"safety pilot time"?!?!

[CaptO'Brien]

Hi i am wondering if there is anybody on this board who has done a multi block time where apparently two pilots can log PIC and gone onto a major carrier such as Cathay pacific or Emirates...I am looking into doing this time because it works out to be cheaper for what im doing just to buy a block time of multi; and of course it gives me the multi time which seems to be so important when going to the regionals.

I know this can get you into the regionals but i am thinking long term i may want to go to a foreign carrier and i dont want a measly 25 hours that i logged as apparently legal "safety pilot" time to screw me over. I know most other foreign countries will not let you log time like this, but i guess if its done wiht a FAA license in a "N" registered AC then its legal and they should accept it?

I am truly conflicted at this point if i should do this or not...the school i am looking at attending for this time bulding is "Ari Ben" and it works out well for me to do it, however i dont want to be affected negatively in the future by something small in my past. Thanks in advance for your comments!

Capt O'B

 

[A Squared]

I know this can get you into the regionals but i am thinking long term i may want to go to a foreign carrier and i dont want a measly 25 hours that i logged as apparently legal "safety pilot" time to screw me over. I know most other foreign countries will not let you log time like this, but i guess if its done wiht a FAA license in a "N" registered AC then its legal and they should accept it?

It's not just Foreign carriers, many US carriers won't accept this sort of bogus time.

 

[avbug]

If you undertake to spend a lot of money to "build time" and inflate your logbook, certainly this doesn't paint you in a good light, and doesn't really build your character as a pilot, either. It's been said oh-so-many times, but build experience, not hours.

Hours you can write in your logbook, because that's all they're worth. Sit down with me and I don't care how many hours you claim, as I'll know all I need to know about your experience by talking with you for a short time. Getting into the airplane only confirms what I've already learned about you. A good interviewer does the same thing, and no matter what your paperwork says to inflate your image, you're never more than the sum of your experiences.

With that in mind, if you're going to split time with someone, make it productive. From a paperwork (logbook) point of view, how this time is perceived is entirely up to you, as you're the one describing what occured. If you write "Served as safety pilot to joe blow...sat in the seat and looked at seagulls while joe got all the experience," then you probably deserve to get turned down by a carrier.

Conversely, if you make a note in the remarks that you flew from A to B and had a hamburger at B while executing an instrument approach and chugging down a shake, nobody cares. It's a ho-hum logbook entry.

If you fly for two hours, and half of it is under the hood, half as safety pilot, and you log it all...your log shows two hours of PIC experience and your remarks record six appraoches flown with joe blow as safety pilot. You don't need a detailed description that you got out, changed seats, and then played safety pilot yourself. You only need to record the name of the safety pilot for the portion you flew, and you needn't explain any more than that. One viewing that log entry doesn't know if you flew part or all of the flight,and probably won't care, or won't care to ask.

That said, if you're going to split time and split flying to safe on the costs, then make it valueable time...make it experience. Fly approaches, practice approaches to Vmc, fly holds. Do partial panel work. Do holds partial panel, and approaches partial panel, and NDB approaches...make yourself work. This is experience, vs. time. Logging time is logging time. It's ink sluicing past the ball crimped in the end of an ink cartridge in a cheap pen between your first two fingers and thumb. That's all. But experience dictates the material with which you mold yourself as a pilot. It forms the basis for your decision making, the way your view the atmosphere, the way you handle an emergency, the way you handle yourself.

Can you benifit from playing the hood-and-safety-pilot game? Most absolutely, but how you benifit, and how you package it, is very much up to you. If you're just doing it to log it, and you package it that way, it will be to your detriment. If you do it with every intent of making yourself a better pilot and sell it that way, more power to you, because you're doing it right.

What's it to be? Hours or experience?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Being a safety pilot has its merits. Remember, under this arrangement you are considered the acting PIC. As avbug stated, the experience is what you make it.

 

[PDH]

An employee/examiner of a rather large flight school (that everybody knows about) informed us that up to 3 people could log PIC. You would need one to be a CFI, one to be the "sole manipulator of the controls", and the "pilot in command" could be asleep in the back seat. He taught it as a way to build multi time. I do believe you would be cheating yourself if you did that.

 

[avbug]

What regulatory requirement under that scenario would require one of the two in the "front seat" to be a flight instructor?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

An employee/examiner of a rather large flight school (that everybody knows about) informed us that up to 3 people could log PIC. You would need one to be a CFI, one to be the "sole manipulator of the controls", and the "pilot in command" could be asleep in the back seat. He taught it as a way to build multi time. I do believe you would be cheating yourself if you did that.

