Approaches, Holds, and Safety Pilot

[flannelw]

I have a two part question...

First, can a non-instrument rated pilot log approaches and holds with a non-instrument rated safety pilot (not a CFII) on board while under the hood?

Second, when and what can the safety pilot log? Example, a flight takes 1.9 hours, 0.7 day and 1.2 night. It was a 50+ mile cross country with 1.7 hours under the hood. I understand that 1.7 PIC can be logged, but what about day/night time, cross country, total time, etc?

Thanks for your help.

 

[tlglenn]

Yes, neither pilot has to be instrument rated, but be wary of developing bad habits that a CFII would later have to make you unlearn.

I'm assuming from your scenario that the pilot using the view limiting device is the sole manipulator for the entire flight and is acting as PIC. The safety pilot would log 1.7 SIC (not PIC), 1.7 total flight time, day/night time totalling 1.7, and zero cross country time (FAA chief counsel opinion).

 

[Salty]

Yes, neither pilot has to be instrument rated, but be wary of developing bad habits that a CFII would later have to make you unlearn.

I'm assuming from your scenario that the pilot using the view limiting device is the sole manipulator for the entire flight and is acting as PIC. The safety pilot would log 1.7 SIC (not PIC), 1.7 total flight time, day/night time totalling 1.7, and zero cross country time (FAA chief counsel opinion).

The first statement is accurate, but the second is not.

The non IR pilot cannot act as legal PIC while flying simulated instruments. He can log PIC as sole manipulator, but the safety pilot also logs PIC for the duration of the simulated instrument portion of the flight, as he is legally responsible for the safety and legality of that portion of the flight (cloud, terrain, and aircraft separation, as well as airspace avoidance, etc)

 

[flyingron]

The first statement is accurate, but the second is not.

Bullpoop.

The non-IR pilot cannot act as legal PIC while flying simulated instruments.

He most certainly can. An instrument rating is only required to operate under IFR. Simulated instrument flight in VMC without an IFR clearance doesn't require an instrument rating by either pilot.

He can log PIC as sole manipulator, but the safety pilot also logs PIC for the duration of the simulated instrument portion of the flight, as he is legally responsible for the safety and legality of that portion of the flight (cloud, terrain, and aircraft separation, as well as airspace avoidance, etc.)

In the case proposed by flannelw, NEITHER pilot is instrument rating.

A safety pilot is only the pilot in command and ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight *IF* the pilots agree that he will serve that role. There's nothing that precludes the hooded pilot from being pilot in command.

The safety pilot is there regulatorily for ONE reason: to maintain the required visual lookout that the hooded pilot can not. This means avoiding traffic and to some extent making sure that if this is VFR flight, it remains VFR. Terrain and air space avoidance are not required (though it would behoove a pilot not to allow such issues). If the hooded pilot can't maintain TERRAIN and AIRSPACE separation while under the hood he should seriously consider flying with an INSTRUCTOR rather than just a safety pilot.

 

[Salty]

Bullpoop.

He most certainly can. An instrument rating is only required to operate under IFR. Simulated instrument flight in VMC without an IFR clearance doesn't require an instrument rating by either pilot.

In the case proposed by flannelw, NEITHER pilot is instrument rating.

A safety pilot is only the pilot in command and ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight *IF* the pilots agree that he will serve that role. There's nothing that precludes the hooded pilot from being pilot in command.

The safety pilot is there regulatorily for ONE reason: to maintain the required visual lookout that the hooded pilot can not. This means avoiding traffic and to some extent making sure that if this is VFR flight, it remains VFR. Terrain and air space avoidance are not required (though it would behoove a pilot not to allow such issues). If the hooded pilot can't maintain TERRAIN and AIRSPACE separation while under the hood he should seriously consider flying with an INSTRUCTOR rather than just a safety pilot.

If what you saying were true, then there would be no requirement for a safety pilot, which there is. You can't just toss on view limiting devices and still fly VFR legally with no safety pilot.

 

[Salty]

Ok, it appears that I was mistaken about the legal responsibility. It is illogical, but much of the FaRs are illogical.


14 CFR 91.109

(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -

(1) 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.
(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and

(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when -

(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and

(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.

The safety pilot can log SIC or PIC

 

[EricVKX]

I swear these questions pop up weekly and everyone has a different answer on PIC logging.

