Safety pilot question

S

SafeTpic

Guest
Today I went up to log some hood time with a safety pilot. So here’s the scenario:
Me: IFR student
Safety pilot: IFR certified pilot who is current with everything
Flight: 2.5 hours total for which 2 hours was under hood in vfr conditions doing climb out, missed, approaches, level flight to 3 different airports. Less then 20 min spent in IMC during approach and climb out at one field - safety pilot was acting pic and flew while in IMC. (That looks hard from right seat)
IFR flight plan filed by safety pilot.
Two questions
1. Any far regs violated?
2.How does time get logged?

This all seems easy when you are reading it but starts to get mudddy when you are doing it. Don’t want to log a potential violation. I don’t think anything any violation occurred but want to log correctly so it doesn’t get confused as a potential violation.
 
Provided you were properly rated for the airplane (and no, the instrument rating is not a factor) and current, you can log 2.2 hours PIC and your safety pilot can log the .3 that he flew as PIC. Even though he was acting PIC for the whole flight, there are no provisions for him to log PIC while you were sole manipulator. No regs broken if your scenario is accurate.

The question I have is why didn’t he let you fly when it was IMC?
 
The safety pilot can also log the 2 hours you were under the hood as PIC. Despite what Greg said there is a provision that allows him to log PIC while you were the sole manipulator.

61.51
e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.

(1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights—

(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted;

Since you were in simulated instrument flight you were operating under regulation 91.109

91.109
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

Since the regulation the flight was conducted under required a second pilot and he was acting as PIC, he can log PIC for the time you were under the hood. You can log PIC for the entire time that you were sole manipulator of the controls.
 
Last edited:
You don’t mention talking to ATC. Perhaps you just left it out. My point is that having an instrument ratings doesn’t allow you to break the VFR rules regarding cloud avoidance without being under ATC.
 
Op here. when I reviewed with my CFII everything was ok as planned. Another CFII (not mine) in the club chimes in that we were in violation of CFR 61.3(e) and why we were in the wrong was not meteorological conditions but “flight rules” conditions.
Figured I’d get a 2,3,4,5..(factorial) opinion here.
I was under the impression that I, as an IFR student, couldn’t fly in IMC without a CFII on board ( he would have let me but I didn’t think I was allowed) but again did have an IFR certified pilot as safety pilot. I guess by reading here I could fly that imc just can’t log the PIC time for it which makes sense.

This crap is harder then flying the airplane!!!
 
SafeTpic said:
Op here. when I reviewed with my CFII everything was ok as planned. Another CFII (not mine) in the club chimes in that we were in violation of CFR 61.3(e) and why we were in the wrong was not meteorological conditions but “flight rules” conditions.
Click to expand...
Ummm... I have no idea what distinction he is trying to draw there.
I was under the impression that I, as an IFR student, couldn’t fly in IMC without a CFII on board ( he would have let me but I didn’t think I was allowed) but again did have an IFR certified pilot as safety pilot. I guess by reading here I could fly that imc just can’t log the PIC time for it which makes sense.

This crap is harder then flying the airplane!!!
Click to expand...
Yes, there is no requirement that the PIC be a CFII for a non-IR pilot (or even someone without a pilot's certificate for that matter) to legally be at the controls in IMC.* However, the bolded part is not correct. You could also log the PIC time, as long as you were rated in the airplane and were sole manipulator of the controls. The reason you can't log that time under the scenario you described is just that the other pilot was doing the flying.

*Whether it's wise or not, of course, is another question. ;)
 
Here are a couple of legal interpretations from the FAA that clarify what can be logged. The first one talks about what can be logged by each pilot while you are under the hood.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...009/gebhart - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf

This one talks about flying in actual IMC. You can legally fly in IMC as long as a qualified pilot is onboard to act as PIC. When you do so you can log actual IMC time and PIC if you are the sole manipulator of the controls. However, the other pilot who is acting as PIC can not log anything for the time that you are flying in actual IMC conditions.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...2011/walker - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf
 
And just to further clarify (hopefully): what you could not do, as an IFR student, is count that time towards the minimum 15 hours of instrument flight training required for the rating unless the IR pilot was a CFII and he was training you. But you can still log it, and even count it towards the 40 hours of required instrument time.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, darn. I knew that! Must have been thinking of something else.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say the OP can't log the time while the IR pilot was flying in IMC (unless that person put a hood on and OP acted as safety pilot).
 