I think you have it a little out of order. I've heard the same of said school and the MEI sits in the back. The two non-instructors log the ME time up front under the safety pilot 50/50 plan.

 

[CaptO'Brien]

If i do this i do plan on making the most of it to practice approaches and actually work while under the hood....

The whole reason i am considering this is because i am converting my licenses from Canadian to FAA and i need to do 29 dual or something to convert...so it works out well for me to just buy the 50 hour block of multi for a little more and end up with all my conversions done in a multi engine plane which will make my total multi time upwards of 95 hours (25 saftey pilot and 70 actually me flying by myself or dual) instead of paying a bunch of money to sit in a 172 and convert and then waste money on renting a twin all to myself.

BTW i am an American citizen i am converting to come back home since my parents moved up to Canada where i did all my training and licenses.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Being a safety pilot has its merits. Remember, under this arrangement you are considered the acting PIC. As avbug stated, the experience is what you make it.

I wanted to expand on what I meant in this comment. As the safety pilot under this arrangement you are the acting PIC of the flight and carry with it the responsibility if anything goes wrong or are even ramp checked. There's a lot of responsibility in being the PIC aside from the typical duties of a safety pilot. It would be wise to ensure that the flying pilot who's logging PIC as the sole manipulator understands that the PIC safety pilot will normally be the final authority as to the operation of that particular flight. In other words, you should expect to be the one who makes the final decisions on how that flight is operated. If the flying pilot busts a reg. somehow, you may be the one who's responsible, so don't take the role of safety pilot lightly. Remember, a safety pilot can equally log this time as an SIC if they chose to do so. Obviously, most will take the PIC role because of the more recognized time.

 

[AC560]

I never understand why people go through such complicated gyrations to log fake time in their log books. If you want to build time this way, get a pen and start cracking why worry about things like safety pilot or instructing from the back seat.

 

[CaptO'Brien]

Well i suppose if you just went in your log book and started writting down times that you never flew or were aboard an aircfaft at the time when your logbook got the once over for your ATP you have the risk of being caught for falsifying your times....but if the time is logged in a legit way under the safety pilot scheme (which im assuming is legit considering what people are saying/flight schools using it for licensing purposes) then when your log book gets say spot checked and they check into it you are in the clear.....

Also has anyone gone to Ari ben or a school who does the same type of training/logging methods (ATP??) and gone onto somewhere like cathay?

Thanks for all the responses

 

[AC560]

but if the time is logged in a legit way under the safety pilot scheme (which im assuming is legit considering what people are saying/flight schools using it for licensing purposes) then when your log book gets say spot checked and they check into it you are in the clear

If I log it as PIC and my buddy logs it as PIC unless they slap our two log books next to each other they are never going to know. Not that I am advocating this but if people feel the need to bulk up their log book with grey hours they shouldn't bother with convoluted schemes.

 

[A Squared]

If I log it as PIC and my buddy logs it as PIC unless they slap our two log books next to each other they are never going to know. Not that I am advocating this but if people feel the need to bulk up their log book with grey hours they shouldn't bother with convoluted schemes.

I realize that you're speaking rhetorically, and that you're not actually advocating this, but if you have an accident or an incident, while you both are in the airplane, the FAA may very well slap your logbooks down side by side and compare. I beleive that this is how they caught these guys:


http://www.ntsb.gov/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/4008.PDF

Notice that the penalty is revoction. Also bear in mind that it can be a pretty benign incident which triggers a logbook review. I personally know of pilots who have been requested to present thier logbooks for review in the case of incdents like a runway departure due to a blown tire, which absolutley no damage to the aircraft or airport facilities, and no appearence of pilot non-proficiency.

 

[CaptO'Brien]

oh man now im more confused....so those guys in that article logged safety pilot time and its illegal? or is it just because they didnt make a note in their logbook stating that for 50% of the time they were acting as safety pilot and just stated that they were PIC the whole time with no mention of the safety pilot.

What part of the FAR's states that it is ok to log safety pilot time? can it be counted as multi PIC and TT or what does it count towards?

I truly only want to log things legally and dont want to be tampering and parker pening my logbook to get myself ahead, however i do want to represent myself as best as possible by logging getting the most out of what measly time i do have...because we all know the person i will be competing with in an interview will have done the same.

This is why i am asking these questions before i partake in using the safety pilot system to get myself extra multi time when i would have to spend the money anyways. If i can get 50 hours multi PIC and have fun doing it for the same cost or less than it would cost me to do the 50 PIC on at C-172 and its all legal why wouldnt i? I just need to know the legallity of it and of course in this industry there will always be conflicting answers.

