Safety Pilot Logging

Somedudeintn

Somedudeintn

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,271
Location
Knoxville, Tn
Display Name
Display name:
somedudeintn
I know this gets brought up about once a week, but I just flew a flight with a friend today in his 150 and we traded legs acting as safety pilot building some hood time and xc time.

The Pilot flying flew their entire leg including takeoff and landing (I believe this is required to be able to log XC.) and the safety pilot assumed responsibility for the safety of the flight and not violating any regulations, etc. All legs were in excess of 50nm. Assume one leg is as follows.

Pilot flying
----------------------
1.5 XC
1.5 PIC
1.2 Simulated Instrument


Safety Pilot
---------------------
1.2 PIC

And we will be sure to include each other's names as safety pilot in our notes. This look about right?
 
On the face of it, yeah that is about right.

One thing that people always assume is that the safety pilot can automatically log PIC. That is only true if both pilots AGREE that the safety pilot is going to be the legal PIC for the flight, AND the insurance will cover a non owner as PIC.

And keep in mind insurance covers the owner of the plane, not necessarily a non owner pilot. If something should happen while the non owner was acting as PIC, the insurance company can be within their rights to go after the non owner for damages.

Just throwing it out there.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
On the face of it, yeah that is about right.

One thing that people always assume is that the safety pilot can automatically log PIC. That is only true if both pilots AGREE that the safety pilot is going to be the legal PIC for the flight, AND the insurance will cover a non owner as PIC.

And keep in mind insurance covers the owner of the plane, not necessarily a non owner pilot. If something should happen while the non owner was acting as PIC, the insurance company can be within their rights to go after the non owner for damages.

Just throwing it out there.
Click to expand...

Good points. In this case the insurance policy is very open (anyone with PPL that the owner approves). I guess they aren't too worried about a sub 20k airplane.
 
I know your safety pilot has to have a medical and current bfr but do they have to meet the 3 takeoff and landings in 90 days currency as well?
 
tree96 said:
I know your safety pilot has to have a medical and current bfr but do they have to meet the 3 takeoff and landings in 90 days currency as well?
Click to expand...

The safety pilot is only required to have a BFR if they are also PIC.
 
The insurance company has squat to do with it. The safety pilot can log PIC only when they are PIC which must mean they are legal under the FARs to be so and they perform that role. ANY TIME you have more than one pilot on board it behooves you to figure out what the roles are.
 
flyingron said:
The insurance company has squat to do with it.
Click to expand...
Some people choose to avoid acting as PIC when it will void their friends' insurance coverage in case of a mishap. Others don't care squat about their friends.
 
Somedudeintn said:
Good points. In this case the insurance policy is very open (anyone with PPL that the owner approves). I guess they aren't too worried about a sub 20k airplane.
Click to expand...

If you have a friend that might be using your airplane or acting as PIC such as in the example above, then you should make sure that you have an "open pilot" clause on the insurance policy. It's not that much. The annual rate for my Warrior with the clause only runs $400 and change annually.
 
NJP_MAN said:
What if you have never had a "BFR" and been flying for 5 years like I have. Can I be PIC ?
Click to expand...

If you've not had a flight review or one of the other events in 61.56 (Wings, an additional rating or certificate, ....) you can't be PIC.
 
flyingron said:
If you've not had a flight review or one of the other events in 61.56 (Wings, an additional rating or certificate, ....) you can't be PIC.
Click to expand...

So you're saying I don't need a "BFR" to be pic then. Whew close call that post made it sound like I had to have a BFR.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Some people choose to avoid acting as PIC when it will void their friends' insurance coverage in case of a mishap. Others don't care squat about their friends.
Click to expand...

Tangential to the logging question, can the safety pilot be not PIC? How can the pilot under the hood be PIC when he can't see outside of the plane in (presumably) VMC?
 
Lindberg said:
Tangential to the logging question, can the safety pilot be not PIC? How can the pilot under the hood be PIC when he can't see outside of the plane in (presumably) VMC?
Click to expand...

Easy...see 14 CFR 91.109(c)
 
Lindberg said:
Tangential to the logging question, can the safety pilot be not PIC? How can the pilot under the hood be PIC when he can't see outside of the plane in (presumably) VMC?
Click to expand...

The pilot in command is the person ULTIMATELY responsible for the safety of flight. That is a sweeping role but it doesn't mean they are doing EVERY aspect of the flight (indeed, it's not possible in the simulated instrument case).
It just means they are IN COMMAND. A safety pilot doesn't need to meet the PIC requirements when they are not serving in that role.

Hell, the rules even provide for there to be multiple safety pilots. By your argument you'd have to have multiple pilots in command and that's a contradiction.
 
Lindberg said:
Tangential to the logging question, can the safety pilot be not PIC? How can the pilot under the hood be PIC when he can't see outside of the plane in (presumably) VMC?
Click to expand...
The same way an airline captain is still the captain when he goes to the bathroom.

