PIC...

If I sit right seat for a guy and we agree that he is PIC and I see something, in the above what you're saying is that he has a legal right to assert his authority to kill us both.

To hell with that! He certainly cannot act as PIC after a left jab incapacitates him.

It is foolish for the hooded guy to be PIC.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
You have misread the SIC part, by regulations of the flight they are talking 135/121.
Click to expand...
And where is that written?

You fly any 135/121, I would think you would understand SIC a little better if you had.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have. But I've also taken aviation law at the graduate level and taught it at the undergraduate level, so perhaps my understanding of the regulations is better than you think.

Safety pilot logs PIC, if he cant log PIC for whatever reason, he doesn't log jack.
Click to expand...
That is, plain and simple, an incorrect and unsubstantiated interpretation of the regulations under discussion. If you don't believe me, ask the folks at AGC-200 in the Chief Counel's office. They will confirm every detail of what I have posted.
 
Jaybird180 said:
If I sit right seat for a guy and we agree that he is PIC and I see something, in the above what you're saying is that he has a legal right to assert his authority to kill us both.

To hell with that! He certainly cannot act as PIC after a left jab incapacitates him.

It is foolish for the hooded guy to be PIC.
Click to expand...
There is precedent for the SIC being held responsible for doing everything in his/her power to prevent an accident due to the incapacitation or incompetence of the PIC. That still does not make the SIC the pilot in command, and there is nothing in the regulations which automatically makes the safety pilot the PIC. In fact, the regulations clearly contemplate the SIC not even being qualified to be PIC.
 
Jaybird180 said:
If I sit right seat for a guy and we agree that he is PIC and I see something, in the above what you're saying is that he has a legal right to assert his authority to kill us both.

To hell with that! He certainly cannot act as PIC after a left jab incapacitates him.

It is foolish for the hooded guy to be PIC.
Click to expand...

Why is this any different than the PIC flying in actual IMC?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Visual Flight Rules
versus
Instrument Flight Rules
Click to expand...
Doesn't make any difference. Whether you are operating VFR or IFR, the discussion in safety pilots only changes in that if they are operating IFR, the SIC safety pilot must also have a instrument rating, although not 61.57(c) instrument currency (required only to act as PIC).
 
I was referring to hood vs IFR flight. Perhaps I misundstood the question?
 
So the FAA revoked licenses of people who were both legal to act as PIC and were acting as PIC, both logging PIC, one under the hood the other the lookout?

I dont think so, guessing there was something else as that's text book Safety pilot



How often you flying these days Ron, maybe in your older age you have gotten out of touch with whats happening on the ramp and what the inspectors really think in the field.

Logging SIC on a part 91 flight in something like a 172, when it's a single pilot plane and no op spec stating 2 crew, have fun.

I'm out, ya'll armchair QB this thing, just remember to only wear your three stripes when you're right seating as SIC in that bug smasher in the practice area.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I was referring to hood vs IFR flight. Perhaps I misundstood the question?
Click to expand...

Or if you are simply riding along as a passenger and you "see something." Unless your partner has duct taped his hood to his head, I see no distinction between him being PIC under the hood vs. him flying in IMC or him flying on a CAVU day to the pancake breakfast with you invited to ride along in the right seat as a pilot-rated passenger. If you "see something" and he has to make a decision on what to do, I don't think who is legal PIC or him having to take what, 0.75 seconds to rip his hood off is going to affect the outcome differently.
 
NineThreeKilo... give ya a scenario...

Pilot 1 meets all requirements for PIC in a particular light aircraft.
Pilot 2 meets all requirements for PIC in a particular light aircraft but doesn't have 3 takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days.

Can Pilot 2 act as Safety Pilot for Pilot 1? (Ignore insurance, which may add additional requirements.) What will Pilot 2 log in his/her logbook?

What will both pilots have to agree to before the aircraft moves under its own power?

Bonus question: Pilot 1 takes off the hood and lets Pilot 2 make four touch and goes as sole manipulator. Was that legal? Is Pilot 2 now current?
 
Ron Levy said:
....
Actually, that is pretty much what these two yo-yo's did, and they got emergency revocations for their illegal efforts.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/4008.PDF
Click to expand...

