Logging Hours

[loaded as a dice]

Hi folks, i was speaking to a chap who is training for his PPl, he told me his instructor told him that if your qualified and sharing a flight with another pilot say, even if your sat in the right hand seat you can split the time and log it. I always thought it was left seat only PIC, or is it just a case of simply flying from the right hand seat and thats acceptable?

[AdamFrisch]

It is what you agree on. There's no rule that says you can't log time from the right seat. But you can't both log that time simultaneously, unless it's a 2 crew ship.

[Mark 1]

That's correct, with the proviso that the seat is a pilot station.

It could be front or rear on a tandem cockpit or the RH seat if it has access to all the flight controls and required instruments.

It's best to annotate your log book columns with the reason if the time claimed is less than the flight duration.

[loaded as a dice]

Thanks for the replies lads.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

And subject to any rules relating to a rented aircraft imposed by the owner, eg a club rule saying "P1 must sit in left hand seat".

[Pilotage]

It is what you agree on. There's no rule that says you can't log time from the right seat. But you can't both log that time simultaneously, unless it's a 2 crew ship.

Or one was an instructor logging Captain, and the other their student logging P/UT.

Which may be what the OP's friend was actually told, as it would be true throughout the dual part of his training.

P

[UV]

Are you sure? See below...

Aeroplanes - ICAO Annex 6, Part II
3.2 The pilot-in-command shall be responsible for the safety of all crew members, passengers and cargo on board when doors are closed. The pilot-in-command shall be responsible for the operation and safety of the aeroplane from the moment the aeroplane is ready to move for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight and the engine(s) used as primary propulsion units are shut down.

If its single crew then how can the above apply?

[Pilotage]

"responsible for" is not the same as "does everything".

P

[Mark 1]

If its single crew then how can the above apply?

Because at any one time there is one pilot in command; the other pilot being a passenger/supernumery when not on his shift. This happens regularly on long haul flights, but is equally permissible on any flight.

The sum of PIC times booked by both pilots should equal the flight block time chock-to-chock.

[UV]

Sorry, but try these definitions form our friends at EASA.

‘Pilot-in-command’ means the pilot designated as being in command and charged
with the safe conduct of the flight. For the purpose of commercial air transport
operations, the ‘pilot-in-command’ shall be termed the ‘commander’

and...

"In accordance with 8.e of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, one pilot amongst the
flight crew, qualified as pilot-in-command in accordance with Part-FCL, shall be designated
by the operator as pilot-in-command, or, for commercial air transport operations, as
commander."

Note the words "ONE pilot amongst the flight crew"....so only ONE P1. It therefore follows that only one person can log a flight as P1.

The wording "or, for commercial operations as commander", implies they are also referring to private flying.

Mark 1,I see you are in the USA where the rules about logging flights may be different.

[charliegolf]

To quash the semantics and satisfy the laws in any country (?), simply rent the aircraft for exactly half the time each. Land, shut down, start up, fly again. Each has takeoff, landing startup, shutdown practices etc in equal measure.

Not rocket science.

CG

[BackPacker]

I always thought it was left seat only PIC, or is it just a case of simply flying from the right hand seat and thats acceptable?

It seems to be the discussion is going off on a tangent which was not intended by the OP. To get back on track, no, there is no rule (except apparently in Germany) that says the PIC has to be in the LHS.

Assuming you can perform all the required duties, and there is no specific prohibition in the POH, you can be PIC in the RHS as well. Although the first time you fly from the RHS I would suggest you take an instructor along. Both the motor skills (swapped hand functions) and the sight picture is different, so you may need to re-learn to land the plane.

And yes, the PIC role can swap in-flight if that is necessary for some reason. It does mess up the balance between take-offs and landings in your logbook though.

[BillieBob]

The wording "or, for commercial operations as commander", implies they are also referring to private flying.The trick with EU legislation is to read all parts of the Regulation - in this case, the requirement is "in accordance with 8.e. of Annex IV" and paragraph 8 is titled "Additional requirements for operation for commercial purposes and operation of complex motor-powered aircraft" Thus paragraph 8.e. and, therefore, the requirement for the operator to designate the pilot-in-command, does not apply to non-commercial operations in other than complex motor-powered aircraft.

[G-F0RC3]

Can I ask for views on this (point 3 in particular):

FCL.035 Crediting of flight time and theoretical knowledge
(a) Crediting of flight time

(1) Unless otherwise specified in this Part, flight time to be credited for a
licence, rating or certificate shall have been flown in the same category of
aircraft for which the licence or rating is sought.

