Safety pilot scenario

benyflyguy

benyflyguy

En-Route
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,741
Location
NEPA
Display Name
Display name:
benyflyguy
I have a longer flight coming up. I would like to take the opportunity to do some hood time if it’s not IMC. But can I go under the hood?? So here’s the scenario:
Me: PPL IFR rated and current.
SP: PPL not IFR rated has valid medical
Flight: filed IFR. I typically file whether its CAVU or not.

I don’t think I can Go under hood as the sp cannot act as pic under an IFR flight weather or not.
I could launch VFR with FF and fly waypoints anyway at VFR altitudes to get the time. But I like the protection and added challenge of being in the system.
 
I think you could go IFR— the safety pilot doesn’t need to be PIC, that rabbit hole only comes up if both pilots want to log the time. You can be PIC and he is a required crewmember and can’t log the time as PIC.
 
If you go IFR, you don’t need a safety pilot. If you go VFR, the safety pilot can join along and log PIC even if they’re not rated for IFR. Just need to be rated in category and class.
 
There is no need for the safety pilot to be PIC if the hooded pilot can be the PIC. In the example scenario, you must be PIC to wear a hood and fly under IFR.
 
If safety pilot is using BasicMed, then they MUST act as pic when you put the hood on.
Congress wrote BasicMed to apply for the ACTING PIC. Little nit pick, but one to be aware of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ryanb said:
If you go IFR, you don’t need a safety pilot. If you go VFR, the safety pilot can join along and log PIC even if they’re not rated for IFR. Just need to be rated in category and class.
Click to expand...

He wants to go under the hood while in VMC. Safety pilot needed VFR or IFR.
 
Ryanb said:
If you go IFR, you don’t need a safety pilot.
Click to expand...
UNLESS the flying pilot puts the hood on under VMC conditions. Then a safety pilot IS required.

If you go VFR, the safety pilot can join along and log PIC even if they’re not rated for IFR. Just need to be rated in category and class.
Click to expand...
This is true as long as certain conditions are met.
 
You are still PIC on your flight plan, so yes you can have him be safety pilot even though he is acting PIC.
 
Thanks. Good to know. I thought he can’t log pic time while I’m under hood on an IFR flight plan in VMC. Where I got a bit lost was that he could still Safety pilot without being PIC.
 
benyflyguy said:
Thanks. Good to know. I thought he can’t log pic time while I’m under hood on an IFR flight plan in VMC.
Click to expand...
For the safety pilot to log PIC, he has to actually BE PIC. If he is not instrument rated, he cannot be PIC in actual instrument conditions. In this scenario, the safety pilot can log it as SIC but not PIC.

Where I got a bit lost was that he could still Safety pilot without being PIC.
Click to expand...

Yes. He can log it as SIC but not PIC.
 
TommyG said:
You are still PIC on your flight plan, so yes you can have him be safety pilot even though he is acting PIC.
Click to expand...
He cannot be acting PIC if he is not the PIC listed on the flight plan. He cannot be acting PIC on an instrument flight unless he is IFR rated.

There is nothing wrong with SIC time in a log book.
 
benyflyguy said:
I have a longer flight coming up. I would like to take the opportunity to do some hood time if it’s not IMC. But can I go under the hood?? So here’s the scenario:
Me: PPL IFR rated and current.
SP: PPL not IFR rated has valid medical
Flight: filed IFR. I typically file whether its CAVU or not.

I don’t think I can Go under hood as the sp cannot act as pic under an IFR flight weather or not.
I could launch VFR with FF and fly waypoints anyway at VFR altitudes to get the time. But I like the protection and added challenge of being in the system.
Click to expand...

There is no reason that the safety pilot has to be PIC. The pilot under the hood can be PIC, and in this scenario, you're good to go.

bluesky74656 said:
I think you could go IFR— the safety pilot doesn’t need to be PIC, that rabbit hole only comes up if both pilots want to log the time. You can be PIC and he is a required crewmember and can’t log the time as PIC.
Click to expand...

...But, the safety pilot *can* log the time as SIC and total time.

Ryanb said:
If you go IFR, you don’t need a safety pilot.
Click to expand...

Not true at all:

§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:
(i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown​

There is no exception for IFR. If you're under the hood, it's simulated instrument flight regardless of what flight rules you're flying under. Remember, ATC's responsibility is only to separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft. If you're in VMC, you are expected to see and avoid other aircraft even if you're flying under IFR.

