Logging IFR/Approach time with a Safety Pilot question in IMC (again)

[dmspilot]

Pilot A is not IFR current and needs a safety Pilot in IMC or when under the hood. In those cases safety Pilot-B (let’s call him Bob) is the PIC.

And not I have the 80’s classic Safety Dance stuck in my head……

The safety pilot is required when the pilot flying is under the hood. The safety pilot is not required when the pilot flying is not under the hood. As Ron said the weather conditions have nothing to do with it.

 

[WDD]

So….. they are flying in IMC. Pilot puts on a hood in IMC and flies by instruments. Pilot takes off hood and flies by instruments.

And the difference is ……….????

 

[dmspilot]

So….. they are flying in IMC. Pilot puts on a hood in IMC and flies by instruments. Pilot takes off hood and flies by instruments.

And the difference is ……….????

I literally just answered that:

The safety pilot is required when the pilot flying is under the hood. The safety pilot is not required when the pilot flying is not under the hood. As Ron said the weather conditions have nothing to do with it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Pilot A is not IFR current and needs a safety Pilot in IMC or when under the hood. In those cases safety Pilot-B (let’s call him Bob) is the PIC.

And not I have the 80’s classic Safety Dance stuck in my head……

Just a technicality, but I think it's important. You may be using "safety pilot" in the generic, non-regulatory sense of a second pilot on board to keep an eye on things. That definition has nothing to do with whether it's an instrument-related flight to begin with. VFR pilot just learning to use an iPad in flight? Good idea to have another pilot with you because you are likely to have some head down time,

But if you are using "safety pilot" in the way the FAA uses it with reference to instrument work, "Bob" is a 91.109(c) safety pilot only when Pilot A is under the hood.

Yes, if a flight - any flight - is done under IFR or in IMC, there needs to be an instrument qualified and current pilot in command, so in our scenario, it's gotta be Bob.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So….. they are flying in IMC. Pilot puts on a hood in IMC and flies by instruments. Pilot takes off hood and flies by instruments.

And the difference is ……….????

With the hood on, the pilot is physically incapable of meeting her see and avoid obligations. Unable to maintain vigilance. Heck, she doesn't even know if she can see anything or not. That is the reason the rules require a regulatory safety pilot in hooded flight.

91.113(b). When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

 

[EdFred]

OK, had a loooooong conversation with Jason.

There was an addendum podcast to the podcast that was linked. And there may be another podcast addendum. I should have been a lawyer. By the end of the conversation he agreed that:

Yes, legally and under 61.51 the pilot flying can log PIC, instrument, approaches, total time, etc...
BUT he also said,

because the pilot that is actually acting as PIC, is on the hook for everything, takes all responsibility for the flight, but gets nothing out of it, and his ass is on the line if there's a violation/bust/etc it's not smart for the acting PIC to put himself in that situation, just go up with a CFII and do it as instruction.

 

[coma24]

No argument regarding how wise it is to do it. Everyone's agreed there potential risks of a violation. That's absolutely not the same thing as saying that it's not possible to do it.

Did he elude to why he held the incorrect view from the outset? Misread the regs? Didn't read the reg? Read them correctly then forgot them over time? Blended a few regs together, maybe? I'm going with that last one per an earlier post.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, just wondering how someone with that much flight time and serving as a DPE role would have the wrong interpretation of something so fundamental. Am glad to hear he came around, though.

 

[EdFred]

No argument regarding how wise it is to do it. Everyone's agreed there potential risks of a violation. That's absolutely not the same thing as saying that it's not possible to do it.

Did he elude to why he held the incorrect view from the outset? Misread the regs? Didn't read the reg? Read them correctly then forgot them over time? Blended a few regs together, maybe? I'm going with that last one per an earlier post.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, just wondering how someone with that much flight time and serving as a DPE role would have the wrong interpretation of something so fundamental. Am glad to hear he came around, though.

During the discussion we had on the phone it became the whole acting/logging and under what rules (mis)interpretation. There was also some reading into a publication (not a regulation) that was seemingly ambiguous, along with a FSDO statement that was seen at some point.

We went over 61.51 and the erroneous jump that was made was to that to log PIC was you have to follow all regulations you are flying under. And the interpretation that since flying under IFR you must also be able to act as pic to log it.

