Logging Approaches

[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.