Safety pilot "flight time"

FAR 1.1 does not and is not controlling for the PURPOSE of
logging flight time. Logging time is required only to show
compliance with some regulation for some certificate or
privilege. To that end, 61.51 is controlling. 61.51
requires manipulation of the controls to LOG PIC.

Perhaps you should either cite the legal counsel's letter or
re-read it.



"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
| On 01/22/07 12:17, Jim Macklin wrote:
| You can agree who will be PIC all you want. That
decision
| will be important in court during a trial for insurance
| coverage, etc. But for logging the time, unless you are
the
| sole manipulator, a CFI or an ATP in airline operations,
you
| can't log PIC unless you are flying. If all you are is
a
| safety pilot, you can't be PIC for the purpose of
logging
| the time. You can be pic for the purpose of deciding
| whether Joe or Fred is legally required to pay from
their
| estate for the damages.
|
|
| Unless you have an FAA legal counsel ruling to the
contrary,
| the FARs simply don't support your opinion.
|
|
|
| FAR 1.1
| Pilot in command means the person who:
|
| (1) Has final authority and responsibility for the
operation
| and safety of the flight;
|
| (2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or
during
| the flight; and
|
| (3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type
rating,
| if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.
|
| As for the definition of PIC: In the situation I mentioned
before,
| the pilot not flying meets all three of the definitions
for Pilot
| in Command you have listed above.
|

On 01/22/07 12:49, Jim Macklin wrote:
FAR 1.1 does not and is not controlling for the PURPOSE of
logging flight time. Logging time is required only to show
compliance with some regulation for some certificate or
privilege. To that end, 61.51 is controlling. 61.51
requires manipulation of the controls to LOG PIC.

Perhaps you should either cite the legal counsel's letter or
re-read it.

Actually, I've read 61.51. Can you please state where it says
that the PIC must be manipulating the controls?

I've already shown you where it says he doesn't. It's your turn ;-)

The PILOT IN COMMAND, responsible for the flight may not be
able to LOG the PIC TIME I.A.W. FAR 61.51 unless he meets
the total rule.

Manipulation of the controls is an essential part of the
logging of PIC time EXCEPT for the two exceptions given to
CFIs and to the extent of certain commercial operations
requiring an ATP, in those cases an ATP who has been
designated as PIC remains pilot in command up to the moment
of the completion of the flight, and the departure of the
passengers safely at the destination.

61.51
e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport,
recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log
pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which
that person-
(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft
for which the pilot is rated or has privileges;

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
| On 01/22/07 12:49, Jim Macklin wrote:
| FAR 1.1 does not and is not controlling for the PURPOSE
of
| logging flight time. Logging time is required only to
show
| compliance with some regulation for some certificate or
| privilege. To that end, 61.51 is controlling. 61.51
| requires manipulation of the controls to LOG PIC.
|
| Perhaps you should either cite the legal counsel's
letter or
| re-read it.
|
| Actually, I've read 61.51. Can you please state where it
says
| that the PIC must be manipulating the controls?
|
| I've already shown you where it says he doesn't. It's your
turn ;-)

On 01/22/07 14:34, Jim Macklin wrote:
The PILOT IN COMMAND, responsible for the flight may not be
able to LOG the PIC TIME I.A.W. FAR 61.51 unless he meets
the total rule.

Are you suggesting that for a pilot to log PIC time, according
to 61.51 (e) (1), that the pilot must meet (i) (ii) and (iii)
- All Three?

I must assume then that you do not know what the word "or" means,
so I'm going to bow out of this discussion.

Best Regards,


Manipulation of the controls is an essential part of the
logging of PIC time EXCEPT for the two exceptions given to
CFIs and to the extent of certain commercial operations
requiring an ATP, in those cases an ATP who has been
designated as PIC remains pilot in command up to the moment
of the completion of the flight, and the departure of the
passengers safely at the destination.

61.51
e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport,
recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log
pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which
that person-
(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft
for which the pilot is rated or has privileges;

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
| On 01/22/07 12:49, Jim Macklin wrote:
| FAR 1.1 does not and is not controlling for the PURPOSE
of
| logging flight time. Logging time is required only to
show
| compliance with some regulation for some certificate or
| privilege. To that end, 61.51 is controlling. 61.51
| requires manipulation of the controls to LOG PIC.
|
| Perhaps you should either cite the legal counsel's
letter or
| re-read it.
|
| Actually, I've read 61.51. Can you please state where it
says
| that the PIC must be manipulating the controls?
|
| I've already shown you where it says he doesn't. It's your
turn ;-)





--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:49:04 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

FAR 1.1 does not and is not controlling for the PURPOSE of
logging flight time. Logging time is required only to show
compliance with some regulation for some certificate or
privilege. To that end, 61.51 is controlling. 61.51
requires manipulation of the controls to LOG PIC.

