ark (01/11/83)
What, exactly, are the requirements for a safety pilot? Now, before you all jump on me saying "that's obvious," let me point out a few questions and possible answers. The only place I can find anything in the FARs discussing requirements for safety pilots is a section saying that for a pilot to fly under the hood, the other pilot seat must be occupied by "an appropriately rated safety pilot." This section was later amended to say that an airplane with a single throw-over control wheel could be used for simulated instrument flying provided the pilot in command thought it was safe to do so. This is presumably a bone thrown to Bonanza owners (a Bonanza bonanza?) What does "appropriately rated" mean? Presumably, it means "holding all the ratings necessary to fly the airplane in question". What else could it mean? Well, here are some questions: Is the safety pilot the pilot in command? Surely not. In that case, there are a bunch of requirements that the pilot in command must meet but that perhaps a safety pilot need not, since they are not ratings. For example: Must a safety pilot be current? Must a pilot have an instructor's signoff to act as safety pilot in a complex airplane? (remember, said signoff is not a rating) Is a safety pilot a "required flight crewmember?" If so, can he log time as second in command? If not, is he subject to the eight-hour bottle-to-throttle rule? Does a safety pilot need a current medical certificate? If you still think the answers to these questions are clear, you might like to know that I called the FAA once and asked them about it. The response of the guy I spoke to was essentially this: "I'm not allowed to interpret the regulations for you. It doesn't matter what my opinion is, because if you are charged with violating the regulations the fact that I told you it was OK doesn't count for anything. My personal opinion is that a safety pilot need not be current and doesn't need a signoff for a complex airplane, and I agree with you that I don't see anything in the regulations that addresses the issue directly." So much for getting a straight answer from the FAA. How about you, dear netland readers? Do you know of any facts that might help clear up this issue? I would particularly appreciate pointers to court cases, magazine articles, and so on.
grahamr (01/12/83)
I think I can shed some more regulatory murk on the subject. FAR Part 1 gives: "Flight time" means the time from the moment the aircraft first moves under its own power [Ed note: what about sailplanes?????] for the purpose of flight until the moment it comes to rest at the next point of landing.... "Pilot in command" means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.... "Second in command" means a pilot who is designated to be second in command of an aircraft during flight time. As we all know here in software engineering, being responsible for something's operation is not the same as being the person who makes it operate. The "sole manipulator" phrase appears in part 61 in connection with *logging* the time, *not* in the definition of "pilot in command." The way I read the regulations, either the hooded pilot or the safety pilot can log pilot-in-command time, but not both. The other person can log second-in-command time. There *is* a regulation (91.21(b)(1), mentioned by rabbit!ark) that requires two pilots when one of them is hooded. Because of this, the multiple-pilot clauses in 61.51(c)(2,3) go into effect: "A ... pilot may log as pilot in command time ... that flight time ... when he acts as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under ... the regulations under which the flight is conducted." [Similarly for second in command.] Under this clause, the pilot in command need not be sole manipulator of the controls. Furthermore, second in command just has to be "designated." It looks to me like you can designate yourselves and then go flying. If you designate yourselves afterwards nobody will know the difference. A logbook entry showing second in command AND simulated instrument time might look a little funny, but I think it's legal. -Graham Ross, Tektronix from uucp (ucbvax|decvax)!teklabs!tekmdp!grahamr from arpa tekmdp!grahamr.tek@rand-relay from csnet tekmdp!grahamr@tek
dmmartindale (01/14/83)
The Canadian rules on this are simpler and clearer: Any pilot who holds a private, commercial, senior commercial, or airline transport pilot licence and who is qualified as to category, class and type on the aircraft used, may be considered competent to act as a safety pilot for the purpose of instrument flying practice. The pilot undergoing practice must also hold a valid pilot licence endorsed for the category, class, and type of aircraft used. Flight time so acquired may not be credited towards the 20 hours of instrument instruction required for the initial issue of an instrument rating. It's fairly clear that both pilots need to be legally able to act as pilot- in-command - both must be rated for the aircraft. The regulations say elsewhere that a pilot may "exercise the privileges of the licence" only if his medical hasn't expired - I presume this extends to the privilege of acting as safety pilot. There is no "currency" requirement for day VFR flight equivalent to the American