When practicing flying in simulated instrument conditions with a safety pilot, both the pilot flying the aircraft by reference to instruments and the safety pilot may log PIC time if the safety pilot is acting as PIC. As long as the pilot flying the aircraft is rated for the aircraft being flown, he/she may log this time as PIC because he/she is sole manipulator of the controls (FAR 61.51). Because the pilot flying will be wearing a view-limiting device, a safety pilot will be a required crewmember on board (FAR 91.109). The safety pilot may log as PIC any flight time for which he/she is acting PIC in an operation requiring more than one pilot crewmember; if the safety pilot is not acting as PIC, the safety pilot may log the time as SIC (FAR 61.51.)

Now throw your CFI in the back seat and have him instruct you as well and have a 3way.

-Edited for midlifeflyer's final touches and originally from an Aopa article.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I swear these questions pop up weekly and everyone has a different answer on PIC logging.

When practicing flying in simulated instrument conditions with a safety pilot, both the pilot flying the aircraft by reference to instruments and the safety pilot may log PIC time if the safety pilot is acting as PIC. As long as the pilot flying the aircraft is rated for the aircraft being flown, he/she may log this time as PIC because he/she is sole manipulator of the controls (FAR 61.51). Because the pilot flying will be wearing a view-limiting device, a safety pilot will be a required crewmember on board (FAR 91.109). The safety pilot may log as PIC any flight time for which he/she is acting PIC in an operation requiring more than one pilot crewmember; if the safety pilot is not acting as PIC, the safety pilot may log the time as SIC (FAR 61.51).

Now throw your CFI in the back seat and have him instruct you as well.

Just completed the thought.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ok, it appears that I was mistaken about the legal responsibility. It is illogical, but much of the FaRs are illogical.

You might still be mistaken about the legal responsibility. The safety pilot who is not acting as PIC is still

legally responsible for the safety and legality of that portion of the flight (cloud, terrain, and aircraft separation, as well as airspace avoidance, etc)

See #2 and #3 in my signature block.

 

[Salty]

You might still be mistaken about the legal responsibility. The safety pilot who is not acting as PIC is still

See #2 and #3 in my signature block.

I said I was mistaken, how can I still be mistaken?

 

[mscard88]

I said I was mistaken, how can I still be mistaken?

By continuing to be mistaken?

kidding!

 

[flyingron]

If what you saying were true, then there would be no requirement for a safety pilot, which there is. You can't just toss on view limiting devices and still fly VFR legally with no safety pilot.

I didn't say you didn't need a safety pilot. I said that neither pilot needs an instrument rating just because you are in simulated instrument flight which you asserted was necessary.

 

[Salty]

You might still be mistaken about the legal responsibility. The safety pilot who is not acting as PIC is still

See #2 and #3 in my signature block.

Oh. Your signature block is confusing. I thought you were claiming they were truths, but apparently it's the opposite.

Now I understand your point.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Oh. Your signature block is confusing. I thought you were claiming they were truths, but apparently it's the opposite.

Now I understand your point.

Yep. You were mistaken when you said you were mistaken about the legal responsibility of the safety pilot. You were right to begin with. The safety pilot does have the legal responsibilities you described for the safety of the flight. It just doesn't depend on whether or not he is PIC.

 

[labbadabba]

A safety pilot is only the pilot in command and ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight *IF* the pilots agree that he will serve that role. There's nothing that precludes the hooded pilot from being pilot in command.

I respect your knowledge and have found your input valuable. However, you say this in every Safety Pilot thread. As it happens, in almost every Safety Pilot thread, it's a pilot trying to build time. Yes, the Safety Pilot doesn't have to be PIC but in these cases the OPs are looking for the answer to how the Safety Pilot can log PIC. Arguing semantics, while valuable in a separate discussion, serves nothing more but to confuse the answer to what was a pretty straight-forward question...

 

[Salty]

and in that vein, I would still like to understand the answer to the OP's specific questions about logging approaches and holds. Can I log them if I have a safety pilot that's not an instructor?

 

[MauleSkinner]

and in that vein, I would still like to understand the answer to the OP's specific questions about logging approaches and holds. Can I log them if I have a safety pilot that's not an instructor?

Are you sole manipulator of the flight controls? If so, you can log it.

 

[labbadabba]

and in that vein, I would still like to understand the answer to the OP's specific questions about logging approaches and holds. Can I log them if I have a safety pilot that's not an instructor?

Yes. As long as you are in VMC and not on an IFR flight plan.