SafeTpic said:
Op here. when I reviewed with my CFII everything was ok as planned. Another CFII (not mine) in the club chimes in that we were in violation of CFR 61.3(e) and why we were in the wrong was not meteorological conditions but “flight rules” conditions.
Figured I’d get a 2,3,4,5..(factorial) opinion here.
I was under the impression that I, as an IFR student, couldn’t fly in IMC without a CFII on board ( he would have let me but I didn’t think I was allowed) but again did have an IFR certified pilot as safety pilot. I guess by reading here I could fly that imc just can’t log the PIC time for it which makes sense.

This crap is harder then flying the airplane!!!
Click to expand...

The second CFII is wrong and I don't even understand the rationale behind the argument. You did not violate 61.3(e) because at no time did you act as PIC of an IFR flight. The IR pilot acted as PIC the entire flight.
 
SafeTpic said:
I was under the impression that I, as an IFR student, couldn’t fly in IMC without a CFII on board ( he would have let me but I didn’t think I was allowed) but again did have an IFR certified pilot as safety pilot. I guess by reading here I could fly that imc just can’t log the PIC time for it which makes sense.
Click to expand...

Anyone, including nonpilot passengers, can manipulate the controls of the airplane at any time if the person acting as PIC permits them to do so; the PIC does not have to be a CFI.

You may continue to fly in IMC and you may log PIC time under 61.51(e):

"Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated..."

IFR or not does not matter. IMC or not does not matter.
 
Anytime you have more than one pilot in an airplane, it behooves you all to decide what roles you are going to be in during the flight. If you operate under IFR (the meteorological conditions here are immaterial), you need a pilot in command who is legal for IFR flight. CFIs don't have any more or less dispensation for this.

You can't legally fly in IMC without being IFR. Logging instrument time is distinct from whether you are IFR or in IMC.

The PIC logging issues have been beaten to death subsequently in prior posts.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
CFIs don't have any more or less dispensation for this.
Click to expand...

True. A lot of people just automatically assume certain things, for example people always act surprised when I tell them I'm allowed to use my double-I without my being instrument current. I just can't file IFR. I signed off an IPC or two that way.
 
flyingron said:
You can't legally fly in IMC without being IFR.
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of pedantry (I know you and most others here know this), replace "legally fly" with "legally act as PIC." You can still manipulate the controls, and you can still log PIC if you're manipulating the controls and otherwise qualified. You just can't act as PIC.
 
Salty said:
You don’t mention talking to ATC. Perhaps you just left it out. My point is that having an instrument ratings doesn’t allow you to break the VFR rules regarding cloud avoidance without being under ATC.
Click to expand...

No we were talking to ATC the whole time. We were on a filed IFR flight plan. In fact radio communication was one of the things I was working on. Keeping it short and direct and timely.
 
mcmanigle said:
Just for the sake of pedantry (I know you and most others here know this), replace "legally fly" with "legally act as PIC." You can still manipulate the controls, and you can still log PIC if you're manipulating the controls and otherwise qualified. You just can't act as PIC.
Click to expand...
What I wrote is correct (pedantically or otherwise). Let me repeat:

You can't legally fly in IMC without being IFR, where "Being IFR" means operating under INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES.

It matters not who is manipulating the controls, or who is pilot in command, or who is logging what. You need to be operating under IFR to legally be in IMC.

I suspect you misread my post as to saying you can't at the controls in IMC without an instrument rating. DIdn't say that (and it's obviously wrong).
 
azure said:
And just to further clarify (hopefully): what you could not do, as an IFR student, is count that time towards the minimum 15 hours of instrument flight training required for the rating unless the IR pilot was a CFII and he was training you. But you can still log it, and even count it towards the 40 hours of required instrument time.
Click to expand...

Well aware. This was towards building the 40 hours. Thank you!
 
mcmanigle said:
Just for the sake of pedantry (I know you and most others here know this), replace "legally fly" with "legally act as PIC." You can still manipulate the controls, and you can still log PIC if you're manipulating the controls and otherwise qualified. You just can't act as PIC.
Click to expand...

IFR applies to the flight, not a particular person on board.

"You can't legally fly in IMC without being IFR."
is synonymous with
"You can't legally fly in IMC unless the flight is conducted under IFR."
which also is synonymous with
"You can't legally fly in IMC under VFR."

...which are all true.
 
Wheels said:
The safety pilot can also log the 2 hours you were under the hood as PIC. Despite what Greg said there is a provision that allows him to log PIC while you were the sole manipulator.

61.51
e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.