Am i going to have my license revoked for doing this? is it legal? can i get my ATP if they spot checked this time in my log book?

I guess lots of people are using this method to build their time so i thought i would use it to...but surely i dont want to use it if its going to screw me over.

Thanks again for your helpful responses!
Capt O'B

 

[AC560]

I realize that you're speaking rhetorically, and that you're not actually advocating this, but if you have an accident or an incident, while you both are in the airplane

I think the key point is there are no short cuts in life and if you try to take one the consequences can be severe. There are lots of opprtunities for people to build legitimate time as opposed to looking for the loop holes. I always like your posts A Squared, you always sum up the point well.

PS My log book and flight bag got stolen out of my car the day before that accident, I can only give the FAA my total time. Again if you feel the need to cheat, don't be stupid (though generally I guess stupid people are the ones who feel the need to cheat the most).

 

[sqwkvfr]

What's it to be? Hours or experience?

I know what Skywest is gonna say if apply with my 38 hours of multi time.

 

[A Squared]

oh man now im more confused....so those guys in that article logged safety pilot time and its illegal? or is it just because they didnt make a note in their logbook stating that for 50% of the time they were acting as safety pilot and just stated that they were PIC the whole time with no mention of the safety pilot.

Well, not exactly. They weren't using the "safety pilot" excuse. They were "giving each other flight instruction". It's just a variation of the same theme. It's a justfication for both guys taking credit for the same flight time. This is not illegal in itself, but they did not log it as dual given and dual received, they just each logged the same time as "PIC". This is the basis of the falsification charge. Presumably, if you were playing the safety pilot game, and you didn't log it as such, you both just logged it as PIC with no explanation, you could be the subject of the same falsification charges.

Is it legal to log Safety pilot as PIC time? yes it is, according to a 1992 interpretation from the FAA's Chief Counsel. The opinion letter is posted below. In order to do that the safety pilot must be designated the actual PIC of the flight. Personally, it appears to me that this interpretation violates both the letter and the spirit of the regulations. If you read 61.51(e)1 and 2 together it appears that a plain english reading of the words would prohibit anyone who is not an ATP holder, in an operation requiring an ATP (121 captain, etc), from logging PIC time when they are not actually manipulating the controls.

But, how I read the regulation is of course, irrelevant. The Chief Counsel has issued an interpretation, and you are persumably safe following it's guidance.

So if it's legal, wht's the problem?

OK. let's be honest about what is going on, It's a loophole, an aparently legal loophole, to justify logging pilot time when you were not piloting an airplane. You were sitting there, watching for traffic, yet it's entered in your logbook as if you were flying the airplne, and you present it as an indication of your piloting experience, which it is not. Sure, there are things to be learned from being a safety pilot, if you approach it with that mindset, just like there are things to be learned by working on the ramp, and things to be learned by helping a mechanic work on airplanes and things to be learned by sitting in a non-crew seat and observing an experienced pilot or crew operate. None of these things are actually piloting though, yet many would present the "safety pilot" time as time that they piloted an airplane as PIC, because there's a loophole which allows that.

Maybe a different way of explaining it is to look at the "giving dual" dodge.

Let's say that you're a multi-eingine instructor. You give 50 hours of no-$hit multi engine instruction. You're taking students who have never flown a multi engine airplane and you're teaching them to do that, correcting thier mistakes, preventing them from losing control of the airplane, walking them through drag demos, demonstrating manuvers, helping them refine thier technique toward a checkride.

Is that 50 hours legit PIC time? Absolutely, and by most measures, valuable experience.

Now, change the scenario. You and a MEI buddy buy 100 hours of block time in a twin, and you fly off that time, back and forth, over and over. First You "instruct" him for an hour, then he "instructs" you for an hour, then you "instruct" him for an hour, then he "instructs" you for an hour ... back and forth , on and on. At the end of the 100 hours, you have 50 hours that you did fly the airplane, but your logbook shows 100 hours of PIC time. That other 50 hours, when he was flying, is that really legitimate flight time? well.... no, it's not. Let's be honest, you were really not giving each other instruction, you were using "instruction" as an excuse to take credit for time you didn't fly.

So to take that back to the safety pilot issue: Is the your "safety pilot" time more like the first case, or legitimate instruction, or is it like the second case, a loophole to log more time than you'd be otherwise entitiled to log? I'd say that in most cases, it's just a rationalization for logging time that you wouldn't be otherwise entitiled to log.

As a personal; preference, I would prefer my PIC time in my logbook to match the time I actually was Pilot in Command.

