SIC time and friends plane??

[QuasarZ]

So lets say I have a friend that has a Multi engine plane(310). Is it possible for me to ride along in the right seat and throw gear, work radios, flt plan etc and be able to log SIC time and TT? This might be a dumb question but I am not familiar with the whole SIC time and stuff..
thanks

 

[A Squared]

No. you may only log SIC time if you are required to be there by regulation.

 

[Daytonaflyer]

No SIC for you!

No, you cannot log SIC time unless either the airplane is certified to require two pilots or the operation you are doing requires two pilots (such as FAR 121). This is how Scenic Airlines pilots can legally log SIC in a single-pilot Twin Otter.

In a light twin, you could log safety pilot time if you wanted to. One of you guys would fly left seat under the hood while practicing instrument flying in VFR conditions. The other acts as safety pilot and watches for traffic, terrain, etc. Be sure to alternate legs so each guy gets practice flying.
Both pilots may log PIC for the entire duration of the flight, the guy under the hood must note the name of the safety pilot in his logbook for each flight.

 

[nosehair]

In a light twin, you could log safety pilot time if you wanted to.

...and you have a multi rating.

 

[minitour]

One of you guys would fly left seat under the hood while practicing instrument flying in VFR conditions.

Doesn't have to be VFR conditions...just so long as one of you is under the hood, the other acts as PIC (IOW - you will need a multi-instrument rating, all proper endorsements - complex/hp if necessary and need to be "current") you can actually both get PIC time.

OR...if you want, if the other guy (the one under the hood) will agree to act as PIC, you can log it as SIC...but it looks funky. You're required to be there by the simulated instrument reg, but you aren't acting as PIC...but really who logs SIC in 172s and 310s under 91?

-mini

 

[QuasarZ]

yea, i will have my multi. So what about if this person does a check run at night and I ride with him not logging time on the way out (pt 135) but what about the way back, it's an empty leg (pt 91) If I fly that leg could I log it?

 

[A Squared]

yea, i will have my multi. So what about if this person does a check run at night and I ride with him not logging time on the way out (pt 135) but what about the way back, it's an empty leg (pt 91) If I fly that leg could I log it?

Yeah, you could log the time you're the sole manipulator, but then your friend cannot log that time. Is this friend a good enough friend to give away the time, assuming he's trying to build time too? If there was ever some question about what was going on, and an inspector got both your logbooks and compared, and you both were logging PIC at the same time, it would likely be considered falsification.

There was an enforcement case of this nature a while back. The guys who were both taking credit for the same time lost thier certificates.

 

[QuasarZ]

Thanks for the replies. Makes more sense now

 

[FN FAL]

Thanks for the replies. Makes more sense now

Here's another caveat to think about when puffing up those numbers of multi. If you claim you rented or flew a plane anywhere, expect to be asked for fuel reciepts.

This happened to a friend of mine that interviewed for a freight job.

 

[b82rez]

Here's another caveat to think about when puffing up those numbers of multi. If you claim you rented or flew a plane anywhere, expect to be asked for fuel reciepts.

This happened to a friend of mine that interviewed for a freight job.

If you get asked for fuel reciepts during an interview, say "no thanks" and find yourself another job. That's just rediculous

 

[Daytonaflyer]

Doesn't have to be VFR conditions...just so long as one of you is under the hood, the other acts as PIC (IOW - you will need a multi-instrument rating, all proper endorsements - complex/hp if necessary and need to be "current") you can actually both get PIC time.

OR...if you want, if the other guy (the one under the hood) will agree to act as PIC, you can log it as SIC...but it looks funky. You're required to be there by the simulated instrument reg, but you aren't acting as PIC...but really who logs SIC in 172s and 310s under 91?

