Two VFR pilots, one under the hood - can both log PIC time?

German guy

German guy

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
1,219
Location
Novi, MI
Display Name
Display name:
Oliver
Hi everybody,

I know that if a instrument rated pilot does some flying under the hood, he has to be accompanied by a safety pilot. If the safety pilot is PIC, both are allowed the log the time while the guy in the left seat was under the hood.

But what, if two VFR pilots do the same? As flying under the hood is a part of the private pilot training, and as it makes sense to keep these skills up, this situation should be quite common!?
So - if the VFR-guy under the hood solely manipulates the controls and the VFR-saftey-pilot-guy is PIC, can they both log PIC time? :confused:

I am looking forward to your answers. :smilewinkgrin:

Cheers,

Oliver
 
As long as both pilots hold certificates appropriate for the category, class, and type (if required) of aircraft being flown, they can both log PIC time for the time when the pilot flying is under the hood. See 61.51, and also this thread.
 
To the OP yes.
That is how a lot of VFR pilots get their 40 hours of hood time toward the IFR requirements.
There is nothing that says ones has to be "instrument rated" to act as safety pilot.

Now the Safety Pilot should agree BEFORE take off that he/she is PIC for the flight and the "hood pilot" is logging it as sole manipulator of the controls.
 
German guy said:
So - if the VFR-guy under the hood solely manipulates the controls and the VFR-saftey-pilot-guy is PIC, can they both log PIC time? :confused:

I am looking forward to your answers. :smilewinkgrin:

Cheers,

Oliver
Click to expand...

YES... in the situation you described...

but... understand the difference between LOGGING PIC and BEING PIC. Theres a bunch of situations where you can "log PIC" without "BEING the PIC". Safety pilot is not one of them.

In an aircraft that requires a single crewmember:
The safety pilot can only log PIC if he IS (as agreed by both the pilot flying and the safety pilot) the PIC during the time the pilot flying is under the hood. That means if you bust airspace.. or screw something up... you are saying "I WAS PIC, I AM RESPONSIBLE"
 
Hi

and thanks for your answers! :yesnod:

Actually EdFred's chart brought me to that idea.
I also did some research but wasn't sure if this rule also counts for VFR pilots who just want to IFR flying or if it is just valid in case the guy under the hood is IFR certified.

Thanks for clarifying this issue! :smile:

Cheers,

Oliver
 
German guy said:
Hi

and thanks for your answers! :yesnod:

Actually EdFred's chart brought me to that idea.
I also did some research but wasn't sure if this rule also counts for VFR pilots who just want to IFR flying
Click to expand...
Just to make sure whether or not you're using the words accurately: VFR pilots can not do "IFR flying." "IFR" means "instrument flight rules" and two VFR pilots in an airplane can not fly under instrument flight rules. One can be under the hood and the other a safety pilot and they can practice instrument procedures, but the are still operating under VFR, not IFR.

You probably understand that but it never hurts to makes sure.
 
markb5900 said:
There is nothing that says ones has to be "instrument rated" to act as safety pilot.
Click to expand...

Unless, that is, the flight is conducted under IFR (not to be confused with IMC). If there is a flight plan filed, regardless of weather conditions, the safety pilot must be instrument rated.
 
If the flight is conducted under IFR, the safety pilot must be instrument rated -- see 61.55(a)(2). This requirement was added about five years ago with no fanfare at all.

Also, for the safety pilot to act as PIC so as to log PIC time, the safety pilot must be fully qualified to do so. If the flight is conducted under IFR, that means the safety pilot must meet all PIC currencies, including 61.57(c) instrument currency, and be listed as PIC on the flight plan.

And I'm sure Jeff meant to limit his "if there is a flight plan filed" statement to the case of an IFR flight plan.

Finally, while it is legal for an instrument rated safety pilot to act as PIC under IFR for a non-IR pilot flying under the hood, I strongly recommend against this practice unless the safety pilot is a CFI, or otherwise has had the training to be able to evaluate the other pilot's performance effectively, determine accurately when it is necessary to take control, and take control safely -- all from the right seat, and not many non-CFI's can do all that. There are fatal accidents on record involving IFR flight by a non-IR pilot in the left seat with a non-CFI PIC in the right seat, so remember that this is a case where what is legal ain't necessarily safe.
 
