Logging IFR/Approach time with a Safety Pilot question in IMC (again)

Trogdor

Trogdor

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
409
Location
NJ
Display Name
Display name:
Trogdor
Scenario: Pilot A is IFR rated but not current. Pilot B is IFR rated and current. Both are qualified to fly the aircraft and are current with respect to meds and PPL requirements. Neither are CFIIs.

Pilot A wants to get current. Pilot A asks Pilot B to be his “safety pilot”. They are going to fly in IMC, Pilot B is going to file and accept the clearance while Pilot A is going to be the sole manipulator of the controls as they shoot a few approaches (all NDBs apparently).

Is this a legal way for Pilot A to regain currency?

I originally thought the answer was “No, it is not; Pilot B has to be a CFII and give instruction else Pilot A can’t log much”. This was based on Jason Blair’s interpretation presented in the Aviation News Podcast here:

https://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/c/a/6/ca...31457744&hwt=883a2ac85cd6032e5f32c1f977bc2818

He claims that “Safety Pilot” insinuates a two-pilot operation since one pilot is vision impaired by definition (e.g. foggles). In the case above, since it is IMC, the flight does not require a two man operation since it is IMC and Pilot B can meet all the requirements and thus Pilot A can not log an approach.

Searching the forums on this site would lead me to believe that Jason’s interpretation is too conservative and that “Yes, Pilot A can log the approach/IFR time” since Pilot A is the sole manipulator of the controls but Pilot B can’t log anything! This is also the answer given by Doug Stewart in Pilot Workshop’s IFR Accelerator Course when he does a virtual checkride.

HAs there been an FAA ruling that has changed all of this? HE mentions a Walker letter but I am having a hard time finding it.

EDIT: I found it: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...rps/2011/Walker_2011_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

Hmmm, I would agree with Jason on this. Seems like safety pilot operation is different than flying with a buddy in IMC.

My checkride is imminent and I’m embarrassed to say I am not 100% sure what is the right answer (I was going to stick with Blair’s).
 
Last edited:
Your scenario is legal. No letter is needed, everything is in FAR 61.51. it's actually Pilot B that can't log flight time in IMC. Being PIC alone does not entitle you to log time. Pilot A logs PIC under 61.51 because he is sole manipulator, Pilot B can only log time when Pilot A is wearing a view limiting device.

Not gonna listen to Jason Blair's comment but if you are paraphrasing him accurately then he is incorrect.
 
According to Jason and I believe that letter, yeah it is legal but Pilot A can’t get current this way.
 
Trogdor said:
According to Jason and I believe that letter, yeah it is legal but Pilot A can’t get current this way.
Click to expand...

You asked if the pilot can legally get current that way and the answer is yes. Your attempt to answer your own question as "yes but no" doesn't even make sense.
 
dmspilot said:
You asked if the pilot can legally get current that way and the answer is yes. Your attempt to answer your own question as "yes but no" doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

I qualified my question so its intent in context makes more sense. I’m talking about regaining currency not legality of the flight proper.

Read the Walker letter, listen to the Podcast. The answer is “No, Pilot A can not get currency this way and has to have either a CFII as Pilot B to count for dual received OR be in VMC and use foggles (simulated).”

At least, that is Jason’s interpretation of the letter.
 
Trogdor said:
I qualified my question so its intent in context makes more sense. I’m talking about regaining currency not legality of the flight.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what your question was. Your question was "is this a legal way for Pilot A to regain currency?" and my answer was yes. I cited the section of the FARs entitled Pilot Logbooks to support the answer.
 
Ok….anyone else? dmspilot thinks this is a legal way to get current - the Walker letter as I read it does seem to distinguish between “safety pilot ops” (i.e. VMC w/foggles) vs. “actual IMC ops” as Jason points out in the Podcast.
 
Trogdor said:
Ok….anyone else? dmspilot thinks this is a legal way to get current - the Walker letter as I read it does seem to distinguish between “safety pilot ops” (i.e. VMC w/foggles) vs. “actual IMC ops” as Jason points out in the Podcast.
Click to expand...

