Safety Pilot Compensation?

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Mike: I need to get some approaches in for currency
Bill: I can safety pilot for you tomorrow
Mike: Great, see you at the airport tomorrow

Tomorrow
They fly
Few hours later they return to the airport

Mike: I just need to refuel my plane and put her away
Bill: Great flying today, I think that was about 3.9hrs. I'm glad I can log it as SIC, considering I'm not instrument rated, but I'm at least category and class rated. See you next month?
Mike: Sure, next month is great.
Bill: Does the pro-rata rule come into play here? Should I at least pay 1/2 of the fuel bill?
Mike: Should we ask John; he work for the FAA? I think I saw him in his hangar
 
You've got a couple of major issues here.

As Greg points out, the pilot in command isn't obliged to share the costs with anybody, the pro rata just says if he does share costs, he has to pay his own share.

Your biggest issue is the fact that you mentioned the safety pilot not being instrument rated. This raises a big red flag. If the flight was entirely conducted under VFR, then the instrument rating issue was spurious. Neither pilot requires an instrument rating. If the flight was conducted under IFR (even if VFR conditions), the pilot in command requires an instrument rating and if the safety pilot is the second in command, he also requires an instrument rating.
 
Practice approaches under VFR. The safety pilot is not required to be IR....or did this change AGAIN?:mad2:
 
Under VFR, neither pilot is required to have an instrument rating. The fact that you mentioned it at all was the only reason I was concerned.
 
Seems to me that out of courtesy, the safety pilot would not be asked to pay his pro-rata share. He was doing the PIC a favor. Why should he pay for it? Of course, he can pay if he wishes. Either pilot can pick up the lunch check, too.
 
The safety pilot, if acting as PIC, may log PIC, as he or she is the pilot in command of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member under the regulation (91.109(b)). In that case, the pilot under the hood may also log PIC as sole manipulator of the controls.

The pro-rata issue applies to the acting PIC. In this case, if the safety pilot is acting as PIC, he or she must pay his pro rata share, if a private pilot, and cannot act as PIC for compensation or hire (logging the time is considered compensation).

If the safety pilot will only be acting as SIC, then no payment on his or her part is required.

FYI: if you're two private pilots having fun, then showing SIC in a 172 is no big deal, however ridiculous it may be. If you're intending to one day show that logbook to an aviation employer of any kind, logging SIC that way makes you look bad, and you ought to avoid the practice.
 
I'll differ with Doug on one legal point. The Chief Counsel said a long time ago that there is no compensation issue with a PP safety pilot receiving free flight time, so it doesn't matter who's acting as PIC, and they can split the costs any way they like, from 100/0 to 0/100 or anything in between.

Also, I doubt any employer really feels that logging SIC safety pilot time "looks bad," although I believe many air carriers simply don't count it towards their own hiring requirements. In addition, that time has significant value towards CP and ATP certificates for the FAA. All in all, I'd say "log away," but when you fill out a pilot employment application, include only the time that employer says they want to see.
 
Ron Levy said:
Also, I doubt any employer really feels that logging SIC safety pilot time "looks bad," although I believe many air carriers simply don't count it towards their own hiring requirements. In addition, that time has significant value towards CP and ATP certificates for the FAA. All in all, I'd say "log away," but when you fill out a pilot employment application, include only the time that employer says they want to see.
Click to expand...
Agree with that. Log whatever you are entitled to but when you are filling out the blanks on an employment application follow the company's guidelines as to what to report.
 
Seems to me, you invite your safety pilot for dinner and drinks afterwards.
 
I'll differ with Doug on one legal point. The Chief Counsel said a long time ago that there is no compensation issue with a PP safety pilot receiving free flight time, so it doesn't matter who's acting as PIC, and they can split the costs any way they like, from 100/0 to 0/100 or anything in between.
Click to expand...

A private pilot, acting as PIC while filling the role of safety pilot, is the acting pilot in command. A private pilot, acting as pilot in command, may not do so for compensation or hire, and must pay his or pro rata share of the flight.

