Logging safety pilot time

[flyinhood]

I learn something new every day.

I truly only thought SIC time was for when 2 pilots were flying an aircraft certificated for 2 pilots or a single pilot airplane operated under an op specs (part 135) that required it. I have never heard of SIC time for safety pilot duties.

good to know

 

[JeffDG]

I learn something new every day.

I truly only thought SIC time was for when 2 pilots were flying an aircraft certificated for 2 pilots or a single pilot airplane operated under an op specs (part 135) that required it. I have never heard of SIC time for safety pilot duties.

good to know

Wait? You don't browse the FAA Chief Counsel's Interpretation Search page on a daily basis waiting for the latest manna from heaven?

 

[drotto]

OK, make this real simple for me because it is a real thing for me. I will be acting as a safety pilot for a relative. When I am safety pilot I will have all the ratings needed for the plane, as well as be insured in that plane. How do I log that time (if I so desire)?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

OK, make this real simple for me because it is a real thing for me. I will be acting as a safety pilot for a relative. When I am safety pilot I will have all the ratings needed for the plane, as well as be insured in that plane. How do I log that time (if I so desire)?

How ever the two of you DECIDE you are going to log it provided the relative is legal to act as PIC also.

 

[NJP_MAN]

OK, make this real simple for me because it is a real thing for me. I will be acting as a safety pilot for a relative. When I am safety pilot I will have all the ratings needed for the plane, as well as be insured in that plane. How do I log that time (if I so desire)?

Depends on if you sign for the plane lol

 

[Palmpilot]

there are likely many terms you won't find in publications, but I know you know that. I only wish someone published a book of common sense.

My common sense interpretation of what has been said in these threads is that who signs for the airplane is important in airline operations, but has no significance in general aviation operations.

So maybe the people involved in those two types of operation can stop busting each other's chops over it.

 

[Witmo]

I learn something new every day.

I truly only thought SIC time was for when 2 pilots were flying an aircraft certificated for 2 pilots or a single pilot airplane operated under an op specs (part 135) that required it. I have never heard of SIC time for safety pilot duties.

good to know

Logging SIC time by a second pilot can be a result of crewing an aircraft requiring two pilots by type certificate or as a result of an operation which requires a second pilot by regulation. The regulation defining safety pilot establishes the requirements for a second pilot for operations in which the flying pilot is wearing a vision restricting device. The safety pilot therefore may log SIC time for that time the other pilot is under the hood. The safety pilot must be at least a private pilot, not sport, not recreational. Since a safety pilot is a required crew member, he has to have a current medical. A safety pilot logging SIC time need not have the necessary endorsements to be PIC or even a current flight review.

Ps. Some may find what I wrote helpful as a slightly different way of restating what has been said. I've always found Capt Ron's citation of the actual regulation chapter and verse to be helpful when I or others have been too lazy to look them up and provide them.

 

[Kritchlow]

My common sense interpretation of what has been said in these threads is that who signs for the airplane is important in airline operations, but has no significance in general aviation operations.

So maybe the people involved in those two types of operation can stop busting each other's chops over it.

Totally agree. Look back through the threads. It has always been me getting their chops busted. I understand if someone may not be familiar with the term, but I have been vilified for using it.

 

[SkyDog58]

Being the sole manipulator of the controls does not automatically result in you being considered the PIC. Think of a trainee flying with an instructor, or an airline co-pilot flying his/her leg. It does, of course, permit you to log PIC time (as long as you are rated in that aircraft), but it doesn't make you the PIC and it doesn't result in you being "considered" the PIC. There are many circumstances in which someone would be the sole manipulator of the controls while flying under the hood in which it would not be possible for you to be considered PIC. Examples include a pilot who is rated in the aircraft but does not have instrument privileges, or a pilot who does not have a current medical or flight review. In both cases, the safety pilot would have to be fully PIC-qualified and acting as PIC as well as acting as safety pilot for the flight to be legal.

Logging PIC time does not require you to be the PIC. For example, I was flying today with a PP-ASEL in his Tiger on his long IFR XC for his instrument rating. As the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft in which he is rated, he properly logged the entire flight as PIC time. OTOH, I as an authorized instructor giving him training and the only pilot in the plane qualified to be the PIC under IFR would most definitely the PIC by the FAA and the NTSB.