(2) Pilot-in command or under instruction
(i) An applicant for a licence, rating or certificate shall be credited in full
with all solo, dual instruction or PIC flight time towards the total flight
time required for the licence, rating or certificate.
(ii) A graduate of an ATP integrated training course is entitled to be
credited with up to 50 hours of student pilot-in-command instrument
time towards the PIC time required for the issue of the airline transport
pilot licence, commercial pilot licence and a multi-engine type or class
rating.
(iii) A graduate of a CPL/IR integrated training course is entitled to be
credited with up to 50 hours of the student pilot-in-command
instrument time towards the PIC time required for the issue of the
commercial pilot licence and a multi-engine type or class rating.

(3) Flight time as co-pilot. Unless otherwise determined in this Part, the holder
of a pilot licence, when acting as co-pilot or PICUS, is entitled to be
credited with all of the co-pilot time towards the total flight time required
for a higher grade of pilot licence.
Point 3 in particular suggests that when two pilots are flying in the same aircraft they can both log all of the hours. Only one of them can log as PIC, however. Does this mean that building total hours just became half the price if you share the controls with a buddy, or am I missing something with these new EASA regulations? :)

[24Carrot]

As per Adam's comment above, you can only be co-pilot in a two-crew aircraft.
Not your typical SEP, in other words.

[Torque Tonight]

Yes, you are missing something. There is no such thing as copilot on an aircraft that is certificated as single pilot. That regulation refers to multi-crew aircraft.

On a single pilot aircraft (except when flying with an instructor or examiner) at any point in time one person only is PIC and anyone else is a passenger and nothing more. There is nothing to prevent roles being swapped at some point or for the PIC to permit the passenger to handle the controls, whilst the PIC still retains overall responsibility for the aircraft.

What cannot happen, is for two or more people to be logging time simultaneously. On a single pilot aircraft you cannot have more than one person claiming and logging any unit of time.

[Dg800]

Point 3 in particular suggests that when two pilots are flying in the same aircraft they can both log all of the hours. Only one of them can log as PIC, however. Does this mean that building total hours just became half the price if you share the controls with a buddy, or am I missing something with these new EASA regulations?You're missing the fact that there can be no co-pilot on a plane certified only for single-pilot operations. :ok: With the exception of a student flying with an instructor, on such a plane you're either the PIC or a passenger. On a multi-crew plane the PIC will indeed log all of the flight hours as PIC, the SIC will also log all of the flight hours, but only as SIC. They don't have to split them in half or keep track of who has actually acted as Pilot Flying and for how long, as they are both operating simultaneously albeit with different responsibilities, regardless of who is handling the primary controls at any given time.

Ciao,

Dg800

[riverrock83]

As I'm sure has been said else where, you can't be a co-pilot in a single crewed aircraft. PICUS is when you have a TRI sitting beside you, so you are acting as PIC but responsibility is through the instructor.
Expensive to hour build in a multi-crew aircraft...

[FlyingStone]

You're missing the fact that there can be no co-pilot on a plane certified only for single-pilot operations.

Nope, you can (and indeed must) operate certain single-pilot aircraft in multi-crew environment, if you want to fly commercially under IFR.

AMC1 FCL.050 Recording of flight time
...
(2) co-pilot flight time: the holder of a pilot licence occupying a pilot seat as co-pilot may log all flight time as co-pilot flight time on 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;

The CAA may require a co-pilot for commercial IFR flights with DA42 (single-pilot aircraft) and the person acting as co-pilot can then log co-pilot time which counts towards ATPL, since it only requires 500h in multi-pilot operation, not with multi-pilot aircraft. The skill test for it however has to be done on a multi-pilot aircraft.

While I agree that the legislation doesn't actually punctuate this, transfer of PIC in-flight isn't that problematic, you just have to note the time - and of course, you can only count times and landings when you were PIC, not the entire flight. There are some issues though - Germany (see AIP), insurance (check if it coveres right-seat PIC which is not an FI or the flight isn't part of flight instruction), common sense (can you takeoff, land and do all emergency from the right seat as good as from the left one?). I've done quite a number of flight from the right seat, but it wasn't done ad-hoc without previous consideration.

That being said, the reasons for PIC change-over in-flight could be: landing is expected at night and the left-seat pilot isn't night qualified/rated or the weather is becoming worse and the left-seat pilot isn't instrument rated - although flying IFR from right-seat in aircraft with steam gauges is a really bad idea unless trained/qualified.

[Crash one]

To quash the semantics and satisfy the laws in any country (?), simply rent the aircraft for exactly half the time each. Land, shut down, start up, fly again. Each has takeoff, landing startup, shutdown practices etc in equal measure.

Not rocket science.



