Safety Pilot Question

[Pilot84]

I know this has been discussed several times, however I want to be sure. I need to build about 15 hours of PIC xc time for my commercial. Now I have a friend who is a MEI who says he wants to fly with me and we would take turns flying and the other one would be the safety pilot. (Of course pilot flying would be under the hood) I know both of us can log PIC time but can I log this as PIC xc time towards my required 50 hours PIC xc time for the commercial?

[bdhill1979]

Originally Posted by Pilot84

can I log this as PIC xc time towards my required 50 hours PIC xc time for the commercial?

Yes, PIC is PIC, as long as its legit PIC.

[MidlifeFlyer]

A few things:

1. Assuming the applicable category and class ratings, the pilot doing the flying can log PIC time.

2. The non-flying (safety pilot) can only =log= PIC if the safety pilot is acting as PIC (that also means meeting all requiremts for acting as PIC -endorsements, currency, etc).

3. cross country time is a special category. The pilot doing the flying (inlcuding the takeoff and landing) may log the cross country and PIC, Whether the safety pilot may log cross country time is a subject that is argued about with no clear answer from the FAA.

[SpiraMirabilis]

Originally Posted by bdhill1979

Yes, PIC is PIC, as long as its legit PIC.

I agree. What XC flight is defined as is pretty straight forward.

[mastermags]

I assume you have a private multi already?

[Clocks]

Originally Posted by Pilot84

I know this has been discussed several times, however I want to be sure. I need to build about 15 hours of PIC xc time for my commercial. Now I have a friend who is a MEI who says he wants to fly with me and we would take turns flying and the other one would be the safety pilot. (Of course pilot flying would be under the hood) I know both of us can log PIC time but can I log this as PIC xc time towards my required 50 hours PIC xc time for the commercial?

Why not get 15 hours of instruction from him and log it as dual received? I don't think anyone will dispute that.

[SpiraMirabilis]

Yeah, actually that sounds better if you have a choice. Various places wont accept safety pilot time but have no problem with dual received PIC time.

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by SpiraMirabilis

Yeah, actually that sounds better if you have a choice. Various places wont accept safety pilot time but have no problem with dual received PIC time.

If you are safety pilot ( no problem with this xc time during my interview at SkyWest ) then you may log off to on time (essentially the time your partner is under the hood). When you are flying he may log the entire time since he is an MEI, when he is flying you may begin logging time once he pulls down the hood. Good Luck

[PatrickCPS]

I have no problem with the use of "Safety Pilot" time during legitimate IFR training, however the use of it on cross country, multi engine time building I think is a real disservice to the whole industry. Every flight department you apply to knows exactly what you did when your log shows 100 hours of multi time, with back and forth entries from you and your buddy saying "safety pilot for blank."

Not to mention, if you read the FAR/AIM it specifically states that in order to log safety pilot time, the pilot flying must be wearing an appropriate view limiting device. Really think all those guys flying split multi time on long X-C are under the hood? This is something I feel the FAA really needs to step in and regulate.

I realize there are plenty of people who do this and that they do get hired, but I don't think it has anything to do with pilot training or making you a better pilot.

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by PatrickCPS

I have no problem with the use of "Safety Pilot" time during legitimate IFR training, however the use of it on cross country, multi engine time building I think is a real disservice to the whole industry. Every flight department you apply to knows exactly what you did when your log shows 100 hours of multi time, with back and forth entries from you and your buddy saying "safety pilot for blank."

Not to mention, if you read the FAR/AIM it specifically states that in order to log safety pilot time, the pilot flying must be wearing an appropriate view limiting device. Really think all those guys flying split multi time on long X-C are under the hood? This is something I feel the FAA really needs to step in and regulate.

I realize there are plenty of people who do this and that they do get hired, but I don't think it has anything to do with pilot training or making you a better pilot.

I disagree. When I did this, I wore the hood every time wheb PF. I also learned a lot about flying while PNF. I was able to monitor and learn from the mistakes of my partner. I also used the experience to develop my skills at flight instructing by reading the flight instruments from the right seat and making the appropriate reccomendations. If you do this correctly, it can be a valuable part of your training.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by PatrickCPS

Not to mention, if you read the FAR/AIM it specifically states that in order to log safety pilot time, the pilot flying must be wearing an appropriate view limiting device. Really think all those guys flying split multi time on long X-C are under the hood?