 

[EricVKX]

And you fly down to MDA DA/DH

 

[flyingron]

I respect your knowledge and have found your input valuable. However, you say this in every Safety Pilot thread. As it happens, in almost every Safety Pilot thread, it's a pilot trying to build time. Yes, the Safety Pilot doesn't have to be PIC but in these cases the OPs are looking for the answer to how the Safety Pilot can log PIC. Arguing semantics, while valuable in a separate discussion, serves nothing more but to confuse the answer to what was a pretty straight-forward question...

Not true in this case. The first question was whether the flight was even possible without an instrument rating or instructor certificate.
As for the logging, it was a question how it could be logged, not how to justify PIC logging.

There is no necessary connection between safety pilot and PIC. In fact, I've often used safety pilots who ARE NOT LEGAL TO BE PIC. I have to be in that role for a legal flight.

 

[AggieMike88]

Somewhere near Salisbury, MD, a certain pilot's fingers are itching because of this thread and the restraint to not post the FARs, an opinion, and a couple of dozen FAA Chief Counsel interpretations to support the opinion.

 

[dmspilot]

I respect your knowledge and have found your input valuable. However, you say this in every Safety Pilot thread. As it happens, in almost every Safety Pilot thread, it's a pilot trying to build time. Yes, the Safety Pilot doesn't have to be PIC but in these cases the OPs are looking for the answer to how the Safety Pilot can log PIC. Arguing semantics, while valuable in a separate discussion, serves nothing more but to confuse the answer to what was a pretty straight-forward question...

I find a wrong answer to be more confusing than a correct one. Safety pilot time is either PIC or SIC depending upon the circumstances of a particular flight. That's not confusing.

Yes. As long as you are in VMC and not on an IFR flight plan.

So you can't log an approach if you're on an IFR flight plan? Your answer makes no sense.

 

[dmspilot]

There is no requirement in the instrument rating eligibility to have a certain number of approaches logged. The purpose of logging approaches and holds is to show compliance with the currency requirement in 61.57. They must be in actual or simulated conditions to count. If you aren't rated there is no need to show currency, so it neither hurts you nor helps you to log them or not log them. If you aren't using it to show currency then you can log it however you want. Hypothetically you could log an approach done without a hood so long as you don't conflate it with 61.57 approaches. But it would make sense to log them in a consistent manner.

 

[BigBadLou]

LOL You guys crack me up how easily you fall for it.

 

[unsafervguy]

Yes, neither pilot has to be instrument rated, but be wary of developing bad habits that a CFII would later have to make you unlearn.

I'm assuming from your scenario that the pilot using the view limiting device is the sole manipulator for the entire flight and is acting as PIC. The safety pilot would log 1.7 SIC (not PIC), 1.7 total flight time, day/night time totalling 1.7, and zero cross country time (FAA chief counsel opinion).

a few more wrongs. the safety pilot cannot log SIC time that the other pilot is not wearing the hood. IE taxi,takeoff until the hood is donned and landing once visual is obtained. so once the hood is off he is no longer required and SIC time cannot be logged.

bob

 

[flannelw]

Thanks for some of the input. As for the safety pilot topic that snowballed into something else, I understood that the safety pilot could log PIC while the other pilot was under the hood; that wasn't the question. What I was really trying to figure out was the other hours involved. I've been told way too many opinions and personal interpretations over the years, from not being able to log total time or day/night time to being able to log the approaches (which I know isn't true). I was just wondering which can actually be logged.

With the logging approaches and holds while not instrument rated with a safety pilot who is a non-instrument rated private pilot, let me give you the scenario. A friend of mine is done with his instrument training. Maybe one more flight with his instructor. His instructor will be out of town for a week or two and he was told to go up with a safety pilot a couple of times while the instructor is gone to practice before his checkride. He wasn't for sure if he could log the holds and approaches that he completed while practicing with the safety pilot. So from what I'm gathering from everyone is that he can log them, correct?

 

[tlglenn]

a few more wrongs. the safety pilot cannot log SIC time that the other pilot is not wearing the hood. IE taxi,takeoff until the hood is donned and landing once visual is obtained. so once the hood is off he is no longer required and SIC time cannot be logged.

bob

The original scenario was 1.9 total time with 1.7 using a view limiting device. So that's why I specified 1.7 for the safety pilot.

 

[EricVKX]

Thanks for some of the input. As for the safety pilot topic that snowballed into something else, I understood that the safety pilot could log PIC while the other pilot was under the hood; that wasn't the question. What I was really trying to figure out was the other hours involved. I've been told way too many opinions and personal interpretations over the years, from not being able to log total time or day/night time to being able to log the approaches (which I know isn't true). I was just wondering which can actually be logged.

