SIC Vs. CoPilot
Phillip Smith
What is the difference between being Secondin-Command and Co-Pilot?
(According to the logbook?)
-Phil
15.2 Hours
Jim Fisher
"Phillip Smith" <her...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ac4...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> All,
>
> What is the difference between being Secondin-Command and Co-Pilot?
> (According to the logbook?)
Not an authority on the subject, but I don't think "co-pilot" is an
"official" term as far as the FARs go though. A person who act as an
"official" co-pilot (like on a passenger jet) is actually SIC.
Second-in-command time can only be logged on an aircraft that specifically
requires more then one crew member to operate such as a large aircraft or
multi-engine turbojet.
At this point in your training (15.2 hours) you are mainly concerned with
PIC (what your CFI logs in his book) and Acting PIC (what the CFI's student
logs until you solo) time as far as your logbook is concerned.
--
Jim Fisher
North Alabama
Cherokee 180
Ron Natalie
Phillip Smith wrote:
>
> All,
>
> What is the difference between being Secondin-Command and Co-Pilot?
> (According to the logbook?)
THere's no such thing as "co-pilot" time as far as the FAA is concerned.
SIC time is logged when you are the second in command of an operation
requiring more than one pilot.
Robert M. Gary
The FAA speaks of PIC and SIC.
The airline procedures talk about flying pilot
and non-flying pilot (these rolls often change in flight).
I've also heard Captain and first officer regarding pay ranks,
but co-pilot is probably a movie title.
Eric Fletcher S.O.C.
pat...@DONTSPAMME.snet.net wrote on 3/30/01 9:17 AM:
> When the PIC is hooded, regs require a safety pilot. That
> pilot can log SIC. For most of us, there's not much that
> SIC is good for, but it's loggable when you aren't PIC and
> are acting as safety on a flight where regs require a
> safety.
Actually it's PIC time that the safety pilot logs.
Ron Natalie
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> I've never heard the term "copilot" outside of a hollywood movie.
As in "God is My Copilot" a 1945 movie about the flying tigers.
Or in Keith Murray's poem: "The Copilot":
I am the copilot, I sit on the right,
It's up to me to be quick and bright;
I never talk back for I have regrets,
But I have to remember what the Captain forgets.
I make out the Flight Plan and study the weather,
Pull up the gear, stand by to feather;
Make out the mail forms and do the reporting,
And fly the old crate while the Captain is courting.
I take the readings, adjust the power,
Put on the heaters when we're in a shower;
Tell him where we are on the darkest night,
And do all the book-work without any light.
I call for my Captain and buy him Cokes;
I always laugh at his corny jokes,
And once in a while when his landings are rusty,
I always come through with, "By gosh it's gusty!"
All in all I'm a general stooge,
As I sit on the right of the man I call "Scrooge";
I guess you think it is past understanding,
But maybe someday he will give me a landing.
-Ron (God was my copilot, but we crashed into the mountains and I had to eat him.)
Ron Rosenfeld
ONLY if the safety pilot is acting as PIC -- otherwise he logs nothing or
he logs SIC.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
David Brooks
news:uar9ct8el94rq7c4c...@4ax.com...
So, if you're flying safety for your buddy in his complex single, and you
don't have the complex endorsement:
You can log SIC while you're safety pilot (you're not qualified to be PIC)
You can log PIC while you're hand flying to give him a break (you're sole
manipulating and you're rated, even if not endorsed)
But, if it's a twin, you can't log PIC. Can you log TT? Probably not
(61.1(12)).
Robert M. Gary
Yep.
> But, if it's a twin, you can't log PIC. Can you log TT? Probably not
> (61.1(12)).
You cannot be safety pilot in a twin with out an MEL rating. Sec.
91.109(b)(1)
David Brooks
news:3AC4F196...@agilent.com...
Sorry, I meant the hand-flying bit when I asked about logging TT.
Timothy M. Metzinger
<Ste...@swbell.net> writes:
>Actually it's PIC time that the safety pilot logs.
Jeez, I'm gonna get a stone tablet for this stuff. It's NOT that hard. The
safety pilot may log PIC or SIC:
If the Safety pilot is ACTING as PIC (and is qualified to ACT as PIC), the
safety pilot may LOG PIC.