-mini

Minitour,
I believe you are incorrect.
Any time logged by a safety pilot must be in VFR conditions. Otherwise it would have to be logged as actual instrument time and could only be logged by the pilot flying. Only the pilot actually controlling the aircraft is allowed to log instrument time, ever. If the right seater was a requirement, then he could log it as total time, but not as actual IFR, SIC, nor as safety pilot. This applies for all FAR 91, 121, and 135 flying operations.
Since only one pilot is required to fly this type of airplane, the safety pilot is not a requirement under IFR and thus not allowed to log any time in IMC conditions. All safety pilot time must be in VFR conditions. Why would you have a safety pilot in IMC conditions? What are they looking out for, clouds?

Unfortunately I believe your other paragraph is incorrect also. It is actually illegal to log SIC time in an airplane or operation that is not certified for a second-in-command. You must complete an SIC checkout in order to legally log SIC time. You cannot just log SIC because you "want to". A checkride must be passed.
IE: a pilot flying right seat in a King Air 90 could not log SIC under FAR 91, since he is not required for the operation and the airplane is certified for single pilot operations.
The only way a pilot could log SIC in a Cessna 172 or 310 is if the operation required an SIC and the pilot had received a specific SIC checkout in that type of airplane.
This applies in FAR 91, 121, and 135.

 

[QuasarZ]

ok.. how about this.. lets say this person is a MEI and I fly the empy leg back? Then could we both log it?

 

[minitour]

Minitour,
I believe you are incorrect.
Any time logged by a safety pilot must be in VFR conditions. Otherwise it would have to be logged as actual instrument time and could only be logged by the pilot flying. Only the pilot actually controlling the aircraft is allowed to log instrument time, ever. If the right seater was a requirement, then he could log it as total time, but not as actual IFR, SIC, nor as safety pilot. This applies for all FAR 91, 121, and 135 flying operations.
Since only one pilot is required to fly this type of airplane, the safety pilot is not a requirement under IFR and thus not allowed to log any time in IMC conditions. All safety pilot time must be in VFR conditions. Why would you have a safety pilot in IMC conditions? What are they looking out for, clouds?

If someone is wearing a view limiting device, a safety pilot is required. If the flight is VFR, IFR, VMC, IMC, inverted, on Fridays, during a full moon doesn't matter.

14 CFR 91.109(b) covers simulated instrument conditions. All it says is that to operate in simulated instrument conditions (view limiting device) the other seat must be occupied by a safety pilot that has the appropriate ratings and adequate vision forward and to each side.

Note that it does not say X miles of visibility or VFR conditions. The Safety pilot, if instrument rated, current, etc. may file IFR accept the clearance and take the aircraft into actual IMC with the pilot in the left seat under the hood still in simulated instrument conditions. Actually if the pilot manipulating the controlls and wearing the view limiting device could file and accept the clearance and take the aircraft into IMC provided he/she is instrument rated and current and also providing he/she has decided/agreed to act as PIC.

Why would you have a safety pilot in IMC? To build pilot hours.

Unfortunately I believe your other paragraph is incorrect also. It is actually illegal to log SIC time in an airplane or operation that is not certified for a second-in-command. You must complete an SIC checkout in order to legally log SIC time. You cannot just log SIC because you "want to". A checkride must be passed.
IE: a pilot flying right seat in a King Air 90 could not log SIC under FAR 91, since he is not required for the operation and the airplane is certified for single pilot operations.
The only way a pilot could log SIC in a Cessna 172 or 310 is if the operation required an SIC and the pilot had received a specific SIC checkout in that type of airplane.
This applies in FAR 91, 121, and 135.

Again, 91.109(b) states that when the pilot manipulating the controls is wearing a view limiting device, a safety pilot is required.

Okay...so a second pilot is now required by regulation [91.109(b)].

14 CFR 61.55(a) says in the first paragraph:
"a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds:" (emphasis added)

It then goes on to list pilot certificates requried, instrument rating if conducted under IFR and currency requirements.

The "checkride" you site is most definitely required under 91K, 135 and 121, but under plain-jane 91, the only thing that 61.55(b) says is that I have to have 3 takeoffs and landings within the past 12 months, done some engine out maneuvering, recieved "crew resource management training" (whatever that is...) and of course, become familiar with the aircraft operations (placards, etc.).

