Finding time sharing pilots

S

supertrooper2002

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 30, 2023
Messages
33
Display Name
supertrooper2002
Is there a website or forum where an airplane owner can post or search for pilots in their area that would like to build time and pay the owner? Kind of like a safety pilot but paying for the privilege instead of being paid:)
 
Like pro-rata cost sharing? I see it on FB all the time. Common purpose applies. “hey; I’m going to XYZ; anyone want to come along and split time?”
 
I see it all the time on a local Facebook group. Check for one in your area. But usually it’s the opposite…..people looking for owners and trying to lowball them to use their plane to build time instead of renting from local clubs/schools.
 
I think your answer is local pilot groups. Social media. Airport bulletin boards. EAA chapters. State and local pilot associations.

But I’m curious about what you mean by “kinda like” a safety pilot. Are you the owner looking for a safety pilot to pay you? Or the potential safety pilot looking to pan an owner?
 
supertrooper2002 said:
Is there a website or forum where an airplane owner can post or search for pilots in their area that would like to build time and pay the owner? Kind of like a safety pilot but paying for the privilege instead of being paid:)
Click to expand...
I don't really understand how this would be an attractive option. In a light GA aircraft, you'd have to split the costs 50/50 and have a common purpose for the flight. Only the pilot flying would be logging any time, unless the PIC goes under the hood and then the safety pilot can log SIC time.

I've seen at least one school suggest that people can split time and both log PIC as long as one is on the controls and the other is declared PIC, but that doesn't seem to conform to the rules and in the use-case you suggest, I don't see how it would be attractive to the "kind of like a safety pilot" person unless you're willing to let them fly the whole time and you don't care about not being able to log it while still paying half of the costs.

There's a fairly extensive PIC thread, so no point in discussing it here, but I'm curious what you imagined the situation to look like.
 
I'm not clear about what the question is. It could either be a case of:

A. The owner personally rents the plane to another pilot. That could be attractive to the owner is the rental costs are priced high enough to cover insurance and profit.

B. The owner sits in the right seat while another pilot flies the plane. But the original statement was that the owner would get paid, so why not just go with A. The pilot is doing the paying anyway so there are no flight for hire issues in either case.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think your answer is local pilot groups. Social media. Airport bulletin boards. EAA chapters. State and local pilot associations.

But I’m curious about what you mean by “kinda like” a safety pilot. Are you the owner looking for a safety pilot to pay you? Or the potential safety pilot looking to pan an owner?
Click to expand...
It would be the safety pilot paying me version
 
supertrooper2002 said:
It would be the safety pilot paying me version
Click to expand...
Again, what would be attractive about that? If I'm paying half, I want to log at least half the time. If I'm paying for all of it, then I'm renting and I don't need you in the airplane. I'm struggling to envision a scenario in which a safety pilot would want to pay for the flight beyond a routine 50/50 cost-sharing. What am I misunderstanding about your proposed scenario? What's the elevator pitch you'll be making to these prospective safety pilots?
 
AvNavCom said:
In a light GA aircraft, you'd have to split the costs 50/50 and have a common purpose for the flight.
Click to expand...
The common purpose is “building time.”
AvNavCom said:
I've seen at least one school suggest that people can split time and both log PIC as long as one is on the controls and the other is declared PIC, but that doesn't seem to conform to the rules
Click to expand...
This conforms 100% to the rules.
(1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-(i) Except when logging flight time under § 61.159(c), when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
Click to expand...
And
(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; or
Click to expand...
Not that I think it’s a good idea, but it’s definitely legal.
 
Right, but most light GA aircraft don't require more than one pilot except in the specific circumstance of one of them being under the hood and thus requiring a safety pilot. Two dudes in a Cessna in day VFR can't have one guy logging PIC as the acting PIC while the other guy logs it due to being on the controls, as that doesn't meet (iii) since the aircraft doesn't require more than one pilot.

Happy to be wrong on this, but I genuinely don't see how the regs support that conclusion.
 