Not really...

I read it, they were not acting as Safety pilot, the two CFIs were building time by giving each other instruction and the only thing that hung them was the fact that they didnt sign each others logs for the instruction they gave and the one receiving instruction didnt log it as instruction received.

Got little to do with this topic, however
 
NineThreeKilo said:
So the FAA revoked licenses of people who were both legal to act as PIC and were acting as PIC, both logging PIC, one under the hood the other the lookout?

I dont think so, guessing there was something else as that's text book Safety pilot
Click to expand...
Apparently the FAA convinced the ALJ and the NTSB that those entries were fraudulent.

How often you flying these days Ron, maybe in your older age you have gotten out of touch with whats happening on the ramp and what the inspectors really think in the field.
Click to expand...
About 300 hours this year, mostly giving training, and sending about five or six a year for an instrument practical test where the examiners often ask these exact questions.

Logging SIC on a part 91 flight in something like a 172, when it's a single pilot plane and no op spec stating 2 crew, have fun.
Click to expand...
For the most part, i do have fun teaching people this material. It stops being fun when someone insists on refusing to believe what is written in the regulations and stated in legal interpretations written by the FAA Chief Counsel's office. And trying to teach you has stopped being fun.

I'm out,
Click to expand...
Good. Now please do us all a favor and don't try to teach your beliefs on this subject to anyone. We in the business of training pilots spend too much time undoing the damage done that way.

ya'll armchair QB this thing, just remember to only wear your three stripes when you're right seating as SIC in that bug smasher in the practice area.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm wearing four stripes on my shoulders this week in the right seat of a Cessna 303, giving training to the owner based in Peru. Ain't even getting though the airport front gate down here, no less anywhere near the airplane, without 'em. :wink2:
 
Last edited:
NineThreeKilo said:
...

I operate/operated the way I posted and I've had my documents gone through by the feds a few times and no one ever scratched their head at any of my hours, or anything else I have done flying wise, never had a issue with a the few ramp checks I've had ether... yea my "hogwash" must be some good chit!
Click to expand...

Good for you.

You're still wrong.

I've logged SIC time in singles and had my logbook gone through by the FAA as well. Nobody had any issues with it.

Edit: Bottom line on this is that Ron is correct. It's perfectly correct for a safety pilot who cannot act as PIC (example: I did not yet have my complex endorsement when I was a safety pilot in a Trinidad for my CFI, so I couldn't act as PIC. I logged that time as SIC.) to log SIC since part 91 requires two pilots when one is hooded, and THAT triggers the part in 61.57 about "... the regulations under which the flight is conducted requires two pilots..."

Honest, the head lawyer for the FAA has answered this in writing - it's almost common knowledge. Which is why we're all jumping on you so hard. This isn't gray at all.
 
Last edited:
NineThreeKilo said:
NICE

That is a very clear way of putting it, totally agree!
Click to expand...

No you don't. Follow the safety pilot path to where it says "agreed upon PICfor the flight". You have made several posts that you state that it automatic not agreed upon that the safety pilot is PIC. So which is it?
 
Oops I never said they have to agree to be saftey pilot, I also never said the saftey pilot has to be in the plane, thought it figured.



Ron Levy said:
....About 300 hours this year, mostly giving training, and sending about five or six a year for an instrument practical test where the examiners often ask these exact questions.

For the most part, i do have fun teaching people this material. It stops being fun when someone insists on refusing to believe what is written in the regulations and stated in legal interpretations written by the FAA Chief Counsel's office. And trying to teach you has stopped being fun.

Good. Now please do us all a favor and don't try to teach your beliefs on this subject to anyone. We in the business of training pilots spend too much time undoing the damage done that way.

Actually, I'm wearing four stripes on my shoulders this week in the right seat of a Cessna 303, giving training to the owner based in Peru. Ain't even getting though the airport front gate down here, no less anywhere near the airplane, without 'em. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Nice, I typically do a 1200 or so a year flying turbo props and Tailwheel. I teach on the side, gold seal (probably a fluke), all my CPLS are employed right now, mainly in AG (probably a fluke too), so yea, guess I'll keep teaching, seems I'm good at it.