The Walker letter supports my position and addresses actual IMC:
Thus, Pilot B [the non-instrument-rated pilot] can log PIC flight time for the portion of the flight during which Pilot B was the sole manipulator of the controls even though pilot B does not hold an instrument rating. In addition, Pilot B can log actual instrument time for the portion of the flight during which Pilot B was the sole manipulator of the controls.

Note that your scenario has Pilots A and B reversed from the scenario in the letter.
 
Trogdor said:
I qualified my question so its intent in context makes more sense. I’m talking about regaining currency not legality of the flight proper.

Read the Walker letter, listen to the Podcast. The answer is “No, Pilot A can not get currency this way and has to have either a CFII as Pilot B to count for dual received OR be in VMC and use foggles (simulated).”

At least, that is Jason’s interpretation of the letter.
Click to expand...
Yes, but can you find anything the the currency regulation to support it? Perhaps something like, "but they must be with a CFI..."?

Jason is incorrect, period. There is literally no basis in the regulations or FAA interpretations or guidance for his view. In a subsequent podcast, he was halfway willing to admit that when confronted with a letter a listener obtained from the FAA. But only halfway. Which is a bad thing for a DPE. Basically, "my rules, not the FAA's."

This is the letter mentioned in the later podcast episode. It is not from the Chief Counsel. It's from Flight Standards. It was written after the new Chief Counsel policy that "only those requests that present a novel or legally significant issue, as determined by the Chief Counsel, will be considered as potentially warranting a legal interpretation warranting a legal interpretation" was announced. This has so much history behind it, I guess it wasn't significant; so obvious after 40 years of consistent interpretations. I was able to obtain a copy. It answers a number of questions. This one is pertinent to the discussion:
upload_2021-9-12_10-10-29.png
Here's the full letter. I just love the "The Office of the Chief Counsel determined that your questions do not constitute a novel legal issue and forwarded your inquiry to the General Aviation and Commercial Division" part at the beginning. Although I really think, "We have been asking the same question in various forms for 40 years! We are done!" would have said it better.

Obviously, there are risks in doing this. Not every non-CFI is capable of flying from right seat even in VFR conditions. And flying instruments from the right with parallax from steam gauges and the way many full PFDs tend to be angled toward the left seat, can be a challenge. I guess that's the reason Jason doesn't like the idea and pilots should definitely consider it when making the decision to do it, but that's very different than the obvious legality of the procedure.
 
Last edited:
If it was already addressed I apologize: If it’s been more than 12 months since Trogdor’s Pilot A was IFR current, then he can’t regain -currency- with pilot B unless pilot B is a CFII and giving an IPC. Just a nit to pick at.

He can certainly regain some -proficiency- though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Drifting off course and a little of topic. Way back, I was in a Nat Guard unit and just completed an O-1 VFR check out. Now needed ten hours of hood to take the IFR ride. Nobody wanted to strap in the back and be safety pilot for a "DASL". A term coined by my CW-4 wife for a dumb *** Second Lt.)
A new pilot in the unit said "Lets do what we used to do when I was in a USMC unit with single seat airplanes." I would take off solo and put the hood on when at a safe altitude. He would be at my 6 o'clock and be safety pilot in his O-1. Being a DASL, I said OK! The flight's paper work later hit the clerk together . We were called to report and do our "rug dances" together. Flight sheet for me showed my hood time and the ex Marine as my safety pilot. His showed only solo PIC time in his plane at the same time.
 
One other fallacy that keeps seeping into these discussions is that VMC makes a difference in this scenario. If a pilot is wearing a view limiting device, there must be a safety pilot. It doesn't matter if it is a CAVU day or solid IMC. There's no way for the guy with the hood on (unless he's cheating) to tell what his meteorological conditions really are. Further, IMC doesn't obviate the need for see-and-observe when such is possible.
 
Ok, thanks @dmspilot and @midlifeflyer. It seems Jason’s interpretation is just flat out wrong. I actually just sent him email asking him if he still believes his “CFI only view”.
 
