SIC time and friends plane??

[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.