"safety pilot time"?!?!

[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.