Multi time
- Thread starter tmason90
- Start date
ahsmatt7
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2012
- Messages
- 10
- Display Name
- ahsmatt7
- Home Airfield
- 5C1
I would love to go flying with you! Its always been my dream to fly in a multi engine airplane!!!!!!!
Inverted
Cleared for Takeoff
Thats a great deal to build some multi time.
dell30rb
Final Approach
That's still fairly cheap.But, if only one of you is PIC, can you both log the hours?
If the pilot flying is under the hood and you are in VMC, performing safety pilot duty - yes.
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,410
- Location
- Hemlock, MI
- Display Name
- denny
- Home Airfield
- KHYX and X36
Hooo boy, here we go...
gil_mor
Pre-takeoff checklist
ajstoner21
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 1,344
- Location
- Fort Worth, TX
- Display Name
- Andrew
- Home Airfield
- GKY, FWS
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
100/wet for an Aztec?! Nice. If I were multi rated (450 hours and I still haven't added MEL to my commercial certificate), I'd fly to Houston to split time with you.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
It doesn't matter if you're in VMC or IMC -- the safety pilot is required any time the pilot flying is under the hood. But in that case, yes, both pilots can log it. If the safety pilot is also acting as PIC, they both log it as PIC time. If the safety pilot is only acting as SIC, it's still loggable SIC time for the safety pilot and PIC time for the pilot flying. Just remember the safety pilot can only log the time the pilot flying is hooded, and make sure you properly document just what you were doing. If the flight times in the two logbooks are the same, and the documentation is dodgy, you could end up like these two:
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4008.pdf
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Read again -- it's $200/hr wet, split two ways.
Mike5250
Line Up and Wait
Maybe PoA can add a section for sharing flights and hour building. Its a nice way to get out and fly more and meet some nice people.
That's still fairly cheap.
Yep so long as PF is under the hood, PNF is also able to log PIC.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Not so. The "PNF" (pilot not flying, i.e., the safety pilot) must also be acting as PIC in addition to being the safety pilot in order to log PIC time. Otherwise, it's only SIC time for the safety pilot. And to act as PIC, the PNF must be fully qualified and current to do so, as well as accept responsibility for anything/everything that happens.
I'm guessing that's 100 x 2, 200 is a good deal on an Aztec, if you block 24gph and go to where fuel is cheapest that keeps fuel to <$120 hr and he may be able to keep it working if you guys treat it nice, fly slow, low power and leaned way back. If you guy's are really sharp he may even be able to do some upgrades. If you have a good twin available to you in your area, be good to it, especially one that price. They're handy to have around when you need to haul a real load.
Great, easily done, pre take off brief "I will be command PIC on this leg, You will act as PIC Sole manipulator" "Confirmed", or I'm under the hood, your command" "my command".. It's minutia that nobody is going to give a flying f- about. This isn't the freaking military, this is two time building pilots splitting a rental, the FAA inspector involved in anything will assume that convention was injuncted.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Bad briefing, because there is only one Pilot In Command (PIC) at a time. No such thing as "command PIC" vs "acting PIC" vs any other kind of PIC. There is one, and only one, person acting as PIC, and that is the one and only person who, to quote 14 CFR 1.1, "Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight." The issues of who may log PIC time are separete, and governed by 61.51, not 1.1. Please don't confuse people with sloppy semantics.
No, s/he won't. Figuring out who was really the PIC ex post facto when an accident or violation has occurred can be a tricky and litigious process.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
I read it that way...$200 is still not bad for an Aztec.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 23,094
- Location
- PUDBY
- Display Name
- Richard Palm
- Home Airfield
- Palo Alto (SFO area)
That's a pretty amazing case. Lots of wishful thinking going on there, IMO. The respondents' claim that they just hadn't gotten around to logging the claimed instructional time was pretty lame too, because they had time to make the log entries in the first place.
I'm surprised though, that the Administrator thought the discrepancy between tach time and logged time indicated further padding of the logbooks. In my experience, Hobbs and tach time normally differ by about 15%, which is not far from the discrepancy in this case. Of course, it turned out to be moot, because even though the Board accepted their explanation on that part of it, the end result was still revocation for the dual logging.
