What's the value of SIC time in my logbook?

Hobobiker

Hobobiker

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
556
Location
Montpelier, OH
Display Name
Display name:
Hobo
Not trying to start the normal p!ssing contests, but I've been starting to be a safety pilot for my CFI (which also helps me with my instrument training by being in actual IMC). Up until now I've only recorded dual or PIC time in my logbook and I'm starting to wonder whether SIC time is of value to record or basically just taking up a line in the book?

To clarify, I state SIC and not PIC because I am not rated for a High Performance aircraft as this clarification from AOPA states:

Second-in-command time may be logged if not acting as PIC.
  • Usually the case if the safety pilot cannot act as PIC. An example might be when the safety pilot is not endorsed for the particular airplane (such as in a high-performance aircraft).
  • SIC time may be logged because FAR 61.51(f)(2) allows a pilot to log all flight time during which he acts as second in command of an aircraft under which more than one pilot is required by the regulations (91.109) under which the flight is conducted.
The full clarification article is here:
http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Learn-to-Fly/Logging-Cross-Country-Time/Logging-Time-Safety-Pilot
 
It counts toward total time, for whatever that is worth..
 
Yeah, while I value the experience of being up there in IMC as a safety pilot and all that comes along with it, I don't have aspirations of hauling checks or people down the road so I'm inclined to leave my logbook entries for PIC/Dual time only.

Thanks. No need to keep this thread trudging along everyone...
 
Hobobiker said:
Yeah, while I value the experience of being up there in IMC as a safety pilot and all that comes along with it, I don't have aspirations of hauling checks or people down the road so I'm inclined to leave my logbook entries for PIC/Dual time only.

Thanks. No need to keep this thread trudging along everyone...
Click to expand...

Is a safety pilot required if you're in IMC?
 
Hobobiker said:
Yeah, while I value the experience of being up there in IMC as a safety pilot and all that comes along with it, I don't have aspirations of hauling checks or people down the road so I'm inclined to leave my logbook entries for PIC/Dual time only.

Thanks. No need to keep this thread trudging along everyone...
Click to expand...

There is no reason not to log the valid time, but just don't expect it to mean much other than for total time towards ratings. (Like Commerical or ATP)...

There is some value to watching a proficient IFR pilot, or even a learning one if you know what you are looking at.
 
Hobobiker said:
Yeah, while I value the experience of being up there in IMC as a safety pilot and all that comes along with it, I don't have aspirations of hauling checks or people down the road so I'm inclined to leave my logbook entries for PIC/Dual time only.

Thanks. No need to keep this thread trudging along everyone...
Click to expand...
Just to add one item that has nothing to do with hauling people or checks, your SIC time might be countable toward time-in-type insurance requirements, but only if the insurer is not asking specifically for PIC time in type or in some other way limiting what they are asking for. That could be a potential $$ saver down the road if you purchase an aircraft or enter into a partnership.
 
Hobobiker said:
Not trying to start the normal p!ssing contests, but I've been starting to be a safety pilot for my CFI (which also helps me with my instrument training by being in actual IMC).http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources...-Cross-Country-Time/Logging-Time-Safety-Pilot
Click to expand...


Someone may be able to cite an example to contradict this, but if you are in actual IMC under part 91 in an aircraft type-certified for single pilot operations a safety pilot is not considered a required crew member and therefore, you cannot log any of the time as PIC or SIC.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Just to add one item that has nothing to do with hauling people or checks, your SIC time might be countable toward time-in-type insurance requirements, but only if the insurer is not asking specifically for PIC time in type or in some other way limiting what they are asking for. That could be a potential $$ saver down the road if you purchase an aircraft or enter into a partnership.
Click to expand...
...and that's a big benefit. Insurance companies value time in type a lot.
 
LDJones said:
Is a safety pilot required if you're in IMC?
Click to expand...

TUPilot said:
Someone may be able to cite an example to contradict this, but if you are in actual IMC under part 91 in an aircraft type-certified for single pilot operations a safety pilot is not considered a required crew member and therefore, you cannot log any of the time as PIC or SIC.
Click to expand...

