Another good example of what R&W wrote in another thread about pilots always trying to find a way to get around the regulations. Here, we know what the FAA's position is, but MachFly doesn't like it, so he's trying to beat the system. You want to risk a revocation for violating 61.59, go right ahead and do what he suggests. You want to be sure to keep your tickets, find another way to bag XC PIC time.
Because the FAA Chief Counsel is on record on both counts -- against safety pilots logging XC time, and for logging PIC time when manipulating the autopilot which is manipulating the controls. You don't like it, get the Chief Counsel to write a new letter saying it's OK to do what MachFly wants to do. Otherwise, you haven't a legal leg on which to stand if the FAA pings you for a 61.59 violation.
If you really believe that, feel free to take the FAA before the US Court of Appeals to have this letter overturned. Otherwise, it's what they FAA will act on and your statement before the NTSB calling it "ridiculous" won't help your case -- only prove that you knew what the FAA's position was and deliberately crossed it.
No, it only depends on how the FAA Chief Counsel interprets it (other than if the US Court of Appeals overturns that interpretation, and it's very expensive to make that happen).
Except that's not being a "safety pilot" as the FAA uses that term. In the FAA's eyes, as stated in writing by the Chief Counsel, if he's pushing Otto's buttons, he remains both the PIC and the sole manipulator of the controls. The only way he becomes a Safety Pilot is if the SIC is manipulating the controls while wearing a vision restricting device, and in that case, he remains the PIC of an aircraft when two pilots (including a designated SIC) are required, and that is an exception in the Chief Counsel's letter which allows him to log XC time even when functioning as safety pilot.
That is strictly a personal opinion, and I won't enter that discussion.
One more time -- he is not "logging his safety pilot over the auto pilot". When the autopilot is moving the flight controls, the pilot punching the autopilot's buttons is, in the FAA's language, the sole manipulator of the controls, not a "safety pilot", and, if appropriately "rated", entitled to log it as PIC time IAW 14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(i), not the "PIC while 2-pilots required" clause further down that section. Perhaps if you all understand and recognize that very important regulatory difference it would make it easier for you folks to discuss this matter.
None of that is consistent with anything in the regulations or the interpretations on point. If you're going to abuse the terminology like that, further discussion is pointless, and merely demonstrates the reason it's so hard to get people to understand the actual rules on this -- failure to stick to a common language, which, since this involves the FAA's regulations, must be the FAA's language.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
No, they do not. The PBOR doesn't say that, and the legal precedents on point don't say that. It's a popular belief among a certain segment of the pilot population, but it simply isn't true.
Something else entirely. Go back and reread the thread for details.Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't both of you agree that PIC time can be logged by
1. safety pilots who are qualified and have been designated as acting as PIC, during the time the other pilot is under the hood,
and
2. PICs who are using an autopilot?
If so, what are you two arguing about?
...and that is the fallacious statement because...
...the a/p is far less autonomous than the pilot under the hood.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on which one of the two is the PIC, and it's not always the control manipulator.
I've heard that said before, and while it may (through prior arrangement) be true, it isn't necessarily true.