If the hooded pilot is ACTING as PIC, the safety pilot may log SIC.
The agreement as to who is ACTING PIC is supposed to be made in advance of the
flight.
Timothy Metzinger
Commercial Pilot - ASMEL - IA AOPA Project Pilot Mentor
'98 M20J - N1067W
Pipers, Cessnas, Tampicos, Tobagos, and Trinidads at FDK
Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:
>"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronros...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:uar9ct8el94rq7c4c...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:05:31 -0600, "Eric Fletcher S.O.C."
>> <Ste...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >in article pl89ctk6h85ras757...@4ax.com, Todd Pattist at
>> >pat...@DONTSPAMME.snet.net wrote on 3/30/01 9:17 AM:
>> >
>But, if it's a twin, you can't log PIC. Can you log TT? Probably not
>(61.1(12)).
>
If it's a twin, and you don't have a ME rating, you cannot act as safety
pilot.
Mike Echo Mike
>As in "God is My Copilot" a 1945 movie about the flying tigers.
First, a 1944 book. I hacked my way through it. Col. Robert L. Scott, Jr., was
a man of his time. Hassling colored folk at prayer and stealing the fabric from
their tent church was his idea of a practical joke. America was a different
nation back then, of course, so hating the enemy, being personal about
dehumanizing the target in your scope was integral to the mindset. While
Americans were propagandized to hate "the dirty yellow hides of the Japanese,"
atrocities were not limited on the basis of race. I remember watching a PBS-TV
Saturday Matinee that had a World War II Newsreel. This American pilot is
flying over Italy. He shoots up a train. OK, it's carrying freight... Then he
sees a farmer in a field. "He's no friend of mine," said the pilot and he
machine gunned the guy.
Col. Scott is quoted later as saying that any pilot who needed God as a co-pilot
had no business flying. Perhaps that allowed the Colonel to fly without God
nagging him all the time to love his enemies. Chapter 28 in God is My Co-Pilot
is "We've Got to Learn to Hate." I wonder if he hated the Negroes he hassled as
a kid, or just picked on them without feeling specifically because they were
powerless.
On the other hand Col. John H. Glenn professed horror at the death he rained on
the enemy, steeling himself to a necessary and unpleasant task. In this, we see
two different men -- two different kinds of men -- in the same situation.
Flychick
aircraft being flown: Single, Multi, Land, Sea, Complex, High
Performance...whatever. There is no SIC for safety pilot. If there is,
please tell me where I can find it in the FARs because it would be news to
me. If two pilots are flying and one is under the hood (left seat or right),
BOTH appropriately-rated pilots log PIC UNLESS you enter IMC conditions
where the safety pilot can no longer assure the safety of the flight. Then
ONLY the PIC can log time (unless your "safety pilot"is giving you
instrument instruction, in which case they are no longer the safety pilot
anyway...)
"Phillip Smith" <her...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ac4...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Timothy M. Metzinger
writes:
>There is no SIC for safety pilot. If there is,
>please tell me where I can find it in the FARs because it would be news to
>me.
damn, pay attention.
61.51.f(2)
If you are acting as a safety pilot, but not ACTING as PIC, you may log SIC
because more than one pilot is required under by the regulations under which
the flight is conducted.
If you are ACTING as PIC, you may LOG PIC for the same reason, although the
relevant FAR is 61.51.e.1(iii).
Ron Rosenfeld
>You cannot be a safety pilot unless you are appropriately rated for the
>aircraft being flown: Single, Multi, Land, Sea, Complex, High
>Performance...whatever. There is no SIC for safety pilot. If there is,
>please tell me where I can find it in the FARs because it would be news to
>me. If two pilots are flying and one is under the hood (left seat or right),
>BOTH appropriately-rated pilots log PIC UNLESS you enter IMC conditions
>where the safety pilot can no longer assure the safety of the flight. Then
>ONLY the PIC can log time (unless your "safety pilot"is giving you
>instrument instruction, in which case they are no longer the safety pilot
>anyway...)
>
>
Complex and High Performance are NOT ratings. Ratings are category, class,
and (if required) type.
