Safety Pilot Logging PIC

[bigD]

I dunno, logging SIC in a 152 is pretty funny to me! Go ahead and do it - it's not like someone is going to invalidate your time because of it...but you don't lose anything by just adding safety pilot time into your total - and it'll save you some strange looks later on when others are reviewing your logbook.

 

[bobbysamd]

SIC v. PIC for safety pilots

Huh?? I hope I misunderstood what you are trying to say. If you are a safety pilot (for someone flying under the hood), you can log PIC if you are acting pilot in command, and most certainly can log SIC if the other pilot is the acting pilot in command. It's not "PIC or nothing." You are well-respected on this forum, please be careful.

Here's where I'm coming from.

You have to read all of the regs that govern this question together.

14 CFR 91.109 is the governing operating regulation for simulated instrument flight. 14 CFP 91.109(b) establishes the necessity and applicablility of safety pilots:

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless --

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown. . . .

(emphasis added)

No mention of an SIC in this reg. Just "safety pilot." I word-searched "safety pilot," and 14 CFR 91.109 was the only operating regulation that came back. Nothing about it in Parts 121, 125 or 135, or any other operating regulation.

Further, 14 CFR 61.55 establishes the necessity and applicability of seconds-in-command. In particular, 14 CFR 61.55(d) sets forth the exceptions to the need and applicability for seconds-in-command:

(d) This section does not apply to a person who is:

(1) Designated and qualified as a pilot in command under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;

(2) Designated as the second in command under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter, in that specific type of aircraft;

(3) Designated as the second in command in that specific type of aircraft for the purpose of receiving flight training required by this section, and no passengers or cargo are carried on the aircraft; or

(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109(b) of this chapter.

(emphasis added)

Clearly, SICs for safety pilot purposes are not contemplated by 14 CFR 61.55. SICs are contemplated primarily in two-pilot aircraft and/or in those where company and/or insurance requirements establish the need for them. I realize that insurance may require a second pilot, but the FARs and not insurance controls from a regulatory standpoint.

Finally, 14 CFR 61.51 is the section of the regs that governs flight time logging. 14 CFR 61.51(f) sets forth the logging of second-in-command time:

(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.

14 CFR 61.55(f) is silent with regard to safety pilot time. Many people argue that an SIC is required by 14 CFR 91.109, above, but that reg, too, is silent about SICs.

14 CFR 61.55 references "safety pilot" two times:

(b) Logbook entries. For the purposes of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, each person must enter the following information for each flight or lesson logged:

(1) General --

(i) Date.

(ii) Total flight time or lesson time.

(iii) Location where the aircraft departed and arrived, or for lessons in a flight simulator or flight training device, the location where the lesson occurred.

(iv) Type and identification of aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device, as appropriate.

(v) The name of a safety pilot, if required by §91.109(b) of this chapter.

and

(c) Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be used to:

(1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part; or

(2) Satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

(d) Logging of solo flight time. Except for a student pilot performing the duties of pilot in command of an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember, a pilot may log as solo flight time only that flight time when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft.

(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 regulations under which the flight is conducted.

(emphasis added)

Which, again, would be 14 CFR 91.109.

Perhaps some people interpret Part 61 as the regulation under which the flight is conducted. I do not believe that is a correct interpretation. Part 61 is a certification regulation. Parts 91, 121, 125, 135, etc. are operating regulations.

Conclusion. The regs do not establish a basis for a safety pilot to log flight time as a second-in-command. Seconds-in-command are used primarily in scheduled ops, i.e., 121, 125, 135, etc., and for aircraft that require an SIC, which would primarily be those which have type ratings. Even some type-rating aircraft can be flown single-pilot under Part 91. Moreover, a PIC has to be established because a PIC is required on every flight. Flying under the hood in VFR requires a safety pilot, who must serve as PIC; how can the hooded pilot be held responsible for the flight if his/her view is limited? If the safety pilot acts, or fails to act, it will be him/her whom the FAA will hold responsible.

If you want to log SIC in your 152 while your friend is shooting approaches, fine. But it could raise an eyebrow of an interviewer who reviews your logbook, especially when it can count as PIC. That's why I used the word ludicrous above. Logging PIC as safety pilot is entirely legitimate. Not only that, but what good does SIC time do you when it is for the purpose of someone logging instrument time? You want and need PIC, and lots of it, and preferably multi PIC.