Is that a little projection there?

This is something I feel the FAA really needs to step in and regulate.

It does. The regulations are very clear on what is required. Or are you talking about enforcement? You know - using the FAA small enforcement budget to do rammp checks to look for foggles and hunt down violations about writing things on a piece of paper instead of silly things like reckless conduct, airspace violations and altitude busts.

[MichaelCPS]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

Is that a little projection there?It does. The regulations are very clear on what is required. Or are you talking about enforcement? You know - using the FAA small enforcement budget to do rammp checks to look for foggles and hunt down violations about writing things on a piece of paper instead of silly things like reckless conduct, airspace violations and altitude busts.

Mark:

I think he may have meant a change in the rules. Not totally removing the safety pilot rule/loophole, but making it a little more difficult to log it ALL as PIC when it is used for time building purposes instead of flying towards an instrument rating.

Michael

[LoadMasterC141]

Well I never thought I would get ANY safety pilot time. However, I now have about 2.5 hours of it from flying with a fellow instrument student. It is from XC AND IAPs. I could understan how alot of it could be construed as a loophole, but personally, I feel I could get 10-15 more and still be learning as the PNF. Honestly learned alot from being the PNF so far. There is alot of stuff you just do not have the time to mess with as the sole PIC. I also like to split up duties and see how we do as a two pilot crew...IE I use the radios and read the checklists for a few approaches.

Its' all good stuff and I ONLY log the time my partner is under the hood, or vice versa. No funny stuff here. Also, if airlines are taking students from schools like ATP, where they are getting half their multi time from Safety Pilot, at reduced minimums, well I don't think a few hours hear and there is going to hurt personally.

My IFR partner and I got an AMAZING deal on 10 hours each in a 152 that needs an engine break-in, provided we do it in 3 days and fly long boring straight distances. I think we will probably fly it as saftey pilot time as well.

[Chewie von Nubbins]

Originally Posted by LoadMasterC141

Well I never thought I would get ANY safety pilot time. However, I now have about 2.5 hours of it from flying with a fellow instrument student. It is from XC AND IAPs. I could understan how alot of it could be construed as a loophole, but personally, I feel I could get 10-15 more and still be learning as the PNF. Honestly learned alot from being the PNF so far. There is alot of stuff you just do not have the time to mess with as the sole PIC. I also like to split up duties and see how we do as a two pilot crew...IE I use the radios and read the checklists for a few approaches.

Its' all good stuff and I ONLY log the time my partner is under the hood, or vice versa. No funny stuff here. Also, if airlines are taking students from schools like ATP, where they are getting half their multi time from Safety Pilot, at reduced minimums, well I don't think a few hours hear and there is going to hurt personally.

My IFR partner and I got an AMAZING deal on 10 hours each in a 152 that needs an engine break-in, provided we do it in 3 days and fly long boring straight distances. I think we will probably fly it as saftey pilot time as well.

I got about 40 hours in the Seminole as Safety Pilot and I'll tell you that I am glad that I did. I did the majority of hood time from the right seat and boy did that help with the transition. Give it a try, you will thank me when you start your instructor training. Just make sure to do and log approaches with the safety pilot thing....just my .02.

I think the safety pilot thing is a great thing if not abused. It really helped me watch the flying pilot perform and execute the checklists and fly by the script. It definitely helped the both of us in making sure that everything was done when it was supposed to be done. Also, the NFP was responsible to tune radios, and basically execute the responsibilities that we 'thought' an FO would be doing at an airline.

I can honestly say that the 40 hours that I did as a safety pilot has made me a better pilot. Wouldn't change it for anything.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by PatrickCPS

I have no problem with the use of "Safety Pilot" time during legitimate IFR training, however the use of it on cross country, multi engine time building I think is a real disservice to the whole industry. Every flight department you apply to knows exactly what you did when your log shows 100 hours of multi time, with back and forth entries from you and your buddy saying "safety pilot for blank."

Not to mention, if you read the FAR/AIM it specifically states that in order to log safety pilot time, the pilot flying must be wearing an appropriate view limiting device. Really think all those guys flying split multi time on long X-C are under the hood? This is something I feel the FAA really needs to step in and regulate.