Endorsements and qualifications and currency to act as PIC are NOT a
requirement to act as safety pilot.
Ref: FAA Chief Counsel legal opinion dtd June 1999.
A current medical certificate IS required.
Safety pilot *may* log PIC if and only if he is qualified to act as PIC
(including relevant endorsements) AND both pilots agree that the safety
pilot will be responsible for the safety of the flight per FAR 1.1.
Otherwise he may log SIC.
Mr. Metzinger already pointed you towards the relevant FAR's, which have
been discussed ad nauseum in the NG.
Gus Elterman
> Mr. Metzinger already pointed you towards the relevant FAR's, which have
> been discussed ad nauseum in the NG.
Metzinger & Natalie give new meaning to the term ad nauseum. Both (yawn)
FAR quoters.
FiPe
>Metzinger & Natalie give new meaning to the term ad nauseum. Both (yawn)
>FAR quoters.
Hi Gus:
Are you really this much of a jerk or do you just play one on usenet.? Some
people have something positive to contribute (hey, bob, here is the reference,
don't just take my word for it) and some people just, well..., don't have
anything positive to contribute. Thanks for showing us the alternative.
Fidel (thankful of people like Tim, Ron, and George among others)
Dudley Henriques
"Mike Echo Mike" <Mike_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9a3dm...@drn.newsguy.com...
Just a few random thoughts about Bob Scott.
I've known Bob Scott for 29 years.
Like most summation made only from exposure to written text instead of
personal exposure to an individual, you have come away with some erroneous
ideas about the individual. Don't get me wrong, I clearly understand how
this is possible considering the events depicted in Bob's book GIMCP. You of
course have no way of knowing that Bob wrote the story in a weekend in 43,
while locked up in a hotel room at the Waldorf Astoria in New York. He was
"rushed" to get it done by Charlie Scribner, who sent up 75 Dictaphone
cylinders and a note to "hurry up, I need this right away".
Bob took a great deal of "literary license" with the book, trying to fill it
with "interesting" sidebars about his youth. The events you spoke of
concerning "hassling" of blacks occurred, but not with malice. In fact,
Bob's best friend as a boy was a black. Scotty is indeed a man of his time,
and a southerner from Georgia as well, but I can assure you that Bob Scott
has never been a racist. In fact, just thinking of Bob as a racist makes me
laugh!
As for Bob's belief in God, it's as genuine as hell. The letters he wrote to
me when his wife Catharine died are proof beyond any doubt of Bob's firm
belief in God. If ever there was a guy who lived what he believed, it's Bob
Scott. When he talked about learning to hate, he was referring to what it
took to stay alive in the skies over China.....nothing else. In fact, Bob
and Saburo Saki[who was also a personal friend of mine] appeared together on
a TV show once after the war. Saburo had an interpreter translating for him.
The narrator of the show wanted to draw out some hatred between them. During
the interview, it came out that Bob and Saburo had been in the same fight
against each other on the same day. The host asked Bob how it felt to be
sitting next to a mortal enemy. The translator told Saburo what the host had
asked Bob. What followed was truly a spontaneous moment. Saburo just looked
at Bob and Bob looked at Saburo. Without any provocation whatever, the two
of them simply got up, walked to each other and hugged. The host asked them
both for an explanation. Bob simply said, "You wouldn't understand".
You do what you have to do because you're there. The hatred is difficult to
explain. Non combat people tend to over simplify it, and combat people don't
need an explanation. It's a strange thing and affects different people in
different ways.
Hope this helps some. Believe me, Bob Scott is not the man you have pictured
in your mind.
--
Dudley A. Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI/Retired
Ron Natalie
Flychick wrote:
>
> You cannot be a safety pilot unless you are appropriately rated for the
> aircraft being flown: Single, Multi, Land, Sea, Complex, High
> Performance...whatever.
Wrong answer. A safety pilot requires only category and class ratings
(neglecting aircraft requiring type ratings).
> There is no SIC for safety pilot. If there is,
> please tell me where I can find it in the FARs because it would be news to
> me.
61.56. A pilot logs pilot-in-command time:
1. When sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he
is rated.