(1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights—

(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted;

Since you were in simulated instrument flight you were operating under regulation 91.109

91.109
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

Since the regulation the flight was conducted under required a second pilot and he was acting as PIC, he can log PIC for the time you were under the hood. You can log PIC for the entire time that you were sole manipulator of the controls.
Click to expand...

That, you both can log PIC, but remember only one person can log a take off and landing and the .1 or whatever time that's takes :)
 
To stir the pot a little, does the safety pilot have a 3rd class medical? After all, s/he is a required crew member.

(c) Medical certificate. (1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate
Click to expand...
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?pitd=20170501&node=se14.1.61_13&rgn=div8

Does that mean one can't be a safety pilot under BasicMed? :stirpot:
 
Straight from the FAA's own FAQ on basic med (and in conformance with the regulations):
Q25: Can I use BasicMed to act as a safety pilot, rather than holding a medical? A: Only if you’re acting as PIC while performing the duties of safety pilot. The statutory language prescribing BasicMed said it only applies to people acting as PIC. BasicMed cannot be exercised by safety pilots who are not acting as PIC but are required crewmembers.​
 
jayhawk74 said:
:mad2:o_O
That is correct. While the FAA will allow you to be PIC with BasicMed it won't allow you to be SIC (which a Safety Pilot is) with BasicMedo_O:mad2:
Click to expand...
Safety pilots are allowed to act as PIC as long as they are qualified and it is agreed to by the parties involved.
 
True if both pilots agree the safety pilot may be PIC and then only needs BasicMed. But a pilot without a current Flight Review can be a safety pilot but not PIC, then the safety pilot couldn't use BasicMed.
 
jayhawk74 said:
True if both pilots agree the safety pilot may be PIC and then only needs BasicMed. But a pilot without a current Flight Review can be a safety pilot but not PIC, then the safety pilot couldn't use BasicMed.
Click to expand...
In the present case, though, it's pretty clear the safety pilot was PIC - and therefore, could as well have been flying under BasicMed.
 
Palmpilot said:
Safety pilots are allowed to act as PIC as long as they are qualified and it is agreed to by the parties involved.
Click to expand...
Yes. I suspect the main deterrent to that arrangement will be insurance requirements. A pilot acquaintance flies a Cirrus, he is my safety pilot and I would like to reciprocate, but although I can legally be PIC in his airplane, I have zero hours in make and model. I would probably need transition training and some minimum hours before his insurance would allow that.
 
azure said:
Yes. I suspect the main deterrent to that arrangement will be insurance requirements. A pilot acquaintance flies a Cirrus, he is my safety pilot and I would like to reciprocate, but although I can legally be PIC in his airplane, I have zero hours in make and model. I would probably need transition training and some minimum hours before his insurance would allow that.
Click to expand...

Was that clarified by the insurance company? Pretty sure when they add the hour requirements it is more for a person taking the plane and go flying. Not acting as a safety pilot.
 
TommyG said:
Was that clarified by the insurance company? Pretty sure when they add the hour requirements it is more for a person taking the plane and go flying. Not acting as a safety pilot.
Click to expand...
No, but it's something we would need clarification from them on before actually doing it. All this is speculation on my part since I haven't even seen his policy. But the hours requirements in *my* policy do say they are for pilot in command, not flying solo or "with passengers", and knowing that insurance companies usually try to avoid payouts whenever possible, I sure wouldn't allow that arrangement in my airplane without a clarifying statement from them.
 
azure said:
No, but it's something we would need clarification from them on before actually doing it.
Click to expand...
Really?

Let's say you and owner are both on the plane. Owner goes under the hood and you are PIC. Because he is under the hood in VFR VMC conditions the regulations require another pilot to be onboard (yeah yeah medical, etc.)..

So, legally, he is sole manipulator and can log the time accordingly, AND, legally, YOU can also log the time he is under the hood because at that point you are a required crew member. Why would you need to ask the insurance company about this? If.. something crazy happens and an insurance claim is filed, and you were the one acting as PIC (for whatever reason) then that might create some insurance issues.. but legally you should be fine

Am I missing something?
 
So another question for the brain trust... similar questions have been asked before, but not this one, and I couldn't find it answered anywhere

Two pilots go flying, for ease of identification we'll say Mr.VFR and Mr.IFR

Mr.VFR is in training for his IR ticket. He needs lots of simulated hood time, so you, who just happens to be IR rated, Mr.IFR, agree to be his safety pilot. It is a VMC day and you rae not filing an IFR flight plan. In this case Mr.VFR logs all the time he is flying the plane (sole manipulator) and Mr.IFR gets to log the time that he is a required crew member, IE, under the hood..

