Safety pilot question

benyflyguy

benyflyguy

En-Route
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,741
Location
NEPA
Display Name
Display name:
benyflyguy
I have a good safety pilot. But not always available. In search of a second or third one I wanted to confirm some things.
I am PPL SEL IFR rated flying a 182.
I want to be able to let the safety pilot get something out of it as well -PIC time.

1. He can act as safety pilot for me without complex or HP endorsements. I thought this would be a problem but read the following interpretation regarding this. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...1991/rizner - (1991) legal interpretation.pdf

2. He can log PiC for me if only the following conditions exist. I am VMC under hood and NOT on IFR flight but plan.
Does that sound right? I take hood off- no PIC for him. I file IFR-no PIC for him.

You read the FARs and start to question yourself logging PIC when alone in plane.

Anything I’m missing? Aware I need to be current for passengers and medicals up to date.

I’m not looking to split costs either.
 
If it is a cross-country flight only the pilot who takes off and lands the plane can log it as cross country for ratings purposes. Gebhart

Safety pilot needs to be current as well since they are a required crew member.

You might also be interested in reading Hicks and Walker
 
And IIRC the safety pilot can't be on basic med.
 
Record his name as safety pilot in your logbook and let him figure it out what he can log.
 
benyflyguy said:
I have a good safety pilot. But not always available. In search of a second or third one I wanted to confirm some things.
I am PPL SEL IFR rated flying a 182.
I want to be able to let the safety pilot get something out of it as well -PIC time.

1. He can act as safety pilot for me without complex or HP endorsements. I thought this would be a problem but read the following interpretation regarding this. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/1991/rizner - (1991) legal interpretation.pdf

2. He can log PiC for me if only the following conditions exist. I am VMC under hood and NOT on IFR flight but plan.
Does that sound right? I take hood off- no PIC for him. I file IFR-no PIC for him.

You read the FARs and start to question yourself logging PIC when alone in plane.

Anything I’m missing? Aware I need to be current for passengers and medicals up to date.

I’m not looking to split costs either.
Click to expand...
You are missing at least piece. The interplay between 1 and 2.

Yes, he can act as safety pilot without complex and HP endorsements. But he cannot log PIC without them.

Here's the deal. This is one of those times acting and logging intersect. The regulation which allows a safety pilot to log PIC flight time is 61.51(e)(iii):
When the pilot...acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the regulations under which the flight is conducted​
So, a safety pilot ("required under the regulations under which the flight is conducted" may log PIC flight time "When the pilot...acts as pilot in command." Can't "act as PIC" without those endorsements.


Funny this should come up now. I just finished an article on the subject for IFR Magazine.
 
He can not be pilot in command without the endorsements. As a result he can neither log PIC as the safety pilot nor can he legally be safety pilot under basic med.

He could log PIC time if he was the sole manipulator of the controls (and do so under basic med), but that's not what you asked.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You are missing at least piece. The interplay between 1 and 2.

Yes, he can act as safety pilot without complex and HP endorsements. But he cannot log PIC without them.

Here's the deal. This is one of those times acting and logging intersect. The regulation which allows a safety pilot to log PIC flight time is 61.51(e)(iii):
When the pilot...acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the regulations under which the flight is conducted​
So, a safety pilot ("required under the regulations under which the flight is conducted" may log PIC flight time "When the pilot...acts as pilot in command." Can't "act as PIC" without those endorsements.


Funny this should come up now. I just finished an article on the subject for IFR Magazine.
Click to expand...
I’ll have to look for that article. I subscribe to IFR refresher. My usual safety pilot bud get IFR mag. We read them trade and he just gave me a bunch.
As I look at it answered my 2 questions but failed to ask/answer the third.
He can safety pilot with out the endorsement HP/complex.
He can log PIC for VMC work (if he had the endorsements)
It actually makes sense In the end really. If he wants PIC time he’ll need to get those endorsements.
 
benyflyguy said:
I’ll have to look for that article. I subscribe to IFR refresher. My usual safety pilot bud get IFR mag. We read them trade and he just gave me a bunch.
As I look at it answered my 2 questions but failed to ask/answer the third.
He can safety pilot with out the endorsement HP/complex.
He can log PIC for VMC work (if he had the endorsements)
It actually makes sense In the end really. If he wants PIC time he’ll need to get those endorsements.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the third is. But keep in mind there are non-FAA considerations too. Sounds like you own the airplane. What, if anything, does your policy say about whi may act as PIC?
 
IFR Refresher is trash unless they've replaced the editor. The articles varied between being inane to dangerously incorrect.
 
I dislike the term "acting" in this context. You *ARE* the pilot in command, you're not just acting like one. Logging is a different issue.
 
flyingron said:
I dislike the term "acting" in this context. You *ARE* the pilot in command, you're not just acting like one. Logging is a different issue.
Click to expand...
Amen! The phrase "acting pilot in command," in non-aviation contexts, would usually mean that you're just substituting for the person who holds that position, but when the FAA uses the phrase "acting as pilot in command" (in Part 61 for example), they mean the person who meets the definition of "pilot in command" in 14 CFR 1.1, and who therefore is the pilot in command. The subtle difference in wording creates the potential for confusion.
 
Last edited:
I agree, the FAA is responsible for the silliness, but I still don't like it.

It's right up there with the word "indended" in 91.171(b)(2). I'm not sure whether that makes it so you can't do VOR checks at airports you never intend to depart from, or whether it's to preclude "unintentional departures."
 
flyingron said:
I agree, the FAA is responsible for the silliness, but I still don't like it.
Click to expand...

I would be the last person to ever say that the FAA's being responsible for something meant that you had to like it!

It's right up there with the word "indended" in 91.171(b)(2). I'm not sure whether that makes it so you can't do VOR checks at airports you never intend to depart from, or whether it's to preclude "unintentional departures."
Click to expand...

I think the implication of "intended" in that context is that the departure hasn't taken place yet. In other words, if you're going to be departing under IFR, you're required to do the VOR check before departure. The hypothetical interpretations that you refer to don't bother me because they're implausible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top