You don't end up with that by "splitting" time via the "safety pilot" dodge or "giving each other dual" dodge. In those cases you end up with "time when I wasn't actually piloting, but I can't be prosecuted for claiming it"



The Chief Counsel Interpretation:

October 30, 1992


Mr. David M. Reid


Dear Mr. Reid:

Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1992, concerning the logging of pilot in command (PIC) time under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

In your letter you ask four questions. First, you ask whether there are "any circumstances when, during a normal flight, two Private Pilots may simultaneously act as (and therefore log the time as) Pilot In Command?" The answer is two private pilots may not simultaneously act as PIC but they may, under certain circumstances, simultaneously log PIC time.

There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC time. PIC, as defined in FAR 1.1, means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time. FAR 61.51 deals with logging PIC flight time, and it provides that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC 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. It is important to note that FAR 61.51 only regulates the recording of PIC time used to meet the requirements toward a higher certificate, higher rating, or for recent flight experience.

Therefore, while it is not possible for two pilots to act as PIC simultaneously, it is possible for two pilots to log PIC flight time simultaneously. PIC flight time may be logged by both the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time in accordance with FAR 1.1, and by the pilot who acts as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft for which the pilot is rated under FAR 61.51. Enclosed please find two prior FAA interpretations concerning logging of PIC time. We hope that these will be of further assistance to you.

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). Enclosed please find a prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of flight time under simulated instrument flight conditions. We hope that this interpretation will be of further assistance to you.

In your third question you ask "during instrument training, how shall a VFR Private Pilot log the following flight time: Pilot In Command time, Simulated Instrument time, and Actual Instrument time, when that pilot is... A)...under the hood? B)...in actual instrument conditions? C)...under the hood in actual instrument conditions?" The answer is the VFR private pilot may log all of the flight time you described as PIC flight time under FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) if he was the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated. Under FAR 61.51(c)(4) the pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. Please note that the FARs do not distinguish between "actual" and "simulated" instrument flight time. Enclosed is a prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of instrument flight time. We hope this interpretation will further assist you.

Finally you ask "does FAR 61.57 affect how the VFR Private Pilot shall log Pilot In Command time during instrument training, either before or after meeting the 6/6/6 requirement, and if so, how?" FAR 61.57 does not affect how a pilot logs PIC time during instrument training; FAR 61.51(c)(2) and (4) govern logging of instrument flight time. FAR 61.57(e) provides currency requirements for acting as PIC under instrument flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than the minimums for visual flight rules (VFR). Enclosed please find a prior FAA interpretation on instrument flight time and FAR 61.57(e). We hope this interpretation will further assist you.

We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

Sincerely,


Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

 

[CaptO'Brien]

Ok thanks A SQ that is making more sense...I figured that it was a loophole in the system..now i need to decide between doing my conversions for cheaper and logging 50 hours multi by using the loophole or doing them for more expensive, not getting much multi, but then at least my logbook reflects everybit of PIC time i have actually been true PIC...the decisions...

i kinda wish this loophole didnt even exsist because then i wouldnt have to compete against people who have just bought 200 hours of multi by sitting right seat of a light twin...and the regionals would have to lower their multi requirements because not enough people would meet the multi requirements to fill their seats.

Guess i gotta figure these things out before i make my decision...Thanks for your help guys/girls

Cpt O'B

 

[PDH]

A couple of more things to consider--when logging safety pilot time, be certain that the pilot flying the aircraft is wearing a view limiting device.

Secondly, taxiing, takeoff, and anytime below DH does not require a safety pilot.

Thirdly, any time spent in the clouds or less than VFR mins does not require a safety pilot as you are already on an Instrument Flight Plan. The safety pilot and pilot manipulating the controls will not log the same PIC time for each flight.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Sadly, many a pilot has advanced their career this way.

 

[PDH]

37 hrs. of ATP's Career Pilot Program is done this way for the cross country flights. Seems to be working for them.

 

[CaptO'Brien]

So the ATP guys go on to major carriers? not just American carriers but foreign ones aswell?

Cathay, Emirates, British Airways, Air Canada, Ryan Air, etc?

i just want to keep my options open and not limit myself.

 

[avbug]

Thirdly, any time spent in the clouds or less than VFR mins does not require a safety pilot as you are already on an Instrument Flight Plan. The safety pilot and pilot manipulating the controls will not log the same PIC time for each flight.

Being in conditions less than VFR or being in the clouds does not mean someone is on an instrument flight plan.

Being on an instrument flight plan is irrelevant to the issue of logging time.