BUT WHAT IF... conditions require an IFR clearance to get into and out of the airport. Can Mr.IFR log the entire Hobbs time since he is now the acting PIC since he is the instrument rated pilot? I believe the answer is yes. But what about the approaches.. you receive an IFR clearance for the approach, but your friend, Mr.VFR, is flying it. Can you log the approach in your logbook to count towards currency, or is it only the actual flight time you can log

**I've asked this question before and have never gotten a simple "yes you can both log the total 2.5 hobbs but only the one flying can log the approaches" or whatever. All the answers I've seen around this are very complicated and pedantic.
 
Tantalum said:
Really?

Let's say you and owner are both on the plane. Owner goes under the hood and you are PIC. Because he is under the hood in VFR VMC conditions the regulations require another pilot to be onboard (yeah yeah medical, etc.)..

So, legally, he is sole manipulator and can log the time accordingly, AND, legally, YOU can also log the time he is under the hood because at that point you are a required crew member. Why would you need to ask the insurance company about this? If.. something crazy happens and an insurance claim is filed, and you were the one acting as PIC (for whatever reason) then that might create some insurance issues.. but legally you should be fine

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Not sure. The scenario you point out is exactly what I would be slightly concerned about - something crazy happens (unlikely, but anything can happen), then would the insurance company try to weasel out of his claim because I was PIC? Sounds like you agree there might be "insurance issues". That's all I was talking about, everything else you say about loggability and legality, I agree with 100%.
 
Tantalum said:
BUT WHAT IF... conditions require an IFR clearance to get into and out of the airport. Can Mr.IFR log the entire Hobbs time since he is now the acting PIC since he is the instrument rated pilot? I believe the answer is yes. But what about the approaches.. you receive an IFR clearance for the approach, but your friend, Mr.VFR, is flying it. Can you log the approach in your logbook to count towards currency, or is it only the actual flight time you can log.
Click to expand...
Unless Mr. IFR is an instrument instructor, I think the answer is no to both. I'm not sure whether even an instructor can log the approaches, but I'm pretty sure a run of the mill IR pilot can't, because he can't even log the instrument time in that scenario per 61.51(g).

And 61.51(e)(1) limits logging of PIC flight time in cases where an ordinary PPL is not sole manipulator to flights requiring more than one pilot. The flight in visual conditions qualifies as simulated instrument flight so the flight requires more than one pilot as per 91.109(c). If the flight goes into actual instrument conditions then it's no longer simulated, and the flight ceases to be one requiring more than one pilot. The PIC then is no longer a safety pilot but the ONLY required pilot, the pilot flying the plane becomes a passenger who as sole manipulator can now log the time (including instrument time), but it seems the PIC no longer fits any of the conditions for *logging* the flight time as PIC.

Sounds crazy, but that's the way I read the regs. Of course, I could be wrong...
 
Actually, as long as the pilot flying has the view limiting device on, the conditions outside don't matter. It's simulated instrument conditions.
 
flyingron said:
Actually, as long as the pilot flying has the view limiting device on, the conditions outside don't matter. It's simulated instrument conditions.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I've read that before too, though I' don't think I've ever seen it spelled out in the FARs. Do you have a reference? Or is it a Chief Counsel interpretation? The only time I have like that was with my first CFII, and as I recall he logged it for me as actual even though I was under the hood. He wanted me hooded in case we broke out briefly, so he wouldn't have to keep track of any pieces of non-instrument time.
 
Simulated instrument flight means you have the view-limiting device on. If you have the view-limiting device you MUST have a safety pilot.
Think of it this way, how does the hooded pilot know they are still in IMC and hence separated from VFR traffic?
 
I understand the reasoning, I've just never seen that definition spelled out in the FARs.
 
azure said:
I understand the reasoning, I've just never seen that definition spelled out in the FARs.
Click to expand...
You'd have to warp the defintion of simulated instrument flight to believe otherwise. 91.109 applies to all simulated instrument flight without qualification.

If you want something that clarifies the obvious definition of simulated instrument flight (if that's what you're quibbling on about), then here are the definitions clarified by the FAA chief counsel (letter to Joseph Carr, 1984):

"Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles.

Note no definition of outside weather conditions.

"Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft.

By the above definition, foggles on doesn't make actual even if you're in solid IMC.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top