No checkride is required until you get to 61.55(d) which talks about SIC type ratings.

The only thing that could "get" most people out to "build time" this way is the crew resource management training. However...

61.55(f) tosses that out the window.

61.55 (f) The familiarization training requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to a person who is:
...
(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109(b) of this chapter.

So, the way I'm reading this...

91.109 doesn't say anything about VFR or VMC conditions.

91.109 also requires the pilot to be there.

61.55 allows someone to be qualified for SIC if they are there for the purposes of 91.109(b) [in 61.55(f)].

So you could log SIC time in a 152 or a Cub if you wanted to...and do it in IFR conditions.

-mini

*edit*

PS
QuasarZ,
If he's giving you dual, sure.

 

[Morettis]

You said he was flying freight part 135 and you were going to fly the 91 leg back right? Hate to burst your bubble, but you can't be on the plane on the 135 leg unless you work for the same company.

§ 135.85 Carriage of persons without compliance with the passenger-carrying provisions of this part.

The following persons may be carried aboard an aircraft without complying with the passenger-carrying requirements of this part:
(a) A crewmember or other employee of the certificate holder.
(b) A person necessary for the safe handling of animals on the aircraft.
(c) A person necessary for the safe handling of hazardous materials (as defined in subchapter C of title 49 CFR).
(d) A person performing duty as a security or honor guard accompanying a shipment made by or under the authority of the U.S. Government.
(e) A military courier or a military route supervisor carried by a military cargo contract air carrier or commercial operator in operations under a military cargo contract, if that carriage is specifically authorized by the appropriate military service.
(f) An authorized representative of the Administrator conducting an en route inspection.
(g) A person, authorized by the Administrator, who is performing a duty connected with a cargo operation of the certificate holder.
(h) A DOD commercial air carrier evaluator conducting an en route evaluation.

 

[QuasarZ]

I am not sure it is 135.. I am just assuming it is. Its bank checks at night. So that would make me assume it is 135

 

[FN FAL]

If you get asked for fuel receipts during an interview, say "no thanks" and find yourself another job. That's just ridiculous

That's what the interviewer said, "Go find yourself another job".

I knew the guy that happened to. He was my partner in a twin engine plane and he showed up at Freight Runners door with 400 or more hours in receipt twins that he logged over a year and a quarter or so. He claimed the hours were those that he flew with family members to do family things and other acts of human kindness and generosity, the philanthropist.

The owner of Freight Runners told my partner that he was either flying "illegal charter" or was lying and told him the interview was over unless he could come up with fuel receipts to cover the trips.

 

[QuasarZ]

da*n.. that sucks ^ (unless it was made up time)

 

[A Squared]

ok.. how about this.. lets say this person is a MEI and I fly the empy leg back? Then could we both log it?

Yeah, if he (or she) is in fact giving you instruction, you could log it as instruction. But, how if you log significant amounts of time in this manner, it raises questions. Let's say you have 50 hours of instuction logged, flying along the airways. That seems to suggest either:

1) you needed 50 hours of instruction to grasp the concept of tracking an airway, which does not reflect well on you.

or,

2) You really weren't getting instruction, but you logged it that way anyway, which is falsification. This also does not reflect well on you.

 

[A Squared]

That's what the interviewer said, "Go find yourself another job".

I knew the guy that happened to. He was my partner in a twin engine plane and he showed up at Freight Runners door with 400 or more hours in receipt twins that he logged over a year and a quarter or so. He claimed the hours were those that he flew with family members to do family things and other acts of human kindness and generosity, the philanthropist.

The owner of Freight Runners told my partner that he was either flying "illegal charter" or was lying and told him the interview was over unless he could come up with fuel receipts to cover the trips.

Yeah, but If I correctly recall your stories about your former parther, I would guess that there were some other things about the guy that didin't add up the to the owner. I seem to recall that your partner was pretty much a dirtbag, or maybe I'm confusing your stories?