The discussion (from memory and paraphrased/summarized) went more or less like this:
Each line of dialogue contained much more than

Me: You had a podcast that said blah blah blah
Him: Yes, and I was saying I am taking a VERY conservative stance on how to do things.
Me: OK, so the scenario is I am not-current, (in the 6-12 months since last 6 approaches) you aren't a DPE or CFII, we go fly in actual, no hood, you never touch the controls, and we file with you as PIC, but I make all the airplane noises.
Him: You can log the approaches, log it as total time, log it as instrument time, basically everything except PIC. The acting PIC can't log anything except PIC time.
Me: 61.51 says.
Him: You both can't log PIC time because it's not a 2 pilot and no one is safety pilot.
Me: Agreed, but both aren't trying to log it.
(several tangents and other examples, endorsements, expired medicals, out of night currency, rated vs endorsed, etc...)
Him: You can't operate under IFR if you aren't current, you need to be acting PIC for that under 91.167 in order to log it

So this is where the misinterpretation happened because the two got glommed together along with whatever some FSDO said somewhere​

Me: Yes, but acting isn't logging.
Him: The responsibility falls on someone for the flight and it can't be you, you can't have a flight without a PIC
Me: Agreed, but we are only talking about the logging portion, not responsibility of flight, etc...

We both pulled up 61.51(e)(1) and we both agreed there are only 4 provisions (i, ii, iii, iv) to log PIC time and that ii, iii, and iv don't apply
I then said forget the whole acting thing and we will only read 61.51 because this is the only thing that matters for logging. He agreed to the premise and once we severed 91.167 from 61.51 he was like yep, you're right. I also pointed out there is no provision to log it just sitting there as acting PIC, you have to do something in order to log it. He then agreed on both parts.

The we talked about a bunch of other stuff and other weird loopholes, how basic med was a complete disaster when it came to SIC/safety pilot, how people misinterpret instrument currency and regaining it.

Basically wrapped up with yes, it's legal, probably not common, most likely not safe, and to be extra conservative just go with a CFII.

 

[Palmpilot]

I would take issue with "most likely not safe." That really depends on the weather, the proficiency and skills of the people involved, etc.

 

[EdFred]

I would take issue with "most likely not safe." That really depends on the weather, the proficiency and skills of the people involved, etc.

Well it is IMC one person isn't current in the other one probably hasn't done much if any flying from the right seat in IMC, and part of the discussion also involved that while we were talking it was pretty low IFR here and I presented the current conditions as the scenario

Would you want Jerry Wagner in the right seat?

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't know him, but I would want someone whom I knew to be sufficiently competent.

 

[WDD]

At this point this sounds like a Schrodinger’s box paradox question - except instead of a cat it is a copy of the FAR AIM.

More of probability vs certainty.

 

[flyingron]

Pilot A is not IFR current and needs a safety Pilot in IMC or when under the hood. In those cases safety Pilot-B (let’s call him Bob) is the PIC.
…

No. If pilot A is not IFR current and in IMC, what he needs is another IFR-rated and current pilot to be PIC. A safety pilot only needs category and class ratings.

There is no regulatory use of the term "safety pilot" except when referring to pilots wearing view limiting device. If a pilot decides he can't safely fly a SINGLE PILOT aircraft in a SINGLE PILOT situation, then perhaps he should consider having an instructor along rather than just some random pilot.

 

[coma24]

During the discussion we had on the phone it became the whole acting/logging and under what rules (mis)interpretation. There was also some reading into a publication (not a regulation) that was seemingly ambiguous, along with a FSDO statement that was seen at some point.

Thanks for taking the time to post, I'm sure that was a good amount of work.

 

[WDD]

No. If pilot A is not IFR current and in IMC, what he needs is another IFR-rated and current pilot to be PIC. A safety pilot only needs category and class ratings.

You said “no” and then re stated what I said that the other pilot is the PIC.

 

[midlifeflyer]

OK, had a loooooong conversation with Jason.

There was an addendum podcast to the podcast that was linked. And there may be another podcast addendum. I should have been a lawyer. By the end of the conversation he agreed that:

Yes, legally and under 61.51 the pilot flying can log PIC, instrument, approaches, total time, etc...
BUT he also said,

because the pilot that is actually acting as PIC, is on the hook for everything, takes all responsibility for the flight, but gets nothing out of it, and his ass is on the line if there's a violation/bust/etc it's not smart for the acting PIC to put himself in that situation, just go up with a CFII and do it as instruction.

That is accurate.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No
Not trying to beat a dead horse, just wondering how someone with that much flight time and serving as a DPE role would have the wrong interpretation of something so fundamental.

Because they are human with human biases and knowledge gaps. The important thing is acknowledgement when wrong. The problem comes up when those are who are very knowledgeable are the least able to acknowledge their own limitations.

 

[flyingron]

You said “no” and then re stated what I said that the other pilot is the PIC.

No I didn't. You said safety pilot (to be PIC), I said "legal to be PIC under IFR" (without calling it a safety pilot), those are two different concepts.

 

[WDD]

No I didn't. You said safety pilot (to be PIC), I said "legal to be PIC under IFR" (without calling it a safety pilot), those are two different concepts.

Yeah ok …………