With the logging approaches and holds while not instrument rated with a safety pilot who is a non-instrument rated private pilot, let me give you the scenario. A friend of mine is done with his instrument training. Maybe one more flight with his instructor. His instructor will be out of town for a week or two and he was told to go up with a safety pilot a couple of times while the instructor is gone to practice before his checkride. He wasn't for sure if he could log the holds and approaches that he completed while practicing with the safety pilot. So from what I'm gathering from everyone is that he can log them, correct?

Yes, you can log the approaches. If you want it to count towards currency and doing simulated "under the hood" in VMC/VFR flight with a rated safety pilot, the approach you need to fly to MDA or DA/DH.

From AOPA "Rated, by FAA interpretation, means that the pilot has the appropriate category, class, and type (if required) privileges on his/her pilot certificate for the aircraft being operated. Period. "

 

[dmspilot]

Yes, you can log the approaches. If you want it to count towards currency and doing simulated "under the hood" in VMC/VFR flight with a rated pilot, the approach you need to fly to MDA or DA/DH.

What specifically do you mean by "rated pilot"?

 

[EricVKX]

What specifically do you mean by "rated pilot"?

Straight from AOPA

"Rated, by FAA interpretation, means that the pilot has the appropriate category, class, and type (if required) privileges on his/her pilot certificate for the aircraft being operated. Period. Note that "rated" does not require the pilot to have an instrument rating, a current medical, recency of experience, flight review, or required endorsements (such as tailwheel or high performance). "Privileges" often refer to sport pilots because sport pilot certificates are not issued to pilots with category and class ratings. Rather, an endorsement for the category, class, and make and model of aircraft is placed in the sport pilot's logbook."

 

[dmspilot]

"Rated, by FAA interpretation, means that the pilot has the appropriate category, class, and type (if required) privileges on his/her pilot certificate for the aircraft being operated. Period. Note that "rated" does not require the pilot to have an instrument rating..."

Okay, but that explanation is out of context (here is the whole thing). It's referring to the fact that one may log PIC time if they are sole manipulator and rated in the aircraft category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), as specified in §61.65.

§91.109 requires a safety pilot to only have category and class ratings.

Clearly no one needs an instrument rating in the above scenarios. But the AOPA quote when taken out of context seems to claim that the definition of the word "rated" by itself excludes instrument ratings, which is not true.

 

[EricVKX]

Actually, it's quite clear.

 

[dmspilot]

Actually, it's quite clear.

What is?

 

[EricVKX]

I can make it just as convoluted as you can But I replied to the OP question correctly.

 

[dmspilot]

I can make it just as convoluted as you can But I replied to the OP question correctly.

The answer to the question, "what do you mean by rated safety pilot" should have been "rated in accordance with §91.109." The AOPA quote is misapplied. It's talking about something else.

Sorry, I was not trying to be convoluted. I just didn't know what you meant by rated in your post, or why you emphasized it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

With the logging approaches and holds while not instrument rated with a safety pilot who is a non-instrument rated private pilot, let me give you the scenario. A friend of mine is done with his instrument training. Maybe one more flight with his instructor. His instructor will be out of town for a week or two and he was told to go up with a safety pilot a couple of times while the instructor is gone to practice before his checkride. He wasn't for sure if he could log the holds and approaches that he completed while practicing with the safety pilot. So from what I'm gathering from everyone is that he can log them, correct?

He can. It doesn't matter whether he does or not for anything that "counts" from a regulatory standpoint. But he can.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Hypothetically you could log an approach done without a hood so long as you don't conflate it with 61.57 approaches. But it would make sense to log them in a consistent manner.

I did that last Saturday. To keep things straight, I only put it in the remarks field, along with a notation that it was "VFR, no hood."

 

[Palmpilot]

LOL You guys crack me up how easily you fall for it.

I think your troll meter is out of calibration and giving you false positives. Even if I'm wrong, it started an interesting discussion, so I can't think of any reason why we should care whether the OP was trolling or not. And it's not like anyone's forcing us to participate.

 

[JimNtexas]

But who logs what if one or both pilots holds only a basicmed?


My answer: Don't log safety pilot time. Just don't.

 

[labbadabba]

So you can't log an approach if you're on an IFR flight plan? Your answer makes no sense.

In regard to a VFR pilot using a safety pilot to log approaches. You cannot legally file IFR with just a safety pilot if you are not instrument rated. So, no.