Splitting Multi PIC time? legit or not?

[labbats]

One of the other CFIs and myself have decided to get our MEI ratings at the same time, and saw that you need 15 hours PIC to get qualified.
So, instead of paying full price and flying solo to get the time, we thought about flying the airplane for 15 hours TOTAL and have one of us wear foggles and the other sit safety pilot so we could both log PIC time and split the cost of the plane rental.

My question is, will this negatively affect me further down the line for interviews, or even when I go to take the MEI checkride? I realize it's allowed, but is it frowned upon?

 

[wingnutt]

two words for ya... "search button"

 

[vclean]

If you have to ask......

Search this forum using key words as "safety pilot", "multi", "CFI", etc. I believe you will find the few hours you are trying to save money on will be a small portion of the hours required to be competitive in today's market. Personally, I would not log anything while legal, is discounted by some employers.

 

[Ralph]

AOPA has a good faq on this and the FAA addresses it in its part 61 faq as well.

The pilot logging instrument must record your name as the safety pilot and may log PIC time as the sole manipulator of the controls. Thus this pilot is NOT the PIC but may log PIC time and must record your name as the safety pilot.

The safety pilot is the PIC and as such may log PIC time. That is all. With this arrangement you might have 25 hours of PIC time logged. You do not need to log it as 'safety pilot time' and unless someone asked they wouldn't know. Then you might have 25 hours logged as simulated instrument time and for this you must include the name of your safety pilot.

That said, I'm sure some guy somewhere has showed up for a check ride with 1500TT and 1300 of that as a safety pilot and got in trouble for it but extremes aside... no it won’t be a problem and unless you advertise the fact the time is as a safety pilot I doubt anyone will know or care anyway.

 

[cvsfly]

One, I doubt a flight school would rent a twin solo to anyone who had less than 15 hrs. Are you intending to give each other (both non-MEIs) "instruction" in this twin or just burn up the time? If it is the later, only one of you is PIC (arguements aside from Instrument training), if it is the former, then that sets up a very dangerous (and illegal according to regs and insurance) situation with 2 students trying to teach each other. Who will be endorsing your training for your MEI? While the training itself should not be that long (much less than 15 hrs) don't sell yourself short. Get quality training and log the time legitimately. You have a long way to go in ME experience. I for one would never hire an MEI who only had 15 hrs experience in ME.

 

[Booker]

The legal viewpoint

I wouldn't even dare. There was a case where two gentlemen had a similar idea. After a friendly FAA inspector looked at their logbooks, the FAA filed falisification charges and sought lifetime revocation of both parties' certificates. The FAA won, and the order was upheld on appeal to the NTSB.

http://www.aero.und.edu/~kintz/415/4008.pdf

 

[JimNtexas]

Re: The legal viewpoint

I wouldn't even dare. There was a case where two gentlemen had a similar idea. ....
http://www.aero.und.edu/~kintz/415/4008.pdf

That's a very interesting case, but it's not on point here. Those guys shared ownership in two airplanes, and both logged all the flying time in both airplanes in each of their log books. After an accident, they went back and tried to modify the logs to make it look like one was instructing or safety piloting for the other.

The falsification charges resulted from the examination of
both respondents' logbooks by FAA aviation inspector Donald
Bennett during the investigation of an accident that occurred on
10 April 1992 involving respondents' Piper Apache aircraft. The
inspector testified that the two logbooks were mirror-images of
each other for over 200 flights. Both respondents were listed as
pilot-in-command (PIC) for these flights and it was unclear when,
whether, and what type of flight instruction was given.

The poster here proposes to log real sole manipulator PIC time IAW the clear guidance issued by the FAA chief counsel concerning the correct method to log safety pilot time (see Ralph's post above). Of course "sole manipulator" pilot ought not to log the identical amount of PIC time as the safety PIC, because it is unlikely that he or she was really under the hood for the entire flight.

As long as their logs reflect the reality of what was flown, they should have no problems.

Should a job application require that they report only PIC that conforms to FAR 1 ("signed for the airplane") then of course the "sole manipulator" pilot must subtract this time from his total PIC.

 

[flywithastick]

1. search here and at Doc's FAR web page. http://www.propilot.com/doc/

2. As I recall, it's quite legal if both parties agree as to who's acting PIC, safety pilot, etc *and* each pilot's logs are properly noted. "Safety pilot for Joe Schmoe". Got quite a few hours of safety pilot multi PIC time myself, back when I was pursuing the career change dream.

3. No idea what the airlines would really think. Some might care, most probably don't, IMVHO. I know I learned some CRM skills flying like this.

4. Don't know how anyone could break into the business paying full price for multi time these days. Last I looked into it, insurance required something like 100-200 multi PIC hours to instruct (depending on the situation, school, equipment of course). Someone not having a very good source of cash, their own plane or a military gig would sure have a hard time getting this kind of time.

my 2+¢

 

[Booker]

Re: Re: The legal viewpoint

That's a very interesting case, but it's not on point here. Those guys shared ownership in two airplanes, and both logged all the flying time in both airplanes in each of their log books.

Which is how I interpreted labbats' question: They fly the plane 15 hours, they both get 15 hours PIC ("need 15 hours PIC...flying the airplane for 15 hours TOTAL" [emphasis labbats']).

After an accident, they went back and tried to modify the logs to make it look like one was instructing or safety piloting for the other.

It's relevant to the case, but the Board indicated that both parties having logged identical PIC times was sufficient to sustain a falsification charge ("On its face, each of the original logbooks was false, because both pilots logged PIC time for the same flights, something that, for the most part, cannot be done."). The Board even referenced the 61.51(c) instructor-logging-PIC clause, thereby acknowledging the method used to "fix" the logs was legally viable. However, the fact that the times were identical was the issue, not that the time was logged in the first place.

The poster here proposes to log real sole manipulator PIC time IAW the clear guidance issued by the FAA chief counsel concerning the correct method to log safety pilot time (see Ralph's post above).

Again, that wasn't how labbats formulated the query. Also, can you post the chief counsel "guidance"? I'd like to have a copy of that. Ralph mentions AOPA and the FAQs, but no letter of interpretation.

Of course "sole manipulator" pilot ought not to log the identical amount of PIC time as the safety PIC, because it is unlikely that he or she was really under the hood for the entire flight.

Which again was my point, however hard it may have been to find. I didn't mean to imply that safety pilot time can never be logged as PIC. I was merely pointing out that it needs to be done carefully, which is clearly a point on which we agree. Personally, revocation simply isn't something I want to brush up against, so I don't do it.

And yes, I've completed several applications specifying that only acting PIC time would be considered. One went so far as to say the sums of dual and PIC must equal total.

Best regards,

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Re: Re: The legal viewpoint

Also, can you post the chief counsel "guidance"? I'd like to have a copy of that. Ralph mentions AOPA and the FAQs, but no letter of interpretation.

The most recent version is part of a 1992 opinion:

==============================
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.
==============================