Think of the non-PIC safety pilot as crew with duties assigned by the PIC/captain.
 
NJP_MAN said:
So you're saying I don't need a "BFR" to be pic then. Whew close call that post made it sound like I had to have a BFR.
Click to expand...
Actually it sounded more like a perfectly reasonable way to put it followed by someone tossing in a silly trick question that wasn't all that clever the first time it was done in a discussion about the FR requirement, about 1000 times ago.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Actually it sounded more like a perfectly reasonable way to put it followed by someone tossing in a silly trick question that wasn't all that clever the first time it was done in a discussion about the FR requirement, about 1000 times ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Actually it sounded more like a perfectly reasonable way to put it followed by someone tossing in a silly trick question that wasn't all that clever the first time it was done in a discussion about the FR requirement, about 1000 times ago.
Click to expand...

You are good. Almost too good, can't slip anything by you.
 
NJP_MAN said:
You are good. Almost too good, can't slip anything by you.
Click to expand...
Nah. Not that good. Too easy. :D 1,000 times was a conservative estimate :yes: Even I can learn after that many repetitions.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Nah. Not that good. Too easy. :D 1,000 times was a conservative estimate :yes: Even I can learn after that many repetitions.
Click to expand...

POA is all repetition. Same Q's same A's. And even the same troll attempts.
 
Somedudeintn said:
I know this gets brought up about once a week, but I just flew a flight with a friend today in his 150 and we traded legs acting as safety pilot building some hood time and xc time.

The Pilot flying flew their entire leg including takeoff and landing (I believe this is required to be able to log XC.) and the safety pilot assumed responsibility for the safety of the flight and not violating any regulations, etc. All legs were in excess of 50nm. Assume one leg is as follows.

Pilot flying
----------------------
1.5 XC
1.5 PIC
1.2 Simulated Instrument


Safety Pilot
---------------------
1.2 PIC

And we will be sure to include each other's names as safety pilot in our notes. This look about right?
Click to expand...

It's fine.

I love how these threads always turn into ****ing matches over nothingness.

No one from the FAA is coming to check if you said everything right before takeoff or if you are off a tenth on your hood estimates. If you guys have an understanding that both want to log it as PIC time, just freaking log it, even if you forgot to give each other a speech before engine start. Just remember to do it next time.

These threads are like the "do I really have common purpose to be able to get a pro-rata share if we disagree on where to eat lunch after we land?!!" threads. Who cares...go fly.
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
That is only true if both pilots AGREE that the safety pilot is going to be the legal PIC for the flight, AND the insurance will cover a non owner as PIC.
Click to expand...

I don't think the insurance bit is in the FARs anywhere. I think you can still log PIC time even if the insurance company doesn't like it...
 
labbadabba said:
I don't think the insurance bit is in the FARs anywhere. I think you can still log PIC time even if the insurance company doesn't like it...
Click to expand...
It's not about logging time if the insurance company doesn't like it. It's about choosing whether to be the one acting as PIC.

Remember that the rule that allows a safety pilot to log PIC time is 61.51(e)(iii) - "acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under ... the regulations under which the flight is conducted," 91.109 being the regulation that requires the safety pilot. IOW, in order to log PIC time as a safety pilot, one must be acting as PIC.

The "insurance bit" (along with some other "bits" not found in the FAR - see #3 in my signature block) comes up in the decision whether or not to act as PIC. You acting as PIC might allow the insurer to deny coverage in the case of a mishap. If it's a rental contract violation, it might expose your friend to liability for the full cost or repair. Whether you and your friend care about those things is up to the two of you.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
On the face of it, yeah that is about right.

One thing that people always assume is that the safety pilot can automatically log PIC. That is only true if both pilots AGREE that the safety pilot is going to be the legal PIC for the flight, AND the insurance will cover a non owner as PIC.

And keep in mind insurance covers the owner of the plane, not necessarily a non owner pilot. If something should happen while the non owner was acting as PIC, the insurance company can be within their rights to go after the non owner for damages.

Just throwing it out there.
Click to expand...

Interesting twist:
Two guys go flying to practice appoaches in VMC. They agree that the guy in the right seat is the safety pilot AND the PF will yield control of the aircraft based upon predetermined safety criterion. Control will instantly transfer unimpeeded. However, the guy in the left seat PF is instrument rated and files IFR to the airport where the first approach commences. The PNF is not IR and by the logic above, may not log PIC for the flight.

Please cite your reference to support the interpretation that the PNF cannot log, since by regulation he MUST because someone in the aircraft must be responsible for see and avoid while the PF is hooded in VMC.
 
Jaybird, I can't even parse your last sentence.

There's nothing that says the "pilot flying" is the "pilot in command."
There is nothing that says the a pilot "must" log pilot in command. The safety pilot isn't required to log anything. The pilot under the hood is required to log the name of his safety pilot.