If you go VFR, the safety pilot can join along and log PIC even if they’re not rated for IFR. Just need to be rated in category and class.
Click to expand...

Only if they're acting as PIC.

TommyG said:
You are still PIC on your flight plan, so yes you can have him be safety pilot even though he is acting PIC.
Click to expand...

NOT true. "You are still PIC on your flight plan" - That means the OP is the PIC, the Safety Pilot is *NOT* the PIC. He can still be the safety pilot, but he cannot either act as or log PIC.

Here's all the relevant regs for this scenario:

With the IFR-rated OP being the pilot flying (PF) and the non-IFR-rated safety pilot (SP), since the flight is operated under IFR, the PF must be the PIC:

§61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown​

That prevents the SP from being the PIC, because they do not have the required instrument rating.

The Pilot Flying, in addition to the instrument rating:
  • Must satisfy all of the requirements of 61.31 to act as pilot in command of the aircraft, including category and class ratings, type if applicable, endorsements if required
  • Must be medically qualified as required by 61.23.
  • Must Have a current flight review per 61.56.
  • Does NOT need to be current to carry passengers per 61.57 because the safety pilot is a required crewmember, not a passenger.
  • May log the entire flight as PIC by virtue of 61.51(e)(1)(i) as sole manipulator of the controls
The Safety Pilot:
  • Is a required crewmember by virtue of 91.109(c)(1) above, and is exercising the privileges of a Private Pilot certificate per 91.109(c)(1)(i).
  • Must have a medical certificate per 61.23(a)(3)(i) and BasicMed does not qualify because they are not acting as pilot in command as required by 61.113(i).
  • Does NOT need to have a current flight review, at 61.56 only applies to being the Pilot in Command.
  • Does NOT need to be 90-day passenger carrying current as 61.57 only applies to being Pilot in Command.
  • May act as Second in Command without meeting the requirements of 61.55 thanks to the Beaty interpretation.
  • May log that portion of the flight where the PF/PIC was under the hood by virtue of 61.51(f)(2) and the Glenn Interpretation
Hope that's all clear as mud now. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
There is no reason that the safety pilot has to be PIC. The pilot under the hood can be PIC, and in this scenario, you're good to go.



...But, the safety pilot *can* log the time as SIC and total time.



Not true at all:

§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:
(i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown​

There is no exception for IFR. If you're under the hood, it's simulated instrument flight regardless of what flight rules you're flying under. Remember, ATC's responsibility is only to separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft. If you're in VMC, you are expected to see and avoid other aircraft even if you're flying under IFR.



Only if they're acting as PIC.



NOT true. "You are still PIC on your flight plan" - That means the OP is the PIC, the Safety Pilot is *NOT* the PIC. He can still be the safety pilot, but he cannot either act as or log PIC.

Here's all the relevant regs for this scenario:

With the IFR-rated OP being the pilot flying (PF) and the non-IFR-rated safety pilot (SP), since the flight is operated under IFR, the PF must be the PIC:

§61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown​

That prevents the SP from being the PIC, because they do not have the required instrument rating.

The Pilot Flying, in addition to the instrument rating:
  • Must satisfy all of the requirements of 61.31 to act as pilot in command of the aircraft, including category and class ratings, type if applicable, endorsements if required
  • Must be medically qualified as required by 61.23.
  • Must Have a current flight review per 61.56.
  • Does NOT need to be current to carry passengers per 61.57 because the safety pilot is a required crewmember, not a passenger.
  • May log the entire flight as PIC by virtue of 61.51(e)(1)(i) as sole manipulator of the controls
The Safety Pilot:
  • Is a required crewmember by virtue of 91.109(c)(1) above, and is exercising the privileges of a Private Pilot certificate per 91.109(c)(1)(i).
  • Must have a medical certificate per 61.23(a)(3)(i) and BasicMed does not qualify because they are not acting as pilot in command as required by 61.113(i).
  • Does NOT need to have a current flight review, at 61.56 only applies to being the Pilot in Command.
  • Does NOT need to be 90-day passenger carrying current as 61.57 only applies to being Pilot in Command.
  • May act as Second in Command without meeting the requirements of 61.55 thanks to the Beaty interpretation.
  • May log that portion of the flight where the PF/PIC was under the hood by virtue of 61.51(f)(2) and the Glenn Interpretation
Hope that's all clear as mud now. ;)
Click to expand...
Great post. But since you started off with needing a safety pilot when using a hood under IFR, allow me to add one more reg:

91.113(b). When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
UNLESS the flying pilot puts the hood on under VMC conditions. Then a safety pilot IS required.
Click to expand...
No. VMC vs. IMC matter not. What matters is simulated instrument flight is occuring, i.e., the pilot flying has a view limiting device on.