One cannot log instrument time merely because one is on an instrument flight plan. Being on an instrument flight plan does not negate the need nor requirement for a safety pilot if the flight is being conducted under simulated instrument flight.

One can conduct simulated instrument flight while operating under an instrument flight plan (IFR). One can conduct simulated instrument flight while operating in conditions less than VFR or in the clouds. Conditions outside the cockpit are irrelevant if the person manipulating the controls is wearing a view limiting device; for him or her, instrument flight simulated, and in accordance with 14 CFR 91.109(b), a safety pilot is required.

Simulated instrument flight may be conducted in actual instrument conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. If an aircraft is being operated in actual instrument conditions, conditions less than VFR, or any conditions requiring that flight by reference to instruments be conducted (eg, moonless night over the ocean, etc), the flight may still be conducted by simulated instrument conditions if the pilot manipulating the controls is wearing a view limiting device, and accordingly, a safety pilot is still required. The requirement for the safety pilot exists regardless of conditions external to the cockpit; the requirement for the safety pilot exists so long as the pilot manipulating the controls is wearing a view limiting device, for no other reason than the fact that the safety pilot is there to see and avoid, and the person wearing the view limiting device is unable to see and avoid. This is the intent of 91.109(b).

A safety pilot is required as one available to look for traffic, which is a basic requirement of 91.113(b)...see and avoid. See AIM 5-5-8, which states:

5-5-8. See and Avoid
a. Pilot. When meteorological conditions permit, regardless of type of flight plan or whether or not under control of a radar facility, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other traffic, terrain, or obstacles.

61.45(d) describes a view limiting device for simulated instrument flight as "A device that prevents the applicant from having visual reference outside the aircraft, but does not prevent the examiner from having visual reference outside the aircraft, and is otherwise acceptable to the Administrator."

In the former FAQ, we see the following commentary on safety pilots, including safety pilots under IFR:

QUESTION: Is a person who is serving as a safety pilot for a flight under simulated instrument flight on an IFR flight plan required to hold an instrument rating if that person is merely only acting as a safety pilot? Notice, I did not say the person is acting as a pilot in command or as a second in command. The person is only onboard to act as a safety pilot. But the flight is going to be performed under IFR (instrument flight rules) and the pilot has filed an IFR flight plan.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.3(e)(1) or (2); § 61.55(a)(2); § 91.109(b)(1); The rating requirements to serve as a safety pilot are addressed in § 91.109(b)(1). This rule requires a person who serves as a safety pilot in simulated instrument flight to hold “. . . at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.”

Now, § 91.109(b)(1), states “. . . No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -- (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot . . . .” This rule, in effect, requires the safety pilot to be a required “flightcrew member.” And, per § 1.1, there are only 3 kinds of “flightcrew members, ” pilot, flight engineer, and a flight navigator [see § 1.1 under “flightcrew member”]. One kind of required “flightcrew member” is a pilot [see § 1.1 under “flightcrew member”]. The designations of a pilot “flightcrew member” is either a pilot in command (PIC) or a second in command (SIC). Another kind of required “flightcrew member” is a flight engineer [see § 1.1 under “flightcrew member”]. And the other kind of “flightcrew member” is a flight navigator [see § 1.1 under “flightcrew member”].

In the preamble discussion in the “Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules; Final Rule” on page 16237, middle column, of the Federal Register (62 FR 16237; April 4, 1997), the FAA stated that a safety pilot is a required crewmember. The FAA stated the following in that preamble discussion:

“. . . In response to AOPA’s comment regarding instructors who act as safety pilots not being required to have a medical certificate, the FAA notes that § 91.109 specifies that a safety pilot is required to conduct simulated instrument flight, which makes the safety pilot a required crewmember . . . .”
Therefore, a safety pilot is either a PIC “flightcrew member” or an SIC “flightcrew member” and either way “. . . makes the safety pilot a required crewmember . . . .” [see “Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules; Final Rule” on page 16237, middle column, of the Federal Register (62 FR 16237; April 4, 1997)].

So, when a safety pilot is ACTING as the pilot in command “flightcrew member” under IFR and the flying pilot is conducting simulated instrument flight, then in accordance with § 61.3(e)(1) or (2), the safety pilot would be required to hold the appropriate instrument rating (or an airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate instrument privilege).

or

So, when the safety pilot is ACTING as a second in command “flightcrew member” under IFR and the flying pilot is conducting simulated instrument flight, then in accordance with § 61.55(a)(2), the safety pilot would be required to hold the appropriate instrument rating.

to be continued...