It is if you just want to go into the mountains, once, & come back within the time available.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Frankly I think a bigger issue is the dangers inherent in having 2 pilots in a single pilot aircraft. There have been many incidents/accidents over the years where the guy in the right seat decided to "help" and did something unexpected or where both pilots thought the "other" guy was going to take care of/do something. If 2 pilots are flying together there should be a discussion by the PIC to the other pilot detailing what (if any) actions are expected of the other person in the airplane. There is a reason aircraft that require 2 crew to operate have detailed SOPs which define the duties of each pilot and those pilots receive training operating in a multi crew environment.

[Dg800]

Nope, you can (and indeed must) operate certain single-pilot aircraft in multi-crew environment, if you want to fly commercially under IFR.That's all very interesting, but we're discussing a purely non-commercial setting here (PPL holders sharing a plane).

[charliegolf]

It is if you just want to go into the mountains, once, & come back within the time available.

Most pilots only go into mountains once, Crash One!

CG:ok:

[mm_flynn]

What about the situation where a single pilot aircraft is being operated by a pilot with a view limiting device (ie a hood). The rules require he have a safety pilot (rated in the aircraft). There are now two pilots required by law, so isn't this a multi crew environment? In this case what does the safety pilot log - if anything?

[Dg800]

What about the situation where a single pilot aircraft is being operated by a pilot with a view limiting device (ie a hood). The rules require he have a safety pilot (rated in the aircraft). There are now two pilots required by law, so isn't this a multi crew environment? In this case what does the safety pilot log - if anything? As far as I'm aware the safety pilot is not an active crew member, hence he does not log anything (or rather anything that will add up to his total flight time, you can still log it to keep track of what you did on that day, sort of like a diary) and the operation is still not multicrew as the PIC is still solely responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. The safety pilot's role is only to monitor and point out any issue to the PIC so that he can stop the exercise should it become unsafe to continue.
I'm assuming you're not referring to actual training and the second pilot is not a certified flight instructor.

Ciao,

Dg800

[englishal]

If you are talking about the JARs then correct, you only need a "competent observer" and hence not a required flight crew member and no logging.

If you are talking about the FARs under the FAA system, then you are required to have a safety pilot and you are both entitled to log PIC for the time the manipulator of the controls is under the hood.

[Dg800]

If you are talking about the FARs under the FAA system, then you are required to have a safety pilot and you are both entitled to log PIC for the time the manipulator of the controls is under the hood.

That's interesting, didn't know that was the case on the other side of the pond. Who is then the person responsible for the safe conduct of the flight? Does the safety pilot have to be a CFI or just another PPL holder?

Ciao,

Dg800

[englishal]

A pilot who is qualified and current on the class of aeroplane. So yes PPL holder can act as safety pilot if they are qualified and current. The pilot under the hood must also have the safety pilot write his name and certificate number in his logbook (e.g. "SAFETY PILOT JOE BLOGGS, CERTIFICATE # 1234567").

[PA28181]

Quote "The pilot under the hood must also have the safety pilot write his name and certificate number in his logbook (e.g. "SAFETY PILOT JOE BLOGGS, CERTIFICATE # 1234567"). "


Where is the reference for this?

[mm_flynn]

I know the European rules are a muddle right now. However, prior to this, the UK required a safety pilot to assist with flyin (23.2(b) of the Jan 2010 ANO) when conducting simulated instrument flight. Either the second pilot is required crew or he is not - and in this case he appears to be required. This could just be another UK oddball concept where two required pilots are still single crew, but I suspect not. Which leads me back to what if anything does one log if you are required crew but not PIC in a non-multi crew aircraft.

[Big Pistons Forever]

You can log anything you want. The issue is counting time for higher licenses or ratings, or for declaring flying time for the purposes of an aircraft insurance application.

In aircraft which are certified to be operated by a single pilot, which is essentially all non turbine GA aircraft there can only be one PIC. The only way for another person to log time on the same flight is if he or she was an instructor in which case the first person is logging dual not PIC. There are 2 general exceptions to this. The first only concerns flights for the purpose of a flight test with a designated examiner and the second is a bizarre FAA ruling which permits, under the safety pilot situation under discussion here; for both pilots to log PIC.

Pretty much every other regulator in the world thinks the idea of having 2 PIC's is stupid and won't allow you to count any of this time towards higher licenses or ratings.

The "safety" pilot function is solely to keep a good visual look out. Other then that you are passenger. IMO and what I believe is the official explanation for not allowing the time to count, is that you are not performing the majority of the actions inherent in piloting an aircraft and so that time should not count anymore then occupying seat 34B on the Boeing going to a Spain for a piss up with the boys.

