Safety Pilot Logging PIC

[bobbysamd]

Logging time and the FAA General Counsel's opinions

Besides, the FAA legal counsel disagrees with you.

But, is the legal counsel's opinion black-letter law, as opposed to an opinion only? I submit that it is not black-letter law at all. I'm open to reviewing any black-letter law on the issue either way.

I submit that you must read the regs at their plain meaning, and that logging SIC for the purposes of 14 CFR 91.109 is incorrect.

If, Midlife, your position is the issue turns on how time should be logged, 14 CFR 61.51(e) would appear to be dispositive:

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A 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;

(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or

(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

(emphasis added)

I submit that, in reality, the "SIC" who is maintaining a lookout for other aircraft, etc., is truly the pilot-in-command. Compare with the sole manipulator PIC pursuant to (i), who is under the hood and occupied with the gauges. If there is some traffic conflict, etc., the "SIC" would take the controls and avoid the collision per VFR. Therefore, that person is PIC. He/she is responsible for the safety of the flight. Accordingly, he/she should log the time as PIC.

I will concede that the absence of declaratives and imperatives makes the reg subject to great interpretation. Take a look at all the "mays" in the reg. Then, 14 CFR 61.51(f) discusses second-in-command time-logging, with all of its "mays." These "mays" are permissives. These "mays" (as in, "Mother, may I?") would allow people to log safety pilot time as SIC. I submit, again, that is incorrect because it is not contemplated by that reg. I.e., two private pilots going out to shoot approaches, etc., was not the intention of 14 CFR 61.51(f).

Once more, log what you want and how you want. As always, it's just my $0.02 opinion. Thanks for the opportunity presented for me to read up on and review that portion of the regs.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Logging time and the FAA General Counsel

I'm open to reviewing any black-letter law on the issue either way.

Black-letter law is not all that it's cracked up to be.

Actually, the regulations that dmspilot00 quotes are surprisingly clear.

61.51 says that

"A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person [holds the appropriate ratings] for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under...the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.

91.109(b) in turn says that
"no person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless ... the other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings..."

I believe it was you who said

"Only Part 91 can be regarded as the applicable operating regulation for operations needing a safety pilot."

Sounds like Part 91 requires the presence of a second pilot for the operation. In fact the FAA's consistent interpretation of this over the years is that the safety pilot, as a required crewmember, must have a current medical certificate.

I think you also said that

"I do not believe that Part 61 can be regarded as an operating regulation. It is a certification regulation."

Sounds like 61.51 defers to Part 91 for the operating requirements and looks to itself for what can be logged for a certificate.

Combined with some other parts of the thread, that is the sum and substance of what the regulations say, and what the FAA has consistently said it means.

The analysis is identical to that which permits logging PIC time as safety pilot. For some reason you don't have a problem with that, but are looking for any loophole to justify preventing compliance with this one. And, as we both well know, "I don't like it!" is not valid legal argument.

dmspilot: Don't worry about Bobby's "understanding" the regulations. He has the knowledge and ability to understand them quite well. But law, reason, and logic have never been known to stand in the way of one's religious beliefs.

 

[varicam]

Re: Logging time and the FAA General Counsel's opinions

But, is the legal counsel's opinion black-letter law, as opposed to an opinion only? I submit that it is not black-letter law at all. I'm open to reviewing any black-letter law on the issue either way.

I have a little experience in enforcing regulatory compliance, and IHMO, it really doesn't matter if the legal counsel's opinion constitutes black-letter law or not. From a practical standpoint, an opinion issued by the legal counsel IS the law because it's binding on all parties until such time that a majority of the full NTSB or an appeals court determines that it is in error. Maybe someone somewhere wishes to challenge the opinion in court, but somehow I doubt it. I doubt even more that the opinion would be struck down upon appeal.

 

[Flechas]

as far as i understan de regs you should log safety pilot ime as SIC, but to avoid all these grey areasin the FARs i avoid flying as or having a safety pilot.

good luck!