Logging vs Legal (and what is a safety pilot)

[poadeleted21]

What if a friend let his medical expire (or lost it) and wanted to go flying before he gets it renewed/reissued. If I get in with him, never touch the controls.....

Was that A) Legal? if yes B) Can I log it?

I believe it would be legal to do. But I couldn't log it.

I'm just a PPL holder.

I looked at Eds chart, it seems I could log it if I fit the definition of "safety pilot" but this doesn't seem it would qualify? Or maybe it does.

 

[gismo]

What if a friend let his medical expire (or lost it) and wanted to go flying before he gets it renewed/reissued. If I get in with him, never touch the controls.....

Was that A) Legal? if yes B) Can I log it?

As long as it would be legal if the friend was just a passenger (which is technically the case in your scenario) it would be legal with a pilot whose medical certificate was expired. And the FAA has published an opinion that you can log PIC if you are the only person seated at a control station whether or not you are actually manipulating the controls so IMO it's loggable.

I believe it would be legal to do. But I couldn't log it.

I'm just a PPL holder.

I looked at Eds chart, it seems I could log it if I fit the definition of "safety pilot" but this doesn't seem it would qualify? Or maybe it does.

Safety pilot only applies if the other pilot is wearing a view limiting device and in that case either pilot could be the legal PIC so they'd have to agree the SP was acting PIC while the PF was hooded for the SP to log PIC time. In your scenario you'd be acting PIC (assuming you were so qualified) and would also be responsible for anything that happened during the flight from the FAA's perspective. There might also be insurance and/or rental agreement issues to consider as well.

 

[poadeleted21]

As long as it would be legal if the friend was just a passenger (which is technically the case in your scenario) it would be legal with a pilot whose medical certificate was expired. And the FAA has published an opinion that you can log PIC if you are the only person seated at a control station whether or not you are actually manipulating the controls so IMO it's loggable.


Safety pilot only applies if the other pilot is wearing a view limiting device and in that case either pilot could be the legal PIC so they'd have to agree the SP was acting PIC while the PF was hooded for the SP to log PIC time. In your scenario you'd be acting PIC (assuming you were so qualified) and would also be responsible for anything that happened during the flight from the FAA's perspective. There might also be insurance and/or rental agreement issues to consider as well.

So, is Ed's chart is not all inclusive?

http://webpages.charter.net/edfred/LoggingPIC.pdf

I get stuck at safety pilot on it

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The quote from Mr. Levy in my .sig came from a discussion of logging time with a non pilot actually manipulating the controls.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1068774&postcount=32

 

[EdFred]

I am going to assume that what Ron quoted was verbatim.

That's the way the rules appear to read, but the Chief Counsel (actually, the Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations & Enforcement Division, Office of the Chief Counsel) wrote a long time ago (June 22, 1977, to be exact) that "a pilot, rated in category and class (e.g. airplane single-engine) could, as the pilot who 'Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight' log PIC time if another pilot, not appropriately rated, was actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft."

Now, reading the letter it says that the pilot could log PIC time if the other pilot was not appropriately rated. The pilot is appropriately rated, therefore you still don't log it.

you being safety pilot = someone else wearing a view limiting device while you look out for traffic.

 

[poadeleted21]

I am going to assume that what Ron quoted was verbatim.


Now, reading the letter it says that the pilot could log PIC time if the other pilot was not appropriately rated. The pilot is appropriately rated, therefore you still don't log it.

you being safety pilot = someone else wearing a view limiting device while you look out for traffic.

Use the flow chart.

Though I should put a "are you the only rated (for the aircraft) pilot in the airplane"

Dang it, thought I found a bug in the chart.

 

[poadeleted20]

Beware of the misuse of terminology. The only place the FAA uses the term "safety pilot" is in 91.109(c) regarding flight with a vision restricting device, but does not specifically define that term anywhere. Many folks also use that term to describe the fully PIC-qualified pilot acting as PIC while someone who is temporarily unable to act as PIC (lapsed medical, etc) is flying the airplane. However, that "safety pilot" is not legal to log that time unless the lapsed pilot is wearing a vision restricting device, because otherwise only one pilot is required, and then you can't use the "PIC when two pilots are required" clause to log the time, nor can you use the "only rated pilot" exception discussed above since the lapsed pilot flying the plane is rated even if not required.

 

[EdFred]

Dang it, thought I found a bug in the chart.