It seems clear that, YES, (s)he can regain currency, especially in light of the Walker letter. I do NOT follow the OP's logic at all. 61.57(c) requires "performed and logged..." Pilot A (in OP's scenario) was sole manipulator of the controls so, YES - Pilot A "performed" the approach (whatever). Can (s)he log it? YES, (s)he can. Then, it counts towards currency. Just because the flight, by definition did not allow pilot B to log it because there was no safety pilot requirement? Where does it say a safety pilot is required for IFR currency?!?!?
 
noahfong said:
It seems clear that, YES, (s)he can regain currency, especially in light of the Walker letter. I do NOT follow the OP's logic at all. 61.57(c) requires "performed and logged..." Pilot A (in OP's scenario) was sole manipulator of the controls so, YES - Pilot A "performed" the approach (whatever). Can (s)he log it? YES, (s)he can. Then, it counts towards currency. Just because the flight, by definition did not allow pilot B to log it because there was no safety pilot requirement? Where does it say a safety pilot is required for IFR currency?!?!?
Click to expand...

First off, it’s not my position - just one of a prominent DPE. But this had me really confused.

Anyway, the Walker letter does distinguish “safety pilot ops” view “single-pilot ops” which is where the source of confusion stems (at least on Jason’s side).

But as every one has pointed out, the Walker 2011 letter is pretty clear as well as that great standards office letter too:

Pilot A can log it and regain currency this way. Pilot B can’t log much (and thus has very little to gain outside of a beer from a logging perspective).
 
DPEs aren't vested with any special authority to make legal decisions. They're just high-time flight instructors with political connections. Their authority ends at being able to decide if you've met the checkride standards or not.
 
Trogdor said:
Anyway, the Walker letter does distinguish “safety pilot ops” view “single-pilot ops” which is where the source of confusion stems (at least on Jason’s side).
Click to expand...
I don't think Jason based his original view on Walker. But he did misinterpret it to support himself. All Walker says about the safety pilot is, when a pilot is flying in actual instrument conditions - in the clouds with no hood - there is no such thing as 91.109(b) safety pilot. So a pilot monitoring the flight, whether as PIC or not, cannot use the safety pilot rules to log PIC or SIC time. If you read it carefully, you see that part of it, begins, "It is appropriate to address in this interpretation the logging of flight time by Pilot A" (the letter's Pilot A, the monitoring PIC, not your Pilot A) It's all about the pilot monitoring, not the pilot flying.
 
flyingron said:
DPEs aren't vested with any special authority to make legal decisions. They're just high-time flight instructors with political connections. Their authority ends at being able to decide if you've met the checkride standards or not.
Click to expand...
And while they are very knowledgeable, they have gaps and biases like every other human being.

I always remember that series in the apparently now defunct DPE magazine discussing holds. There were apparently a lot of DPEs who insisted that the hold entries must be per the AIM. There was an article saying, "no it doesn't." Several months later there was a second article saying, "We really mean it. No it doesn't."
 
Mark, understood and thanks. I don’t think most IFR students go through these exercises anyway!
 
Just to clarify:

Pilot B meets the requirements of 61.57(c) by being IFR current and that is the only reason the flight can occur in IMC.

Pilot A must not have exceeded the 12 months specified in 62.57(d).

Any other conditions would require Pilot A to have an IPC to become current.

Any discussion of "Safety Pilot" is irrelevant.
 
midlifeflyer said:
And while they are very knowledgeable, they have gaps and biases like every other human being.
Click to expand...
Yep, I was just commenting when someone holds a DPE up as an authority, where there are other instructors I respect more, and if push comes to shove, it's not any instructor or even random FSDO guy who matters, but the guys at 800 Indepenence who matter (and only a select few of them, don't get me started about John Lynch).
 
Don't overthink it. Break it down into it's components.

1. Is the flight legal with a non-current rated pilot being the sole manipulator of the controls?

2. Can the non-current pilot log the instrument time, approaches, and holds?

3. Can the instrument time, approaches, and holds be used to meet the recent flight experience requirements?
 
Trogdor said:
First off, it’s not my position - just one of a prominent DPE. But this had me really confused.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for posting the question. I would have thought Pilot B would be able to log since (s)he is acting PIC - no way around that cuz of currency and IFR flight plan. Still feels wrong that (s)he cannot.
 
noahfong said:
Well, thanks for posting the question. I would have thought Pilot B would be able to log since (s)he is acting PIC - no way around that cuz of currency and IFR flight plan. Still feels wrong that (s)he cannot.
Click to expand...
Logging PIC is limited by the language of FAR 61.51. There is no pure "one may log pic when acting as pilot in command" statement. There are statements which contain that type of language but they have conditions.