2. When pilot-in-command of a operation requiring more than one pilot.
A pilot logs second-in-command time:
1. When second-in-command of an operation requiring more than one pilot.
If the safety pilot is PIC, then he logs PIC. If the hooded pilot is PIC,
then he logs SIC.
> If two pilots are flying and one is under the hood (left seat or right),
> BOTH appropriately-rated pilots log PIC UNLESS you enter IMC conditions
Nope, he can't log it because it ceases to be an operation requiring
more than one pilot (ceases to be SIMULATED instrument flight).
Ron Natalie
Well, the really nauseating people are the ones who don't read the FAR's
and consistently give the WRONG answers here.
Jim Fisher
>
> Well, the really nauseating people are the ones who don't read the FAR's
> and consistently give the WRONG answers here.
Right on, Ron.
Ron Rosenfeld
<pat...@DONTSPAMME.snet.net> wrote:
>Ron Rosenfeld <ronros...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Safety pilot *may* log PIC if and only if he is qualified to act as PIC
>>(including relevant endorsements) AND both pilots agree that the safety
>>pilot will be responsible for the safety of the flight per FAR 1.1.
>
>Actually, the agreement between the pilots is not the final
>determining factor. If both pilots think they are
>responsible for the safety of the flight, one is right and
>one is wrong. It is the pilot who is actually responsible
>who is legally permitted to log the PIC. An agreement makes
>it easy to determine who that is. If there is a
>disagreement, it would probably be the sole manipulator, but
>that's not certain. If the safety pilot is a CFI, and owned
>the plane and the sole manipulator is a pilot who has never
>flown in this area, and never flown this particular type of
>aircraft, it might be the CFI, even if the other pilot was
>legally capable of being PIC and thought he was. If they
>both logged it, the FAA might uphold the CFI's determination
>as correct.
>
Now I think we've veered into areas that are not covered by the FAR's, but
rather by legal principles of which I have little knowledge, other than to
accept that common sense does not always apply.
My quotes about prior agreement came from the wording of a written FAA
Chief Counsel opinion.
If there was prior agreement, there should not be confusion. Are you aware
of any instances where there was prior agreement (and pilot qualification),
and the FAA disallowed the logging of time by the agreed upon PIC?
I've heard of a court case where there had NOT been prior agreement, and
the PIC was decided to be the CFI; I've also heard of an FAA logging issue
where two CFI's were attempting to both log PIC for the same time. But I
don't believe that was a "safety pilot" type situation; and if I recall
correctly, the specifics of that situation were not such as to be easily
applicable to the usual GA pilot IFR + safety pilot scenario.
Best,
Robert M. Gary
> >Safety pilot *may* log PIC if and only if he is qualified to act as PIC
> >(including relevant endorsements) AND both pilots agree that the safety
> >pilot will be responsible for the safety of the flight per FAR 1.1.
>
> determining factor. If both pilots think they are
> responsible for the safety of the flight, one is right and
> one is wrong. It is the pilot who is actually responsible
> who is legally permitted to log the PIC.
The flying pilot gets to log PIC time regardless of who is
PIC. Bing PIC just allows the safety pilot to ALSO log PIC.
Ron Rosenfeld
<pat...@DONTSPAMME.snet.net> wrote:
> I didn't disagree with what
>you said, just clarified a detail. Prior agreement itself
>is not required for the logging. The determining factor is
>who was *actually* PIC. It's a really good idea to decide
>in advance, but if after the flight, the two pilots discuss
>what happened and decide that pilot A was actually the PIC,
>that would probably be accepted.
I wouldn't disagree with that, although I think it's poor practice to have
two pilots in the a/c without determining beforehand who will be PIC, if
there is any possibility for confusion.
I don't see confusion if I take you up in my airplane and our "mission" is
to go someplace for lunch.
But if I've asked you to fly with me as safety pilot; or if I'm flying with
a CFI who is (or might be) giving me instruction, I would discuss the PIC
issue before engine startup. I do this not particularly for logging
issues, but more to clarify what should happen in the event of an emergency
or other unforeseen event.
>
>It's easier to decide in advance :-)
Fer sure!
>
>Fair skies and favorable winds -
Ditto