I suppose I could put that additional box, because under the scenario where you and I go flying in my twin (ok, I don't have one yet) I am rated, you are not.

So according to my flow chart if you are flying the plane (unrated), I can't log anything. However, being as that I am not a MEI, and you aren't getting instruction, for all intents and purposes of logging, you being the sole manipulator of the controls is no different than letting someone who has never been in a plane before. In which case the letter Ron referenced would apply.

So I suppose, in the "sole manipulator" box, I could also modify that to say

"sole manipulator, or only appropriately pilot in the aircraft"

 

[JimNtexas]

You were the pilot of that airplane, per FAR 1. Log PIC.

 

[EdFred]

You were the pilot of that airplane, per FAR 1. Log PIC.

Try again, thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

 

[poadeleted20]

You were the pilot of that airplane, per FAR 1. Log PIC.

I'm not sure which regulation you mean by "FAR 1," but the regulation governing logging time is 14 CFR 61.51, and that regulation does not permit logging PIC time merely because you were the pilot in command. Keep in mind that claiming for FAA purposes time logged contrary to 61.51 is a violation of 14 CFR 61.59 punishable by revocation of all FAA certificates. Choose wisely.

 

[Palmpilot]

However, the friend with the expired medical can log the time if he is appropriately rated, because he is the sole manipulator of the controls, correct?

 

[poadeleted20]

However, the friend with the expired medical can log the time if he is appropriately rated, because he is the sole manipulator of the controls, correct?

Correct.

 

[gismo]

...nor can you use the "only rated pilot" exception discussed above since the lapsed pilot flying the plane is rated even if not required.

I could be wrong but I thought the opinion WRT legally logging PIC when you're the only one onboard rated for the aircraft mentioned that the basis for this was eliminating the illogical scenario where no one onboard could legally log PIC. If I have that right it sure seems like the allowance to log PIC would extend to the OP's scenario even though that combination (rated pilot sans medical as PF and rated and legal acting PIC sitting on their hands) wasn't specifically mentioned.

Edit: I think I see a mistake in my thinking. In the OP's scenario the PF can log PIC as the rated sole manipulator so the issue of no one being able to log PIC time doesn't apply.

 

[poadeleted20]

I could be wrong but I thought the opinion WRT legally logging PIC when you're the only one onboard rated for the aircraft mentioned that the basis for this was eliminating the illogical scenario where no one onboard could legally log PIC.

That is correct.

If I have that right it sure seems like the allowance to log PIC would extend to the OP's scenario even though that combination (rated pilot sans medical as PF and rated and legal acting PIC sitting on their hands) wasn't specifically mentioned.

Edit: I think I see a mistake in my thinking. In the OP's scenario the PF can log PIC as the rated sole manipulator so the issue of no one being able to log PIC time doesn't apply.

Exactly.

 

[JimNtexas]

I'm not sure which regulation you mean by "FAR 1,"

Let me help you understand:

TITLE 14--Aeronautics and Space

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SUBCHAPTER A--DEFINITIONS

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Pilot in command means the person who:


(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

There has never been, and there will never be, any sort of enforcement action against a FAR 1 PIC who logs PIC.

Every manned airplane you see in the sky has a 'real' (FAR 1) PIC. You can make all the flowcharts you want from these silly FAA letters, but here in the real world there will never be a question from anyone in the FAA if a FAR 1 PIC logs PIC.

It's much more likely that all these 'sole manipulator PICs' will run in to trouble latter in life, if not from the imaginary log book police, then from the very real private sector commercial aviation interviewers.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

There has never, and there will never be, any sort of enforcement action against a FAR 1 PIC who logs PIC.

Not many absolutes in life. Never is pretty absolute.

Every manned airplane you see in the sky has a 'real' (FAR 1) PIC. . . . but here in the real world there will never a question from anyone in the FAA if a FAR 1 PIC logs PIC.

That MAY be true, but it doesn't mean they can't.

It's much more likely that all these 'sole manipulator PICs' will run in to trouble latter in life, if not from the imaginary log book police, then from the very real private sector commercial aviation interviewers.

Well, a potential employer is free to ask for what he wants as far as time goes. But that does not mean someone should forgo logging all the legal PIC that he is entitled to.

Part 1 has nothing to do with logging. Part 61.51 does. They are not necessarily mutually inclusive.

