Safety pilot - logging cross-country

Jose wrote:
: Same way with a non-pilot manipulating the controls. I believe the FARs
: specify this as illegal

: Not for part 91, that I know of.

I remember reading it in black-and-white, but now that I look back (and do a
quick search), I see I was probably reading part 121.545 or 135.115.

Interesting... it solves a loophole I had in my head for awhile about letting
non-pilots manipulate the controls. If you literally read the conditions under which
one may log PIC time, that is not loggable. I find it quite ****ty that a specific
letter had to clarify this situation as it's not in the FARs. Basically, when the FAA
thinks it's appropriate, "acting as PIC" consitutes being able to "log PIC"... it's
just never used that way in the FARs.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Hi,

What is the definition of a cross country.... I seem to recall something
along the lines of...
[zap]
So even though you were acting as PIC wile the other person was under the
hood, AND you may have covered more then 50NM, YOU did not perform the
landing and therefor can NOT log it as XC.

I suggest reading the relavent FAR before coming to a conclusion.

Thanks,

Hilton

Hi,

Sure, I understand the economics of it. But can my non-complex-endorsed
friend really make a judgement call about a gear failure? No. But as you
say, they are gaining experience in the aircraft. So why can't a student
log multi time then? It then becomes a question of semantics.

Having said all that, the key is to understanding and applying the FARs as
written and that means understanding that ACTING and LOGGING PIC are very
different things. Unfortunately, in my humble guestimation, a very low
percentage of pilots (including CFIs) don't understand/know the concept. I
only know it because of my involvement in these NGs.

Hilton


wrote in message
...
: or conventions are. For example, I don't necessarily agree that my
friend
: who has no complex endorsement should be able to log PIC-complex time
when
: he flies the Cutlass with me as a CFI next to him, but he can according
to
: the FARs, and when I instruct him, both the PIC and complex columns are
: filled in.

I think that the complex endorsement thing is somewhere where the FAR's
actually do what seems to be the "right way." It's hard enough (in both
convenience
and expense) to get the time necessary to satisfy *insurance* requirements
these
days... let alone FAR-mandated time requirements. The ability to
manipulate the
controls of an aircraft for which you are rated, yet not legally allowed
to act as PIC
for (complex/high-performance, no BFR, no medical, etc) lets people fly
cheaper and
gain more experience in flying and in different aircraft. If they had to
rent a
suitable aircraft and instructor for absolutely everything, they would be
much less
inclined to casually learn things at a slower rate. You can bet your ass
that if I'm
paying over $150/hour to rent a complex aircraft and instructor to get an
endorsement,
I'm not going to fly it a second longer than I have to. If I can fly in a
friend's
complex for the cost of (half) the fuel and a burger, I'll enjoy the
flight and learn
more. The FARs dictate minimum time, but it's the *experience* and
*proficiency* of
the pilot that is the intent.

/rant

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************