A private pilot who is acting as PIC while fulfilling the role of safety pilot, who pays nothing toward the flight, is still pilot in command. The FAA has held repeatedly that even the logging of that flight time is considered compensation. The private pilot acting as PIC must pay his or pro rata share of the flight, and cannot act for compensation or hire. If he or she doesn't pay the pro rata share (e.g., one half of the cost of the flight if only the two pilots are aboard), then he or she does run afoul of the regulation. If the other pilot pays the costs of the flight but does not compensate the safety pilot while the safety pilot is acting as PIC, then the PIC is considered to be compensated simply by the logging of the flight time.

Also, I doubt any employer really feels that logging SIC safety pilot time "looks bad," although I believe many air carriers simply don't count it towards their own hiring requirements. In addition, that time has significant value towards CP and ATP certificates for the FAA. All in all, I'd say "log away," but when you fill out a pilot employment application, include only the time that employer says they want to see.
Click to expand...

Logging second is command isn't bad, but a lot of employers will shake their head at someone doing so in a 172. Having very much safety pilot time also looks bad. It has the appearance of padding the logbook, simply as safety pilot time. Logging the time as SIC makes the pilot look bad, however legal it may be, if it's not in an aircraft requiring two pilots. (a crew aircraft).

It's a little like the guy that gets type rated and is sole manipulator of the controls on his leg, but who hasn't served as captain, logging PIC. The regulation says you can do it, but you'll only be embarrassing yourself by doing so. Simply because you can log it doesn't mean you should. If you never plan on going father with your flying than being a private pilot, that's fine. If you do, logging SIC in the 172 looks ridiculous and makes the person logging the time look ridiculous (about the same as wearing around a shirt with epaulets and bars as "captain" in a 172).
 
DouglasBader said:
A private pilot, acting as PIC while filling the role of safety pilot, is the acting pilot in command.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
A private pilot, acting as pilot in command, may not do so for compensation or hire, and must pay his or pro rata share of the flight.
Click to expand...
...except as authorized by the FAA, and the Chief Counsel already said that free flight time is not considered unacceptable compensation for a PP acting as a safety pilot -- even if that PP was also acting as PIC, not just SIC.

Ref. § 61.113(a) and § 61.51(e)(iii); Yes, the Private Pilot who is serving as a safety pilot and is acting as the PIC may log the time as PIC flight time. And yes, that Private Pilot may use that PIC flight time for the furtherance of a pilot certificate and rating under Part 61. And no, that Private Pilot is not “. . . . carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire;” nor is that Private Pilot acting as a pilot in command “. . . for compensation or hire, . . . .” when he serves as a safety pilot. In accordance with § 91.109(b)(1), it permits a person who holds a Private Pilot Certificate with a category and class rating appropriate to the aircraft being flown to serve as a safety pilot. And this answer has been reviewed by the FAA’s Washington HQ Chief Counsel Office (AGC-240), and they have agreed with this answer. {Q&A-273}
Click to expand...
As for Doug's personal opinions about how that time looks to prospective employers, he is indeed entitled to those opinions, but I've seen no evidence to support them.
 
Last edited:
...except as authorized by the FAA, and the Chief Counsel already said that free flight time is not considered unacceptable compensation for a PP acting as a safety pilot -- even if that PP was also acting as PIC, not just SIC.
Click to expand...

Reference?

You're referencing the old Q&A, which were not regulatory. Where is the Chief Legal Counsel interpretation on that subject?
 
DouglasBader said:
Reference?

You're referencing the old Q&A, which were not regulatory. Where is the Chief Legal Counsel interpretation on that subject?
Click to expand...
In the files at AGC-240 and AFS-810, and you can certainly ask AGC-240 for a copy of it. Personally, I don't think AFS-810 lied about having that coordination, but you are entitled to your opinion.
 
Last edited:
Side-note:

Some aircraft operators and organizations ban the "dual-PIC" thing for their own (however misguided) reasons, whether legal or not. Oftentimes citing Safety or Insurance reasons, or just old-wives tales.