Last edited:
Thanks again for all you replies and for clarifying this issue. :yesnod:

Of course I think of two VFR pilots who fly in VFR conditions, while the person at the controls is under the hood, the person on the right seat the PIC.

To get more specific, I think about my wife an me. As we are German and might want to convert the US-license to a German license and as each of us needs 100 hours PIC time for that, we don't want to waste a single hour which could be logged.

Cheers,

Oliver
 
German guy said:
Of course I think of two VFR pilots who fly in VFR conditions, while the person at the controls is under the hood, the person on the right seat the PIC.
Click to expand...
At the risk of semantic issues with someone for whom English is not the first language...

The conditions of flight (VMC vs IMC) are not the issue -- the rules under which you are operating (VFR vs IFR) are. If you're operating under IFR, the safety pilot must have an instrument rating, even if you're in VMC. And, as discussed above, to be able to log PIC time, the safety pilot must be acting as PIC, which means meeting all the PIC requirements including landing currency, flight review, additional endorsements (like high performance or complex), instrument currency (six approaches, etc) if IFR, etc.
To get more specific, I think about my wife an me. As we are German and might want to convert the US-license to a German license and as each of us needs 100 hours PIC time for that, we don't want to waste a single hour which could be logged.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with that part of the German rules, but this is one way to get extra PIC time in your logbook. Just remember that the safety pilot can only log the time while the flying pilot is hooded, so the safety pilot's time for the flight should always be shorter than the flying pilot's time for the flight, since the flying pilot shouldn't be hooded during taxi, takeoff, or landing. If the FAA sees both pilots logging the same amount of time, das ist sehr schlecht.
 
Last edited:
And just as an addition to Ron's post...a maximum of one pilot (barring a plane or Pt. 135 opspec requiring multiple pilots) can log cross country time for the flight. So 2 VFR pilots, one hooded, doesn't save you much money on the Instrument Rating 50 hour XC PIC time requirement, because only one of them is logging the needed time at once...although he is also logging towards the 40h of flight by instrument.
 
JeffDG said:
And just as an addition to Ron's post...a maximum of one pilot (barring a plane or Pt. 135 opspec requiring multiple pilots) can log cross country time for the flight. So 2 VFR pilots, one hooded, doesn't save you much money on the Instrument Rating 50 hour XC PIC time requirement, because only one of them is logging the needed time at once...although he is also logging towards the 40h of flight by instrument.
Click to expand...
Good point if they're going for their US FAA IR's, although his concern appears to be a German requirement for 100 hours of simple PIC time.
 
Hi Ron,

Ron Levy said:
At the risk of semantic issues with someone for whom English is not the first language...

The conditions of flight (VMC vs IMC) are not the issue -- the rules under which you are operating (VFR vs IFR) are. If you're operating under IFR, the safety pilot must have an instrument rating, even if you're in VMC. [...]
Click to expand...

I (think that I) understand the difference between performing a IFR flight and being in IFR conditions. We do not just not want to fly in IFR conditions, we also don't want to file a IFR flight plan.

However, what we will do is, to do the same training like during the training towards the PPL - flying with the hood, during a VFR flight under VFR conditions. As we will do this anyways to improve our skills for flying by the instruments, it would make sense to do this in a way in which we both can legally log PIC time.

It has nothing to do with getting hours for the IFR license. It would just be helpful to fill up the 100 hours which are needed for the conversion of the standard US-PPL to a German PPL, as quickly as possible.

I also understand that the person on the right seat can only log PIC time, if they have agreed that he will be PIC and only as long as the other person uses the hood.

So:

We fly for two hours, VFR, VFR conditions. My wife is on the left seat, I'm on the right, PIC. During the flight she flys the plane for 30 minutes under the hood.
She will then be able to log two hours, I can log 30 minutes.
Right?