AvNavCom said:
Right, but most light GA aircraft don't require more than one pilot except in the specific circumstance of one of them being under the hood and thus requiring a safety pilot. Two dudes in a Cessna in day VFR can't have one guy logging PIC as the acting PIC while the other guy logs it due to being on the controls, as that doesn't meet (iii) since the aircraft doesn't require more than one pilot.

Happy to be wrong on this, but I genuinely don't see how the regs support that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Since the sole manipulator is under the hood the Acting PIC is required and cannot be under the hood. That is why the operation requires two qualified pilots.
 
@AvNavCom
Huh, I thought that's exactly how it worked, and that's why people would volunteer to be a safety pilot. Both get to log PIC. I'm sure Ed's sticky on definitive PIC logging rules could resolve this :)
Also, wouldn't there be no value in a safety pilot if you were flying in non-VFR weather? They'd just get a really good look at the clouds.
 
Yup, I think I was in error regarding logging while one person is under the hood. In the right circumstances, both can log PIC. I stand firm that two dudes on a day VFR in a Cessna can't both log PIC unless one of them is wearing a funny hood.
 
AvNavCom said:
Yup, I think I was in error regarding logging while one person is under the hood. In the right circumstances, both can log PIC. I stand firm that two dudes on a day VFR in a Cessna can't both log PIC unless one of them is wearing a funny hood.
Click to expand...
Yet I'm pretty confident the sky police aren't going to pull you over and check if you were actually wearing the hood... That's my guess on how a lot of these arrangements work out.
 
AvNavCom said:
Yup, I think I was in error regarding logging while one person is under the hood. In the right circumstances, both can log PIC. I stand firm that two dudes on a day VFR in a Cessna can't both log PIC unless one of them is wearing a funny hood.
Click to expand...

You're wrong about the hood work, but you are otherwise correct that absent a hood (or one of them being an instructor providing dual) only one of them can log any time.
 
AvNavCom said:
Yup, I think I was in error regarding logging while one person is under the hood. In the right circumstances, both can log PIC. I stand firm that two dudes on a day VFR in a Cessna can't both log PIC unless one of them is wearing a funny hood.
Click to expand...
That is true…my assumption was based on a “safety pilot.”
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Yet I'm pretty confident the sky police aren't going to pull you over and check if you were actually wearing the hood... That's my guess on how a lot of these arrangements work out.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's an integrity issue that's unlikely to be enforced. I was just surprised to see flight school sites like this one give direction to their students that doesn't conform to the rules (Item #2 in their step-by-step guide). I hear a lot of students talking about "time-building" with another student, but with no mention of being under the hood. Seems that the general impression is that declared-PIC + stick-wiggler seems to be sufficient for everyone to log PIC.

I appreciate everyone making me a slightly better educated pilot!
 
I like this app

I’ll offer to share some gas and met new people when I take one of my planes on occasion, I don’t do it for the hours as much as the “cars and coffee” vibe, if it helps someone early in their career cool

apps.apple.com

FlyShare | PILOT COMMUNITY App - App Store

Download FlyShare | PILOT COMMUNITY by 4Pilot Apps LLC on the App Store. See screenshots, ratings and reviews, user tips, and more apps like FlyShare | PILOT…
apps.apple.com apps.apple.com
 
AvNavCom said:
Only the pilot flying would be logging any time, unless the PIC goes under the hood and then the safety pilot can log SIC time.
Click to expand...
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! (Falling down the abyss of yet another thread about logging)
AvNavCom said:
I've seen at least one school suggest that people can split time and both log PIC as long as one is on the controls and the other is declared PIC, but that doesn't seem to conform to the rules
Click to expand...
It does require either a two-pilots-required airplane or regulations requiring the flight to have two pilots (Part 135 IFR pax-carrying flight without the autopilot in lieu exception OpSpec, or one pilot under the hood).

AvNavCom said:
Right, but most light GA aircraft don't require more than one pilot except in the specific circumstance of one of them being under the hood and thus requiring a safety pilot. Two dudes in a Cessna in day VFR can't have one guy logging PIC as the acting PIC while the other guy logs it due to being on the controls, as that doesn't meet (iii) since the aircraft doesn't require more than one pilot.

