SIC time and friends plane??

[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.