What is ABSENT form your hypothetical is who is the PILOT IN COMMAND (a point Greg was trying to make). If the flight is operating under IFR, then the pilot in command MUST have an instrument rating. The safety pilot in this case, can't be pilot in command. He can't log pilot in command time because he doesn't meet any of the 61.51 criteria for doing so (not sole manipulator nor pilot in command of a multipilot operation).

By a strict reading of the regs, the flight isn't legal PERIOD. Back a few years ago when the second in command qualifications were rejiggered, they screwed up the section labelling and removed the exemption that previously existed for safety pilots. I attempted to get this fixed but perhaps the (now retired) largest butthole in the FAA wrote an completley inane and non-sequitor response. I was prepared to try again, but C'Ron got a legal counsel opinion that safety pilots (solely for the purposes of simulated instrument flight) were not "second in command" and hence the whole second in command rule didn't apply to them.
 
flyingron said:
Jaybird, I can't even parse your last sentence.

There's nothing that says the "pilot flying" is the "pilot in command."
There is nothing that says the a pilot "must" log pilot in command. The safety pilot isn't required to log anything. The pilot under the hood is required to log the name of his safety pilot.

What is ABSENT form your hypothetical is who is the PILOT IN COMMAND (a point Greg was trying to make). If the flight is operating under IFR, then the pilot in command MUST have an instrument rating. The safety pilot in this case, can't be pilot in command. He can't log pilot in command time because he doesn't meet any of the 61.51 criteria for doing so (not sole manipulator nor pilot in command of a multipilot operation).

By a strict reading of the regs, the flight isn't legal PERIOD. Back a few years ago when the second in command qualifications were rejiggered, they screwed up the section labelling and removed the exemption that previously existed for safety pilots. I attempted to get this fixed but perhaps the (now retired) largest butthole in the FAA wrote an completley inane and non-sequitor response. I was prepared to try again, but C'Ron got a legal counsel opinion that safety pilots (solely for the purposes of simulated instrument flight) were not "second in command" and hence the whole second in command rule didn't apply to them.
Click to expand...
Apologize for the poor sentence structure. I was typing on my iPhone in haste.

The regs use the word "must" when referring to logging, not "may". Nothing in the regs preclude any rated pilot from operating under IFR provided the other critera is met, so the flight is legal. However since the PF is hooded in VMC, he cannot perform his obligation to see and avoid, thus the second pilot becomes necessary for the safe outcome of the flight.

The situation can be avoided by not filing IFR in the first instance, but...Que cera, cera
 
Jaybird180 said:
Apologize for the poor sentence structure. I was typing on my iPhone in haste.

The regs use the word "must" when referring to logging, not "may". Nothing in the regs preclude any rated pilot from operating under IFR provided the other critera is met, so the flight is legal. However since the PF is hooded in VMC, he cannot perform his obligation to see and avoid, thus the second pilot becomes necessary for the safe outcome of the flight.

The situation can be avoided by not filing IFR in the first instance, but...Que cera, cera
Click to expand...

I am still not understanding your point. Maybe you can start by referencing the specific regulation.
 
Times I've been a safety pilot I don't log a thing. I let the person flying the plane remain PIC under the hood. Less complicated.
 
OkieAviator said:
Times I've been a safety pilot I don't log a thing. I let the person flying the plane remain PIC under the hood. Less complicated.
Click to expand...

I see no problem with that, the thing that bugs me is when people tell others they shouldn't log PIC even though they are legally entitled to. For me it really doesn't seem that complicated. If you are legal in the plane and take responsibility for the safety of the flight, you can log PIC for the time you act as safety pilot. I believe you can log SIC if you don't want to take responsibility for the safety of the flight.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Apologize for the poor sentence structure. I was typing on my iPhone in haste.

The regs use the word "must" when referring to logging, not "may".
Click to expand...
What rule are you referring to? There is no rule that says the safety pilot must log anything. Only the pilot flying under simulated IMC has a duty to lgo.
Nothing in the regs preclude any rated pilot from operating under IFR provided the other critera is met, so the flight is legal.
Click to expand...
But you said the pilot involved was NOT instrument rated. If the pilot in command is NOT instrument rated, the flight is unquestionably ILLEGAL. It's not sufficient that the PF must have an instrument rating. The pilot in command must be rated.

However since the PF is hooded in VMC, he cannot perform his obligation to see and avoid, thus the second pilot becomes necessary for the safe outcome of the flight.
Click to expand...
It has NOTHING to do with VMC. If the pilot is hooded, a safety pilot is REQUIRED by the regulations.
 
midlifeflyer said:
...You acting as PIC might allow the insurer to deny coverage in the case of a mishap. If it's a rental contract violation, it might expose your friend to liability for the full cost or repair. Whether you and your friend care about those things is up to the two of you.
Click to expand...

Oops. :redface:
 
The safety pilot is a required crewmember and therefore needs a medical. The safety pilot does not need to be current in the airplane.

Don't log safety pilot time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top