 

[avbug]

Thirdly, any time spent in the clouds or less than VFR mins does not require a safety pilot as you are already on an Instrument Flight Plan. The safety pilot and pilot manipulating the controls will not log the same PIC time for each flight.

Your statement refers to the commonly held belief that once the flight enters instrument conditions, the safety pilot is no longer required...this is untrue. The FAA has never defined simulated instrument flight time or actual instrument flight time...only actual or simulated conditions. The requirement for a safety pilot is based on simulated instrument flight...and has nothing to do with conditions outside the cockpit. Simulated instrument flight takes place inside the cockpit, and regardless of w(h)eather the flight moves through a hail of rotten eggs, clear with visibility unlimited, or a flurry of hen feathers, if the pilot inside the cockpit manipulating the flight controls is required to do so because he or she is wearing a view limiting device that has simulated instrument conditions...what's going on outside the cockpit is irrelevant. A safety pilot is required.

QUESTION:
The question came up about logging “actual” instrument time when over the desert at night with no visual references. When you are flying with sole reference to instruments, is that actual time? If not, is it “simulated” instrument time? Our take on the question is actual instrument time can only be logged when the aircraft is in IMC. The weather determines actual instrument time, not flying by sole reference to instruments. That settles the actual instrument question, but what about “simulated” instrument time? Our feeling is it can be logged as “simulated instrument time.” It would be the same as having a hood on while flying by sole reference to instruments. What about the requirement for a safety pilot under these conditions? Our answer is "no" because the pilot is still able to "see and avoid" conflicting traffic.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.51(g); The only definition in the rules is the definition on “instrument flight time” and that is addressed in § 61.51(g) and is defined as:
(g) Logging instrument flight time.

(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

However, I understand your question to be that you’re asking for a definition of “actual instrument time” as opposed to “simulated instrument time.” I believe you’re interchanging the terms “actual instrument time” where the rules only state “actual instrument conditions.” And you state “simulated instrument time” but the rules only state “simulated instrument conditions.” So there is no official FAA definition on “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time” in the FARs, FAA Orders, advisory circulars, FAA bulletins, etc. And the reason why the FAA has never officially defined “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time” is because in all of the aeronautical experience requirements for pilot certificate and/or ratings in Part 61, the rule does not differentiate between “actual instrument time” as opposed to “simulated instrument time.” In fact, in Part 61 it only refers to the aeronautical experience for instrument time to be “. . . instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions . . .” So it is irrelevant whether the instrument flight time is logged as “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time.” Part 61 only refers to “actual instrument conditions” or “simulated instrument conditions.”

I agree with your statement that just because a person is flying “. . . by sole reference to instruments . . .” has nothing to do with whether the flight can be logged as “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time.” Only the weather conditions establish whether the flight is in “actual instrument conditions.” And that is dependent on the weather conditions where the aircraft is physically located and the pilot makes that determination as to whether the flight is in “actual instrument conditions” or he is performing instrument flight under “simulated instrument conditions.” But for a “quick and easy” answer to your question, it was always my understanding if I were flying in weather conditions that were less than the VFR weather minimums defined in § 91.155 and I was flying “solely by reference to instruments” then that was the determining factor for being able log instrument flight under “actual instrument conditions.”

Otherwise, if I were flying solely by reference to instruments in VMC conditions then I would log it as instrument flight in “simulated instrument conditions.” In your example, the flight is clear of clouds and in good visibility conditions at night over the desert with an overcast above and no visible horizon. But other examples could include flight between sloping cloud layers or flight between layers of clouds at night. These could equally meet the requirement for operations that can only be accomplished solely by reference to instruments. But, the lack of sufficient visual reference to maintain aircraft control without using instruments does not eliminate the possibility of collision hazard with other aircraft or terrain.

So, now to answer your other question “What about the requirement for a safety pilot under these conditions? Your question is answered by § 91.109(b)(1) and it states:

“(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.”

Normally, in order to log instrument flight time under “simulated instrument conditions,” the pilot needs to be utilizing a view limiting device. But, the only place in the rules requiring a view limiting device will be found under § 61.45(d)(2) as part of the equipment for a practical test. Otherwise, no where else in the rules, orders, bulletins, or advisory circulars does it specifically state that pilots need to be utilizing a view limiting device. But, except for meteorological conditions as in our examples above, how else, could a pilot comply with § 61.51(g) for logging instrument flight time [i.e., “. . . when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . .”] unless the pilot was utilizing a view limiting device when logging instrument flight time in simulated instrument conditions?

