Safety Pilot - Logging Instrument Time - Who is PIC?

[skybaron]

Curious to know exactly who logs PIC time with a safety pilot arrangement for instrument refresher flights?

CARS reference?

[Hedley]

I did that, around 20 years ago, when I finally got around to doing my instrument rating. The DOT Examiner (no delegates in those days) said you couldn't do that, and I replied that nowhere in the PLH or Air Regs or ANO's, said that you couldn't. He called his boss's boss, who agreed with me, and I did my initial group 3 instrument ride.

This predates the CARs, but AFAIK there is nothing in the CARs prohibiting this, and as long as it is not specifically prohibited, it is therefore permitted, modulo CAR 602.01 which IMHO doesn't apply in this case, and Lord knows I've argued 602.01 over many years, representing myself at the Tribunal, Tribunal Review, Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeals.

[FlaplessDork]

If its towards an instrument rating the safety pilot logs PIC, but they must meet the below.

(9) A person who conducts flight training toward the issuance of an instrument rating shall be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence, have an instrument rating and:

(a) have a flight instructor rating; or

(b) have experience of not less than 500 hours pilot-in-command flight time, of which:

(i) not less than 100 hours shall be on the applicable aircraft group, and

(ii) in the case of Group I aircraft, not less than 10 hours shall be on the type of multi-engine aeroplane used for the training.

If it not towards an instrument rating than the only way you both can log time is if the airplane requires two crew. Hedley is correct but you probably could get into hot water if you don't have a valid instrument rating.

[KK7]

So long as you have a licence, you can fly around with someone in the other seat any time. If you so choose, you can have that person be your eyes outside so long as you feel they are competent to do so. This could be a pilot or not, but I would suggest someone who knows what they are looking for - ie a pilot. You can be the PIC, and the other person is just a passenger and tells you when you need to look outside for some important reason like traffic or obstacles. This safety person does not require any qualifications.

This is all of course for the purpose of simply practicing instrument flying once you are licences, lets say if for example you have a renewal ride coming up and need some practice to polish your skills if you haven't flown on instruments in a while. If however you require training, then you revert to the above mentioned CARs where that person must have certain qualifications.

Whenever you have two pilots sitting in the front of an airplane, there should always be a discussion as to who is the PIC and who is not, and what each person's respective duties are.

[Tim]

If its towards an instrument rating the safety pilot logs PIC, but they must meet the below.

CAR 425.21

If it not towards an instrument rating than the only way you both can log time is if the airplane requires two crew. Hedley is correct but you probably could get into hot water if you don't have a valid instrument rating.

you don't need an instrument rating to be a safety pilot for someone who is notworking towards a inst rating. moncton flight college routinely sends students to act as safety pilots with other students for solo instrument practice. in fact, it's part of the syllabus. the rule there is the safety pilot must have a PPL or better.

makes sense since you are obviously flying VFR, and the safety pilot is only ensuring traffic and terrain avoidance and working the radios, not that you are following instrument procedures.

TC is very aware of every little aspect of MFC's operation, so if they had a problem with it, it would have been brought up long ago.

[skybaron]

This is all of course for the purpose of simply practicing instrument flying once you are licences, lets say if for example you have a renewal ride coming up and need some practice to polish your skills if you haven't flown on instruments in a while. If however you require training, then you revert to the above mentioned CARs where that person must have certain qualifications.

Actually, this is exactly the reason I posted the question.
I have a renewal coming up, and I haven't flown instruments in a while. While always beneficial, I don't feel I require additional training on procedures, thus don't want the added cost of an instructor on board.



In such a case, just to clarify - how would it be logged, say if practicing instruments in VMC at night?

I'm assuming:
PIC (x hours); Night (x hours); hood (x hours)
perhaps add safety pilot in the remarks section to satisfy TC.

[Hedley]

If however you require training, then you revert to the above mentioned CARs where that person must have certain qualifications

But not ALL of the 40 hours of hood time, required for an initial IFR, have to be dual from a "qualified person". See CAR 421.46(2)(b)(ii):

(ii) 40 hours of instrument time of which a maximum of 20 hours may be instrument ground time. The 40 hours instrument time shall include a minimum of:

(A) 5 hours of dual instrument flight time acquired from the holder of a flight instructor rating ,

(C) Fifteen (15) hours of dual instrument flight time provided by a qualified person as specified in section 425.21(9);

Depending on how you read the above, you can log 20 or 25 hours of hood time as PIC for your initial IFR, with your dog in the right seat as safety pilot, assuming your dog has reasonable vision and has been trained to provide a lookout for terrain and other aircraft.