Now that is correct -- if the safety pilot is PIC-qualified and acts as the PIC, then the safety pilot is that final authority responsible for the flight and gets to log PIC time for the entire time his/her presence is required (i.e., while the pilot flying is hooded).​

For anyone other than an instructor giving training, that is correct. But the reason the pilot flying is considered the PIC in that case is not that s/he is the sole manipulator of the controls, but rather that s/he is the final authority responsible for the flight regardless of whether s/he is manipulating the controls or not. IOW, s/he would remain the PIC even if s/he allowed the non-PIC safety pilot to manipulate the controls for part of the flight.​

The fundamental barrier to keeping all of this straight is the being the PIC and logging PIC time are different issues governed by different regulations, so there are times when you can be the PIC without being able to log PIC time, and times when you can log PIC time without being the PIC. Once you separate these two issues in your mind (which I admit isn't easy to do thanks to the FAA's insistence on using the same words "pilot in command" to describe two different things -- the person in command, and a form of aeronautical experience), it's a lot easier to understand the rules on these issues.​

You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

 

[midlifeflyer]

OK, make this real simple for me because it is a real thing for me. I will be acting as a safety pilot for a relative. When I am safety pilot I will have all the ratings needed for the plane, as well as be insured in that plane. How do I log that time (if I so desire)?

As simple as it gets: if you are acting as PIC on the flight, with all of the qualifications and responsibilities that entails, you may log it as PIC. If you are not acting as PIC on the flight you may log it as SIC.

It, like almost all logging flight time questions, is in the "universal Rule of Logging Flight Time, 61.51. And there are more that 20 years worth of consistent Chief Counsel interpretation letters that support it.

 

[John Collins]

121.533
121.535
121.537
121.597
121.687
121.689

There's a few more, but this will get you going.

Thanks.

I found "sign the flight release" mentioned in 121.597 and "Flight release form" in 121.687 and 121.689, but am still looking for "Sign for the airplane". Regardless, this phrase if used in aviation colloquial applies to certificated operators and not to general aviation and is meaningless in the latter context. It is found no where in the AIM, CFR 14 parts 1, 43, 61, or 91.

Kritchlow wrote:

I will continue to use the phrase as I think it is a perfectly descriptive term. If some here continue to pretend it's not, than so be it.

I am sure there are many other terms or phases used in the airline industry or the military that have common usage and understanding that do not have widespread application in general aviation.

I never heard the term but guess in the context being used it is an idiom for Pilot in Command. In general aviation there is no concept of signing for the airplane nor is this a duty or responsibility expected of a Pilot in Command.

Like all idiomatic speech, it is well understood by the users and easily misunderstood or misinterpreted by those who don't understand the alternative meaning.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

You need to explain that because Ron was right.

 

[poadeleted20]

You need to explain that because Ron was right.

I think Skydog's problem is one from which we all suffer -- that it's always easier to understand what you wrote because you know what you were thinking when you wrote it, and that others without your internal knowledge of what you meant to say who read what you actually wrote will perceive only what you wrote, and not what you meant.

Now, did I just write what I meant in terms which will allow others to understand what I meant?

 

[Fearless Tower]

I learn something new every day.

I truly only thought SIC time was for when 2 pilots were flying an aircraft certificated for 2 pilots or a single pilot airplane operated under an op specs (part 135) that required it. I have never heard of SIC time for safety pilot duties.

good to know

Stick around.....in a couple months well have another thread and have the majority opinion telling people that you should only ever log safety pilot time as SIC, never PIC, because the airlines won't hire you if you log it as PIC!

We literally go back and forth on this topic every few months.

Just like the current debate on slipping in the pattern.

 

[John Collins]

OK, make this real simple for me because it is a real thing for me. I will be acting as a safety pilot for a relative. When I am safety pilot I will have all the ratings needed for the plane, as well as be insured in that plane. How do I log that time (if I so desire)?

