Safety pilot question

[Steve]

To act as safety pilot, all you need to have is a category and class rating and a current medical. No currency required.

But to act as safety pilot and log it as PIC, you also have to =act= as PIC for the flight. That means currency. And the takeoffs and landings currency requirement is category and class specific.

So yes, if you are going to act as safety pilot =and= log it as PIC, you need to be current in singles.

Does that mean that I can fly as Safety pilot and log it as total nime but not as PIC?

 

[dmspilot00]

Does that mean that I can fly as Safety pilot and log it as total nime but not as PIC?

Yes. In that cause it would technically be SIC but you don't have to put it in a SIC column if you don't want to.

Also... I've taken the standpoint that a safety pilot does not have to have the 90 day currency as PIC because s/he's not carrying passengers. I've logged a few hours of PIC safety pilot time at night without being night current.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Also... I've taken the standpoint that a safety pilot does not have to have the 90 day currency as PIC because s/he's not carrying passengers. I've logged a few hours of PIC safety pilot time at night without being night current.

I've been giving this one a bit more thought.

From the standpoint of the Flying Pilot (FP), the Safety Pilot (SP) is clearly a required pilot crewmember under the regulation. The FP can't go under the hood unless the safety pilot is there. Required pilot crew are not passengers. So, you can take the position that when the FP is under the hood, there are no passengers, so no landing currency is required for the SP.

Of course, unless the FP is going to do a 0/0 taxi, takeoff and landing under the hood also, =someone= has to be landing current. But if currency is an issue for the SP, under this reading, the pilots can agree that the SP is only PIC when acting as SP.

There is a 1985 FAA Legal opinion that =seems= to supports this viewpoint. The opinion talks about a number of "who's required crew" scenarios and along the way, says:

==============================
Section 61.57(c) and (d) of the FAR, applies only to a person who serves as pilot in command on a flight in which passengers are carried. Therefore, unless the safety pilot acts as pilot in command with passengers on board, he or she need not meet the currency requirements of this section.
==============================

I say =seems= to because it begs the question of whether there are passengers on board.

Here's the problem: From the standpoint of the SP who is also PIC, the FP =isn't= required. From the SP's standpoint as qualified PIC, it doesn't matter whether the guy under the hood manipulating the controls is a current, certificated pilot, a non-current pilot with a lapsed medical (who isn't qualified to be any kind of crewmember) or his aunt Martha who has never even been in an airplane before. There's only one required pilot - the SP. The FP is really just a passenger.

So I've tended to take the conservative approach on this one and only log SP-PIC when current.

Convoluted enough?

 

[Kream926]

convoluted indeed............ill just stick to planes ive flown and am TYPED in


thanks tho

 

[JimNtexas]

convoluted indeed............ill just stick to planes ive flown and am TYPED in


thanks tho

It is true that if a plane requires a type rating then the safety pilot requires a type rating also. But only a few airplanes that require type ratings can be flown single pilot anyway.

In the scenario given an owner has asked another pilot to be safety pilot in the owner's C182. In this case there is little doubt that the owner is the FAR 1 PIC, so the questioner is SIC for the time that the PIC has the hood on.

In this case the SIC/safety pilot does not require any currencies, does not need a BFR, and does not need any endorsements even if the airplane is complex, tailwheel, high altitude, and high performance like a presureized PT6 powered C182RG tailwheel conversion. The safey pilot can log valuable C182 SIC time for the time the PIC is wearning the hood. Passengers can be carried.

 

[flyguy75000]

As safety pilot you will be second in command, and therefore do not need night currency, landing currency, or endorsements. All you need is a single engine private pilot ticket and a current medical.

See Doc's FAR forum where this has been beat to death for years.

NO!!!!!!!!! Please dont log as SIC. You are a legal PIC, as you are willing to accept any violations that may occur while your friend is under the hood (airspace busts, etc.)

If you log as SIC and plan to fly for an airline, etc. they will bust your balls in an interview, asking you how you can have SIC time in an aircraft that doesnt require two pilots. Log as PIC, put safety pilot in remarks column, and leave it at that. It will be a lot less headache down the road. I'm sure someone else can shed more light on this.

 

[JimNtexas]

NO!!!!!!!!! Please dont log as SIC. You are a legal PIC, as you are willing to accept any violations that may occur while your friend is under the hood (airspace busts, etc.)

If you log as SIC and plan to fly for an airline, etc. they will bust your balls in an interview, asking you how you can have SIC time in an aircraft that doesnt require two pilots. Log as PIC, put safety pilot in remarks column, and leave it at that. It will be a lot less headache down the road. I'm sure someone else can shed more light on this.

The safety pilot in the given scenario is in the same boat as any sic in a two pilot required aircraft. The safety pilot does not suddenly become pic when the pic puts on the hood. In the given sceanrio the safety pilot would be commiting a serious violation by logging his safety pilot/sic time as pic. It would be no different than an airline copilot logging PIC time because the airplane flew into a cloud.

When one pilot of a light plane is under the hood, two pilots are required. The pilot who is not the FAR 1 Pic for the flight should (if he logs anything) log SIC for the time the PIC is under the hood.

As far as interviews, it is in fact legal sic time. How an employer would react to it in an interview is beyond the scope of the question at hand.

 

[flyguy75000]

Jim,

Never said you couldnt log SIC.....I recommend, along with many people in the airline/corpoarte world, not to do it. The FAA says you can log it as PIC (when the flying pilot is under the hood)..thats what you should do. The thought behind SIC at the higher levels is only for "airplanes that require one." Technically, you are a required crewmember being safety pilot. But do you really want to get into a regs discussion/defending your logbook in an interview? I dont think most would. Maybe I have a different view, there's a lot of ways to skin a cat. But ask other people in the professional side of things, (if thats your goal) what their take is on logging safety pilot as SIC and I'm sure you will be disheartened. This has been discussed many times and here is a link to a previous thread from last year or so.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=19434&highlight=PIC+safety+pilot

 

[midlifeflyer]

If you log as SIC and plan to fly for an airline, etc. they will bust your balls in an interview, asking you how you can have SIC time in an aircraft that doesn't require two pilots.

To which you answer, "How did you ever get to be an interviewer for an airline without knowing the FAA's basic rules? Is not folowing the rules the way you run the rest of this operation?"

[Not really a recommended answer]

 

[JimNtexas]

The FAA says you can log it as PIC (when the flying pilot is under the hood)..thats what you should do.

That's not correct, the FAA says no such thing. You are confusing the safety pilot with the famous "sole manipulator" PIC time, which fortunately not part of this thread.

In the scenario given at the start of the thread a pilot is flying as safety pilot with the owner of a C182. The owner is both the FAR-1 "signed for the airplane" PIC, and the owner is the "sole manipulator of the controls". The safety pilot is a required crewmember, but he's not manipulating controls, he's looking for traffic. In this case it would be a FAR violation for the safety pilot to log PIC.

In the scenario given in the first post, the safely pilot is the SIC in an airplane that requires two pilots, and that's the only legal way for him to log this time.

As I said before, speculating on how a hypothetical interviewer might react to this is beyond the scope of the original question.