IFR Currency question ... a little different

[Aztec Driver]

What boggles he mind is the fact that he is a CFI teaching this information, and even when confronted by droves of references to prove he is wrong, he just gets indignant and storms off. Not the best example of a good instructor.

 

[Ted]

What boggles he mind is the fact that he is a CFI teaching this information, and even when confronted by droves of references to prove he is wrong, he just gets indignant and storms off. Not the best example of a good instructor.

Despite what we would like to believe, having your CFI doesn't make you any more willing to listen. I've observed the reverse far too many times.

Sad for him, bad for his students.

 

[jason]

The unfortunate part is that he started off on the forum so well. His first post (now deleted) was about how much he enjoyed reading our posts and how smart we all were. Everybody welcomed him to the board, etc. He was wrong, but not a bad person. Hell, I was wrong earlier in this thread and just came out and admitted it. It's not hard. Now it's just weird for him and we've lost somebody that could have been a friend and a part of many good conversations. I don't know why some people just can't admit that they were wrong (the inability to do so is one of my biggest pet peeves) but don't think that's a reason to just go away.

To Cfiiguy:

Don't just go away. If you still think you're right, discuss it with us. We've all had the opportunity to discuss this many times at length so we're all very confident in our research. You didn't have the advantage of the numerous conversations that have taken place on this topic over the years. This one conversation isn't a reason to leave the board.

 

[TriGear28]

Because the hoodwork for PP is not "instrument flight training" (see 61.109), it may be given by a CFI without a CFI-I rating. Also, because it is not "instrument flight training," it doesn't count towards the 15 hours regardless of the qualifications of the instructor who gave it.
Legally, no. The safety pilot requires a medical because the safety pilot is exercising a Private Pilot privilege (see 91.109(b)) and thus must hold a medical valid at Third Class or higher (61.23(a)(3)(i)). The issue of whether or not the safety pilot is acting as PIC or SIC or neither is irrelevant.

ok... I actually assumed that the safety pilot required a medical b/c he/she was 'assuming responsibility for the safety of the flight' (making them pic) and the guy under the hood cannot assume the role of PIC as he cannot 'see and avoid' other traffic. But I do still believe the pilot under the hood can still log the time as pic as the sole manipulator of controls in an aircraft i which they are certified to operate. Then again... the disambiguation of the regs/terms screws us depending on whom you ask. Looks like I may have something backward but maybe not.

 

[EdFred]

ok... I actually assumed that the safety pilot required a medical b/c he/she was 'assuming responsibility for the safety of the flight' (making them pic) and the guy under the hood cannot assume the role of PIC as he cannot 'see and avoid' other traffic. But I do still believe the pilot under the hood can still log the time as pic as the sole manipulator of controls in an aircraft i which they are certified to operate. Then again... the disambiguation of the regs/terms screws us depending on whom you ask. Looks like I may have something backward but maybe not.

The pilot under the hood will always log PIC under the sole manipulator clause - assuming they are rated for the category/class/type. They MAY choose to also act as PIC - assuming they are qualified to do so (90 days, flight review, medical). If the pilot under the hood is also PIC the safety pilot may not log PIC time.

The safety pilot does indeed require a medical, regardless of whether they choose to act as PIC or not. You can also be a safety pilot without being able to act as PIC. Example: I have a Comanche - high perf. and complex. A private pilot with a medical may act as a safety pilot for me, but would not be able to log PIC time if they do not have a complex and high perf. endorsement.

 

[poadeleted20]

ok... I actually assumed that the safety pilot required a medical b/c he/she was 'assuming responsibility for the safety of the flight' (making them pic) and the guy under the hood cannot assume the role of PIC as he cannot 'see and avoid' other traffic.

I gather you now see you are wrong on both counts -- and that one can be the PIC while under the hood by delegating the job of looking out for other aircraft to the safety pilot while remaining responsible for whatever happens.

But I do still believe the pilot under the hood can still log the time as pic as the sole manipulator of controls in an aircraft i which they are certified to operate.

The operative word is "rated," not "certified," but you are essentially correct.

Then again... the disambiguation of the regs/terms screws us depending on whom you ask.

The FAA Chief Counsel is pretty clear on these points, but there are still uninformed folks out there who have it wrong, and if you ask one of them, you would get the wrong answer.

 

[poadeleted20]

The pilot under the hood will always log PIC under the sole manipulator clause - assuming they are rated for the category/class/type. They MAY choose to also act as PIC - assuming they are qualified to do so (90 days, flight review, medical). If the pilot under the hood is also PIC the safety pilot may not log PIC time.

...unless the safety pilot not acting as PIC is an authorized instructor giving training to the hooded pilot manipulating the controls. 14 CFR 61.51(e)(3).

The safety pilot does indeed require a medical, regardless of whether they choose to act as PIC or not. You can also be a safety pilot without being able to act as PIC. Example: I have a Comanche - high perf. and complex. A private pilot with a medical may act as a safety pilot for me, but would not be able to log PIC time if they do not have a complex and high perf. endorsement.

Correct.