[FlaplessDork]

I'm assuming:
PIC (x hours); Night (x hours); hood (x hours)
perhaps add safety pilot in the remarks section to satisfy TC.

Log PIC, at night, and instrument time that you flew.

[FlaplessDork]

If however you require training, then you revert to the above mentioned CARs where that person must have certain qualifications

But not ALL of the 40 hours of hood time, required for an initial IFR, have to be dual from a "qualified person". See CAR 421.46(2)(b)(ii):

(ii) 40 hours of instrument time of which a maximum of 20 hours may be instrument ground time. The 40 hours instrument time shall include a minimum of:

(A) 5 hours of dual instrument flight time acquired from the holder of a flight instructor rating ,

(C) Fifteen (15) hours of dual instrument flight time provided by a qualified person as specified in section 425.21(9);

Depending on how you read the above, you can log 20 or 25 hours of hood time as PIC for your initial IFR, with your dog in the right seat as safety pilot, assuming your dog has reasonable vision and has been trained to provide a lookout for terrain and other aircraft.

Just to play devil's advocate here, one could argue you are conducting self training towards the instrument rating, and therefore must meet the qualified person requirements in order to train yourself.

[Hedley]

Read the CAR. You need 40 hours of instrument time. Max 20 hrs of that is from a "qualified person". How you get the other 20 hrs of instrument time is up to you, and hood on, logging PIC with fido in the right seat will do it.

PS I was self-taught for IFR. Got the sign-off from a part-time corporate pilot that I flew with once. I also taught myself aerobatics, formation, formation aerobatics and low-altitude aerobatics. I also have checked myself out on many strange aircraft - all because there was no one around to teach me.

For example, formation aerobatics. I asked everywhere. No instruction available, and no one would even talk to me about it. So, self-taught. Now, I know far more about formation aerobatics than most ICAS ACE's that are qualified to renew my ticket. How much negative G formation aerobatics have you done?

Not everything in life is learned by spoon feeding.

[FlaplessDork]

Read the CAR. You need 40 hours of instrument time. Max 20 hrs of that is from a "qualified person". How you get the other 20 hrs of instrument time is up to you, and hood on, logging PIC with fido in the right seat will do it.

PS I was self-taught for IFR. Got the sign-off from a part-time corporate pilot that I flew with once. I also taught myself aerobatics, formation, formation aerobatics and low-altitude aerobatics. I also have checked myself out on many strange aircraft - all because there was no one around to teach me.

For example, formation aerobatics. I asked everywhere. No instruction available, and no one would even talk to me about it. So, self-taught. Now, I know far more about formation aerobatics than most ICAS ACE's that are qualified to renew my ticket. How much negative G formation aerobatics have you done?

Not everything in life is learned by spoon feeding.

CAR 425.21 states that anyone conducting training towards an instrument rating must hold an instrument rating, and meet qualified person requirements or be an instructor. Anyone who conducts training, self training included, must meet Part 4 requirements.

[Hedley]

You are reading something into the CARs that is simply not there.

The CARs say you need 40 hours of instrument time for an instrument rating, and that only 15 hours of that time must be received from a "qualified person"as per 425.21.

It does NOT specify how the other 20 hours of instrument time are to be accumulated. If you want to do it as PIC with a hood on, sure, that's ok, because it doesn't say you CAN'T do it. I might humbly suggest that you don't do it solo - CAR 602.01 applies. Bring your trained monkey for the right seat to act as lookout.

Just read CAR 421.46(2)(b)(ii). It's really not that complicated. I posted it above. Read it.

Not everything has to be done at FlightSafety.

[Hedley]

Anyone who conducts training, self training included, must meet Part 4 requirements

Sure, but you're off in wrong direction. Look at CAR 421.46:

(2) Requirements
(b) Experience
An applicant shall have completed a minimum of:
(ii) 40 hours of instrument time

where does the word "training" appear in that excerpt of CAR 421.46? Hint: it does NOT. It specifies EXPERIENCE, with respect to the 40 hours of instrument time, not TRAINING.

Understand, now? You are reading something into CAR 421.46 which simply is not there.

Please don't make up your own regulations, or add your own requirements to them. Over many decades I have seen many people do it, and it is silly. I remember, years ago, at the Kingston Flying Club, some young instructor barking out to everyone in the room that you were required to carry a VNC and CFS on board for day VFR, which of course is simply not true. The CARs do not require it. He was making up his own rules, and looked quite silly for it.