Happy to be wrong on this, but I genuinely don't see how the regs support that conclusion.
Click to expand...
The aircraft *or* the regs under which the flight is operating. 91.109(c) or 135.101.

AvNavCom said:
Sure, it's an integrity issue that's unlikely to be enforced. I was just surprised to see flight school sites like this one give direction to their students that doesn't conform to the rules (Item #2 in their step-by-step guide).
Click to expand...
Aaaaaaargh. Yeah, that site is totally wrong. They also imply that, for example, when you're working on your multi rating you can log that as PIC too - You can't. You have to be rated in the aircraft to use the sole manipulator rule.

Worse yet, because this junk is on the Internet, some search engine and/or AI will suck it up and spew it back out as fact.

@AvNavCom, good on you for not being argumentative and being willing to learn!
 
Be wary of who you get into a plane with after just meeting them. What you agree to on land can suddenly change once airborne.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
AvNavCom said:
PIC goes under the hood and then the safety pilot can log SIC time.
Click to expand...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! (Falling down the abyss of yet another thread about logging)
Click to expand...
What’s wrong? If the Pilot Flying is PIC, the safety pilot can’t log PIC, but may log SIC. That goes back to the very earliest safety pilot logging Chief Counsel interps. Discussed among other Safety Pilot Rules here.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What’s wrong? If the Pilot Flying is PIC, the safety pilot can’t log PIC, but may log SIC. That goes back to the very earliest safety pilot logging Chief Counsel interps. Discussed among other Safety Pilot Rules here.
Click to expand...
I think his very understandable anguish was someone bringing up PIC logging again. I was very sensitive to that, as I know we have a definitive PIC logging sticky and I knew it was waiting around a corner to hit me with a sock full of quarters. My apologies to everyone in whom I triggered PIC-logging PTSD! Haha!
 
If you do the safety pilot thing

The person at the control logs the whole thing as they are the manipulator of the controls

The safety pilot logs ALMOST the whole thing, because the guy with doing the takeoff and landing better not be doing it with a silly hood on and he better not be taxing with the hood on, so that time the flying pilot still gets to log, but the safety pilot does not

What you could do however is switch control for taxi, say safety pilot taxis out and does the takeoff off and logs it, other pilot agrees to do the landing and taxi in.

Do NOT log SIC, if you go into an interview this is going to open a jar of worms you don’t want to open. Log PIC or just don’t log that time
 
midlifeflyer said:
What’s wrong? If the Pilot Flying is PIC, the safety pilot can’t log PIC, but may log SIC. That goes back to the very earliest safety pilot logging Chief Counsel interps. Discussed among other Safety Pilot Rules here.
Click to expand...
Right... Nothing wrong with the quoted section, it's just that any time we talk logging, someone gets their panties in a wad about doing exactly what the FAA says is OK.
Roller said:
If you do the safety pilot thing

The person at the control logs the whole thing as they are the manipulator of the controls
Click to expand...
Assuming they are properly rated. If they're ASEL rated and a buddy with a twin lets them fly it, then they cannot log as sole manipulator.

Also, ratings are things that are printed on your pilot certificate. Endorsments are written in your logbook and are not required for sole manipulator logging. They are required to act as PIC.
Roller said:
The safety pilot logs ALMOST the whole thing, because the guy with doing the takeoff and landing better not be doing it with a silly hood on and he better not be taxing with the hood on, so that time the flying pilot still gets to log, but the safety pilot does not
Click to expand...
Bingo. And if it's a cross country flight that meets the parameters, the PF gets to log XC and the safety pilot does not.
Roller said:
What you could do however is switch control for taxi, say safety pilot taxis out and does the takeoff off and logs it, other pilot agrees to do the landing and taxi in.
Click to expand...
This would look potentially suspicious to me...
Roller said:
Do NOT log SIC, if you go into an interview this is going to open a jar of worms you don’t want to open. Log PIC or just don’t log that time
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with logging SIC. If you're a fully qualified safety pilot who for whatever reason (insurance, for example) cannot act as PIC, you can log SIC under 61.51(f)(2). It's worded almost the same as 61.51(e)(1)(iii) but it's for SIC, so if a safety pilot can log PIC it is every bit as valid for them to log SIC...

midlifeflyer said:
Yeah, I've heard there are airlines that don't like pilots who follow the FAA's rules.
Click to expand...
...And that's on them. I'm not going to log a certain way because some company I might work for someday wants me to. How could I possibly know what their requirements would be if I don't even know who I'm going to work for?