If you are only acting as SIC, you log all the correct columns that describe the date, N number, A/C type, Total time, Day/Night and if you have column for logging SIC, you would log it in that column. You would only log the time your relative was under the hood and needed a safety pilot and not log any cross country time for the flight. You must be rated in the category and class of the aircraft (Airplane Single engine Land) and hold a current medical. You do not need a high performance, complex, or other endorsement required to act as PIC in the specific aircraft, nor do you need to be current for night, passenger carrying, a current flight review or hold an instrument rating.

If you are acting as PIC, but not manipulating the controls, you can log PIC for the time your relative was under the hood and needed a safety pilot. How can you be PIC? This is by agreement between you and your relative or may be necessary to conduct the flight because for some reason your relative is not current or qualified to act as PIC. However, you must also be certificated and meet all the currency, flight review, endorsements, medical, and if an IFR flight is being conducted, you must be instrument rated and current. I presume you know how to log PIC time, but you still may not log cross country time for the flight.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you are only acting as SIC, ...

Unless they're flying something which requires two pilots, he would only be acting as safety pilot, not SIC -- see the above-referenced Chief Counsel letter on point. This is important when acting as safety pilot without an instrument rating while the aircrft is operating under IFR -- legal for someone acting only as a safety pilot, but not a required SIC. However, if acting only as safety pilot, he would still log SIC time even though he was not acting as SIC -- again, see that letter.

 

[John Collins]

Unless they're flying something which requires two pilots, he would only be acting as safety pilot, not SIC -- see the above-referenced Chief Counsel letter on point. This is important when acting as safety pilot without an instrument rating while the aircrft is operating under IFR -- legal for someone acting only as a safety pilot, but not a required SIC. However, if acting only as safety pilot, he would still log SIC time even though he was not acting as SIC -- again, see that letter.

In the context of the question asked, does this apply? I assume if one is flying with a relative, they are flying in an aircraft that does not require two pilots.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

In the context of the question asked, does this apply? I assume if one is flying with a relative, they are flying in an aircraft that does not require two pilots.

It requires two pilots when one is wearing the view limiting device by regulation not by type certificate.

 

[fiveoboy01]

So much confusion... LOL.

I'll need to re-read some of these after work. I'm starting instrument training and there will probably be situations where I'll be flying with foggles while someone else sits in the right seat. The basic gist I get is that if we agree the right seater is acting PIC, then we both can log PIC time while I'm foggled. One instrument rated pilot/friend in particular has expressed interest in doing this as he is working on building time and well having a current rated IFR pilot in the other seat would be even better for me as I learn(when the CFI isn't there of course).

Is the agreement for the duration of the flight? How about takeoff/climb and approach/landing where I'm not wearing them? Can the status of the PIC change depending on that?

 

[MAKG1]

With a current instrument rated safety pilot while you are instrument training, IF your ADM indicates you're ready for it, you have the option of getting a real IFR clearance. If you do this, the right seat must be acting PIC, as you are not rated for that. Note that it means tolerances are much tighter than VFR practice, as it's "for real."

Palmpilot did this for me a few weeks ago (thanks, Richard!) when the marine layer moved in earlier than forecast, at the airport where I was practicing approaches. Had he not been there, I could have gone elsewhere -- marine layer is really easy to dodge -- but it was very helpful. I don't think he logged PIC, but he could have. I certainly did. I may not have been all that great on the controls, but I was the sole manipulator.

 

[Palmpilot]

With a current instrument rated safety pilot while you are instrument training, IF your ADM indicates you're ready for it, you have the option of getting a real IFR clearance. If you do this, the right seat must be acting PIC, as you are not rated for that. Note that it means tolerances are much tighter than VFR practice, as it's "for real."

Palmpilot did this for me a few weeks ago (thanks, Richard!) when the marine layer moved in earlier than forecast, at the airport where I was practicing approaches. Had he not been there, I could have gone elsewhere -- marine layer is really easy to dodge -- but it was very helpful. I don't think he logged PIC, but he could have. I certainly did. I may not have been all that great on the controls, but I was the sole manipulator.

