A recurring question from a Reddit forum thread on r/flying highlights one of the more persistently confusing corners of FAA logging regulations: how cross-country (XC) time is allocated during simulated instrument training flights involving a safety pilot. The original poster presents two scenarios. In the first, straightforward case, Pilot A flies the entire flight—including takeoff and landing—while under the hood for a portion of it, and logs total time, PIC time, simulated instrument time, and XC time accordingly. Pilot B, acting solely as safety pilot while Pilot A is under the hood, logs only the 2.4 hours of PIC time corresponding to when they served as required crew under 14 CFR 91.109. The second scenario complicates matters: Pilot B performs the takeoff, Pilot A takes the controls and flies under the hood for the en route portion (with Pilot B as safety pilot), and then Pilot B takes back the controls for landing. The poster asks whether Pilot B, having performed the takeoff and landing, is the one entitled to log the XC time, even though Pilot A flew the bulk of the en route segment.
This question sits at the intersection of two FAA logging concepts that often get conflated: sole manipulator of controls versus acting PIC of record, and the separate, somewhat archaic requirement under 61.1(b)(3) that cross-country time generally requires a landing at a point other than the point of departure, with the logger having been the sole manipulator of the controls for at least part of that flight (for private and higher certificates, no minimum distance is required for general currency purposes, though specific XC requirements for ratings like the instrument rating carry distance minimums under 61.1(b)(3)(ii)). Critically, XC time logging is tied to who was the sole manipulator of the flight controls during the flight, not who performed the takeoff and landing specifically. Under a plain reading of the regulation, any pilot who manipulated the controls at any point during a flight that meets the XC definition—departure and landing at different points—can log the entire flight as XC time, provided they were rated for that category and class of aircraft. This means in the second scenario, both Pilot A and Pilot B could reasonably log XC time for the full flight, since each was sole manipulator of the controls for a portion of a flight that satisfies the XC definition. Pilot A logs simulated instrument time only for the hood portion, and PIC time only if appropriately rated and otherwise meeting 61.51(e) requirements (which for a private or higher-certificated pilot flying with a safety pilot in VMC generally applies to whoever is sole manipulator, or in this case, split between both pilots for their respective segments). Pilot B logs PIC time as safety pilot per 91.109(c) during the hood segment and as sole manipulator during takeoff and landing.
For working pilots and flight instructors, this kind of logging nuance matters far beyond forum trivia. Total flight time, PIC time, and XC time are gatekeeping numbers for certificate and rating eligibility, for insurance minimums, for airline and Part 135 hiring minimums, and for FAA checkride eligibility under Parts 61 and 141. Misunderstanding how XC time attaches to shared-control flights can lead pilots to under-log or over-log time on their logbooks, creating problems years later during an FAA records audit, an airline background/records check, or a DPE's review of an applicant's logbook prior to a practical test. CFIIs training instrument students with safety pilots need to be precise in explaining this to trainees, since safety pilot arrangements are a common, cost-effective way to build simulated instrument time toward the 40-hour instrument rating requirement, and errors compound across dozens of training flights if the underlying logic is wrong from the start.
More broadly, this thread reflects a persistent theme in the GA community: FAA logging regulations, particularly 61.51, are notoriously ambiguous and rely heavily on legal interpretations, AOPA guidance, and community consensus rather than crystal-clear regulatory text. Similar confusion surrounds instrument approach logging, night currency, and complex/high-performance endorsements. As flight training activity continues to rebound and safety-pilot arrangements remain a popular low-cost method for instrument currency and initial training, correct application of these logging rules retains real operational significance—not just for individual pilots' records, but for flight schools and CFIs who bear some responsibility for teaching accurate logging practices that will withstand scrutiny throughout a pilot's career, from private pilot through airline transport pilot certification.