Instrument PIC logging for the experts

"Koopas Ly" wrote in message om...

They fly into IMC. The guy in the left seat is still controlling the
airplane, so he still gets to log PIC. Now, since the flight has gone
into IMC, there's no longer a safety pilot requirement. So the guy in
the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
superflous.

His presence isn't superfluous, it's just ceased to be an opreation requiring
more than one pilot, which is a logging issue only.


Who's ACTING PIC now? The guy who's logging PIC in the left seat does
not have an instrument rating so he can't ACT as PIC...but he's the
one at the controls. Does the guy in the guy in right seat retain the
ACTING PIC title, even though he can't log that PIC time?

Let's forget "acting" shall we. "acting" sounds like pretend. There is always
one and only one pilot in command during any point of a flight. This is the
person who is ultimately responsible, the one IN COMMAND. At all times
while on the IFR plan, your right seat pilot (whether safety pilot or not, whether
manipulating the controls or not), had better be the PILOT IN COMMAND.
He's the only one qualified. Logging is superfluous to this conce.t

So the guy in
the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
superflous.

Actually, it's the guy in the left seat that is superfluous. The guy (or gal)
at the right is the Pilot In Command... the Head Honcho... the One In Charge...
the Top Banana... el Mucho Macho... the Big Dog.

He's very much required.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message ...
So the guy in
the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
superflous.

Actually, it's the guy in the left seat that is superfluous. The guy (or gal)
at the right is the Pilot In Command... the Head Honcho... the One In Charge...
the Top Banana... el Mucho Macho... the Big Dog.

I guess I picked the wrong week to give up sniffing glue.

and he's the one that screwed up and allowed them to enter IMC..

BT

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
So the guy in
the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
superflous.

Actually, it's the guy in the left seat that is superfluous. The guy (or
gal)
at the right is the Pilot In Command... the Head Honcho... the One In
Charge...
the Top Banana... el Mucho Macho... the Big Dog.

He's very much required.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Koopas Ly" wrote in message
om...

They fly into IMC. The guy in the left seat is still controlling the
airplane, so he still gets to log PIC. Now, since the flight has gone
into IMC, there's no longer a safety pilot requirement. So the guy in
the right seat no longer gets to log PIC, since his presence is now
superflous.

His presence isn't superfluous, it's just ceased to be an opreation
requiring
more than one pilot, which is a logging issue only.

Just a minute. The operation does so require more than one pilot, since we
have specified that the actual PIC (TopDog) isn't manipulating the controls.
Someone had better be manipulating the controls, or someone will soon be
talking to the NTSB.

If the TopDog were to take the controls at the time of entering IMC, that
would be a different operation (the entire purpose of this operation is to
give the HOT some instrument time).

That's my argument and I'm sticking to it until I see something else in the
FAQ or counsel rulings.

-- David Brooks

If the TopDog were to take the controls at the time of entering IMC, that
would be a different operation (the entire purpose of this operation is to
give the HOT some instrument time)


Yanno, I've always wondered about that interpretation. Seems to be reasonable
to say that two pilots are required when "the purpose of the flight" is to give
one pilot simulated instrument time. There's only one way to do it, and that
is with a safety pilot. Thus, a two pilot operation.

But is it really still a two-pilot operation when "the entire purpose" is to
give a non-instrument rated pilot actual time? There's also only one way to do
it, but you can certainly go in the clouds single pilot.

Somewhere I remember a case where two pilots could be up front, each legal to
do their thing, but none able to be Top Dog. So if a third pilot sits in the
back and acts as Top Dog, the flight would be legal. Is this now a three-pilot
op?

And (to be a bit silly), suppose the whole purpose of the flight is to try out
a new autopilot. Right seat pilot (say, the owner of the plane) is Top Dog,
and the left seat pilot is trying the instrumentation. The right seat pilot
takes off, then hands the controls to the left seat pilot, who logs HOT while
he's sole manipulator. But all he does is turn on the autopilot and watch for
two hours. He gets to log two hours of HOT while he's sitting on his hands.
But if it were the right seat pilot who turned on the autopilot and then turned
the controls over to the left seat pilot, and then nobody touches the controls
for two hours while the autopilot does its thing, who gets to log HOT?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:05:48 -0800, "David Brooks"
wrote:

The operation does so require more than one pilot,

But that's NOT what the regulations says is a requirement for a safety
pilot logging PIC time.

The regulation says (in part) that in order to LOG PIC time, one must be
acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is
required under the ... regulations under which the flight is conducted.

In the type of situations we are discussing, there is no *regulation* that
says two pilots are needed except when a safety pilot is required.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"David Brooks" wrote in message ...

Just a minute. The operation does so require more than one pilot, since we
have specified that the actual PIC (TopDog) isn't manipulating the controls.

The complete phrase is "an operation requiring more than one pilot under the
regulations under which the flight is conducted."

The rule was primarily designed for things like Part 135 and 121 where a
Second In Command is specifically called out for in the regs, but the FAA has
agreed that Simulated Instrument Flight also meets the definition.

Your scenario, only requires one pilot in the regulations. The fact that you
ended up using more than one, doesn't count.'

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

Just a minute. The operation does so require more than one pilot, since
we
have specified that the actual PIC (TopDog) isn't manipulating the
controls.

The complete phrase is "an operation requiring more than one pilot under
the
regulations under which the flight is conducted."

Well, it isn't. It's "an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required
under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which
the flight is conducted". Not using the word "operation" weakens my case
considerably.

Your scenario, only requires one pilot in the regulations. The fact that
you
ended up using more than one, doesn't count.'

In case you haven't guessed, I'm taking a contrarian view just to see if the
regs can support the idea of the PIC safety pilot being able to log, which
some people around here think would be a good idea. This existential view of
the meaning of "the flight" seemed like fertile ground.

-- David Brooks