Cheers,

Oliver
 
German guy said:
I (think that I) understand the difference between performing a IFR flight and being in IFR conditions. We do not just not want to fly in IFR conditions, we also don't want to file a IFR flight plan.
Click to expand...
In that case, nobody needs an instrument rating, although you must remain in VMC.
However, what we will do is, to do the same training like during the training towards the PPL - flying with the hood, during a VFR flight under VFR conditions. As we will do this anyways to improve our skills for flying by the instruments, it would make sense to do this in a way in which we both can legally log PIC time.
Click to expand...
That's a good idea, assuming you are practicing what you've already learned to do. Speaking as an instrument instuctor, I'd suggest getting enough instrument training before you start this hood-swapping so you're sure that you're practicing good instrument flying techniques, not making bad habits worse.
It has nothing to do with getting hours for the IFR license. It would just be helpful to fill up the 100 hours which are needed for the conversion of the standard US-PPL to a German PPL, as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...
Then the PIC time you each log when one is hooded should do nicely.
I also understand that the person on the right seat can only log PIC time, if they have agreed that he will be PIC and only as long as the other person uses the hood.
Click to expand...
Excellent! Nothing like a little cross-language teaching to exercise one's teaching skills.
We fly for two hours, VFR, VFR conditions. My wife is on the left seat, I'm on the right, PIC. During the flight she flys the plane for 30 minutes under the hood.
She will then be able to log two hours, I can log 30 minutes.
Right?
Click to expand...
Right!:thumbsup:
 
Hi Ron, hi everybody,

thanks again for all your friendly answers and for clarifying this issue! :yesnod: :thumbsup:

Cheers,

Oliver
 
I don't think that chart is very clear on some things. I think it conflates acting as PIC and logging PIC a little. As far as I'm aware, all you need to do in order to act as safety pilot is the requirements set out in 91.109(b)(1+2). All the stuff laid out in part 61 relate to acting as PIC, so it shouldn't matter.
 
dsffdssdf said:
I don't think that chart is very clear on some things. I think it conflates acting as PIC and logging PIC a little. As far as I'm aware, all you need to do in order to act as safety pilot is the requirements set out in 91.109(b)(1+2). All the stuff laid out in part 61 relate to acting as PIC, so it shouldn't matter.
Click to expand...
The chart deals with logging PIC so it would make sense that the chart makes reference to part 61. I don't think it attempts to define the requirements for a safety pilot at all and have never noticed anything unclear.

Anything specific? The only thing is says about the safety pilot is that the safety pilot who is qualified to act as PIC and is the agreed PIC for the flight may log PIC time and that if one of those is missing, he can't. That's correct but I'm sure that EdFred would be happy to make changes for clarity.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The chart deals with logging PIC so it would make sense that the chart makes reference to part 61. I don't think it attempts to define the requirements for a safety pilot at all and have never noticed anything unclear.

Anything specific? The only thing is says about the safety pilot is that the safety pilot who is qualified to act as PIC and is the agreed PIC for the flight may log PIC time and that if one of those is missing, he can't. That's correct but I'm sure that EdFred would be happy to make changes for clarity.
Click to expand...

The chart makes it seem that you have to have the proper endorsements (complex, tailwheel, etc), proper 90 day currency, as well as "...the agreed upon PIC for the flight". You don't need any of that stuff to act as safety pilot. If you can act as safety pilot, then you can log PIC time as safety pilot, correct? If not then where in the regs does it imply that?
 
dsffdssdf said:
The chart makes it seem that you have to have the proper endorsements (complex, tailwheel, etc), proper 90 day currency, as well as "...the agreed upon PIC for the flight". You don't need any of that stuff to act as safety pilot. If you can act as safety pilot, then you can log PIC time as safety pilot, correct? If not then where in the regs does it imply that?
Click to expand...
As Ron and others said earlier, in order to log PIC time as safety pilot, you need to be acting as PIC. In order to act as PIC, you need all the proper endorsements, 90 day currency, and actually be the agreed upon PIC for the flight.
 
dsffdssdf said:
The chart makes it seem that you have to have the proper endorsements (complex, tailwheel, etc), proper 90 day currency, as well as "...the agreed upon PIC for the flight". You don't need any of that stuff to act as safety pilot. If you can act as safety pilot, then you can log PIC time as safety pilot, correct?
Click to expand...
No.
If not then where in the regs does it imply that?
Click to expand...
The safety pilot logs PIC time under 61.51(e)(1)(iii) - acting as PIC in an operation requiring more than one pilot. (the FAA considers safety pilot ops as 2-pilot required ops)

If the safety pilot is not acting as PIC, the safety pilot may log SIC under 61.51(f)(2).

