Changing logbook from FAA to EASA
 

Hi everyone,

I have a bit of a "problem". I did most of my flying in U.S and got my FAA CPL ME/IR over there, and just converted my license to EASA CPL ME/IR.
In the U.S I had a "simple" logbook and was told to log my safety pilot hours in the PIC section. And since safety pilot hours is not valid in Europe I'm not sure how to sum up my hours in my new logbook (EASA approved).

Because according to my old FAA logbook I have aprox 230h PIC, of which about 100h is safety pilot. So according to EASA I have 130h PIC.. So if I forward my hours according to EASA, I will have less hours in my new logbook than in my previous logbook which don't make much sense and might be hard to explain to some airlines if they want a copy of my logbook.

Any suggestions on what to do? :bored:

Alex,

Fill out a new logbook using the EASA logging scheme. The safety pilot entries could be retained, without any time being entered in the PIC column, however it will be easier to maintain separate logbooks for each authority.

So should I reduce the PIC hours when i forward my entries to my EASA logbook?

Yes, I would write another column in as safety pilot so your total match

Okay, that would probably work out. Thanks!

Why not just highlight all the incorrectly entered PIC safety pilot hours with a coloured pen then make an entry on a new page correcting your hours with an explanation and then just carry on in your logbook. You made an error due to bad advice, better to let it show than have to explain a logbook with new pristine entries.

My current logbook is not EASA approved and has never been questioned by an employer or authority despite flying in EASA land.

He didn't make an error, 2 pilots can log pic in the states , in easa you can not

Alex,

Yes, exactly. Alternatively, as ersa suggests, add another column into which US safety pilot time is recorded and alter the [EASA] PIC time accordingly. If you do this then strike out the old PIC times using black ink so that the original entry is still legible; correcting fluid is not viewed favourably in the North America.

May I accuse you of logbook bigotry? ;) It is not an error to log US training in accordance with US rules.

I have learnt something today. However, if the safety pilot is pilot in command, what is the other pilot? I find it strange that 2 pilots can both be deemed in command, but perhaps PIC has a slightly different meaning under FAA.
Thank you for correcting me, happy to stand corrected!

So I think I will add a column saying S.P (Safety Pilot) in my new easa logbook and then remove the S.P hours from my PIC. So in my easa logbook I will have less hours PIC than in my FAA logbook, but it's easy to explain since the remaining hours will be under the "S.P" column.
Would it be a problem if I add the safety pilot hours to my total hours in my easa logbook (so that my total hours add up according to my FAA logbook)?

Thanks for helping me out!

Having been put right re FAA rules, maybe I can offer some ideas re EASA rules.
In EASA land only one person can be PIC, and if a single pilot aeroplane only one pilot can log the hours unless operating commercially as multicrew which is done on things like King airs and smaller Citations.

As far as your Safey pilot hours go, if another pilot was logging the flight as PIC in FAA land, you cannot count them in EASA land unless the other pilot does not.

You can create a cloumn and record the flights but the hours cannot be counted towards any experience levels.

Hope this helps.

bingofuel,

If the safety pilot is acting as pilot-in-command then the other pilot can, at best, only log as pilot-in-command. Under US regulations it is possible for the acting pilot-in-command to be unable to log pilot-in-command time: see FAA interpretation to John Speranza (4 Dec 2009) [pdf] and summarised by J S Yodice in a 2010 AOPA magazine article (vol 53, no 3 - pdf). A related interpretation was given to Jason Herman (21 May 2009) [pdf] concerning complex and high performance aeroplanes, and similarly to Keith Walker (14 Dec 2011) [pdf]. J S Yodice provides an updated discussion of these in an AOPA article in Feb 2014 [link] while a more comprehensive review, one which is well worth reading, is given in Speciale & Venhuizen (2007). The Pilot in Command and the FARS: The Buck Stops Here (Almost Always). 83 N.D. L. Rev. 817.

Alex,

Do not include "logged as PIC but did not act as PIC" time in your total times for EASA purposes. You might be able to log some of that experience as dual if permitted under EASA logging rules.

selfin,

Okay thanks for clearing that up. So the time I logged as PIC while I was Safety Pilot, and not the pilot flying, is not loggable under EASA.
I will just put it in a separate column and will NOT add it to my total time. I'll just have it in my logbook to make it easier to explain how I logged in my FAA book.

Thanks for posting guys, really appreciate it!

EASA need not reject pilot-in-command time recorded by a person acting as pilot-in-command merely because, under the foreign regulations governing the flight, another pilot may log pilot-in-command time. Clearly, the other pilot cannot [also] log pilot-in-command time for EASA qualification purposes despite being able to do so for US certification purposes.