However, I do know that some of them really want "acting PIC" time. I still log PIC time exactly the way the FAA says to do it, but I created a custom field in ForeFlight for Acting PIC so I can give them that number too if they want it. It's actually almost the same for me, because for every hour of PIC I have logged as sole manipulator where I wasn't acting PIC, I have another hour that I technically couldn't log at all because I was acting as PIC PM in a single pilot airplane on a 91 leg, and you betcher butt I log the Acting PIC (and nothing else) on those legs.

Roller said:
No one in the industry, 91/135/121/137,
is going to take someone seriously who logs SIC time in a 172 PA28 or the like
Click to expand...
I'd have no problem with it if it was logged properly - Though that will likely be one of my interview questions!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
However, I do know that some of them really want "acting PIC" time. I still log PIC time exactly the way the FAA says to do it, but I created a custom field in ForeFlight for Acting PIC so I can give them that number too if they want it.
Click to expand...
That’s a common way of handling it. A non-FAA “part 1 PIC” column in which you log time actually in command, excluding some time the FAA permits to be logged as PIC and including time the FAA does not authorize to be logged as PIC.

Where you get into a thicket is what time “properly” goes into it. That varies. I’ve heard the same arguments about that for about two decades. Safety pilot PIC is a good example but there are others.
“The airlines don’t want your time in the right seat of a Cessna 152” (an opinion on what an airline thinks of it)​
vs​
“safety pilot PIC time is Part 1 command time” (an accurate regulatory statement).​

My thought on the subject is simple. What you put in your logbook is data entry. From a regulatory standpoint, that data entry is the subject of 61.51 (and cross country logging rules). What else you put in is up to you so long as your totals for FAA purposes meet regulatory requirements [edit] and the FAA can tell the difference from looking at it in a logbook review.

What you put into an application is a report using on a query based on what the application asks for.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
That’s a common way of handling it. A non-FAA “part 1 PIC” column in which you log time actually in command, excluding some time the FAA permits to be logged as PIC and including time the FAA does not authorize to be logged as PIC.

Where you get into a thicket is what time “properly” goes into it. That varies. I’ve heard the same arguments about that for about two decades. Safety pilot PIC is a good example but there are others.
“The airlines don’t want your time in the right seat of a Cessna 152” (an opinion on what an airline thinks of it)​
vs​
“safety pilot PIC time is Part 1 command time” (an accurate regulatory statement).​

My thought on the subject is simple. What you put in your logbook is data entry. From a regulatory standpoint, that data entry is the subject of 61.51 (and cross country logging rules). What else you put in is up to you so long as your totals for FAA purposes meet regulatory requirements [edit] and the FAA can tell the difference from looking at it in a logbook review.

What you put into an application is a report using on a query based on what the application asks for.
Click to expand...

I probably had 70hrs of safety pilot time in my log, no one ever had a issue with it, but I wasn’t a low time applicant ether
 
midlifeflyer said:
Where you get into a thicket is what time “properly” goes into it. That varies. I’ve heard the same arguments about that for about two decades. Safety pilot PIC is a good example but there are others.
“The airlines don’t want your time in the right seat of a Cessna 152” (an opinion on what an airline thinks of it)​
vs​
“safety pilot PIC time is Part 1 command time” (an accurate regulatory statement).​

My thought on the subject is simple. What you put in your logbook is data entry. From a regulatory standpoint, that data entry is the subject of 61.51 (and cross country logging rules). What else you put in is up to you so long as your totals for FAA purposes meet regulatory requirements [edit] and the FAA can tell the difference from looking at it in a logbook review.

What you put into an application is a report using on a query based on what the application asks for.
Click to expand...
Yup. And I'm putting acting PIC there even in pistons, because then I can use the query to edit further as necessary, such as showing acting PIC for turbine, 135, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top