91.109(c)

If a view limiting device is being used, a safety pilot is required, regardless of outside conditions.

Having said that, it is kind of pointless to be in actual conditions and have a view limiting device on.
 
SIC time really isn't pointless. In addition to the total time aspect of it, observing the person under the hood has its value. Listening to ATC, if on an actual clearance, or flight following if it is being used is valuable.

However, if the person under the hood is having troubles, or the proficiency level isn't up to speed, it may actually be counter productive from a learning standpoint.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
91.109(c)

If a view limiting device is being used, a safety pilot is required, regardless of outside conditions.

Having said that, it is kind of pointless to be in actual conditions and have a view limiting device on.
Click to expand...

What's been happening is that we'll start out in VFR/MVFR conditions and he has the hood on, but then we'll often be in the clouds when ascending/descending, etc. Basically, we're in and out of actual conditions, which is valuable to me as his IFR student as well.

But, I get the point you guys are making about the hood and IFR conditions...
 
The original post ,asks about second in command time,why are all the posts about safety pilot time. SIC time is logged time as a crew member on an aircraft requiring more than one pilot.
 
frfly172 said:
The original post ,asks about second in command time,why are all the posts about safety pilot time. SIC time is logged time as a crew member on an aircraft requiring more than one pilot.
Click to expand...

I asked because the regs also state that a safety pilot is a required crewmember when the other person is under the hood (doing approaches, etc.). I've been acting as a safety pilot for my CFI as he does approaches, but really didn't want to log SIC time if it was really not very useful for me...
 
frfly172 said:
The original post ,asks about second in command time,why are all the posts about safety pilot time. SIC time is logged time as a crew member on an aircraft requiring more than one pilot.
Click to expand...

A Cessna 172, with a PIC that is under the hood or other view limiting device, is required by regulation, 91.109(c) to be specific, to have a safety pilot. That safety pilot becomes a REQUIRED CREWMEMBER and is entitled to log SIC time under the provisions of 61.51(f)(2) which specifically states:

(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.
Click to expand...

The bolded portion is what allows the safety pilot in a Cessna 172 to log time as SIC.
 
frfly172 said:
The original post ,asks about second in command time,why are all the posts about safety pilot time. SIC time is logged time as a crew member on an aircraft requiring more than one pilot.
Click to expand...
Because the FAA Chief Counsel has consistently said for more than 20 years that a safety pilot may log either PIC or SIC time as a required crewmember (depending on whether she is acting as PIC or not) under 91.109 and 61.51 (the portion Greg quoted with respect to SIC; the equivalent part of 61.51(e) for logging PIC).

1993 Hicks opinion
 
LDJones said:
Is a safety pilot required if you're in IMC?
Click to expand...
A safety pilot is required if the pilot flying is wearing a vision restricting device regardless of the outside conditions. See 14 CFR 91.109(c) -- nothing at all about outside conditions.

And to answer the original question, it has value for meeting the 250 hours for CP, the 500/1200 hours for 135 PIC (VFR/IFR), and the 1500 hours for ATP.
 
TUPilot said:
Someone may be able to cite an example to contradict this, but if you are in actual IMC under part 91 in an aircraft type-certified for single pilot operations a safety pilot is not considered a required crew member and therefore, you cannot log any of the time as PIC or SIC.
Click to expand...
As I said above, 14 CFR 91.109(c) unconditionally requires a safety pilot whenever the pilot flying is using a vision restricting device -- nothing at all about outside conditions.
 
frfly172 said:
The original post ,asks about second in command time,why are all the posts about safety pilot time. SIC time is logged time as a crew member on an aircraft requiring more than one pilot.
Click to expand...
You should review 61.51(f) again -- it's also loggable if a second pilot is required by the regulations under which the flight is being conducted, and 91.109(c) unconditionally requires a safely pilot when the pilot flying is hooded.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not that good a joke. Somewhat equivalent to logging 2 hours for a 1-hour flight with an instructor - one hour PIC and one hour dual.
Click to expand...

it's obviously a joke because who would wear a view limiting device in actual IMC? and who thinks you could log 2 approaches if you did?
 
rbridges said:
it's obviously a joke because who would wear a view limiting device in actual IMC?
Click to expand...