 

[moonshine]

Interesting discussion

Here's a question - say two pilots are in the airplane, one's been designated PIC for the flight. He takes off, sets up for cruise, flight director on and he's about to flip the AP on, then glances over to the right and asks the second pilot if he wants to drive straight and level instead of the ol' George.
The way I understand the flow charts, for one hour of flight it'd be something like 0.3 PIC for the 1st pilot and 0.7 PIC for the 2nd pilot - although 1st was still in command of the vessel at all times?

How's that different from "Honey, keep us straight and level for a moment, I need to pee"? In this case, it appears, you are good for as long as the Honey isn't a pilot.

Or am I getting it all wrong? In which case, interesting discussion, but what exactly are you guys talking about?

 

[poadeleted21]

Interesting discussion

Here's a question - say two pilots are in the airplane, one's been designated PIC for the flight. He takes off, sets up for cruise, flight director on and he's about to flip the AP on, then glances over to the right and asks the second pilot if he wants to drive straight and level instead of the ol' George.
The way I understand the flow charts, for one hour of flight it'd be something like 0.3 PIC for the 1st pilot and 0.7 PIC for the 2nd pilot - although 1st was still in command of the vessel at all times?

How's that different from "Honey, keep us straight and level for a moment, I need to pee"? In this case, it appears, you are good for as long as the Honey isn't a pilot.

Or am I getting it all wrong? In which case, interesting discussion, but what exactly are you guys talking about?

I think you have it right.

 

[moonshine]

I think you have it right.

So if I'm the pilot in the left seat, and my buddy pilot is in the right seat, and I feel like letting him drive us straight and level, the only legal way for me to log PIC for the entire is to inconspicuously turn the autopilot on to remain the sole manipulator of the controls and not hurt his feelings?
Well that makes a ton of sense!

...Just to clarify... Say that the two pilots from my previous post are flying and the second pilot holds the plane straight and level, and the first pilot touches the mixture twice (which is, obviously, 0.1 for each occurance) - does that mean that for 0.2 hrs the vessel was flying without a PIC?

PS Found this on the internets - http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...ogram/media/LOGGING PILOT-IN-COMMAND TIME.pdf
it ends with very sensible

In summary, the person who is pilot-in-command may log PIC, others may also log PIC depending in the circumstances.

 

[PPC1052]

However, the friend with the expired medical can log the time if he is appropriately rated, because he is the sole manipulator of the controls, correct?

I don't disagree with Ron on this that you are technically allowed to log this as PIC, but I have seen the FAA issue a notice alleging that the pilot conducted flights as PIC with an expired medical based on his entries as PIC in his log book. This came up after he had a hard landing in his new LSA on his way back from purchasing it. The FAA looked at several flights he logged as PIC that he had made in his old non-LSA aircraft before he sold it during a period of time when his medical had expired. He told them he logged the PIC time as the sole manipulator of the controls, and that there was an appropriately rated pilot on each of the flights as a "safety pilot." They asked him to identify the "safety pilots," and then interviewed the individuals that he could identify as flying with him (although his memory was foggy, and he didn't have the names of the pilots written down). When they couldn't confirm whether they were acting as PIC, or that they were even in the plane on those flights, the FAA issued the notice that they intended to suspend his license for 120 days for all of the alleged violations.

Ultimately, the claims based on the old flights were dropped in negotiation with the FAA staff counsel. The pilot ultimately accepted a 30 suspension due to the undisputable fact that his BFR at the time of the accident flight was not properly logged and signed by the CFI. In fact, there was no entry in his log book at all, although he claimed that he had had a BFR.

It may be that they dropped the old flight claims due to the stale complaint rule, or it may be that because they were getting an agreed suspension they didn't care if they let it go, and the pilot was cooperative with their investigation, and affirmatively took steps to go out and get a properly logged BFR after the accident. Again, I am not saying Ron is not correct, I am just saying that there may be a risk of FAA scrutiny if you do log PIC with an expired medical.

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's a question - say two pilots are in the airplane, one's been designated PIC for the flight. He takes off, sets up for cruise, flight director on and he's about to flip the AP on, then glances over to the right and asks the second pilot if he wants to drive straight and level instead of the ol' George.
The way I understand the flow charts, for one hour of flight it'd be something like 0.3 PIC for the 1st pilot and 0.7 PIC for the 2nd pilot - although 1st was still in command of the vessel at all times?

Right --each one logs PIC time for the time he's manipulating the controls, and nothing when not.

How's that different from "Honey, keep us straight and level for a moment, I need to pee"? In this case, it appears, you are good for as long as the Honey isn't a pilot.

