Logging Approaches

[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.