 

[FN FAL]

Yeah, but If I correctly recall your stories about your former parther, I would guess that there were some other things about the guy that didin't add up the to the owner. I seem to recall that your partner was pretty much a dirtbag, or maybe I'm confusing your stories?

He put the time on the airframe, he just couldn't justify how he got it. I warned him that could happen.

Back then, you needed 400-500 multi, just to get on with an outfit like Skyways.

 

[A Squared]

He put the time on the airframe, he just couldn't justify how he got it.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to question one way or another if he flew the hours. My point was, if I recall correctly, this guy wan't a particularly ethical caharacter, and perhaps some other elememts of his story caused the owner to want proof above and beyond the norm, whereas another guy that didn't seem shifty might not have been requested to produce proof.

There's this one guy at my company, if he told me I had 5 toes on my left foot, I'd pull my sock off and count before taking his word on it.

.... or maybe that *was* a standard interview at that outfit.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

61.55(f) tosses that out the window.

61.55 (f) The familiarization training requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to a person who is:
...
(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109(b) of this chapter.

So, the way I'm reading this...

91.109 doesn't say anything about VFR or VMC conditions.

91.109 also requires the pilot to be there.

61.55 allows someone to be qualified for SIC if they are there for the purposes of 91.109(b) [in 61.55(f)].

So you could log SIC time in a 152 or a Cub if you wanted to...and do it in IFR conditions.

Not only that but I don't see anything requiring the safety pilot logging time as SIC being required to be current, although I guess you'd still need a medical.

 

[AC560]

You said he was flying freight part 135 and you were going to fly the 91 leg back right? Hate to burst your bubble, but you can't be on the plane on the 135 leg unless you work for the same company.

If he brings a caged rat on board he is in the clear!

 

[minitour]

Not only that but I don't see anything requiring the safety pilot logging time as SIC being required to be current, although I guess you'd still need a medical.

By "current" do you mean 3 in 90? If so, then...sure. That's required to act as PIC carrying passengers.

61.55(f)(4) excludes "familiarization training" that's required in paragraph (b) of 61.55. 61.55(b)(2) still requires the flight time & emergency procedures to be logged w/i 12 months not 90 days.

-mini

 

[FN FAL]

.... or maybe that *was* a standard interview at that outfit.

The owner gave the interview and he ain't no fool. 400 hours in own twin in less than a year and a half?

If it's any consolation, this is the high school grad with no 135 or 121 experience that got the sim ride and interview at Northwest Airlines and didn't make the cut in the 747 sim.

 

[Daytonaflyer]

Minitour,
I believe it is still not correct.
14 cfr 91.109(b)(1) says, “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 appropriate to the aircraft being flown and adequate vision forward and to each side.”
If you are flying in IMC, you are no longer in "simulated" instrument conditions. You are now in "actual" instrument conditions. This means that the visibility is below that allowed for VFR flight. Therefore a safety pilot is not allowed (because a safety pilot is only required in "simulated instrument conditions" not "actual instrument conditions").
It doesn't matter if you're still under the hood or not while you are in the clouds, it is impossible to operate as "simulated instrument flight" in less than VFR conditions.

Also, if you are operating in VFR conditions under the hood...then yes, a safety pilot is required.
The safety pilot, however, does not log SIC. He logs PIC, and so does the flying pilot.
Flying under the hood does not require a "Second-in-Command". It requires another "Pilot-in-Command". One PIC is required to manipulate the flight controls, and the other PIC is responsible for the safety of the flight.
If you find a reg that says a safety pilot logs SIC, please let me know, because everything I've read says he logs PIC.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

Minitour,
I believe it is still not correct.
14 cfr 91.109(b)(1) says, “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 appropriate to the aircraft being flown and adequate vision forward and to each side.”
If you are flying in IMC, you are no longer in "simulated" instrument conditions. You are now in "actual" instrument conditions. This means that the visibility is below that allowed for VFR flight. Therefore a safety pilot is not allowed (because a safety pilot is only required in "simulated instrument conditions" not "actual instrument conditions").
It doesn't matter if you're still under the hood or not while you are in the clouds, it is impossible to operate as "simulated instrument flight" in less than VFR conditions.