At the risk of sounding like your mother when you were a little kid, it's different because the Chief Counsel says it's different. They specifically said a long time ago that when you're the only appropriately rated pilot in the aircraft, you can log it all as PIC time no matter whose hands are on the controls. The reasoning was, more or less, that it makes no sense to have a situation where nobody can log the time.

 

[poadeleted20]

So if I'm the pilot in the left seat, and my buddy pilot is in the right seat, and I feel like letting him drive us straight and level, the only legal way for me to log PIC for the entire is to inconspicuously turn the autopilot on to remain the sole manipulator of the controls and not hurt his feelings?
Well that makes a ton of sense!

In that situation, since the autopilot, not your buddy, is actually driving the plane, and you are the one manipulating the controls of the autopilot, you log PIC and by the reg, your buddy can't log anything.

...Just to clarify... Say that the two pilots from my previous post are flying and the second pilot holds the plane straight and level, and the first pilot touches the mixture twice (which is, obviously, 0.1 for each occurance) - does that mean that for 0.2 hrs the vessel was flying without a PIC?

No. The PIC is the PIC is the PIC no matter who's actually flying the plane -- see 14 CFR 1.1. The question of who can log PIC time (as opposed to who is being the PIC) is a separate issue governed by a separate regulation (14 CFR 61.51). That's the point JimNTexas seems not to understand.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't disagree with Ron on this that you are technically allowed to log this as PIC,

The trail of quote-backs is a bit vague, but if we're talking about the situation where you are acting as PIC while an appropriately rated friend whose medical is currently invalid flies the plane, then unless the friend is under the hood (in which case two pilots are required), you cannot log PIC time even though you are the PIC.

but I have seen the FAA issue a notice alleging that the pilot conducted flights as PIC with an expired medical based on his entries as PIC in his log book.

Unless there was no other appropriately rated and fully PIC-qualified pilot in the aircraft, I'd like to see that "notice."

This came up after he had a hard landing in his new LSA on his way back from purchasing it. The FAA looked at several flights he logged as PIC that he had made in his old non-LSA aircraft before he sold it during a period of time when his medical had expired. He told them he logged the PIC time as the sole manipulator of the controls, and that there was an appropriately rated pilot on each of the flights as a "safety pilot." They asked him to identify the "safety pilots," and then interviewed the individuals that he could identify as flying with him (although his memory was foggy, and he didn't have the names of the pilots written down). When they couldn't confirm whether they were acting as PIC, or that they were even in the plane on those flights, the FAA issued the notice that they intended to suspend his license for 120 days for all of the alleged violations.

There have been cases where the FAA has gone after the person whom the unqualified pilot claimed was acting as PIC, but the alleged PIC disputed that and was able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that s/he had no idea the unqualified pilot was unqualified or that the unqualified pilot was relying on him/her to act as PIC. That's rather a different situation than we are discussing. However, it does point out that even though the regulations do not require the unqualified pilot to name the person acting as PIC in his/her logbook, it might be a real good idea to record that name anyway. It's also a good example of why whenever there are two rated pilots in the plane, it's a real good idea to discuss and decide before engine start who's actually the PIC for the flight, and what duties/responsibilities (if any) the second pilot will have.

Ultimately, the claims based on the old flights were dropped in negotiation with the FAA staff counsel. The pilot ultimately accepted a 30 suspension due to the undisputable fact that his BFR at the time of the accident flight was not properly logged and signed by the CFI. In fact, there was no entry in his log book at all, although he claimed that he had had a BFR.

Sometimes the FAA will settle like that. Sometimes they won't.

It may be that they dropped the old flight claims due to the stale complaint rule,

Not likely. The 180-day clock doesn't start until the FAA discovers the violation (in this case, when they saw his logbook with no flight review endorsement in it), not when the violation actually occurred (i.e., when the flight without current flight review occurred).

or it may be that because they were getting an agreed suspension they didn't care if they let it go, and the pilot was cooperative with their investigation, and affirmatively took steps to go out and get a properly logged BFR after the accident.

That sounds like the FAA I know.

Again, I am not saying Ron is not correct, I am just saying that there may be a risk of FAA scrutiny if you do log PIC with an expired medical.

