Safety Pilot for IFR Student? Legal?

[dtuuri]

Based on what? Safety pilot is not in control of aircraft. They’d be barking up the wrong tree. Also what’s a non IFR pilot doing flying in below minimum weather for? He’s have bigger issues to deal with.

If I've followed the thread correctly it's been argued above that a non-IFR rated pilot can fly the plane and log PIC time under IMC (with a hood) as long as a safety pilot/PIC (agrees to be PIC) is in the aircraft. Post #35 then states that an insurance company doesn't require the PIC to meet insurance requirements—they only care about the pilot controlling the aircraft (who is a named insured). That's not how you followed the thread too?

 

[chartbundle]

As mentioned, always discuss before who is PIC, emergency procedures and what the safety pilot is going to be doing. Even as a non-CFI I'm happy with any thing from "don't hit anything" to playing ATC and scenarios and critiques. With the understanding that it's worth what they're paying, so, nothing.

 

[SToL]

If I've followed the thread correctly it's been argued above that a non-IFR rated pilot can fly the plane and log PIC time under IMC (with a hood) as long as a safety pilot/PIC (agrees to be PIC) is in the aircraft.

It's not an argument. It's a regulation of the FARs.

 

[SToL]

Not the safety pilot requirement itself but the “when” a safety pilot is considered required crew.

The fact you can be an instrument student flying in IMC on an IFR flight plan with an IR rated pilot as safety pilot and as soon as you remove the hood, one of you is no longer required is quirky...

You're looking at this all wrong.. in your scenario, there is no safety pilot. It's an instrument rated pilot on an ifr flight plan, allowing another to manipulate the controls. Only the Instrument rated pilot can log the time. This is not a 'safety pilot. scenario.

 

[dtuuri]

It's not an argument. It's a regulation of the FARs.

Whatever, I'm just not sure if Tommar98 or I am not following the thread right.

 

[dmspilot]

You're looking at this all wrong.. in your scenario, there is no safety pilot. It's an instrument rated pilot on an ifr flight plan, allowing another to manipulate the controls. Only the Instrument rated pilot can log the time. This is not a 'safety pilot. scenario.

Nope. Only the sole manipulator may log time.

 

[SToL]

Nope. Only the sole manipulator may log time.

You are correct. Only one can log PIC time.

I was thinking of the 'Acting as PIC' logging when agreed upon, however that applies to ac where more than one pilot is required. Since this is not a 'safety pilot' scenario, that would not apply. Thanks.

 

[dtuuri]

You are correct. Only one can log PIC time.

Nope. Only the sole manipulator may log time.

 

[dtuuri]

Reality check: Isn't this absurd? The only person responsible for the flight can't log PIC time since s/he isn't "manipulating" the controls, but the stupid student can log it even if s/he hasn't a clue about what s/he's doing. Thanks, Chief Counsel, for letting this get so out of hand. It's legal lying, that's what it is.

 

[SToL]

Reality check: Isn't this absurd? The only person responsible for the flight can't log PIC time since s/he isn't "manipulating" the controls, but the stupid student can log it even if s/he hasn't a clue about what s/he's doing.

Actually, they both can log PIC as long as prior, they both agree the safety pilot is the acting PIC. Now that's an absurd one.

 

[dtuuri]

Actually, they both can log PIC as long as prior, they both agree the safety pilot is the acting PIC. Now that's an absurd one.

You are correct, my mistake. The Chief Counsel is still guilty of botching this mess up. They should only allow PIC logging by the acting PIC. "Steering" the aircraft should be a separate kind of logged time.

 

[SToL]

You are correct, my mistake. The Chief Counsel is still guilty of botching this mess up. They should only allow PIC logging by the acting PIC. "Steering" the aircraft should be a separate kind of logged time.

It should be logged as 'FAC'... Fiddler at Controls

 

[dmspilot]

You are correct, my mistake. The Chief Counsel is still guilty of botching this mess up. They should only allow PIC logging by the acting PIC. "Steering" the aircraft should be a separate kind of logged time.

The Chief Counsel didn't botch anything, the regulations were literally written that way from the get go.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Reality check: Isn't this absurd? The only person responsible for the flight can't log PIC time since s/he isn't "manipulating" the controls, but the stupid student can log it even if s/he hasn't a clue about what s/he's doing. Thanks, Chief Counsel, for letting this get so out of hand. It's legal lying, that's what it is.

I long ago gave up the idea that the FAA making choices about what activities the FAA will count toward the FAA's requirements for the FAA's certificates, ratings and privileges need to be measured by anyone's standards other than the FAA's, or that someone abiding by them is morally deprived.

 

[dtuuri]

The Chief Counsel didn't botch anything, the regulations were literally written that way from the get go.

Not before somebody dropped an "or" from Part 61 in the logbook section. There was only one PIC at a time.

@midlifeflyer, we never had these discussions (confusions) back in the 60s. This all stems from a typo in 1972 and the Chief Counsel's inability to see it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Not before somebody dropped an "or" from Part 61 in the logbook section. There was only one PIC at a time.

@midlifeflyer, we never had these discussions (confusions) back in the 60s. This all stems from a typo in 1972 and the Chief Counsel's inability to see it.

I might buy that argument...except for one small thing. If it were a "bad" interpretation based on a typo, it would have been fixed with a corrective amendment. But the FAA still hasn't fixed the "typo" 47 years years later, despite multiple revisions of Part 61, some of them huge and others adding categories of "logged" PIC.

 

[dtuuri]

I might buy that argument...except for one small thing. If it were a "bad" interpretation based on a typo, it would have been fixed with a corrective amendment. But the FAA still hasn't fixed the "typo" 47 years years later, despite multiple revisions of Part 61, some of them huge and others adding categories of "logged" PIC.

Well yeah, that's my point! Endless confusion because of it. You shouldn't need a flowchart to figure out if time can be logged, you should just need common sense. A student logging PIC time while on an IFR flight plan makes no more sense than Buddy Hackett logging PIC time while flying through a billboard.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well yeah, that's my point! Endless confusion because of it. You shouldn't need a flowchart to figure out if time can be logged, you should just need common sense. A student logging PIC time while on an IFR flight plan makes no more sense than Buddy Hackett logging PIC time while flying through a billboard.

I will agree wholeheartedly on one point. The FAA would have made it easier on our brains by using some term other than "pilot in command flight time" for logged PIC.

Fortunately, the more it is discussed, the less confusion I see. When a lot of people understand and join in, people seem to more easily pick up the idea that "acting" is about authority, duty, and responsibility, and "logging" is something you do after a flight while having a beer, and that they aren't (and don't necessarily have to be) co-equal.

 

[apr911]

Unfortunately, the issue comes down to the same problem I've cited before elsewhere on this forum. How do we measure experience?

The FAA and airlines (and many many others) try to quantify that which is an inherently qualitative not quantitative which leads to an insufficient analysis because Acting PIC vs Flying PIC vs Logging PIC dont necessarily equate to some level/amount of experience.