If one of my students wanted to shotgun hours and wasn't qualified to act as pic (lack if hp endorsement or something) I'd tell them to get the damn endorsement, be able to act as PIC or forget it.


So you wear gold bars when you fly that lil piston twin. Last time I sported mine was for Halloween ;)
 
That's fine. But let the rest of us exercise our own judgement within the rules, instead of conflating the rules with your judgement ;)
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Yea my personal belief backed by the frikin FARs I posted!

Why is it all the guys saying I'm wrong haven't cited a damn thing???

As for that link to the rtf letter,


That letter reaffirms what I said, both can log PIC, one is responsible for the safety of the flight (the safety pilot), the other is the sole manipulator (under the hood guy). Heck Ron even agreed with me earlier in this thread lol
Click to expand...
Guess you didn't like the part that says

==============================
Responding specifically to your inquiry, the pilot that is under the hood may log PIC time for that time in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft, provided that he or she is rated for that aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently log as second-in-command (SIC) that time during which he or she is acting as safety pilot.

However, the two pilots may, prior to initiating the flight, agree that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i)
==============================

Enough time spent on trolls.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Nice, I typically do a 1200 or so a year flying turbo props and Tailwheel. I teach on the side, gold seal (probably a fluke), all my CPLS are employed right now, mainly in AG (probably a fluke too), so yea, guess I'll keep teaching, seems I'm good at it.
Click to expand...

Does that make you four times better?
 
NineThreeKilo said:
If one of my students wanted to shotgun hours and wasn't qualified to act as pic (lack if hp endorsement or something) I'd tell them to get the damn endorsement, be able to act as PIC or forget it.
Click to expand...

Nice attitude. :rolleyes:


Ok, point by point.

A safety pilot is required for operations when a pilot is operating under simulated conditions. 91.109(c) covers it.

§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests.

(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and

(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. . .
Click to expand...

This regulation makes the safety pilot a "required crewmembe" and eligible to log the flight time. PIC or SIC depending on the circumstances. To be addressed later. Notice that (1) of this section says absolutely nothing about currency or endorsements. This comes into play later when determining whether or not you can log PIC or SIC.

Now, 61.51 (e) and (f) cover logging of the time, PIC or SIC.

Here is (e)

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-

(i) 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;

. . .

(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...

Ok, 91.109(c) makes the safety pilot a required crewmember for the purposes of the bolded part above.

Now, here is 61.51(f)

(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of § 61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.
Click to expand...

Note that (1) does not apply. Also note the bolded part of (2) 91.109(c) is the regulation under which the flight is being conducted.

So, in order to log PIC as a safety pilot, that pilot must be the ACTING PIC and be current and qualified in all respects of the regulations.

IF that pilot is not LEGAL to act as PIC, that pilot can log SIC under the provisions of 61.51(f).

Can't get any more black and white than that. Straight out of the regs, and has numerous official legal interpretations to back it up.
 
jesse said:
Does that make you four times better?
Click to expand...

Now that you metion it, yea it does ;)

Sometimes I guess I just like to argue... I need to work on that.

However if I will say I'll put my students or myself up against anyone if any of y'all if you want to take the pepsi challenge on that matter :)
 
For those reading this thread, which do you think is more dominant in 93K -- macho, or anti-authority?
 
Ron Levy said:
For those reading this thread, which do you think is more dominant in 93K -- macho, or anti-authority?
Click to expand...
Im not even sure anymore what you all are going back and forth about? Sounds like you are arguing the same thing using slightly different language! :dunno:
 
Read his other posts. He thinks he's tough. But based on the way he handled his annual, maybe not the most astute. And anybody who gets wrapped around the axle about the possibility that some future employer will focus a logbook inspection on a few hours of safety-pilot activity, no matter how it's logged, has a lot to learn. The fact that he's dead wrong and won't admit it would eliminate him from my list of hires.

Ron Levy said:
For those reading this thread, which do you think is more dominant in 93K -- macho, or anti-authority?
Click to expand...
 
I remember reading the aviation forums on MySpace years and years ago. I couldn't believe some of the incorrect stuff being posted on there and I would be glad bulletin boards like this one existed. This thread made me think of a typical MySpace aviation thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top