Note that the FAA in an inane but in our favor interpretation of the regs says that the safety pilot when not PIC, is also not the SIC in these scenarios. There was an arcane rulemaking (which I swear had to be inadvertent) that exempted safety pilot from the SIC training/currency rules. I tried to get that aspect reverted (since it was not mentioned in the rulemaking at all, etc...) and Ron Levy and I both admit that John Lynch's response to me was the most off-the-wall piece of drivel I'd ever seen. Ron pushed the issue further and got the interpretation that the safety pilot isn't really ever SIC just because they're the safety pilot. Fine, leave the reg alone I guess.
 
I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

So, if I'm Instrument rated/current, file an IFR flight plan, fly solo (or not) in and out of IMC, I'm legal. But if flying in and out of the clouds disorients me, and I put on a view limiting device to help, I'm no longer legal?
 
Yes. Because absent a safety pilot you have no way to determine that you are maintaining separation from an aircraft when you might be in visual conditions. I.e., how do you know you're still in IMC if you have the hood on and nobody else in the plane?
 
flyingron said:
No. VMC vs. IMC matter not. What matters is simulated instrument flight is occuring, i.e., the pilot flying has a view limiting device on.

Note that the FAA in an inane but in our favor interpretation of the regs says that the safety pilot when not PIC, is also not the SIC in these scenarios. There was an arcane rulemaking (which I swear had to be inadvertent) that exempted safety pilot from the SIC training/currency rules. I tried to get that aspect reverted (since it was not mentioned in the rulemaking at all, etc...) and Ron Levy and I both admit that John Lynch's response to me was the most off-the-wall piece of drivel I'd ever seen. Ron pushed the issue further and got the interpretation that the safety pilot isn't really ever SIC just because they're the safety pilot. Fine, leave the reg alone I guess.
Click to expand...
I don’t see where what I said was wrong. If the PIC puts on a hood, i.e. simulated instrument flight, a safety pilot IS required regardless if the flight is IMC or VMC.

I’m not sure what you tried to get reversed. It sounds like you are trying to get the safety pilot to comply with all the safety pilot rules in order to log SIC. Otherwise, can you point me to the Lynch interpretation of which you mention?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I don’t see where what I said was wrong. If the PIC puts on a hood, i.e. simulated instrument flight, a safety pilot IS required regardless if the flight is IMC or VMC.
Click to expand...
You said "unless the safety pilot puts on the hood under VMC conditions..." It matters not what the conditions were when he puts it on or what they are as he continues to fly. You shouldn't have added the phrase "under VMC conditions" (which by the somewhat rendundant. The C in VMC stands for conditions."

I’m not sure what you tried to get reversed. It sounds like you are trying to get the safety pilot to comply with all the safety pilot rules in order to log SIC. Otherwise, can you point me to the Lynch interpretation of which you mention?
Click to expand...
No, what I was trying to do was to not require the rules to apply to safety pilots. The general argument that for simulated instrument flight, safety pilots were SIC (which allowed them to log it). In fact the 61.51 SIC wording is similar to that at the beginning of 61.55 (more than one pilot required by the regulations under which the flight is conducted). 61.55 requires "An instrument rating or privilege the aircraft being flown..." There was previously a statement down at the end that exempted "91.109 safety pilots" from meeting any of the 61.55 requirements.

The rule was rewritten in 2009 or so to rearrange the sections regarding training and familiarization. The safety pilot exemption was moved under that training/familiarization section (now (f)(4)). Which means that 61.55 SIC must have an instrument rating under IFR. This would appear to preclude the use of safety pilots under IFR that don't have the rating, even in VMC. I made a formal petition to move the 61.55 and it was dismissed by John Lynch arguing that the instrument rating had always been the way the regs were now and I wasn't proposing a change that altered anything. That was clearly wrong.

