A question on the 'pro-rata' share rule.

denverpilot said:
Is there any reason they'd log it as SIC over PIC?
Click to expand...
Not one I can think of. In some quarters, PIC time means a job. That's why many new CFIs are using it for time building. The PIC time offered by the regs to a CFI on any instructional flight - even when not acting as =any= required crewmember - is generally far more valuable than the any SIC time in a one-person airplane.
 
p1l0t said:
Yeah I didn't think a safety pilot was a required crewmember because at any time the PIC can take the hood off. (In case the safety pilot has a heart attack or whatever).

<---<^>--->
Click to expand...

The purpose of the safety pilot is not PIC incapacity, it's fulfilling the requirement that you see-and-avoid. While hooded, the pilot flying cannot see-and-avoid traffic, thus the requirement for a suitably qualified crew-member to do it.
 
denverpilot said:
Right. In my scenario (student under the hood) they're required to be there. Whether they log it as PIC or SIC (or don't bother logging it at all) they also require a medical. Is there any reason they'd log it as SIC over PIC? I don't really see a reason them to do that, but it's their call.
Click to expand...
I can't think of any reason an instructor would log time giving flight training while also acting as a 91.109 safety pilot as SIC time, but you never can tell. However, regardless of how many people are logging PIC time (and I can easily think of a scenario* in this situation where three could be logging PIC time at once), there is never more than one person acting as PIC.

*Scenario: Hooded pilot rated but not legal to act as PIC, logs PIC as sole manipulator - 61.51(e)(1)(i). Instructor with no medical sitting in back giving training, logs PIC as instructor giving training - 61.51(e)(3). Safety pilot acting as PIC, logs PIC as PIC when two pilots are required - 61.51(e)(1)(iii).
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I can't think of any reason an instructor would log time giving flight training while also acting as a 91.109 safety pilot as SIC time, but you never can tell. However, regardless of how many people are logging PIC time (and I can easily think of a scenario* in this situation where three could be logging PIC time at once), there is never more than one person acting as PIC.

*Scenario: Hooded pilot rated but not legal to act as PIC, logs PIC as sole manipulator - 61.51(e)(1)(i). Instructor with no medical sitting in back giving training, logs PIC as instructor giving training - 61.51(e)(3). Safety pilot acting as PIC, logs PIC as PIC when two pilots are required - 61.51(e)(1)(iii).
Click to expand...

Yep, totally understand. Also have seen at least a few court cases after the crash that didn't care one whit who said they were logging PIC, and awarded damages out of everyone's butt who was pilot-rated and sitting in a seat with operating controls.

PIC to the lawyers is just semantics. Only the FAA cares. That's why I find all the convoluted rules entertaining. We talk and talk and talk about them, and in the end, the jury says "all those idiots who should have known better, are going to pay the family who owned the house they crashed into, for being stupid".
 
denverpilot said:
Yep, totally understand. Also have seen at least a few court cases after the crash that didn't care one whit who said they were logging PIC, and awarded damages out of everyone's butt who was pilot-rated and sitting in a seat with operating controls.
Click to expand...
Or not even a pilot -- look up Newberger v Pokrass. The poor schlub in the right seat wasn't a pilot, and wasn't even awake, but still got hit for contributory negligence.
 
Originally Posted by kimberlyanne546
I never knew about that website. Seems interesting though there are two "out of medical" people posting to be safety pilots and wanting to get back into flying on there. I thought you had to be a "legal" pilot (including current medical) to act as a safety pilot?
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
You do.
Click to expand...

Well, kind of... for example, you may not have had your flight review in 24 months, making you ineligible for PIC, but you can still act as a safety pilot.
 
gismo said:
Not really but I don't think that charging a passenger $500 for a can of pop would pass the FAA's duck test.
Click to expand...

Ha! I was just getting ready to reply with "Quack."""
 
DavidWhite said:
First off, CONGRATS!! Regarding the prorata share - I'm in the same boat. 17 years old, no job, and my parents are paying for my flying. If they are already funding your flying then they can't really pay anything else. With your friends, if it is you and a friend the most your friend can pay is half. If you are with 2 friends then you pay 1/3 and your friends pay 1/3 and so on. I heard somewhere that as long as you pay your prorata share that the pax can divide it amongst themselves as they wished.
Click to expand...

No worries taking mom, dad, sibs for a ride with mom/dad paying. They pay it all already anyway. I think as a minor any FAA attorney will just turn this one over to the circular file if someone calls in a complaint, which is the only way you get busted to begin with. As for friends, you'll be renting wet so it's simple. Cost of rental/people onboard=pro rata. If you always use that formula with you as one of the people in the equation you will always be clearly in the 'white zone'.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Give it time. Someone will be along shortly and cite "case law" and how the General Counsel feels about the difference between Doritos or peanuts.
Click to expand...


Not FAA but USCG under basically the same set of regulations only stricter (no pro rata on boats) of requiring a commercial grade license for compensation. There the USCG ruled that even food and drinks had to be provided by the owner/principal. Of course if your buddy brings the food and drinks, the likelihood of you taking a bust for it is exactly '0', same as if your buddies pay for renting the plane.
 
p1l0t said:
No but seriously what's it mean? "If it quacks, its a duck." type deal?
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia:
The duck test is a humorous term for a form of inductive reasoning. This is its usual expression:
“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”
The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse arguments that something is not what it appears to be.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top