Only if, in the event the FAA becomes involved, you can't show by a preponderance of the evidence that someone else was acting as PIC at the time. The story as you tell it suggests that the pilot involved could not, largely because the other pilots denied they were acting as PIC for those flights. If you make a habit of discussing with anyone acting as PIC in this situation that they are acting as PIC, and you put their names in your logbook, the FAA will have a tough time proving they weren't the PIC for that flight.

 

[sacbluesman]

Interesting read for sure.

Ed's chart follows logic and makes ease of understanding the FARs.

What I really don't get is why pilots choose to do things like the OPs buddy. If you aren't legal to fly (i.e. 90 day, medical) why take the risk and open yourself up for problems or scrutiny. If the non current pilot wants to go up and get some time aloft with the OP that is great. Just leave the ink off the logbook and let the OP act as PIC as he should be.

 

[poadeleted20]

What I really don't get is why pilots choose to do things like the OPs buddy. If you aren't legal to fly (i.e. 90 day, medical) why take the risk and open yourself up for problems or scrutiny. If the non current pilot wants to go up and get some time aloft with the OP that is great. Just leave the ink off the logbook and let the OP act as PIC as he should be.

The current pilot is acting as PIC in that situation regardless of what you log. However, the big advantage to logging in that situation is maintaining your landing and IFR currencies so the day you get your medical back you can jump in and go fly IFR with a passenger legally as well as safely. If you're medically grounded for a long time, it could get to where you need an IPC even if you've been flying instruments every week with someone in the right seat acting as both PIC and safety pilot while you do it. It can also have a significant effect on insurance renewals.

 

[TMetzinger]

The current pilot is acting as PIC in that situation regardless of what you log. However, the big advantage to logging in that situation is maintaining your landing and IFR currencies so the day you get your medical back you can jump in and go fly IFR with a passenger legally as well as safely. If you're medically grounded for a long time, it could get to where you need an IPC even if you've been flying instruments every week with someone in the right seat acting as both PIC and safety pilot while you do it. It can also have a significant effect on insurance renewals.

Hey Ron,

If someone who is medically grounded is maintaining their instrument currency by flying under the hood with a safety pilot who's acting as PIC, why would he need an IPC?

I think that's what you are saying, and I don't know of any reg in the currency section that requires you be acting as PIC to log the currency items.

 

[poadeleted20]

If someone who is medically grounded is maintaining their instrument currency by flying under the hood with a safety pilot who's acting as PIC, why would he need an IPC?

Because he didn't log it and has now gone over 6 months out of legal IFR currency, which requires that the events be logged. Further review will show you I made that statement in response to someone suggesting that people in that situation not log the time in order to avoid some imaginary problem with the FAA over having (legally) logged PIC time while not PIC-qualified.

 

[Palmpilot]

Let me help you understand:



There has never been, and there will never be, any sort of enforcement action against a FAR 1 PIC who logs PIC.

Every manned airplane you see in the sky has a 'real' (FAR 1) PIC. You can make all the flowcharts you want from these silly FAA letters, but here in the real world there will never be a question from anyone in the FAA if a FAR 1 PIC logs PIC.

That's certainly true if the person acting as pilot in command under FAR 1.1 holds an ATP certificate, is appropriately rated for the aircraft, and is conducting an operation that requires an ATP certificate, because 61.51(e)(2) says so:

"If rated to act as pilot in command of the aircraft, an airline transport pilot may log all flight time while acting as pilot in command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate."​

Notice that this section specifies both that the pilot must hold an ATP certificate, and that the operation must be one that requires an ATP certificate. For pilots not in that situation, the plain language of the regulation suggests that PIC time will need to be logged under some other section.

Of course, it's not uncommon for what's enforced to differ from what the regs say. We live in an imperfect world.

I think it's great that employers are willing to count, for hiring purposes, time when a pilot was acting as PIC that doesn't fit into one of the situations spelled out in the logging regulation. If people want to use that kind of time when applying to those employers, I say go for it. However, I personally would be very reluctant to do so when applying to the FAA.

It's much more likely that all these 'sole manipulator PICs' will run in to trouble latter in life, if not from the imaginary log book police, then from the very real private sector commercial aviation interviewers.

It's too bad that the airlines and the FAA have different rules for logging non-airline PIC time. It sounds like an applicant for an airline job would have to go through his logbooks and subtract out any PIC time that met FAA regs without meeting airline expectations. And from the enforcement example mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it sounds like any non-current pilot logging PIC time as sole manipulator under FAR 61.51(e)(1)(i) would be wise to document who was acting as PIC under FAR 1.1.