It is the difference between having rote knowledge of that reg and understanding it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Logging PIC is limited by the language of FAR 61.51. There is no pure "one may log pic when acting as pilot in command" statement. There are statements which contain that type of language but they have conditions.

It is the difference between having rote knowledge of that reg and understanding it.
Click to expand...

Which is why I ask....
 
Struggling to understand how this became a debate...61.57(c)(1):
"Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane...for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device..."

Yes, it's common to do it in VMC with a safety pilot using a hood, simply for convenience. But how on earth would it not be permitted in IMC? Not only does the regulation allow for it, it actually makes a lot of sense as well (granted, isn't always the case, but my point is that it's not hard to believe that the reg permits you to log an approach that was flown in IMC).

The only thing I can think of is that people somehow escalate "cannot ACT as PIC in IMC" (from the 6 month currency requirement) into "cannot be the sole manipulator of the controls in IMC," or that for some inexplicable reason, the approaches flown in IMC after 6 months can't be counted towards currency.

There are many things that are subtle about the regs, I get it, however, this one seems so straight forward. The only subtle part is the inability of the instrument-current person (the person ACTING as PIC) to LOG the PIC time. I could see that leading to bar fights, but not the portion about the non-current pilot logging the approaches for currency. How did this happen?
 
Two items. Pilot B can be violated if there is an altitude bust or similar so it’s a dumb idea. If pilot A is beyond the year to get current it doesn’t work.
 
midlifeflyer said:
"logging vs Being PIC"

You haven't been around long enough. I've seen this stuff debated for more than 20 years. It's actually better than it used to be.
Click to expand...

Very familiar with the logging vs actual debate, however I hadn't seen this one debated before. Either I've missed it each time, or it just hasn't come up very often. I'm guessing ppl either know the answer since the regs are clear, or it truly doesn't come up because it is the less common way of going about it (Clip4's point is a good one regarding the busts). I know I'd be cautious about acting as PIC on an IMC flight if I don't have the radio and controls.
 
Trogdor said:
Scenario: Pilot A is IFR rated but not current. Pilot B is IFR rated and current. Both are qualified to fly the aircraft and are current with respect to meds and PPL requirements. Neither are CFIIs.

Pilot A wants to get current. Pilot A asks Pilot B to be his “safety pilot”. They are going to fly in IMC, Pilot B is going to file and accept the clearance while Pilot A is going to be the sole manipulator of the controls as they shoot a few approaches (all NDBs apparently).

Is this a legal way for Pilot A to regain currency?

I originally thought the answer was “No, it is not; Pilot B has to be a CFII and give instruction else Pilot A can’t log much”. This was based on Jason Blair’s interpretation presented in the Aviation News Podcast here:

https://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/c/a/6/ca...31457744&hwt=883a2ac85cd6032e5f32c1f977bc2818

He claims that “Safety Pilot” insinuates a two-pilot operation since one pilot is vision impaired by definition (e.g. foggles). In the case above, since it is IMC, the flight does not require a two man operation since it is IMC and Pilot B can meet all the requirements and thus Pilot A can not log an approach.

Searching the forums on this site would lead me to believe that Jason’s interpretation is too conservative and that “Yes, Pilot A can log the approach/IFR time” since Pilot A is the sole manipulator of the controls but Pilot B can’t log anything! This is also the answer given by Doug Stewart in Pilot Workshop’s IFR Accelerator Course when he does a virtual checkride.

HAs there been an FAA ruling that has changed all of this? HE mentions a Walker letter but I am having a hard time finding it.

EDIT: I found it: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...rps/2011/Walker_2011_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

Hmmm, I would agree with Jason on this. Seems like safety pilot operation is different than flying with a buddy in IMC.

