If the left seat pilot has his ifr hood on it could be possible.When practicing flying in simulated instrument conditions with a safety pilot, both the pilot flying the aircraft by reference to instruments and the safety pilot may log PIC time if the safety pilot is acting as PIC. As long as the pilot flying the aircraft is rated for the aircraft being flown, he/she may log this time as PIC because he/she is sole manipulator of the controls (FAR 61.51). Because the pilot flying will be wearing a view-limiting device, a safety pilot will be a required crewmember on board (FAR 91.109). The safety pilot may log as PIC any flight time for which he/she is acting PIC in an operation requiring more than one pilot crewmember (FAR 61.51).http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>If the left seat pilot has his ifr hood on it could be>possible.>>When practicing flying in simulated instrument conditions with>a safety pilot, both the pilot flying the aircraft by>reference to instruments and the safety pilot may log PIC time>if the safety pilot is acting as PIC. As long as the pilot>flying the aircraft is rated for the aircraft being flown,>he/she may log this time as PIC because he/she is sole>manipulator of the controls (FAR 61.51). Because the pilot>flying will be wearing a view-limiting device, a safety pilot>will be a required crewmember on board (FAR 91.109). The>safety pilot may log as PIC any flight time for which he/she>is acting PIC in an operation requiring more than one pilot>crewmember (FAR 61.51).>>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgCorrect, and it also says "...atleast a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings to the aircraft being flown." So, again, it comes down to the way the FAA is going to see it; being that you are not "really" rated for the aircraft without the endorsements, even though the FARs are one misleading bag of trash you have to look at it in terms of what they are going to see it as, what it really says and what is just plain stupid to do.

That refers to the pilot who is the "sole manipulator of the controls"-not the safety pilot who is a required crew member at that point.Check out aopa-they have quite a bit on this.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>>That refers to the pilot who is the "sole manipulator of the>controls"-not the safety pilot who is a required crew member>at that point.>Check out aopa-they have quite a bit on this.>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg91.109(:((1)"No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless - (1)The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown."

Take a look at this from aopa-and the scenerios:http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.htmlThe op states he has a multiengine land classification unless I am misunderstanding something.From aopa-note the last line:What qualifications are necessary for a safety pilot to be able to properly perform this duty? FAR 91.109(:((1) requires that the safety pilot hold at least a private pilot certificate. The pilot certificate must have category and class ratings that are appropriate to the aircraft being flown. To remind you, there are five categories of aircraft: airplane, rotorcraft, glider, lighter-than-air, and powered-lift. The most relevant to our discussion here are airplane and rotorcraft. Within the airplane category there are four classes: single-engine land, single-engine sea, multiengine land, and multiengine sea. Within the rotorcraft category are two classes: helicopter and gyroplane. So, for example, the regulation requires that the safety pilot of a multiengine airplane be multiengine-rated.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>>Good evening,> Can a private pilot like myself(PPL ASEL,AMEL Instrument>Airplane) legally log flight time while flying the King Air>B200 under part 91 for the time when I am actually controlling>the aircraft? If so, what would be the best way to do this?>The reason I am asking is because an opportunity might present>itself in the very near future for me to assist with the>"dead" legs of a part 135 operation, and since I am currently>time buiding towards my commercial, I think this would be a>good way to build some time(if its legal). The actual PIC will>be an ATP rated pilot and he thinks that it shouldn't be a>problem, but I would really appreciate a few more opinions.>Thanks.>>J.C. (MYNN)>PPL ASEL, AMEL Instrument AirplaneI'm assuming your goal is to get a job some day as a commercial pilot. When you begin filling out airline job applications, one thing you will notice is that for the columns asking for your PIC time, they will often clarify that they are only interested in flight time where you are actually the actual acting PIC. So if you are going to be logging "PIC" time when you aren't really the one who is acting as PIC or even qualified, then you will just end up having to back all this time in the King Air out of your totals. A job also means at some point you will go sit down at an interview and open up your logbook to them. Ask yourself whether you want everything in your logbook to be unquestionable or whether you want to risk having an awkward moment with your interviewer over whether your entries are legitimate.If all it takes for you to be able to legitimately log your King Air time is a high altitude and complex endorsement, then just go out and go get the required endorsements with a CFI in a C210 or similar before you go do your squawk and talk in the King Air.

>>If all it takes for you to be able to legitimately log your>King Air time is a high altitude and complex endorsement, Wouldn't he need a turbine endorsement as well?Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Why doesn't he just have the ATP endorse his logbook that he was receiving training in the King Air towards his high altitude and complex aircraft endorsements? This way the time he logs in his logbook is justified. From the way I read his original post, he just wants to build time.....not act as PIC, which he can't do in this case.John M

I would assume if he already has a multi engine rating that he has a complex and probably high performance endorsement already.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

There is no such thing as a turbine endorsement. Just type ratings for aircraft over 12,500 lbs, a true jet, or an airframe that has been declared in need of special training by the administrator.

>I would assume if he already has a multi engine rating that>he has a complex and probably high performance endorsement>already.>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgNot necessarily. A good portion of training multi's are not high performance. I got mine in a Be-76 Duchess and each engine is only 180HP.

True...I should have remembered as I got mine in a duchess too.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Why didn't you ask the FAA this question directly? to get a definitive answer? The opions given in this forurm are no more than opinions without any real consistency.

The FAA can have as many opinions without consistency also.When I took my commercial multi engine rating 5 years ago I showed up with a commercial single engine rating. The examiner was not sure about the xcross night requirement-at the time it was a 2 hour xcountry with an instructor at night. As I had already done that in the single for the commercial rating, the question became whether it had to be done again in the twin to qualify for the multi commercial rating. My flight school showed the Far's that supported their view that I didn't need to do it again-the examiner called the local fsdo. They debated for about 1/2 hour-decided they were not sure-and then called Oklahoma city-where they again debated for about 40 minutes. They finally decided there was not a clear answer and said they would let it go in my case-but that that in the future they would prefer the seperate night flight in the twin. I think it may have since been clarified.I'd personally be more inclined to ask the legal staff at aopa.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

That may well be truw. But I atill suggest that one is much more likely to get a definative answer (one way or the other) than by relying on advice in a flight sumulation forum.