Yeah, once we got an IFR clearance, I had to include the instruments in my scan, because I became responsible for making sure we stayed within IFR tolerances.

I haven't gotten caught up on my logging yet, and haven't decided what to log, since I have no need to accumulate time.

 

[John Collins]

It requires two pilots when one is wearing the view limiting device by regulation not by type certificate.

The operation requires two pilots, the aircraft does not.

 

[John Collins]

Unless they're flying something which requires two pilots, he would only be acting as safety pilot, not SIC -- see the above-referenced Chief Counsel letter on point. This is important when acting as safety pilot without an instrument rating while the aircrft is operating under IFR -- legal for someone acting only as a safety pilot, but not a required SIC. However, if acting only as safety pilot, he would still log SIC time even though he was not acting as SIC -- again, see that letter.

So if I had written "acting as safety pilot" rather than "acting as SIC" it would have been more correct. Regardless, the pilot would log the time as SIC.

 

[Bonchie]

So much confusion... LOL.

I'll need to re-read some of these after work. I'm starting instrument training and there will probably be situations where I'll be flying with foggles while someone else sits in the right seat. The basic gist I get is that if we agree the right seater is acting PIC, then we both can log PIC time while I'm foggled. One instrument rated pilot/friend in particular has expressed interest in doing this as he is working on building time and well having a current rated IFR pilot in the other seat would be even better for me as I learn(when the CFI isn't there of course).

Is the agreement for the duration of the flight? How about takeoff/climb and approach/landing where I'm not wearing them? Can the status of the PIC change depending on that?

It's just not that big of a deal. I know this 6 page thread makes it seem like it is but it's not. If your friend agrees to be acting PIC in the right seat, you log PIC for the entire flight (assuming you are the sole manipulator of the controls the entire flight). He gets to log PIC any time you are under the hood. You buy him a beer afterwards.

This thread should of been over after the first two posts.

 

[poadeleted20]

In the context of the question asked, does this apply? I assume if one is flying with a relative, they are flying in an aircraft that does not require two pilots.

The aircraft does not require two pilots in that scenario, and it's not a commercial operation with a SIC requirement, so there is no required SIC and the safety pilot is just a safety pilot. However, per the letter cited above, a person acting as a safety pilot required by 91.109(c) is permitted by 61.51(f) to log SIC time even though s/he is not a SIC and does not have to meet the 61.55 SIC requirements.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'll need to re-read some of these after work. I'm starting instrument training and there will probably be situations where I'll be flying with foggles while someone else sits in the right seat. The basic gist I get is that if we agree the right seater is acting PIC, then we both can log PIC time while I'm foggled.

As long as the safety pilot is fully PIC-qualified (including flight review, landings, etc), that is correct. Just make sure there are no insurance problems with that person being the PIC.

One instrument rated pilot/friend in particular has expressed interest in doing this as he is working on building time and well having a current rated IFR pilot in the other seat would be even better for me as I learn(when the CFI isn't there of course).

In that case, you could actually file IFR and accept an IFR clearance -- with that friend as PIC. See above regarding some concerns with your friend acting as PIC. In addition, there have been several fatal accidents involving a non-IR pilot flying from the left seat with a non-CFI IR pilot acting as PIC in the right seat in actual instrument conditions. The problem is your pal may not be trained and capable of evaluating your performance, determining when to take over, and taking over safely from the right seat flying cross-cockpit. As those who have completed instrument instructor training can tell you, it's not as easy as it might seem the first time you try it.

Is the agreement for the duration of the flight? How about takeoff/climb and approach/landing where I'm not wearing them? Can the status of the PIC change depending on that?

By the regulations, the status of the PIC can change only when the current PIC agrees to cede command and the other pilot agrees to accept it. You can certainly make your own agreement as to when that will occur, but that's your own agreement, not the regulations.

 

[poadeleted20]

So if I had written "acting as safety pilot" rather than "acting as SIC" it would have been more correct. Regardless, the pilot would log the time as SIC.

Correct. And yes, the specific terminology is important, as someone acting only as a safety pilot need not meet all the requirements of 61.55, but a person acting as SIC must. The biggest issue is that you can act as safety pilot for a properly instrument qualified PIC under IFR without holding an instrument rating, but a required SIC must hold instrument privileges when operating under IFR.

