, but don't tell me. Only tell me if the checks do not confirm the down and locked position. See? He is responsible to me to determine the safety of the landing gear, but not to the FAA. I am ultimately responsible. I have enough trust in my co-pilot to believe that he can share some responsibility with me.
Same with the safety pilot. You are entrusting that he can share the responsibility of safety of flight with you by calling out any traffic or situation, and the FAA tasks him with the responsibilty of determining safety in the context of what the PIC delegates to him, but the ultimate over-all responsibility remains with the PIC.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I wonder why there are different definitions. (Part1/Part61)

The two uses have two different purposes. "Acting as PIC" (which is defined in Part 1, but appears throughout the rest of the Parts) is interested in authority over and responsibility for a flight.

"Logging PIC" under FAR 61.51 is concerned only with activities that the FAA has decided it wants to allow a pilot to count toward certificates, ratings, and currency. The FAA could have called it something else like "countable time" or "widget time" but didn't, figuring (obviously incorrectly that intelligent people wouldn't have trouble separating the two concepts.

 

[milflyboy]

I think the main problem is that they are using the the term "PIC" in both cases.

They should have used RPF = Rated Pilot Flying and CAP = Captain or something similar.

 

[Swerpipe]

Couldn't agree with you more

THC- Time handling controls
PIC- Time you are ultimately responsible
SIC- Time you are assisting the person who is ultimately responsible

Once you are ATP, CFI/CFII/CFMEI, or single/multi comm, the time handling controls is not as important as time ultimately responsible. Prior to flying in a crew environment my PIC Part 61 time was about 95% of my total. After I started flying in a crew environment, the PIC Part 61 is about 50% of the total turbine. PIC part 1 is about 75% of my total turbine. But unfortunately like many things in aviation, the regs and the FAA create terms and parameters that create unnecessary confusion. That is why often instead of pilots looking up a table or a reference the FAA has to come up with "an interpretation of the Regs".

 

[Steveair]

The rule I've heard is inside the FAF OR if you need to use the approach to get to visual conditions - IE if approach or center can't get you below MVA.

 

[avbug]

I was not specific but I was referring to having two people logging PIC on an IFR flight in IMC conditions. Only one can log since the safety pilot is not required. A CFI in this case could still log PIC if he is providing instruction. Should have made that clear.

This is still incorrect. A common misconception is just as you have stated; that a safety pilot is not required when one wears a hood in instrument conditions. However, for the pilot flying, the flight is still being conducted by reference to instruments using a view limiting device; in other words, by simulated instrument flight. That external conditions do not permit adequate visibility or cloud clearance to be VFR, is irrelevant.

If you are under the hood with a safety pilot, and you enter a cloud, you are still required to have a safety pilot. Not until you remove the view limiting device is the safety pilot no longer required. Conditions external to the cockpit have no relevance on the matter.

 

[Swerpipe]

A safety pilot for flying in IMC?

If you are under the hood with a safety pilot, and you enter a cloud, you are still required to have a safety pilot. Not until you remove the view limiting device is the safety pilot no longer required. Conditions external to the cockpit have no relevance on the matter.

Ok, I think you are not understanding me. I am saying that you do not need a safety pilot to fly in IMC, period. I you elect, for whatever reason to wear a hood and fly with a safety pilot: to have your safety pilot build PIC time, you are lonely, etc.. then of course you can both log it. Now, why would you need a safety pilot in IMC? His function will be to look out and see nothing? It's an honor system and of course you can always do as you please, it doesn't mean it's "honorable". Now if you are going in and out of weather or if the Wx conditions are such that you would need a safety pilot then I fully agree. I think we both understand the Regs in this respect.

A single engine prop a/c does not need an SIC or an additional PIC unless it is really required. My point was that in IMC he is not required. I would question why would you choose to have one if not required that's all.

I wanted to ask you, however, do you have a reference for you statement concerning logging approaches only if they go to minimums in IMC or simulated? The question is because approaches where you are IMC right to minimums are fairly rare. You could get the runway in sight at 500 AGL , for instance, on an ILS approach which is typically 300 above mins. In this case, you are saying that the approach cannot be logged? Can you provide a reference or a link that specificlly states that? I can see that if the approach is simulated then it must be performed to minimums or as low as ATC will approve.