Perhaps you should either cite the legal counsel's letter or
re-read it.




Legal opinion citation:

June 22, 1977 to Mr. Thomas Beane

....
A pilot may log PIC time in accordance with Section 61.51(c)(2)(I)
when he is not actually "flying the airplane", if the airplane is one
on which more than one pilot is required under its type certificate or
under the regulations under which the flight is conducted and he is
acting as PIC. Also, a pilot, rated in category and class (e.g.
airplane single-engine) could, as the pilot who "Has final authority
and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight" log PIC
time if another pilot, not appropriately rated, was actually
manipulating the controls of the aircraft.
....

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY EDWARD P. FABERMAN

for NEIL R. EISNER Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations &
Enforcement Division Office of the Chief Counsel

=============================

He actually notes three instance under which the non-manipulating pilot may
log PIC time:

1. More than one pilot required under type certificate.
2. More than one pilot required under regulations (e.g. safety pilot)
3. Pilot manipulating not appropriately rated.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Legal opinion citation:

June 22, 1977 to Mr. Thomas Beane

...
Also, a pilot, rated in category and class (e.g.
airplane single-engine) could, as the pilot who "Has final authority
and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight" log PIC
time if another pilot, not appropriately rated, was actually
manipulating the controls of the aircraft.
...

=============================

He actually notes three instance under which the non-manipulating pilot
may
log PIC time:

1. More than one pilot required under type certificate.
2. More than one pilot required under regulations (e.g. safety pilot)
3. Pilot manipulating not appropriately rated.



I wonder what regulation the lawyer bases #3 on.

He says "rated", meaning has the appropriate ratings on his pilot
certificate. I wonder if that is what he intended, or if he intended
"qualified", which to me would include endorsements, currency and medical.
Seems like the intent must have been if the pilot manipulating was not
qualified as PIC, then the one not manipulating but acting as PIC could log
PIC. But regardless, he said "rated", and we have to take it as written, if
we accept the opinion as valid.

Anyway, that opinion from the chief counsel's office is very interesting.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:48:17 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

Legal opinion citation:

June 22, 1977 to Mr. Thomas Beane

...
Also, a pilot, rated in category and class (e.g.
airplane single-engine) could, as the pilot who "Has final authority
and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight" log PIC
time if another pilot, not appropriately rated, was actually
manipulating the controls of the aircraft.
...

=============================

He actually notes three instance under which the non-manipulating pilot
may
log PIC time:

1. More than one pilot required under type certificate.
2. More than one pilot required under regulations (e.g. safety pilot)
3. Pilot manipulating not appropriately rated.



I wonder what regulation the lawyer bases #3 on.

He says "rated", meaning has the appropriate ratings on his pilot
certificate. I wonder if that is what he intended, or if he intended
"qualified", which to me would include endorsements, currency and medical.
Seems like the intent must have been if the pilot manipulating was not
qualified as PIC, then the one not manipulating but acting as PIC could log
PIC. But regardless, he said "rated", and we have to take it as written, if
we accept the opinion as valid.

Anyway, that opinion from the chief counsel's office is very interesting.



It's an old opinion (1977), and I've not seen that question addressed
recently. However, I don't have a problem accepting "rated" as
differentiated from "qualified to act as PIC".

I guess I would put that in the same category as being able to log PIC if a
"pilot" with "no" ratings (e.g. your kid sister) were manipulating the
controls.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

It's an old opinion (1977), and I've not seen that question addressed
recently.

I don't think the opinions die of old age unless the underlying regulations
change, and I would think it could be relied upon unless rescinded. I
haven't gone back to the old part 61 and compared.

However, I don't have a problem accepting "rated" as
differentiated from "qualified to act as PIC".


Nor do I. He said "rated", and as I said, we have to accept what he said.
I was just speculating that the actual intent might have been different.

I guess I would put that in the same category as being able to log PIC if
a
"pilot" with "no" ratings (e.g. your kid sister) were manipulating the
controls.

I agree, except that you are not allowed to log PIC during the time the kid
sister is manipulating the controls, except perhaps under this legal
opinion.

I agree, except that you are not allowed to log PIC during the time the kid
sister is manipulating the controls, except perhaps under this legal
opinion.

I call baloney.

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...

I agree, except that you are not allowed to log PIC during the time the
kid sister is manipulating the controls, except perhaps under this legal
opinion.

I call baloney.

You call what baloney?