Note the following from the Federal Register preambles. When defining regulation, we look to the regulation itself, then to interpretations from the FAA Administrator (through the FAA Chief or Regional legal counsel(s), and finally to the Federal Register preambles:

From 61 FR 34508:

Simulated Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Conditions
Some airmen have expressed concern about the meaning of the terms "simulated IFR conditions" or "simulated instrument conditions" in part 61. There appears to be confusion over whether these conditions can be achieved by the use of hood devices only. These terms are used throughout the 14 CFR to mean that instrument conditions may be simulated by artificially limiting pilot visibility outside the cockpit. Pilot visibility can be limited by a hood device, by artificially limiting visibility in an approved flight simulator or flight training device, or by other appropriate means. Section 61.45 permits the artificial limitation of visibility by these various means.

 

[PDH]

Avbug, I was implying that there was no need for a safety pilot if the pilot was not wearing a view limiting device. There is no need to wear one in actual conditions except to help the safety pilot log time. Good research though. Very thorough.

 

[Vik]

Capt O'Brien,

Safety pilot time isn't exactly counted by most overseas carriers, and even if it were, carriers like CX and EK want time in turbine equip 99.9% of the time. Go look on their sites. They aren't looking for a guy w/ 5000hrs in a light twin.

Hi i am wondering if there is anybody on this board who has done a multi block time where apparently two pilots can log PIC and gone onto a major carrier such as Cathay pacific or Emirates...I am looking into doing this time because it works out to be cheaper for what im doing just to buy a block time of multi; and of course it gives me the multi time which seems to be so important when going to the regionals.

I know this can get you into the regionals but i am thinking long term i may want to go to a foreign carrier and i dont want a measly 25 hours that i logged as apparently legal "safety pilot" time to screw me over. I know most other foreign countries will not let you log time like this, but i guess if its done wiht a FAA license in a "N" registered AC then its legal and they should accept it?

I am truly conflicted at this point if i should do this or not...the school i am looking at attending for this time bulding is "Ari Ben" and it works out well for me to do it, however i dont want to be affected negatively in the future by something small in my past. Thanks in advance for your comments!

Capt O'B

 

[ackattacker]

In the former FAQ, we see the following commentary on safety pilots, including safety pilots under IFR:

Avbug, I'm curious where this FAQ came from because it appears that a part of it contradicts a Chief Counsel opinion on logging actual instrument flight time. The following was cut and pasted from the old propilot website, hence the "Doc" edits:

FAA Legl opinion, NOTE: FAR 61.51(c)(4) is now codified in 61.51(g), the concepts cited remain valid. the opinion has been edited for brevity:
"November 7 1984
Mr. Joseph P. Carr
Dear Mr. Carr:
This is in response to your letter asking questions about instrument flight time.
First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as actual instrument flight time.
Second, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.57(e)(2) of the FAR, noting that Advisory Circular 61-65A, Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors, seems to contain advice contrary to your understanding of the rule.
As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions.
To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot. Note that, under Section 61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should include the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate.
[Answer to second question deleted due to not being pertinent to this discussion -- Doc]
Sincerely,
/s/
John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division"

 

[avbug]

Avbug, I was implying that there was no need for a safety pilot if the pilot was not wearing a view limiting device. There is no need to wear one in actual conditions except to help the safety pilot log time.

A legitimate use might be consistancy for a student on a training flight. Rather than ripping the hood off every time the flight enters or exits the cloud, keeping the view limiting device in place offers a consistancy for the student. A student under a tent or other device that completely limits the student's ability to see out would also fit in this category. If the student removes the view limiting device, you're right, it's no longer simulated...but this applies any time the student removes the device, w(h)eather in genuine actual honest-to-goodness instrument conditions, or clear sunny gotta-be-on-the-beach-today weather.

Avbug, I'm curious where this FAQ came from because it appears that a part of it contradicts a Chief Counsel opinion on logging actual instrument flight time.

I suspect you're referring to the quote below, taken from the FAQ excerpt I previously posted:

Otherwise, if I were flying solely by reference to instruments in VMC conditions then I would log it as instrument flight in “simulated instrument conditions.” In your example, the flight is clear of clouds and in good visibility conditions at night over the desert with an overcast above and no visible horizon. But other examples could include flight between sloping cloud layers or flight between layers of clouds at night. These could equally meet the requirement for operations that can only be accomplished solely by reference to instruments. But, the lack of sufficient visual reference to maintain aircraft control without using instruments does not eliminate the possibility of collision hazard with other aircraft or terrain.