BFR - once you're licenced and if you keep your medical up to date, you're always legal. Also, there is no such thing as a signoff for "complex" airplanes - the private licence entitles you to fly anything up to 4000 pounds gross regardless of engine, propeller, or gear type, as long as your licence is valid for the category and class. Also, EITHER pilot may be designated pilot-in-command. If the safety pilot is PIC, he logs PIC time and the practicing pilot logs dual time. If the practicing pilot is designated PIC, he logs PIC time and the safety pilot usually logs nothing (he can log co-pilot time if the aircraft C of A requires a co-pilot, but otherwise nothing). In light of all of the above, it seems clear that the safety pilot must be qualified to act as PIC, even if he isn't PIC for this flight. I very much doubt that he could claim that he didn't need to be sober because he wasn't PIC. I would feel VERY uncomfortable as a safety pilot in a plane with a throw-over control wheel. Dave Martindale
larson (02/15/83)
#R:rabbit:-103900:sri-unix:4000003:000:579 sri-unix!larson Feb 14 19:48:00 1983 If you dig through the last 2-4 years of the "General Aviation News" published by the FAA, you will find the safety pilot addressed at several points. In fact, they will probably also answer the "what category" question for ILS's. I reacall many discussions of safety pilot qualifications. It seems to be just the place for the answers to all of the questions I have seen on this newsgroup. You can probably find the back issues by asking your local FAA accident prevention specialist. All of these people I have ever dealt with are really good, and quite helpful. Alan
cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (07/08/83)
This question of safety pilots, I think, is quite important. First, a safety pilot is also acting as pilot in command if anything goes wrong. Second, because a safety pilot is acting occaisionally as PIC (including signing the logbook of the person under the hood), the pilot must be able to act as PIC in the airplane with passengers on board. This concept of two PICs on one flight at one time is covered in FAR 61 when talking of logging time as a flight instructor, and in FAR 121 when talking of the designated second in command in a crew requiring three pilots. Anyway, in the case where the safety pilot did not cover for the pilot under the hood, the safety pilot would be in massive hot water, not the pilot under the hood. The safety pilot has accepted the responsibility for collision avoidance. The pilot under the hood can not, by virtue of the hood, assume the task of collision avoidance. It also seems to be that if the safety pilot was not qualified, the person under the hood is in deep trouble in the case where a near miss happens. I don't worry about it anyway. When out of IFR currancy, I will get a comp check from one of the othere instructors where I part time instruct. I also take my instrument students up in actual IFR (IMC conditions for you picky ones) and keep currant that way. Jeff Williams ihnp4!cfiaime BTL Naperville
mark@hp-kirk.UUCP (07/14/83)
#R:ihnp4:-37200:hp-kirk:5500009:000:1362
hp-kirk!mark Jul 12 07:12:00 1983
I cannot find anyplace in the FARs where it says that the safety pilot is in
any sense second-in-command or is to take control of the plane under any
circumstances unless this is to be implied by the otherwise undefined term
"safety pilot". In fact the whole issue seems to rest on just what can be
implied from the two words "safety pilot". The FARs do not explicitly even
relieve the PIC of the responsibility of collision advoidance. They say a
"safety pilot" must be there but they do not state what that person can do
nor what that person is responsible for. If we make the reasonable assumption
that the safety pilot is responsible for collision advoidance and maintaining
VFR conditions then this function can be carried out without taking control of
the plane. Leastwise ATC has had responsiblilty for collision advoidance in
actual IFR for years and has done so without ever actually taking control of a
plane. When I fly under the hood, I do so with a prearranged understanding
with the safety pilot as to whose doing what, but I really don't know what the
FAA stand would be if anything actually goes wrong.
who wrote those regs anyway,
Death Rowe
hp-pcd!hp-cvd!mark
Corvallis, Oregonark@rabbit.UUCP (07/19/83)
I believe that the safety pilot is second in command. References: FAR 61.51.c.3: A pilot may log as second in command all flight time during which he acts as second in command of 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. FAR 91.21.b: No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -- 1. An appropriately rated pilot occupies the other control seat as a safety pilot; 2. The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and 3. Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when -- i. The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and ii. The person manipmlating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings. FAR 91.21.b is the only place I have found in the FARs that talks about safety pilot qualifications at all. I think it's pretty clear from the above statements that the safety pilot is NOT pilot in command.