91.109 only deals with qualifications to be safety pilot. As will all other time logging issues, you need to fit into a cubbyhole in 61.51. Do you see another 61.51 box that applies?

The chart is correct. You don't need all that stuff to act as safety pilot; but you need all that stuff for the safety pilot to log PIC.
 
Last edited:
The chart only deals with whether you can log PIC or not. NOT whether you are qualified to be a safety pilot. The chart says "May I legally log PIC time..." not, "can I be a safety pilot..."
 
Last edited:
Two pilots are in an airplane. In the left seat there is a fully current and qualified pilot. In the right seat we have another fully current and qualified pilot.

During the time the left seat guy is under the hood, the right seat guy is acting as safety pilot, and acting as PIC, correct? Right seat guy logs PIC time during that period because he is a required crew member, left seat guy logs PIC time because he's sole manipulator (and not acting as PIC any more). Is this all correct?

The part that throws me off is that if the left seat pilot agrees that he is the acting PIC for the whole flight, then the right seat pilot can't log PIC time. Thats not usually how logging works.

Furthermore, say you have a flight were the left seat guy is fully current and qualified, and the right seat guy is fully qualified, but not current. When the hood goes on, the right seat guy is never the acting PIC, yet he still gets to log time (SIC time) because he's acting as a required crew member, correct?
 
dsffdssdf said:
Two pilots are in an airplane. In the left seat there is a fully current and qualified pilot. In the right seat we have another fully current and qualified pilot.

During the time the left seat guy is under the hood, the right seat guy is acting as safety pilot, and acting as PIC, correct?
Click to expand...
Can't say for sure -- it depends on which of the two was agreed by the two before flight to be PIC.
Right seat guy logs PIC time during that period because he is a required crew member, left seat guy logs PIC time because he's sole manipulator (and not acting as PIC any more). Is this all correct?
Click to expand...
Maybe. No question left seater logs PIC time because he's sole manipulator of an aircraft in which he is rated. However, what the safety pilot logs depends on who's the PIC. If the safety pilot is agreed on as PIC, then the safety pilot logs PIC time under 61.51(e)(1)(iii). If the hooded pilot is agreed on as PIC, then the safety pilot logs SIC time under 61.51(f)(2) and 91.109(b).
The part that throws me off is that if the left seat pilot agrees that he is the acting PIC for the whole flight, then the right seat pilot can't log PIC time.
Click to expand...
That's correct.
Thats not usually how logging works.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to know why you think that. I know of no regulation or FAA guidance which says otherwise.
Furthermore, say you have a flight were the left seat guy is fully current and qualified, and the right seat guy is fully qualified, but not current. When the hood goes on, the right seat guy is never the acting PIC, yet he still gets to log time (SIC time) because he's acting as a required crew member, correct?
Click to expand...
That's correct, and not just acting as a required crewmember, but not acting as PIC (or s/he'd be logging PIC time). That's why simply being the safety pilot doesn't allow you to log PIC time -- to log PIC time, the safety pilot must actually be the PIC, and that means being fully qualified and current, as well as obtaining agreement with the other pilot that the safety pilot will be the PIC.

And just to be sure, the time to agree on who will be PIC is back in the flight planning room, not in the air.
 
dsffdssdf said:
Two pilots are in an airplane. In the left seat there is a fully current and qualified pilot. In the right seat we have another fully current and qualified pilot.

During the time the left seat guy is under the hood, the right seat guy is acting as safety pilot, and acting as PIC, correct?
Click to expand...
If the pilots agree.
Right seat guy logs PIC time during that period because he is a required crew member, left seat guy logs PIC time because he's sole manipulator (and not acting as PIC any more). Is this all correct?
Click to expand...
Right seat guy logs PIC because he fits in a 2-pilot-required operation box in 61.51. Left seat guy logs PIC because he fits into the "sole manipulator" box in 61.51.