Sorry for the lengthy, legal-style, analysis, but it seemed to be the only way to discuss this issue and to clarify my $0.02 opinion.

 

[dmspilot00]

Bobby,

I appreciate the time you spent to answer my question, but the fact is that logging SIC as a safety pilot is perfectly legitimate and legal.

See §61.51(f):

Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.

A flight conducted with one pilot under the hood would require more than one pilot. Notice the "or" which indicates that if #2 applies, then the SIC would not have to meet the requirements of §61.55. There is absolutely no need to examine §61.55 with regarding to logging SIC as a safety pilot because it falls under §61.51(f)(2) and not §61.51(f)(1).

The FAA even added redundancy in 61.55 by saying in 61.55(d): "This section does not apply to a person who is: (4) Designated as a safety pilot..." This means that if you are a safety pilot and want to log SIC, then 61.55 does not apply--you can log SIC without meeting the requirements of 61.55.

As far as the uses of such time, see the example I had in an earlier post. The commercial pilot certificate requires 250 hours as a pilot. Check the definition of pilot time if you must. Example: If I had 230 hours, I could fly 20 hours as a safety pilot, log all 20 as SIC if I wanted, and then I would meet the 250 hour commercial requirement.

 

[bobbysamd]

Part 61 as an operating regulation

See §61.51(f): (2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.

I was revising and adding to my post above while you were writing. See above.

Only Part 91 can be regarded as the applicable operating regulation for operations needing a safety pilot. I cited to the specific reg, which is silent regarding SICs as safety pilots. I do not believe that Part 61 can be regarded as an operating regulation. It is a certification regulation.

As far as the uses of such time, see the example I had in an earlier post. The commercial pilot certificate requires 250 hours as a pilot. Check the definition of pilot time if you must. Example: If I had 230 hours, I could fly 20 hours as a safety pilot, log all 20 as SIC if I wanted, and then I would meet the 250 hour commercial requirement.

But why would you log it as SIC if you can log it legally as PIC??

Once more, don't short yourself. You can log it legally as PIC. I sure would.

 

[dmspilot00]

Bobby,

Section 61.51 governs pilot logbooks and how time is logged. It specifically states that a person may log SIC time if more than one pilot is required under the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

I believe you are looking for a regulation in Part 91 that says that a SIC is required for the scenario we're talking about (am I right?).

If so, you're not going to find one. 61.51(f)(2) does not say that you may log SIC, "if a SIC is required under the regulations..." What it says is, "if more than one pilot is required under the regulations..."

A flight with a person under the hood and a safety pilot would be under regulation 91.109(b), which requires more than one pilot.

Since you are conducting a flight under a regulation which requires more than one pilot, which is 91.109, then 61.51(f)(2) says that you may LOG SIC time. It is as simple as that. You are trying to make it more complicated than it is.

I agree logging it as PIC would be more useful, but this discussion is about whether you *can* legitimately log it as SIC or not from a legal standpoint, not how useful the type of time is.

 

[bobbysamd]

Regs that REQUIRE an SIC as safety pilot

I believe you are looking for a regulation in Part 91 that says that a SIC is required for the scenario we're talking about (am I right?) . . . .

I am looking (and looked) for ANY specific regulation that requires, mandates, or otherwise legitimatizes an SIC under this scenario.

Since you are conducting a flight under a regulation which requires more than one pilot, which is 91.109, then 61.51(f)(2) says that you may LOG SIC time.

Here's 14 CFR 61.55(f) in its entirety:

(f)Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.

Where is the "may" or other permissive phrase in 14 CFR 61.5(f) for logging SIC as safety pilot? One has to read the regs at their plain meaning. 14 CFR 61.51 is completely and utterly silent about logging safety pilot time as an SIC. So, I do not see how logging safety pilot time as an SIC can be correct.

Once more, you can log what you want. But if something goes wrong, the FAA will find that the SIC safety pilot was indeed the PIC because the PIC sole manipulator was occupied with the gauges. The FAA will look to the "SIC" as the pilot who was responsible for the safety of the flight, and likely determine that he/she was acting as PIC.

As least we agree that logging the time lacks utility when PIC is what you really need.

PS-Be assured that I do understand the regs, and how to interpret them. Logging safety pilot time as an SIC is an incorrect interpretation.

But, I must ask again, why????.

 

[dmspilot00]

Re: Regs that REQUIRE an SIC as safety pilot

I am looking (and looked) for ANY specific regulation that requires, mandates, or otherwise legitimatizes an SIC under this scenario.