An inspecting of both logbooks would fail to answer who acted as pilot-in-command, unless for example one of the pilots acted in the capacity of a certificated flight instructor. See footnote 10 to Admin. v Strobel, N.T.S.B. Order No. EA-4384 (Jul. 18, 1995):

Alex,

Actually I cannot see why a required safety pilot who acts as pilot-in-command cannot be credited as such for EASA purposes. The other pilot who only logs pilot-in-command time must, however, not claim pilot-in-command time for EASA purposes.

Oh I see. Just to make it easy for me I'll make a column with safety pilot where i forward those hours (and reduce them from my PIC time).

Under EASA, a single pilot aeroplane, which I assume we are discussing here, has only one commander. If it is an instructional flight the instructor is P1 and the student is Pu/t. (Pilot under training)
If a flight test and you pass you can log P1.

As far as I am aware EASA do not recognise the term safety pilot, only an instructor or examiner can also log the time as P1, another pilot going along to keep a look out is a passenger.

That statement is equally true for single-pilot aeroplanes operated under US regulations.

The US regulations retain the basic principle of the instructor acting as PIC, and by the first statement he is the only acting PIC; the difference is that, under the conditions given in 14 CFR 61.51, the instructed may sometimes log PIC but this logged time is considered as Pu/t (dual) by EASA. An instructed person cannot claim PIC under EASA because US precedent deems the instructor to have been acting as PIC (cf Admin v Hamre, etc).

The fact that the acting pilot-in-command is styled as a safety pilot under US regulations should have no bearing on EASA's recognition. It is immaterial that EASA has not established equivalent regulations because, as far as EU regulations are concerned, the safety pilot acting as pilot-in-command assumed exactly the same responsibilities and duties as are required of a pilot-in-command under EU regulation. That is the test for logging PIC under EASA rules, is it not?

Selfin,

your missing the point, its highly likely that the 2 people in the cockpit have both logged PIC.

Ive seen many log books from the FAA, in EASA it won't be accepted.

Alex is better off starting a new logbook with just his dual and solo hours then adding another column as safety pilot with his total safety pilot hours there for reference ...

All I will say to you Alex is, I have explained what EASA will accept, whether you take my advice or not is your decision.

I have a logbook started in the US, meaning I have some dual flights as PIC etc. The thing to remember is this: Under EASA in single pilot operations, disregarding PIC/us - you only have two options: PIC or P/ut. One or the other. Add them together and you'll get TT.
As far as EASA goes, all you need to do is TT - dual = PIC.

As far as the differences between FAA and EASA logging, should there be a difference between acting as PIC and logging PIC, allowed by the FAA? Of course not, there should only be one commander and the logbook should recognise that. Should an IR training flight in VMC under the hood be a two pilot operation? Of course it should - because there is a requirement for someone to look outside. Under FAA they can both log PIC (daft), under EASA the safety pilot can't log anything (equally as daft)

I've seen logbooks of EASA Modular CPL students where their PIC hour building was conducted in the U.S. with an instructor on board, yet logged as PIC "because that's allowed in the States...isn't it?". This practice is in fact fraudulent for the purpose of logging hours towards a Part-FCL Licence.

ersa,

In general four possible logging rules can be constructed:

1. each certificated pilot logs pilot-in-command,
2. only the acting pilot-in-command logs pilot-in-command,
3. only the certificated pilot manipulating the controls, not acting as pilot-in-command, logs pilot-in-command, or,
4. neither pilot logs pilot-in-command.

The first rule is permissible under US regulations subject to one of two conditions in 14 CFR 61.51 being satisfied, otherwise either rule 2 or 3 applies. The first rule is not permissible for EASA licensing purposes despite the absence of an implementing rule stating so much. Which of rules 2 and 3 are acceptable to EASA, or more accurately, to the competent authority?

Is EASA really taking the view that neither person is entitled to log pilot-in-command time? That would be an absurd position.

There is no question that a safety pilot not acting as pilot-in-command may not log pilot-in-command time for EASA purposes.

What evidence exists in the logbook for a third-party, a person auditing the logbook for example, to determine whether the safety pilot did or did not act as pilot-in-command? Short of the holder recording his own name in his own personal flying logbook, in compliance with 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(v) [requirement to record safety pilot's name], there is likely to be insufficient information in the logbook for this question to be answered (61.51 does not require name of PIC to be recorded). There is therefore a possibility that both pilots could attempt to claim pilot-in-command time for EASA purposes, but the solution ought not to be that neither pilot is permitted to recording PIC time. If the competent authority adopted that position then I expect a judicial review would be warranted.