As I said, the two Ron's stopped complaining when a legal counsel letter came out stating that 61.55 doesn't apply at all to safety pilots in operations where the only reason they were there was that 91.109 was in play. That's not how the rules read strictly, but if they choose to misinterpret them in that case, we have to abide by their misinterpretation (the courts side with the agencies interpretations fairly unconditionally on rules that the agencies made... a perversion of the Constitution in my opinion, but that's the way it goes). What this does about logging SIC time for being a safety pilot is up in the air, but since the counsel letter didn't address that, it's not law.
 
flyingron said:
You said "unless the safety pilot
Click to expand...
I said PIC. Semantics.
puts on the hood under VMC conditions..." It matters not what the conditions were when he puts it on or what they are as he continues to fly. You shouldn't have added the phrase "under VMC conditions" (which by the somewhat rendundant. The C in VMC stands for conditions."
Click to expand...
Ok, I will grant you that. However, I assumed (yeah, yeah) that the hood would only be donned in VMC conditions. Otherwise, what’s the point of hood time in the clouds?

You stated in post 3 that if you went IFR that a safety pilot was not required. Given benflyguy’s scenario, that statement is not true because the intent was to get some hood time if it was not IMC, which tends to support my supposition.

I am snipping this portion because I knew this at one time but had forgotten it because it doesn’t apply to me.

As I said, the two Ron's stopped complaining when a legal counsel letter came out stating that 61.55 doesn't apply at all to safety pilots in operations where the only reason they were there was that 91.109 was in play. That's not how the rules read strictly, but if they choose to misinterpret them in that case, we have to abide by their misinterpretation (the courts side with the agencies interpretations fairly unconditionally on rules that the agencies made... a perversion of the Constitution in my opinion, but that's the way it goes). What this does about logging SIC time for being a safety pilot is up in the air, but since the counsel letter didn't address that, it's not law.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a reference to that ruling?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, I will grant you that. However, I assumed (yeah, yeah) that the hood would only be donned in VMC conditions. Otherwise, what’s the point of hood time in the clouds?
Click to expand...
See Skyrus62's post.
Can you provide a reference to that ruling?
Click to expand...
Which ruling are you referring to?

Here's a whole thread involving my and Levy's attempts to resolving things: https://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=47161&highlight=safety+pilot+sic*

The subsequent decision stating 61.55 doesn't apply to 91.109 operations that don't also involve part 121/135 or multipilot type certifications is here:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or.../2013/Beaty - (2013) Legal Interpretation.pdf
 
Last edited:
Skyrys62 said:
I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

So, if I'm Instrument rated/current, file an IFR flight plan, fly solo (or not) in and out of IMC, I'm legal. But if flying in and out of the clouds disorients me, and I put on a view limiting device to help, I'm no longer legal?
Click to expand...

Correct, since you have no way to see and avoid when you're VMC... But if flying in and out of clouds disorients you, you probably should stick to VFR.

flyingron said:
No, what I was trying to do was to not require the rules to apply to safety pilots. The general argument that for simulated instrument flight, safety pilots were SIC (which allowed them to log it). In fact the 61.51 SIC wording is similar to that at the beginning of 61.55 (more than one pilot required by the regulations under which the flight is conducted). 61.55 requires "An instrument rating or privilege the aircraft being flown..." There was previously a statement down at the end that exempted "91.109 safety pilots" from meeting any of the 61.55 requirements.

The rule was rewritten in 2009 or so to rearrange the sections regarding training and familiarization. The safety pilot exemption was moved under that training/familiarization section (now (f)(4)). Which means that 61.55 SIC must have an instrument rating under IFR. This would appear to preclude the use of safety pilots under IFR that don't have the rating, even in VMC. I made a formal petition to move the 61.55 and it was dismissed by John Lynch arguing that the instrument rating had always been the way the regs were now and I wasn't proposing a change that altered anything. That was clearly wrong.

As I said, the two Ron's stopped complaining when a legal counsel letter came out stating that 61.55 doesn't apply at all to safety pilots in operations where the only reason they were there was that 91.109 was in play. That's not how the rules read strictly, but if they choose to misinterpret them in that case, we have to abide by their misinterpretation (the courts side with the agencies interpretations fairly unconditionally on rules that the agencies made... a perversion of the Constitution in my opinion, but that's the way it goes). What this does about logging SIC time for being a safety pilot is up in the air, but since the counsel letter didn't address that, it's not law.
Click to expand...