[FlaplessDork]

You are reading something into the CARs that is simply not there.

It is there.

Read CAR 425.21

(9) A person who conducts flight training toward the issuance of an instrument rating shall be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence, have an instrument rating and:

(a) have a flight instructor rating; or

(b) have experience of not less than 500 hours pilot-in-command flight time, of which:

(i) not less than 100 hours shall be on the applicable aircraft group, and

(ii) in the case of Group I aircraft, not less than 10 hours shall be on the type of multi-engine aeroplane used for the training

You can do it, you just can't do it towards the instrument rating. But then again why would you want to? The instrument time for the other licenses and ratings is specifically under the dual requirements.

If you're up there training yourself its still training, and you need to meet Part 4 requirements to conduct training.

[Hedley]

its still training

No, it isn't, and that's your problem. You can't tell the difference between EXPERIENCE and TRAINING.

CAR 421.46 specifies EXPERIENCE and you are super-imposing TRAINING on it. Don't do that.

you just can't do it towards the instrument rating

CAR 421.46 doesn't agree with you. Transport doesn't agree with you, either.

Please stop making your own regulations and requirements, and representing them as the CARs.

[FlaplessDork]

Training by definition is the act of learning something new. If you are up there teaching yourself something new, you are training. If your are teaching yourself something for the purpose of obtaining an instrument rating, you are training towards an instrument rating.

Until you have the rating, it can be argued that you are training for the purposes of obtaining experience for the instrument rating. I think its pretty clear, and I choose to cover my butt in that manner and recommend others to do so.

[Hedley]

Please feel free to do whatever makes you happy. If you think wearing a purple hat keeps the elephants away, who am I to argue with your logic?

However, please do not attempt to propogate your erroneous interpretation of the CARs. Please contact Transport to clarify the difference between experience and training as it applies to CAR 421.46.

I might suggest to everyone that they need an ATPL to solo a C150, but this is clearly not true and is a ridiculous mis-interpretation of the CARs. It would be silly of me to try to propogate such nonsense.

[FlaplessDork]

Please feel free to do whatever makes you feel safe and secure.

However, please do not attempt to propogate your erroneous interpretation of the CARs. Please contact Transport to clarify this if you disagree.

I might suggest to everyone that they need at ATPL to solo a C150, but this is clearly not true and is a ridiculous mis-interpretation of the CARs.

I don't believe I am in error. You and I both know that you can't always take a word from Transport as gold. What really matters is what the court will decide if something goes awry and who will be held accountable. The CARs are open to interpretation.

I've agreed with you about the experience verses training issue. It allows you to take credit of the instrument experience gained from your private and commercial pilot training which are not necessarily instrument rating specific.

With your interpretation one can complete the IFR rating without any IFR specific training by calling it "experience" rather than training. No matter how I look at it its still training. In my view "experience" by legal definition is gained two ways; by training or by exercising the privileges of your license, permit or rating.

Now in your case if it was an official ruling appealed through the Tribunal and won, I'd be more likely to agree with you.

[Hedley]

ummmm ... that's how I got my initial group 3 instrument rating, all those years ago - logging PIC under the hood, with a safety pilot in the right seat whom was NOT qualified to teach IFR.

At first, the DOT inspector doing my initial ride didn't want to count those hours towards my 40 instrument, and he maintained that I didn't have the experience for the instrument rating. I respectfully requested he look it up, and after talking to his boss's boss, the Inspector agreed with me that I was right and he was wrong, and that experience surely did count.

Not sure what else you want from me. CARs are very clear, and so is my experience on this very subject with Transport.

You want to people to do something different than the CARs, and that's fine with me. But it's simply not required - my initial instrument rating is the proof of that.

[KK7]

Sorry, but Hedley is absolutely right. Nowhere in the CARs does it say you need 40 hours of training to get an instrument rating. You need 20 hours of training, and a total of 40 hours of instrument time. Yes, to train someone, you need to meet the qualifications. But to get an instrument rating you only need 20 hours of instrument training. The other 20 hours of instrument are often obtained through training and is probably wise to do it this way, but nowhere does it say that this needs to be training.

As an aside, of those 20 hours of instrument training required, 5 is from your PPL, because a minimum of 5 must be obtained by someone who holds a flight instructor rating. The rest of the 15 is just by a person qualified by the reg mentioned in a previous post.