The part that throws me off is that if the left seat pilot agrees that he is the acting PIC for the whole flight, then the right seat pilot can't log PIC time. Thats not usually how logging works.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. Logging usually (always, actually) works by looking at a pilot and finding the 61.51 box the pilot and his activities fit into.

Furthermore, say you have a flight were the left seat guy is fully current and qualified, and the right seat guy is fully qualified, but not current. When the hood goes on, the right seat guy is never the acting PIC, yet he still gets to log time (SIC time) because he's acting as a required crew member, correct?
Click to expand...
Yep. Those are the 61.51 boxes they fit in so that's what they log.

Notice that I constantly repeat 61.51. If you close your eyes and think about it, you may noit come up with the right answers. If you take the time to learn and understand 61.51 then you ultimately will figure out "how logging usually works."
 
Ron Levy said:
If the flight is conducted under IFR, the safety pilot must be instrument rated -- see 61.55(a)(2). This requirement was added about five years ago with no fanfare at all.
Click to expand...
I passed along this statement to a friend who did not believe that the instrument rating was required, then read further in section 61.55, finding:

"(d) This section does not apply to a person who is: .
.
.
(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109(b) of this chapter."


So ... it now looks to me like there is no requirement for an instrument rating for the safety pilot even if the flight is under IFR. (Issue of whether this is a good idea is a separate one.)
 
airdale said:
I passed along this statement to a friend who did not believe that the instrument rating was required, then read further in section 61.55, finding:

"(d) This section does not apply to a person who is: ...
Click to expand...
What's the year on the cover of the FAR/AIM that you're reading this from?
-harry
 
airdale said:
I passed along this statement to a friend who did not believe that the instrument rating was required, then read further in section 61.55, finding:

"(d) This section does not apply to a person who is: .
.
.
(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109(b) of this chapter."
Click to expand...
The rule hasn't read that way since 2005 -- you need a new FAR/AIM. Paragraph (d) became paragraph (f) and was rewritten to exempt for safety pilots only the fam requirements of paragraph (b), not the entire section. But don't worry -- due to the FAA's improper change of that rule, even I, the regs maven, didn't notice it until nearly four years after it changed.:blush:
So ... it now looks to me like there is no requirement for an instrument rating for the safety pilot even if the flight is under IFR.
Click to expand...
You need to look again -- at the current rule. ;)
 
What's the year on the cover of the FAR/AIM that you're reading this from?
Click to expand...
Oops. It's from an online FAR search tool here: http://www.risingup.com/fars/ but it's apparently not current.

I went to the government printing office version and it is indeed different there. Sorry. I guess I'll have to find a new on-line database that is kept current.
 
airdale said:
Oops. It's from an online FAR search tool here: http://www.risingup.com/fars/ but it's apparently not current.

I went to the government printing office version and it is indeed different there. Sorry. I guess I'll have to find a new on-line database that is kept current.
Click to expand...
How about this one: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/ It's the truly official site, although even it isn't current with last year's changes (still being incorporated).
 
Last edited:
I spent about 20 minutes the other day trying to find that to get an answer about overflight with only the pink copy of the registration application, and failed, miserably.
 
Ron Levy said:
I spent about 20 minutes the other day trying to find that to get an answer about overflight with only the pink copy of the registration application, and failed, miserably.
Click to expand...

The infallible Ron Levy failed at something. Whoda ever thunk it. :rofl::rofl::rofl:


Sorry, Ron. I couldn't resist. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
I spent about 20 minutes the other day trying to find that to get an answer about overflight with only the pink copy of the registration application, and failed, miserably.
Click to expand...

I've had the advantage of 33 years of living in Canada and understanding how the mandarins name things....My Canadian GoogleFu is strong.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yeah, well you think that's bad, try finding the Canadian equivalent of the FAR's on line!:D
Click to expand...
That's easy, as Jeff demonstrated. Now try finding Canadian approach plates on line...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top