Logging Approaches

[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.