In that post, John Lynch is providing his opinion regarding a category of logging...but also notes that there's no difference between "actual" and "simulated" instrument experience so far as the FAA is concerned. Both are merely "instrument" experience, equally applicable to the experience requirements of any certificate or rating. A moonless night over the ocean, or an overcast or moonless night over the desert, or flight between layers with no discernable horizon, are instrument conditions. W(h)eather you elect to log it as "actual" or "simulated" is really a mute point and a matter of semantics, because these are instrument conditions regardless of how they occur.

This is a different subject than "simulated" instrument flight. The key issue in 91.109(b) with respect to simulated instrument flight is the requirement for a safety pilot. One might say, as John Lynch postulated in the FAQ, that flight over the ocean on a moonless night is "simulated" instrument conditions insofar as no obscuring meteorological phenomenon is obscuring visibility. One might call it actual, as one is actually required to fly by instruments. The key point to both the FAQ and the legal interpretation is that the FAA has never provided a definition as to what constitutes "actual" vs. "simulated."

I can see the potential conundrum to which you may be referring...where does one determine what's simulated and actual for the purposes of requiring a safety pilot? Simulated vs. actual for the purposes of the FAQ as given by John Lynch refers to logging flight time, as opposed to operational issues. Operationally, the difference is w(h)eather the pilot is making the conditions (simulated), or some other factor...and it comes down to the ability of the pilot to see and avoid (hence the need for a safety pilot and any additional assistants to augment visibility, as fund in 91.109).

John Lynch maintained the FAQ unofficially. It does not represent FAA policy, and on occasion his commentary did venture into areas of pure opinion. However, in general, it's a good reference for someone with a question on Part 61. John Lynch, a FAA employee who was responsible for writing and maintaining much of the regulation, had good insights into the meaning and intent of the regulation, and put in an enormous amount of work on the FAQ site.

The FAQ archive, as well as all regulations, FAA publications, legal interpretations, and virtually every other FAA publication, federal register preamble, etc, is available for about eighty bucks on the ASA Flight Pro CD by Summit Publications. It's very searchable and makes referencing almost any regulatory question relatively fast.

Other than a semantic personal opinion, I don't see any difference between John Lynch's comments, or those of John Cassady's in his legal opinion.

 

[ackattacker]

Thanks avbug, I think that answered my question. This came up on another thread where a poster was asking whether a non-instrument rated solo pilot could log actual instrument time (on a moonless night etc)

One difficulty I see with John Lynch's statement (as you surmised) is that if the moonless night is "simulated instrument" conditions then a safety pilot is required... but if it's "actual instrument" conditions then it is not. I would hesistate to log it as "simulated instrument" without a safety pilot.

The other problem I see is this statement:

But for a “quick and easy” answer to your question, it was always my understanding if I were flying in weather conditions that were less than the VFR weather minimums defined in § 91.155 and I was flying “solely by reference to instruments” then that was the determining factor for being able log instrument flight under “actual instrument conditions.”

Whereas the Chief Counsel opinion says that a pilot may log "Actual instrument" in VFR weather conditions if there is a lack of adequate visual reference.

 

[avbug]

One difficulty I see with John Lynch's statement (as you surmised) is that if the moonless night is "simulated instrument" conditions then a safety pilot is required... but if it's "actual instrument" conditions then it is not. I would hesistate to log it as "simulated instrument" without a safety pilot.

Again, John Lynch was offering opinion on that count, which may differ slightly in semantics from the correct legal interpretation cited. He's talking logging, not operation and logging issues don't affect the requirement for a safety pilot.

Conditions which are not instrument meteorological conditions, but which none the less require reference to instruments are indeed instrument conditions. The FAA has never formally defined instrument conditions, as indicated both by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel and Mr. Lynch. Mr. Lynch postulated that conditions not in traditional instrument meteorological conditions might be logged as simulated, perhaps on the premise that these are conditions greater than IMC in the legal sense...but the FAA has never set forth anything in a regulatory or interpretative form which suggests that one must log it as either "actual" or "simulated" instrument conditions. It's merely instrument conditions. The FAA hasn't defined instrument conditions to differentiate between a moonless night over the ocean, and flying through a dense precipitous cloud. It's merely instrument conditions.

Flight in which the pilot's vision is obscured such that the pilot is required to use instruments, such as the use of a hood, tent, cover, chart, or other view limiting device, is a simulated instrument condition for the purpose of 91.109. If one is wearing a hood and flies into a cloud, one may log it as actual instrument conditions while still retaining the need for a safety pilot, with the attendant privilege for both pilots to be logging the time, per the discussions already presented in this thread. Once more, one must be able to separate the concepts of logging, vs. operational. One is what's really going on, the other is a paperwork.