I realize there are plenty of people who do this and that they do get hired, but I don't think it has anything to do with pilot training or making you a better pilot.

Here's what I don't understand - your school wants an MEI to be on board for multi-engine time building flights, right? Clearly legal - no problems there. But wouldn't two low-time pilots building time together learn a heck of a lot more than if one flew those time-building XCs with an experienced CFI? The pilot will always have a safety blanket sitting in the right seat, and really doesn't haven't to think through tough decisions because he knows that MEI is there to save him.

I'm no fan of "excessive" safety pilot use - but I'm even less of a fan of time-building with an instructor on board. Any chance you guys could revise your insurance policy?

[MichaelCPS]

Originally Posted by Ian J

Here's what I don't understand - your school wants an MEI to be on board for multi-engine time building flights, right? Clearly legal - no problems there. But wouldn't two low-time pilots building time together learn a heck of a lot more than if one flew those time-building XCs with an experienced CFI? The pilot will always have a safety blanket sitting in the right seat, and really doesn't haven't to think through tough decisions because he knows that MEI is there to save him.

I'm no fan of "excessive" safety pilot use - but I'm even less of a fan of time-building with an instructor on board. Any chance you guys could revise your insurance policy?

Our MEI is there purely for safety purposes once the cross country time building starts. Since the majority of people coming to us have little to no Twin Comanche time, there has to be some learning aspect for at least 10-25 hours. After that, the instructor can sit there and do nothing if the student requests. I have done a lot of the time building MEI work in the right seat and I let the client make all the decisions until they make an unsafe decision. I can speak for all of my instructors in that regard.

Unfortunately, the insurance underwriters are the guys that write the policy. We are at their mercy. Compare us to most mom and pop FBO's and Flight Schools and you will see that we have very low insurance minimums. I can tell you the only other school in Kansas City has a Seminole and their insurance requirements are: Minimum of 500 hours 50 of which have been in multi-engine aircraft, including no less than 25 in make and model. In lieu of 25 hours in make and model, pilot can receive 10 hours of dual flight instruction in make and model.

Michael

[MichaelCPS]

Originally Posted by Ian J

But wouldn't two low-time pilots building time together learn a heck of a lot more than if one flew those time-building XCs with an experienced CFI?

You could also say that two inexperienced pilots flying an aircraft in which they have little experience is a recipe for disaster. In some cases, it is the blind leading the blind. Do you learn from mistakes? Sure. But as the owner of a flight school, I need to limit the mistakes to prevent us from going out of business. One lawsuit these days can take out a business in the blink of an eye. I'd rather play it safe, as well as let the student have ALL of their time from the left seat instead of half of it in the right messing with the radios.

Michael

[nosehair]

Originally Posted by Ian J

I'm no fan of "excessive" safety pilot use - but I'm even less of a fan of time-building with an instructor on board. Any chance you guys could revise your insurance policy?

Here is where the quality of the instructor changes everything.
If the instructor is 'riding along', then it shouldn't be logged as dual, unless he is actually evaluating a pre-planned and briefed 'student-acting-as-PIC' flight. If it is an instructional flight, the instructor can act as a 'doofus co-pilot', or crate any number of scenarios to liven up the flight and make it actual training.

The abuse occurs with the old tired or uninterested instuctor who rides along for the time and/or money.

But I also agree that 'solo' or a 'non-instructor/low-time' safety pilot is also good time to build real PIC time. I think there should be at least an hour of solo multi time before checkride, in every cat/class add-on.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by MichaelCPS

Our MEI is there purely for safety purposes once the cross country time building starts. Since the majority of people coming to us have little to no Twin Comanche time, there has to be some learning aspect for at least 10-25 hours. After that, the instructor can sit there and do nothing if the student requests. I have done a lot of the time building MEI work in the right seat and I let the client make all the decisions until they make an unsafe decision. I can speak for all of my instructors in that regard.

Unfortunately, the insurance underwriters are the guys that write the policy. We are at their mercy. Compare us to most mom and pop FBO's and Flight Schools and you will see that we have very low insurance minimums. I can tell you the only other school in Kansas City has a Seminole and their insurance requirements are: Minimum of 500 hours 50 of which have been in multi-engine aircraft, including no less than 25 in make and model. In lieu of 25 hours in make and model, pilot can receive 10 hours of dual flight instruction in make and model.