However like I said you can log anything you want just make sure that your log book entry accurately reflects your duties and I strongly advise that the time should be written in a separate column so that there is no way any regulator can think you are trying to pull a fast one. IMO your chance of getting any regulator, other then the FAA, to count safety pilot time towards a higher license is zero.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I know the European rules are a muddle right now. However, prior to this, the UK required a safety pilot to assist with flyin (23.2(b) of the Jan 2010 ANO) when conducting simulated instrument flight. Either the second pilot is required crew or he is not - and in this case he appears to be required. This could just be another UK oddball concept where two required pilots are still single crew, but I suspect not. Which leads me back to what if anything does one log if you are required crew but not PIC in a non-multi crew aircraft.

The flight engineer is "required crew" on a Boeing 707/727/Classic 747, DC 8/10. L1011 etc etc but they don't have to be a pilot and if they are they can't count the time. I would suggest that a safety pilot falls into the same category, required for the flight for obvious reasons but the time doesn't count because they are not performing the duties of a pilot.

[mm_flynn]

Fair enough, but I still find it odd that a crew member who has to be a pilot (as compared to the engineer or the hostie) doesn't log anything.

The FAA logic (as I understand it) is the pilot without the hood is PIC. So if you crash into someone or something or some airspace, it is the safety pilot who carries the can. The pilot flying logs P1 on the basis of being the sole manipulator of the controls. (which is apparently a uniquely FAA concept)

It seems the European safety pilot is along for the ride with no particular accountability or function but to hopefully have a bit of a look for traffic. (and obviously to fly the plane if the guy under the hood is having problems - else why does this case require a safety pilot as compared to just practicing IFR which only requires a competent observer.)

[Big Pistons Forever]

If the pilot flying the aircraft "has problems" all he has to do is remove his hood or foggles and fly visually, something that hardly requires a safety pilot to perform......

[flybymike]

I suppose his first problem might also be his last:
A mid air collision...

[Big Pistons Forever]

I suppose his first problem might also be his last:
A mid air collision...

Since the safety pilot is going to lose just as big as the pilot flying, in the event of a midair, I would hope he/she understands why keeping a good lookout, the only specific requirement of the position of safety pilot would be a good idea.

In fact my flying school almost had a mid air when a PPL was up practicing IF with under the hood with a CPL (non instrument rated, not an instructor) decided he would play instructor and provide "advice" to the student instead of concentrating on keeping a good look out.........

The best safety pilot I ever had may have been a non pilot but he was a Sargent in an Army Reserve Air Defence battery. He was Really good at spotting aircraft :E

[Dg800]

If the pilot flying the aircraft "has problems" all he has to do is remove his hood or foggles and fly visually, something that hardly requires a safety pilot to perform......If he experiences severe spatial disorientation it might perhaps take him some time to get back on his feet (so to speak). The safety pilot can then take over for a short time in order to prevent the aircraft from entering a spin or spiral dive while the PIC becomes "fully functional" again, therefore he needs to be qualified to fly the plane. Maybe that's what the regulator had in mind, but I might be wrong. I don't even know if this might actually happen as I've had no instrument training myself, on the other hand the regulator who drafted the regs might have had even less of an idea of what flying is all about than I do, so anything is possible. :E

Ciao,

Dg800

[LTCTerry]

If you are under the hood working on some form of "instrument proficiency" with a non-CFII in the right seat then you are quite likely making a VFR flight.

VFR flight requires that the pilot "see and avoid," something that can only be done by the safety pilot in this case. The safety pilot is the PIC even if the guy/gal under the hood is the sole manipulator of the controls and may also log the time as such.

The moment the hood comes down the ability to "see" goes away. N'est-ce pas?

So, that begs the question - can two pilots alternate right/left, seat under the hood, etc. so that both of them can accumulate 50 hours of cross country flying with only a total of 50 hours a/c rental? Seems like it should work...

Terry

[mm_flynn]

If the pilot flying the aircraft "has problems" all he has to do is remove his hood or foggles and fly visually, something that hardly requires a safety pilot to perform......

I agree, but oddly the CAA (and I believe EASA) don't - as they only require a competent observer if you practice IFR without a view limiting device, but an actual second pilot if you do use the view limiting device.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I agree, but oddly the CAA (and I believe EASA) don't - as they only require a competent observer if you practice IFR without a view limiting device, but an actual second pilot if you do use the view limiting device.
Makes sense to me - removing foggles, for example, involves being very careful not to pull my glasses off at the same time, and usually involves removing and replacing the headset. I'd not feel happy doing this in a hurry (if there's no hurry then it wouldn't be necessary to do it at all!) low on the approach on a collision course with something else with a non-pilot sitting next to me.