I finally got around to your apples and oranges case there. Not the same is it? That one is about Instructor/Sole Manipulator, different standards of applicability than when one is under the hood at all times as I indicated. The issue there was they were not able to substantiate that instruction was in fact taking place. Had they initially logged the Safety Pilot time and Instruction time and done their own record keeping properly there would have been no issue. This was just sloppy workmanship that got them in trouble when they came under inspection later. They did not get in trouble over what happened during one particular flight, they came under scrutiny for it. Had they done their record keeping on prior flights properly, they would not have had a problem. I never said you don't have to follow the rules, I said the rules are there and very simple to follow. You don't need to achieve a written agreement before the flight as to whom it shall be logging what time as what, but anyone logging dual PIC should be far enough along in the system they should have learned by now to log things clearly. If they had even just altered their log books back and forth by having alternating 'Simulated Instrument' &/or 'Safety Pilot' entries in their log books they would have passed whatever scrutiny they came under initially. What gave it up was 'identical' log books, THAT is what was wrong.
Last edited:
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
After one year the person is eligible to regain the certificates, which means taking the writtens and taking the check-rides again.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
Suspension of privileges is for a predetermined amount of time. A revocation is the loss of certificates meaning after one year if you want them back then one is required to requalify, i.e. retake all writtens and pass all checkrides.
Seems to me the reason they got in the trouble they did was that they were CFIs and should know better. The higher your ratings the greater the expectations the FAA has of you and the more trouble you get in when you get it wrong. ATPs often see much greater levels of enforcement action than PPs for the same infractions. The mills like All ATPs sell multi time with 3, count them 3 people logging PIC at the same time. You have the guy in the left seat under the hood logging sole manipulator simulated instrument, you have the guy in the right seat logging safety pilot and you have the guy in the back logging instruction given. There are umpteen thousands of Multi PIC hours logged out there under this exact protocol and I am sure they come under the review and scrutiny of the FAA on a regular basis with no issues because they are logged correctly. If there was a problem with doing this, I assure you it would have been brought to light loud and clear long before now. It was being sloppy in their paperwork that sank them.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Henning, please read what the OP wrote, what I wrote, and what that case says very carefully, and then compare that to the regs and various interpretations on point. If you're "splitting time" for $100/hr each, either you're doing it illegally (the OP does not seem to be an ME instructor) or somebody is paying for time they can't log, and then we run into "common purpose" and expense-sharing issues. Unless they are both CFI-AME's, and I don't think they are, they cannot legally "split" the time and the costs.
Ted
Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,130
- Display Name
- iFlyTwins
- Home Airfield
- KMKC
I would like to know how they are operating an Aztec for that cheap, seeing as I can't do it running LOP economy cruise and flying the plane 900 hours in the past 3 years. Doubly so if they are renting it out and thus paying for rental insurance.
As to the time splitting, yes, it is important to be careful with that.
But there's no reason that you two can't decide to fly the Aztec on a $100 hamburger, with pilot 1 flying out, and pilot 2 flying home. I've known people who have gone on group trips like that, where with 2-4 people combined they can afford to make the trip. Sure, each person only gets 1/4 of the total hours, but still gets to learn all the experiences from the trip.
dell30rb
Final Approach
Gotta agree with you here. Those two were certainly asking for it. When I do the safety pilot thing for some instrument practice I usually log about .3 less than the guy in the left seat. I log each leg separately so everything is clear. That's about how long it takes to taxi, take off and put the hood on.. Then fly the whole time under the hood and terminate the flight with an approach to minimums. If we are sharing the cost that's usually how it works out.
It's pretty much plain (and agreed upon) that when I am in the right seat I am pic because I am responsible for safety. Not only do I give the guy flying vectors or altitudes to fly if I spot a traffic conflict, but also I have been flying with a low time instrument student who makes enough mistakes that I need to be alert and in control while he is flying under the hood...