The implicit condition is of course that the flight is an instructional one (cf Admin v Hamre cited above), and it is not necessarily an act of fraud if acting in good faith.

Quite, however flights for the purpose of building experience towards the PIC requirement for a Part-FCL CPL, the intention clearly, has to be that such experience is not gained through instructional sorties. The instructor is usually present either because there is no-solo insurance clause (I've seen this at some schools in the US), or else the school doesn't feel comfortable signing the 'renter' off for solo. In my experience, the EASA pilot feels they have acted in good faith either because they are ignorant of the spirit in which such experience is intended to be gained or else ignorant of the differences between the two regulatory environments, and easily convinced by a local instructor or flying school management, or both.
Agreed, however, if entering these hours in an EASA compliant logbook and recording the names of both the 'PIC' and the 'CFI' sitting in the right-hand seat signing off each entry in the Remarks and Endorsements column, it's fairly evident.

Alex: This issue raises it's head time and again due to the rather "quirky" FAA legal interpretation. However, it simply boils down to who is considered the legally responsible person charged for the flight. This can only be one person - if you doubt this imagine, for me, what would happen on a IR training flight if the flight caused an airspace violation or worse. Who do you think the "Feds" would come after to take to court or fine?

Reversebucket,

Clearly these are examples of low hanging fruit in which the capacity of the logbook holder is signalled by the signature of the instructor.

Ambiguity may continue to exist for flights involving a required safety pilot and in which neither pilot holds, or exercises, a flight instructor certificate. In genuine cases free of misrepresentation it would be absurd if one of the required pilots could not log pilot-in-command for EASA purposes.

Meikleour,

Surprisingly, this test can fail to produce the desired outcome in the US. The Office of the Chief Counsel for FAA has provided an opinion on this in the Speranza interpretation 2009.

Selfin, reagrdless of what you think should be the case, EASA do not recognise the term safety pilot and it is not something which can count towards total time for EASA licence or rating issue. The FAA have a different approach but the person asked what he had to do to make his hours acceptable to EASA. He has been advised what EASA will or will not accept, what the FAA do is up to them.

Please just accept that safety pilot hours do NOT count towards licence or rating issue for an EASA licence or rating.

BF,

The only opinion I have expressed in this discussion is the belief that it would be absurd for no pilot to log pilot-in-command time.

It is irrelevant that EASA does not recognise the term. The received wisdom is that two pilots cannot log overlapping pilot-in-command time, and I have not challenged it here; however, your statement leads to a situation in which nobody logs pilot-in-command time. Such an outcome, in my opinion, is absurd and it should invite, in the case of UK CAA, a regulation 6 appeal.

Part-FCL at FCL.050 on the recording of flight time states:

Where the UK Air Navigation Order applies, the only pertinent requirement is that the "the capacity in which the holder acted in flight" is recorded. Therefore, if he wishes to comply with art 228 of the ANO, a safety pilot who acted as pilot-in-command must make an entry to that effect in his personal log book. In doing so he attests to his designation according to the definition of pilot-in-command in Part-FCL, which agrees with the definition under US regulations.

Further, the implementing rule at FCL.035(a)(2)(i) states:

While the AMC1 FCL.050(b)(1)(i), on the logging of PIC flight time, states:

A safety pilot who acts as pilot-in-command satisfies the abovementioned requirements for crediting PIC time for Part-FCL purposes. Nowhere has it been stated that the safety pilot must act as pilot-in-command.

A safety pilot is not an instructor so therefore under EASA is a passenger and the person flying the aeroplane logs P1. At no point did I say no one logs command time.

Who signs the tech log?

selfin:Speranza interpretation 2009.: Thank you for the link. Interestingly it also says that the logging of PIC by two pilots AT THE SAME TIME is not allowed! Obviously, that is one legal opinion only. If all lawyers always agreed on all points of law then life would be very simple indeed!

bingofuel,

The safety pilot need not be relegated to the status of a passenger for EASA purposes if he acts as pilot-in-command. He is required to so act if the simulated flight is done under IFR (in VMC only—Walker 2011) if the other pilot does not hold a valid instrument rating.

Meikleour,

Under the circumstances described in the Speranza and Walker interpretations that is correct. However, once 14 CFR 91.109(c) [requirement for a safety pilot during simulated instrument flight] becomes applicable then two pilots may log pilot-in-command under 14 CFR 61.51. See the interpretation to Danny Creech, 8 Aug 2013 [pdf], for flight in a single-pilot aeroplane operated in VMC:

FAA rules do not apply to EASA aircrew licencing. I am now unsubscribing to this thread.

Selfin,

The debate still stands 2 people in EASA can not claim P1. No one is saying he can not still claim the hours....