Friend of mine pointed this out after I went over EdFred's flow chart with him. In his case, it simply doesn't matter.

He's required to log Safety Pilot time as SIC. Only one PIC on board per his operating rules, ever. (Part 91 operations. Non-commercial.)

He can argue it coherently with that document, but his aircraft owner/operator may not care.

On the flip side, said operator doesn't audit his logbook or the other guy's, so if they write it in as dual-PIC anyway, there's no check and balance to catch it later.

So... It's an honor/character question at that point.
 
There was a school in Florida that would launch two student pilots on a cross country. 4 hours total with each wearing foggles for 2 hours. They both would log all 4 hours as PIC. At the end of their CIME a big bulk of every bodies time was made up of this 'type' of time.

I don't know about the legality of it all but I'd be very hesitent to hire anyone who built their time this way. And if that is what makes up the bulk of you ME time and you 'just' meet mins there's no way.
 
Captain said:
There was a school in Florida that would launch two student pilots on a cross country. 4 hours total with each wearing foggles for 2 hours. They both would log all 4 hours as PIC. At the end of their CIME a big bulk of every bodies time was made up of this 'type' of time.

I don't know about the legality of it all
Click to expand...
It's not. They can both log time only while the pilot flying is hooded. Unless they taxied, took off, and landed with the hood on (and I can see the FAA having other concerns over that), it should be more like 4 hours on the plane, and 3.5 in each pilot's logbook (2.0 PIC/sole manipulator, and 1.5 PIC/safety pilot).
 
My safety pilot didn't really want to log his time. I got him an Aircraft Spruce gift card and will safety for him when he works on his rating.
 
I sometimes safety pilot for a friend with his own plane. He'll do some approaches, then we'll swap and I'll do some approaches. I then pick up half his fuel. Neither of us are going for airline jobs, so could hardly care less how the logging looks to anyone as long as it's legal.
 
gprellwitz said:
I sometimes safety pilot for a friend with his own plane. He'll do some approaches, then we'll swap and I'll do some approaches. I then pick up half his fuel. Neither of us are going for airline jobs, so could hardly care less how the logging looks to anyone as long as it's legal.
Click to expand...

:yesnod::yesnod:
 
When I was safety pilot for my former chair, I got compensated with a six-pack of his home brew. Best beer I've ever had. The time he bounced that airplane 20 feet in the air I should have asked for two.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's not. They can both log time only while the pilot flying is hooded. Unless they taxied, took off, and landed with the hood on (and I can see the FAA having other concerns over that), it should be more like 4 hours on the plane, and 3.5 in each pilot's logbook (2.0 PIC/sole manipulator, and 1.5 PIC/safety pilot).
Click to expand...

And there's another issue if both pilots were each also logging 4 hours of x-c time.
 
I am not a PP yet, so not IR training.

If you had an instructor come along as a Safety Pilot. Can they be paid to be a Safety Pilot, or would that end up being instruction?

Can a Safety Pilot, be a safety pilot without logging time? Would the safety pilot have to log something if the person practicing IR in VFR uses a safety pilot to be proof that the PIC had a safety pilot along while practicing IR in VFR?
 
Captain said:
There was a school in Florida that would launch two student pilots on a cross country. 4 hours total with each wearing foggles for 2 hours. They both would log all 4 hours as PIC. At the end of their CIME a big bulk of every bodies time was made up of this 'type' of time.

I don't know about the legality of it all but I'd be very hesitent to hire anyone who built their time this way. And if that is what makes up the bulk of you ME time and you 'just' meet mins there's no way.
Click to expand...
How in the world is it legal to put two students in the plane??
:dunno:
 
MDeitch1976 said:
If you had an instructor come along as a Safety Pilot. Can they be paid to be a Safety Pilot, or would that end up being instruction?
Click to expand...

Well, if you have an instructor onboard, why NOT pay him for instruction? IOW, if the instructor is there, take advantage.

Can a Safety Pilot, be a safety pilot without logging time? Would the safety pilot have to log something if the person practicing IR in VFR uses a safety pilot to be proof that the PIC had a safety pilot along while practicing IR in VFR?
Click to expand...