My checkride is imminent and I’m embarrassed to say I am not 100% sure what is the right answer (I was going to stick with Blair’s).
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you misheard Jason on his podcast. Unless you have a timestamp I'm not listening to 50+ minutes of the podcast. I've left him a voice mail, will report back.
 
EdFred said:
I'm pretty sure you misheard Jason on his podcast. Unless you have a timestamp I'm not listening to 50+ minutes of the podcast. I've left him a voice mail, will report back.
Click to expand...

I suspected that might be the case but no. I listened to it and Jason Blair's discussion is incorrect at best and incoherent at worst. He says "under simulated instrument conditions both pilots are basically acting as PIC at the same time" and then says that the PF can't get current under actual instrument conditions because safety pilots are only required in simulated instrument conditions. He thinks that, since the safety pilot can't log time, then the pilot flying can't log time either, which makes no sense. Jason starts talking about 2:30 and I stopped listening about 7:00 because I was about to throw up at the stupidity.
 
Son of a....was just about to post a slightly kinder version of the same thing :) Here's the timestamps:

2:45 it starts
4:45 starts talking about logging (why are we talking about logging? That wasn't the question at hand)
5:10 they are "both acting as a PIC" (what a SHOCKING bit of phrasing that is)
6:20 he's talking about the logging of time by the safety pilot, saying it can't be done in IMC (this part is correct)
6:50 states in actual conditions, other pilot isn't a safety pilot (true)
7:30: we cannot get current in IMC without a CFII. Can only use a non-CFII in VMC as a safety pilot

I THINK I am seeing where the wheels came off... he's conflating a number of concepts, leading to the incorrect conclusion that you can't become current in IMC without a CFII present. It makes little sense, and I have to agree with dmspilot, his articulation of the regs is problematic. For an off the cuff response, it would've been generously described as rough at best. For a prepared response, well, I question the prep that actually went into it. It was a simple question, with an equally simple answer. The more complex question is, "can they both log...." which nobody is asking.
 
coma24 said:
Very familiar with the logging vs actual debate, however I hadn't seen this one debated before. Either I've missed it each time, or it just hasn't come up very often. I'm guessing ppl either know the answer since the regs are clear, or it truly doesn't come up because it is the less common way of going about it (Clip4's point is a good one regarding the busts). I know I'd be cautious about acting as PIC on an IMC flight if I don't have the radio and controls.
Click to expand...
There is zero to say that the PIC needs to manipulate the controls. Who is acting's as PIC when a co-Pilot is doing the flying?

Caution? Yes. I think I mentioned that.
 
When Pilot-A who is needing go get current is under the hood and/or in IMC, the safety Pilot-B acts as PIC. The safety Pilot-B logs time as PIC only when the Pilot-A is under the hood and/or IMC, but does indeed log time as PIC.

Log book must have name of Safety Pilot-B.
 
WDD, no safety pilot would need to be listed if it was done in IMC. A safety pilot is only required if VMC and the sole manipulator is under the hood.

Pilot B would be acting as PIC for the entire flight (since it's conducted under IFR), but could only log the portions where they are serving as a required crew member, which would be during any hood/VMC time. The time where the aircraft is in actual IMC couldn't be logged by Pilot B.

Mark, I agree that the regs don't say the PIC needs to be manipulating the controls, my point is simply that I would be cautious about putting my ticket on the line while my rust-bucket friend is having us hurtle through the clouds under my ticket. :)
 
VMC has nothing whatsoever to do with it again. A safety pilot is required whenever the pilot flying is wearing a view limiting device.
 
flyingron said:
VMC has nothing whatsoever to do with it again. A safety pilot is required whenever the pilot flying is wearing a view limiting device.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, my assumption was that if Pilot A is in prolonged IMC, he/she will not wear the device. Under those conditions, the person in the other seat isn't serving as a safety pilot.
 
Pilot A is not IFR current and needs a safety Pilot in IMC or when under the hood. In those cases safety Pilot-B (let’s call him Bob) is the PIC.

And not I have the 80’s classic Safety Dance stuck in my head……
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top