Also, if you are operating in VFR conditions under the hood...then yes, a safety pilot is required.
The safety pilot, however, does not log SIC. He logs PIC, and so does the flying pilot.
Flying under the hood does not require a "Second-in-Command". It requires another "Pilot-in-Command". One PIC is required to manipulate the flight controls, and the other PIC is responsible for the safety of the flight.
If you find a reg that says a safety pilot logs SIC, please let me know, because everything I've read says he logs PIC.

As for SIC or PIC, you need to find a reg saying it requires a PIC, not the other way around. You can obviouly log it as SIC or it wouldn't be in 61.55. You can log it as SIC when you are not current, you can log it as SIC when the Aircraft is complex but you don't have a complex endorsement(and are required to have it), you can log it as SIC when the Aircraft is High Perfomence and you don't have the endorsment(and are required to). You can log it as SIC without meeting any of the requirements of 61.55.

And I don't see how 61.55 b(2) applies either. 61.55(f)4 says the entire section does not apply.

 

[minitour]

Minitour,
I believe it is still not correct.
14 cfr 91.109(b)(1) says, “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 appropriate to the aircraft being flown and adequate vision forward and to each side.”
If you are flying in IMC, you are no longer in "simulated" instrument conditions. You are now in "actual" instrument conditions. This means that the visibility is below that allowed for VFR flight. Therefore a safety pilot is not allowed (because a safety pilot is only required in "simulated instrument conditions" not "actual instrument conditions").
It doesn't matter if you're still under the hood or not while you are in the clouds, it is impossible to operate as "simulated instrument flight" in less than VFR conditions.

Under a hood = simulated instrument conditions.

Can you show me where the reg says simulated instrument conditions have to be conducted in VFR conditions?

It's not there. Notice, the reg doesn't say that the safety pilot has to have "3 miles of visibility" or whatever vis requirements for the airspace in question. It just says "adequate vision" to the sides, front, etc.

Remember, just because you're in a cloud doesn't relieve you from your see-and-avoid responsibility. That's why a safety pilot is there, for see-and-avoid...not to sit on his thumb in VFR conditions saying "wow...it looks like 4 miles now...".

As for SIC v. PIC.

Both can log PIC if the safety pilot is acting as PIC (the one who fries if something goes wrong). He would be the one required for the safety of the flight.

If the pilot controlling the aircraft under the hood is acting as PIC, then only he may log PIC.

There can only be one PIC...both may log under my first example as the S.P. is required for safety (he IS the PIC) and the PF is "sole manipulator" for an aircraft which he is rated.

gsrcrsx68,
61.55(f)(4) says only the "familiarization training" is not required for a safety pilot, it says nothing about the flight time in the last 12 months not being required. That's all I got for that...not sure where that leaves it though.

-mini

PS
Daytona,
If you couldn't log SIC, why would a safety pilot specifically be listed under 61.55? That's the reg saying the S.P. can log SIC.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

gsrcrsx68,
61.55(f)(4) says only the "familiarization training" is not required for a safety pilot, it says nothing about the flight time in the last 12 months not being required. That's all I got for that...not sure where that leaves it though.

61.55(f) says "this section does not apply to"...I'm taking that to mean 61.55 as a whole...the entire section (61.55a through 61.55(j)) . Are you reading that different?

PS
Daytona,
If you couldn't log SIC, why would a safety pilot specifically be listed under 61.55? That's the reg saying the S.P. can log SIC.

Actually 61.51(f)2 is the reg saying the safety pilot may log it as second in command.

 

[Daytonaflyer]

Yes, there is no specific reg that I have seen that says you may or may not be IMC while acting as safety pilot. I guess that if you consider being under the hood in actual instrument conditions as "simulated" IFR, then yes, you should be able to log that time as safety pilot.