Michael

I see where you are coming from - but even if the instructor truly does nothing the student knows he is "safe" with him over there. I guess there's no getting around it, though, with insurance requirements. Seems the path towards the MPL is well on its way.

Originally Posted by MichaelCPS

You could also say that two inexperienced pilots flying an aircraft in which they have little experience is a recipe for disaster. In some cases, it is the blind leading the blind. Do you learn from mistakes? Sure. But as the owner of a flight school, I need to limit the mistakes to prevent us from going out of business. One lawsuit these days can take out a business in the blink of an eye. I'd rather play it safe, as well as let the student have ALL of their time from the left seat instead of half of it in the right messing with the radios.

Michael

Recipe for disaster? A commercially rated pilot with some dual in type should be more than ready to solo that thing. If they can't, why are they a commercial pilot?

Liability though - I feel for you. It would suck to lose your business for the acts of a moron.

Originally Posted by nosehair

Here is where the quality of the instructor changes everything.
If the instructor is 'riding along', then it shouldn't be logged as dual, unless he is actually evaluating a pre-planned and briefed 'student-acting-as-PIC' flight. If it is an instructional flight, the instructor can act as a 'doofus co-pilot', or crate any number of scenarios to liven up the flight and make it actual training.

The abuse occurs with the old tired or uninterested instuctor who rides along for the time and/or money.

But I also agree that 'solo' or a 'non-instructor/low-time' safety pilot is also good time to build real PIC time. I think there should be at least an hour of solo multi time before checkride, in every cat/class add-on.

Agreed.

[LoadMasterC141]

I do not mean to rub salt in the wound and take this further off topic, but I am now left wondering how ATP manages to send two 100 hour, or less, freshly minted IFR students around the country in a 2007 Seminole?

[nosehair]

Originally Posted by LoadMasterC141

wondering how ATP manages to send two 100 hour, or less, freshly minted IFR students around the country in a 2007 Seminole?

Insurance can be obtained. Especially in a large program where a certain amount of 'insurance approved' training occurs before solo.

[MichaelCPS]

Originally Posted by Ian J

I see where you are coming from - but even if the instructor truly does nothing the student knows he is "safe" with him over there.

Doesn't the inexperienced First Officer feel the same way in regards to the Captain? Where else in aviation do you have two guys with the same amount of minimal experience flying a complex aircraft? Once you get into a job, there is almost ALWAYS going to be a more experienced pilot sitting in the other seat. Just because they are sitting there doesn't mean you can't make your own decisions. But they WILL override you if you make a poor decision.

Rant off.

Michael

[PatrickCPS]

I can tell you, from a business background and as a former insurance broker, that with a fleet the size of ATP's they likely self-insure their aircraft with the exception of liability.

Originally Posted by LoadMasterC141

I do not mean to rub salt in the wound and take this further off topic, but I am now left wondering how ATP manages to send two 100 hour, or less, freshly minted IFR students around the country in a 2007 Seminole?

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by MichaelCPS

Doesn't the inexperienced First Officer feel the same way in regards to the Captain? Where else in aviation do you have two guys with the same amount of minimal experience flying a complex aircraft? Once you get into a job, there is almost ALWAYS going to be a more experienced pilot sitting in the other seat. Just because they are sitting there doesn't mean you can't make your own decisions. But they WILL override you if you make a poor decision.

Rant off.

Michael

True - thus my MPL comment earlier.

Where else in aviation do you have two guys with the same amount of minimal experience flying a complex aircraft?

That's why I would rather people fly solo than with a safety pilot.

Once you get into a job, there is almost ALWAYS going to be a more experienced pilot sitting in the other seat

True, so for most pilots they only time to get experience making unassisted command decisions is before they get an airline/ charter/ corp job.

But, one thing I've failed to consider in this discussion is these guys may become CFI/MEIs. In that case, they will get that true PIC experience in multi-engine airplanes.

Rant off.

Just so you know, I think very highly of your school, and have recommended people check you guys out for flight training. You seem to pay attention to "little details" such as maintenance and customer service - Patrick has probably already given you an earful on what "wrong" looks like in flight schools.

So please don't think I'm bashing your program - far from it.

[MichaelCPS]

Originally Posted by Ian J

So please don't think I'm bashing your program - far from it.

I know. It is all a fun debate.

Michael