Nowhere is it required for the safety pilot to log that time. All the other guy has to do is note who the safety pilot was in his logbook.
 
hopmedic said:
How in the world is it legal to put two students in the plane??
:dunno:
Click to expand...

It isn't. At least not for pre private pilots. But sometimes people call anyone who is working on advanced ratings and certificates "student pilots". In that case, it is legal for two "students" to fly together.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
It isn't. At least not for pre private pilots. But sometimes people call anyone who is working on advanced ratings and certificates "student pilots". In that case, it is legal for two "students" to fly together.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat: At somewhere like ERAU, even a CFI could legitimately be considered a student.
 
Gosh, I might safety pilot for somebody this week and I thought I was doing them a favor (otherwise they would have to pay a CFI to sit right seat). I didn't even think about logging the time or splitting money. I guess I should bring some cash then. Problem is this plane seats 6 or 8 or something so I'm sure it burns a lot of gas. I was just there to look out the window for the see and avoid stuff.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
It isn't. At least not for pre private pilots. But sometimes people call anyone who is working on advanced ratings and certificates "student pilots". In that case, it is legal for two "students" to fly together.
Click to expand...
Ah - didn't realize that, but it makes sense - if you're learning, you're a student.

Jaybird180 said:
Theoretically, it could be legal to do in a 141 program.
\Aesbestos suit on
Click to expand...
For primary students?
 
MDeitch1976 said:
I am not a PP yet, so not IR training.

If you had an instructor come along as a Safety Pilot. Can they be paid to be a Safety Pilot, or would that end up being instruction?
Click to expand...
If you're not a PP yet, then you can't have anyone aboard other than a CFI acting as an instructor (other than the DPE during your practical test). As a PP, you can have any properly-qualified pilot aboard to be your safety pilot, but that person cannot accept pay to be your safety pilot unless s/he is a CP or better (which a CFI must be) and has a Second Class medical (which not all CFI's have). OTOH, an instructor aboard to give instruction would be getting paid to give training, and being the safety pilot is only incidental to that task, so you can pay an instructor for training that includes hood time as long as that instructor has a Third Class or better.

Can a Safety Pilot, be a safety pilot without logging time?
Click to expand...
Absolutely -- you are only required to log the time you need/want to use for meeting FAA requirements. You can fly all you want without logging it, as long as you log enough to meet any relevant FAA requirements.

Would the safety pilot have to log something if the person practicing IR in VFR uses a safety pilot to be proof that the PIC had a safety pilot along while practicing IR in VFR?
Click to expand...
No legal requirement for that. The pilot flying does have to record the safety pilot's name, and at least in theory, the FAA, if properly motivated, could go look for that safety pilot and ask if s/he really did act as your safety pilot, but I've never heard of that happening.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
But sometimes people call anyone who is working on advanced ratings and certificates "student pilots".
Click to expand...
One reason I try to refer to people to whom I'm giving training as "trainees" rather than "students" -- saves such confusion. And yes, I know of quite a few flight schools which send two PP-rated trainees out together to build time for CP in the manner described (one flying under the hood and logging "sole manipulator" PIC time, the other acting as PIC/safety pilot and logging "PIC when 2-pilots required" PIC time).
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Gosh, I might safety pilot for somebody this week and I thought I was doing them a favor (otherwise they would have to pay a CFI to sit right seat).
Click to expand...
You are.

I didn't even think about logging the time or splitting money.
Click to expand...
No need -- the Chief Counsel said you can in this situation log the time without paying for it.

I guess I should bring some cash then.
Click to expand...
Only if you want to buy lunch.

Problem is this plane seats 6 or 8 or something so I'm sure it burns a lot of gas. I was just there to look out the window for the see and avoid stuff.
Click to expand...
That's just what your job is as safety pilot.
 
hopmedic said:
For primary students?
Click to expand...
No. There must be at least one rated pilot in the aircraft for there to be more than one person aboard legally, even in a 141 program.

As for more than one person aboard illegally, I could tell you stories...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top