Oh, good. I thought I was losing it when I was reading the regs for my response the other day, glad to know things have changed since I got my instrument rating!

61.55 sure sounds like an instrument rating would be required for the safety pilot, but since the Beaty interpretation clarifies that the second pilot is not the SIC (yet can log it!) if a SIC is not otherwise required, well, it almost makes sense in a very twisted FARish way.
 
The second reference is what I was after. Thanks.

As for Skyrus’s post, that was posted after my post therefore never entered into the discussion. But to answer his question, yes, you are no longer legal.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, I will grant you that. However, I assumed (yeah, yeah) that the hood would only be donned in VMC conditions. Otherwise, what’s the point of hood time in the clouds?
Click to expand...
It's done for various reasons. Clouds are often broken or scattered and the pilot might want, especially for proficiency practice, to remain non visual. Sure, for "actual" there is no requirement for any except to fly a hold and pass through one at the FF of an approach, but a pilot might want more.
 
In fact, I've been on instructional flights under the hood when the instructor told me I might as well take the hood off because it has gotten bad enough to just call it actual.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
61.55 sure sounds like an instrument rating would be required for the safety pilot, but since the Beaty interpretation clarifies that the second pilot is not the SIC (yet can log it!) if a SIC is not otherwise required, well, it almost makes sense in a very twisted FARish way.
Click to expand...
61.55 used to have a full exception for safety pilots. 61.55(f) at one time said:

(f) The familiarization training requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to a person who is:
***
(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109 of this chapter.​

Then they did one of those changes which may have had unintended consequences and removed the safety pilot exception. Maybe someone figured it was easier for the Chief Counsel to interpret around it by pointing out that the requirement for training and familiarity in 61.55 only applies to
"an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command"​
and that a 91.109 safety pilot is neither, than to do an editorial correction.

It doesn't affect the requirement for a safety pilot or the safety pilots' status as a required crewmember. Not does it affect the ability to log log SIC since the applicable provision of 61.51 doesn't require a pilot to "be" SIC to "log" SIC any more than it requires a pilot to "be" PIC to "log" PIC.
 
flyingron said:
In fact, I've been on instructional flights under the hood when the instructor told me I might as well take the hood off because it has gotten bad enough to just call it actual.
Click to expand...
I've been in both situations. Bad enough to take it off. Good enough to put it on. :D
 
Right, the decision is that unlike 61.51 where it just says "operations requiring more than one pilot" the 61.55 says "operations requiring a second in command." The Beaty letter says the 91.109 doesn't mandate a "second in command" just another pilot.

It seems a little hokie to me but the outcome is the same and there's no point in beating it further.
 
flyingron said:
Right, the decision is that unlike 61.51 where it just says "operations requiring more than one pilot" the 61.55 says "operations requiring a second in command." The Beaty letter says the 91.109 doesn't mandate a "second in command" just another pilot.

It seems a little hokie to me but the outcome is the same and there's no point in beating it further.
Click to expand...
:D :D There have been far hokier interpretations in the safety pilot arena.
 
midlifeflyer said:
61.55 used to have a full exception for safety pilots. 61.55(f) at one time said:

(f) The familiarization training requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to a person who is:
***
(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109 of this chapter.​
Click to expand...

Ummm... That's still what 61.55(f) (and (4)) says. ???

Not does it affect the ability to log log SIC since the applicable provision of 61.51 doesn't require a pilot to "be" SIC to "log" SIC any more than it requires a pilot to "be" PIC to "log" PIC.
Click to expand...

Right. What threw me for a loop when reading 61.51(f) the other day was that the piece of it that normally would allow a safety pilot to log SIC, 61.51(f)(2), now specifically says "Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown". But the Beaty interpretation refers to the Glenn Interpretation and says the safety pilot can still log SIC, even though my reading of the Glenn interpretation isn't so explicit.
 
And further, since Beaty says 61.55 doesn't apply, then an "instrument rating" isn't required for the flight so 61.51(f))(2) doesn't require one either.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Correct, since you have no way to see and avoid when you're VMC... But if flying in and out of clouds disorients you, you probably should stick to VFR.
Click to expand...
It doesn't...but I know some have complained of it, and even mentioned putting on the foggles to help, so I used it as the scenario.
Now that we know it's illegal, I'll have them grab extra barf bags ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top