 

[NJP_MAN]

By the regulations, the status of the PIC can change only when the current PIC agrees to cede command and the other pilot agrees to accept it. You can certainly make your own agreement as to when that will occur, but that's your own agreement, not the regulations.

Just make sure that you land and sign the plane back in so the other pilot may "sign for the plane" and assume PIC duties and responsibilities ✏

 

[Kritchlow]

Just make sure that you land and sign the plane back in so the other pilot may "sign for the plane" and assume PIC duties and responsibilities ✏

Bwahahaha!!! Love it!

 

[poadeleted20]

Just make sure that you land and sign the plane back in so the other pilot may "sign for the plane" and assume PIC duties and responsibilities ✏

I wonder if the airliners where the captain dropped dead (more than a few cases) were considered to have no PIC for the remainder of the flight because the FO never signed for the plane after the captain died. That would certainly have disqualified Ted Stryker, even though he had became "the boss, the head man, the top dog, the big cheese, the head honcho, number one..."

 

[RotorAndWing]

I wonder if the airliners where the captain dropped dead (more than a few cases) were considered to have no PIC for the remainder of the flight because the FO never signed for the plane after the captain died.

That's addressed in the GOM/FOM.

 

[NJP_MAN]

Bwahahaha!!! Love it!

After seeing some of the posts in the Hangar talk section as of late, I have decided that I can't take this place seriously. Instead of leaving like Captain, I'm going to stick around and have fun.

 

[Kritchlow]

I wonder if the airliners where the captain dropped dead (more than a few cases) were considered to have no PIC for the remainder of the flight because the FO never signed for the plane after the captain died. That would certainly have disqualified Ted Stryker, even though he had became "the boss, the head man, the top dog, the big cheese, the head honcho, number one..."

You laugh, but there's actually verbiage in our manual about that. I need to look it up... It says either the FO is the PIC but not a captain, or vice versa. Anyway, what if he is not rated in the airplane but is ole manipulator if the controls with a dead capt?? Can he log PIC?? Looking at Fred's flow chart I don't see that.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You laugh, but there's actually verbiage in our manual about that. I need to look it up... It says either the FO is the PIC but not a captain, or vice versa. Anyway, what if he is not rated in the airplane but is ole manipulator if the controls with a dead capt?? Can he log PIC?? Looking at Fred's flow chart I don't see that.

DC-10 flying along late at night, and the Captain dozes off. An hour later, the FO and SO try to wake him and discover he's passed away.

After landing the NTSB and FAA show up. After they pull the CVR, they hear the FO talking to the SO,

"Help me get that dead SOB out of my seat and I'll let you fly the next leg"......

 

[Kritchlow]

DC-10 flying along late at night, and the Captain dozes off. An hour later, the FO and SO try to wake him and discover he's passed away.

After landing the NTSB and FAA show up. After they pull the CVR, they hear the FO talking to the SO,

"Help me get that dead SOB out of my seat and I'll let you fly the next leg"......

Hahaha!!!!

True???

 

[poadeleted20]

You laugh, but there's actually verbiage in our manual about that. I need to look it up... It says either the FO is the PIC but not a captain, or vice versa.

Probably the former -- being PIC is an FAA thing, but being "the captain" is a company thing.

Anyway, what if he is not rated in the airplane but is ole manipulator if the controls with a dead capt?? Can he log PIC?? Looking at Fred's flow chart I don't see that.

By the regulations, no, he can't, even though he is be default the final authority responsible for the operation of the aircraft, i.e., the de facto PIC. Of course, the FAA Chief Counsel said a long time ago that if a rated pilot allows someone else to manipulate the controls of a 1-pilot aircraft, the rated pilot can still log it as PIC time as long as nobody else can log it. By extension, I'd think that the FAA would be OK with the FO logging it as PIC time since there isn't anyone else who can log it.

 

[NJP_MAN]

If the captain drops dead then that aircraft can never be "signed in". This is a very sad circumstance since the airplane now has to be removed from service and destroyed.