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I find it takes most people more than six minutes from start-up to takeoff (often much more if they do the proper warm-up and instrument pretakeoff checks and set-up), so I put the clock on the time the trainee is hooded so there's no doubt.
It may be agreed on between you and the pilot with whom you are flying, but it is not at all "plain" to most others. Most folks who own their own aircraft don't like (and sometimes their insurer prohibits) others from acting as PIC when they're flying. In other cases, the safety pilot isn't even qualified to be PIC. And the fact that the safety pilot has some safety responsibilities does not in and of itself make the safety pilot the PIC -- responsbilities may be shared, but final authority may not.
If that's the agreement you obtain, that's fine, but it's by no means automatic, and generally not the way most folks do it in their own airplanes.
Alexb2000
En-Route
If a twin rental is $300 an hour and someone wants 500 hours of multi-PIC, that's $150,000. OR someone could just buy a $20-30K twin with a fresh pencil whipped annual, put no insurance on it. Run the Hobbs and Tach ~500 hours on the ground, put some owner oil changes in the log book. Fly around a few hours during the year moving it from one local very sleepy, airport to another. Sell it at the end of the year for scrap, maybe have an out of pocket cost of $5K.
How could that ever be proven? Would anyone care to even try to prove it? Once the airplane is scraped how are you going to prove it?
I believe this happens everyday. The financial cost for someone trying to get into a professional pilot job is just staggering. The temptation to do the above is beyond great.
This to me is about as unscrupulous as having 3 pilots in one aircraft logging PIC time, regardless of the legalities. The assumption when someone claims to have 500 Multi-PIC in my mind is that they have been actually going somewhere in a twin, controlling the aircraft by themselves, and most importantly making all of the decisions relative to flight by themselves. The rest is just semantics and regulation manipulation to me.
How could that ever be proven? Would anyone care to even try to prove it? Once the airplane is scraped how are you going to prove it?
I believe this happens everyday. The financial cost for someone trying to get into a professional pilot job is just staggering. The temptation to do the above is beyond great.
This to me is about as unscrupulous as having 3 pilots in one aircraft logging PIC time, regardless of the legalities. The assumption when someone claims to have 500 Multi-PIC in my mind is that they have been actually going somewhere in a twin, controlling the aircraft by themselves, and most importantly making all of the decisions relative to flight by themselves. The rest is just semantics and regulation manipulation to me.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Violation of 61.59 is grounds for revocation of all certificates, and almost always results in that. "Unscrupulous" is merely a matter of personal opinion, and not grounds for FAA certificate action except for an ATP if they can show lack of moral character, which three people legally logging PIC time simultaneously ain't gonna do.
Alexb2000
En-Route
In the ATP Puppy Mill example that Henning gave. Left seat PIC under hood, right seat rated safety pilot PIC, instructor in the back dual given. Is that legal?
Of course the only way someone will get caught in any scenario is if there is an accident or something else that causes attention to be drawn to them. Just like your example where there was an accident investigation. Hard to have that happen in my scenario because the aircraft isn't flying.
Yes, I am just stating my opinion about what PIC means, but I believe it passes the common sense definition, and what I would want as a passenger.
dell30rb
Final Approach
.3 of an hour is 18 minutes...
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Yes. Quite a few schools do that or something like it, though more often for CFI training -- trainee pilot in the left seat, trainee instructor in the right seat, CFI in the back.
Common sense definitions and the FAA Chief Counsel's definitions are by no means universally congruent. Caveat aviator.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
That takes care of start-up to takeoff. There's also takeoff to hood-on, hood-off to landing, and touchdown to stopping in the chocks. Your .3 may work most of the time, but I've seen plenty of days where the real hood time is 0.5 or more below Hobbs time, so YMMV. I just don't like "canned solutions" in cases like that -- it invites questions.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
Luckily there isn't an FAA inspector sitting in the back seat to wack me for the extra 0.2 of hood time I logged...Arguing how an extra 0.1 to 0.2 of flight time is logged is kind of over doing it IMHO. I try to be as accurate as possible and will pick the more conservative number if I'm in doubt, but being 0.1 off is really not a big deal.