One has to read the regs on their plain meaning. 14 CFR 61.51 is completely and utterly silent about logging safety pilot time as an SIC. So, I do not see how logging safety pilot time as an SIC can be correct.

Someone, please help me! I sincerely want bobbysamd to understand the regulations.

Bobby, §61.51 spells out what type of time you can log as SIC. Cutting out the parts we don't need, we are left with:

(f)Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) 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) states that more than one pilot is required to operate an aircraft under simulated instrument flight.

So:
Regulation §91.109(b) requires more than one pilot for simulated instrument flight, and 61.51(f)(2) says you can log SIC whenever more than one pilot is required. It cannot get any simpler than that!

You don't need anything else, any other regulation, besides that right there--what I wrote in bold. More than one pilot is required in this operation, and you can log SIC when more than one pilot is required. There is no more to it than that. It is NOT an incorrect interpretation by any means. You do not understand the regs.

Again, §61.51 does not say that you can log SIC whenever a SIC is required by the regulation under which the flight is conducted, as you said in your original reply to me, but that you can log SIC whenever more than one pilot is required. §91.109 does not say that the safety pilot must be acting as SIC, but it doesn't say the safety pilot must be acting as PIC either! It does not say that simulated instrument flight requires a SIC or PIC. And, it doesn't need to!! §61.51 is all-inclusive. Whatever operation requires more than one crewmember, you can log SIC with. The FAA is not going to spell out in the FARs every individual operation that you can log SIC with, that is why they wrote the regulation the way they did.

I noticed in your subject line, you wrote, "Regs that REQUIRE an SIC as safety pilot." There is no such regulation, and you don't need one! Again, the Part 91 regulation is that **a safety pilot is required** and the Part 61 regulation is that you can log sic **when more than one pilot is required.**

Even avbug would agree as he has discussed the issue before. It has mostly been on another forum I read, but he mentions it here: http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11814. He says, "The only regulation which will permit you to log SIC in this case is if acting as safety pilot." Midlifeflyer also understands the regulation that allows a safety pilot to log SIC. So, ask midlifeflyer, avbug, etc. if you don't believe me.

By the way, another use for logging SIC is if your flight review expired, you didn't do 3 landings within the past 90 days, or maybe the person under the hood just doesn't want the safety pilot to be PIC, etc. I know PIC time is better, but there are legitimate uses and reasons for logging it as SIC, and doing so is perfectly legitimite in and of itself.

 

[bobbysamd]

Moot discussion

Notice that I use the word "may" in this. No one says that the SP has to log anything. jergar999's point about the silliness of logging (or at least counting) SIC in a 152 is well-taken. If you're looking at a career, you do have to apply some common sense to what you =choose= to log.(Although I disagree with his description of logging time the FAR specifically permits as "bending or trying to find loopholes." )

(emphasis added)

Here, again, why??!!??

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Part 61 as an operating regulation

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

That's correct. Part 61 deals with the certification of pilots, pilot limitations, and, via 61.51, =what may be logged=.

The difficulty with your analysis is twofold: (1) while the necessity for having multiple pilots on board is an operating regulation, the authority to log is squarely in Part 61. (2) Based on your analysis, you can't log PIC as safety pilot either since the only basis for logging that is also in 61.51.

Besides, the FAA legal counsel disagrees with you. From 1992:

In your second question you ask "how shall two Private Pilots log their flight time when one pilot is under the hood for simulated instrument time and the other pilot acts as safety pilot?" The answer is the pilot who is under the hood may log PIC time for that flight time in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft, provided he is rated for that aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently log as second in command (SIC) that time during which he is acting as safety pilot.

The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiating the flight that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i).

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Moot discussion

(emphasis added)

Here, again, why??!!??

Because the American Heritage Dictionary defines "loophole" as

"A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance. "

I'd personally add the words "with what the contract or law was intended to do."

I don't see following a relatively clear set of rules, based on a governmental body's decision of a policy issue (what types of a pilot's time on board an airplane may be counted toward currency, a certificate, or a rating) and interpreted in a clear way for over 10 years to fit the definition of "loophole".

Compare the clear statement of "this is okay"in the 1992 opinion with the opinion and cases dealing with folks trying to get around Part 135 certificate requirement or, for those professional pilots among us, duty time restrictions.

 

[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!