I did in a lesson with a CFII, on a flight plan. The flight started out in VMC, and visibility gradually diminished. Eventually I took the hood off, but not until I had been in the soup for a while.

So there you are, I did it for a very reasonable reason. No joke.
 
invaluable experience changing the freq on the radios when a hand off occurs. enroute is pretty much uneventual so the time you log there is pretty much meaningless. take off approaches and landing you dont get to do them amd those are the phases were the pilot actually flies the airplane. I sincerely never understood the rationale of splitting cost while time buildimg. sic in light twins amd singles means nothing.
 
rbridges said:
it's obviously a joke because who would wear a view limiting device in actual IMC?
Click to expand...
You could be going in and out of actual instrument conditions (e.g., going in and out of clouds), or be in IMC without being in actual instrument conditions at all (e.g., cruising along near but not in a cloud. Trying remove and replace the vision restricting device every time you entered/exited actual instrument conditions could get very distracting from the primary task of flying the plane on instruments.

and who thinks you could log 2 approaches if you did?
Click to expand...
I would have thought everyone would have understood that was a joke, but :dunno:
 
cirrusmx said:
invaluable experience changing the freq on the radios when a hand off occurs. enroute is pretty much uneventual so the time you log there is pretty much meaningless. take off approaches and landing you dont get to do them amd those are the phases were the pilot actually flies the airplane. I sincerely never understood the rationale of splitting cost while time buildimg. sic in light twins amd singles means nothing.
Click to expand...
You need only read 61.129, 61.159, and 135.243 for the proof that SIC time does indeed mean something to the FAA, even if it's in a light single or twin.
 
This is going to become a very long thread....


When I was doing the safety pilot thing we both assumed the role of PIC IAW the FARs, and we both logged it PIC, aside for a landing or something, can't both log that :D

SIC in a single pilot planes flying under pt 91,61,141 looks kinda odd IMO.

You'll get plenty of other opinions, as you already have.

All I can say is my logs have been gone through by the Feds, DPEs, Check airmen, flight schools, and interview boards, and no one ever has had a problem.

***side note, though not required by the FARs, on the first entire I made with my safety pilots name, I also wrote down his cert number and type and had him sign it, then I did that same in his log. Kinda a CYA thing, but it made me feel better.
 
Last edited:
Unless you are flying something that requires an SIC at all times...Don't waste spaces in your logbook on it.
 
Oh, geez. If you are acting as safety pilot, and it falls under the SIC category go ahead and LOG IT. It doesn't hurt and it actually IS usefull.

Sheesh.

Flight time is flight time and when you are building hours every one of them counts.
 
rbridges said:
it's obviously a joke because who would wear a view limiting device in actual IMC? and who thinks you could log 2 approaches if you did?
Click to expand...
Everyone (well almost everyone) knew the double logging comment (and my response) was a joke.

But there are situations in which one would actually wear a view limiting device in actual IMC. I think some of them were discussed, but the most common takes place when someone is doing instrument work purely for proficiency and wants to do it in solid clouds but the are not cooperating. Yes, modifying the scan to accomplish both instrument flight and looking for traffic when conditions allow are an important skill, but isn't it the pilot's choice what to practice that day?
 
James331 said:
When I was doing the safety pilot thing we both assumed the role of PIC...
Click to expand...
I hope that wasn't the case. Only one person at a time "assumes the role," IOW acts as, PIC at any given time. The logging rules are different but two PICs in one aircraft at the same time is not supported by any reg and is potentially a recipe for disaster.

You may be referring to something a friend and I did for years when we did currency flights. Assuming we were both entitled to act as PIC in the aircraft, our standing rule was that the guy who could see out the window (the safety pilot) was always acting as PIC. We did it for safety purposes and the logging of PIC time by both of us while one was under the hood naturally followed.
 
I am surprised that no one has yet to mention the AOPA article led this gentleman down the wrong path.

The regulation requires the safety pilot to be properly rated in the aircraft to be flown. He only stated that he is not endorsed. Rating <> Endorsement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top