mark@hp-kirk.UUCP (06/11/83)
#N:hp-kirk:5500005:000:1868
hp-kirk!mark Jun 9 15:49:00 1983
Some pilots seem to believe that a private license requires the pilot to pay
for at least an equal share of the flight costs. While I may be wrong in
this, I believe the regulations only require that a private pilot share
expenses, not necessarily pick up an equal share. A pilot who pays for any
part of the flight (total profit must be negative) should satisfy the
requirements in this regard.
Another point of debate that I have brought up with the local FAA office is
that with regards to safety pilots the regulations require only that the
safety pilot be qualified to fly the plane (I don't have a copy of the FARs
with me and can't remember the exact wording). In any case, I proposed that
a student pilot who had soloed the plane in question and hence was qualified
to fly the plane would qualify as a safety pilot. The rules did not seem to
either confirm or deny this leaving the whole matter open to interpretation
of whether the regulations meant able to fly at that moment which would then
depend on whether the pilot-in-command would be considered a passenger and
so forth. Intent of the regulation is not clear either since it is not
intuitively obvious whether a student pilot would be a qualified safety
pilot. It actually could even depend on whether the PIC were a CFI or not.
For that matter, anyone can legally fly a plane when recieving instruction
from a CFI, hence one might conclude that a CFI can fly under the hood with
anyone acting as safety pilot. I suspect you would be unable to get away
with this, but I am not sure it really violates the regulations. Is there
anybody out there who can give the definitive answer on this (or even an
interesting opinion).
"Death" Rowe
hp-pcd!hp-cvd!mark
Corvallis, OregonLars.Ericson%CMU-CS-A@sri-unix.UUCP (06/14/83)
A safety pilot must be qualified to act as pilot in command of the aircraft. Student pilots cannot act as PIC when carrying passengers, so they cannot serve as safety pilots. To serve as safety pilot you have to be at least a private pilot. You must be a multiengine pilot to serve as safety pilot in a twin. You must have a high performance endorsement to serve as safety pilot in a complex or high performance airplane. The notion that a safety pilot does nothing but look for traffic is incorrect. If the pilot under the hood should become disoriented or momentarily incapacitated (e.g., he's busy throwing up due to vertigo) the safety pilot must be able to take control of the aircraft. Simiarly, if the pilot under the hood should lose control during an approach, when the aircraft is low and slow, the safety pilot has to be competent enough to rescue the situation. I was riding as a passenger once when two pilots were practicing IFR approaches at night. We came very close to an MAC (mid-air collision) with a Mitsubishi due to a screwup with ATC. The safety pilot had to take the controls and quickly institute collision avoidance procedures. People who are not qualified to act as PIC have no business serving as safety pilots. -- Dave Touretzky PS: Please add Touretzky@CMUA to the aviation mailing list.
rob@genrad.UUCP (Rob Wood) (06/15/83)
I understand that the safety pilot must be capable of assuming the PIC duties. Thus a student pilot may not act as safety pilot. Rob Wood (decvax!genrad!rob)
gjphw@ihuxm.UUCP (06/16/83)
Unfortunately, this commentary is being written without my copy of the
FARs conveniently in hand. But then, I'm a pilot (commercial SEL) and not
a lawyer, so you may judge what this commentary is worth.
The item about allowing a private pilot to share the expenses in any
arbitrary way merely implies that a private cannot make a living (profit) by
flying. Business people may choose to fly but their piloting must be a means
to an end (making an income) rather than an end in itself. A short while ago,
a net item from Canada remarked that private pilots cannot share the expenses
of a rental airplane.
The question of safety and copilots has been hazy with the FAA for quite
some time. At one time, a copilot did not even have to be qualified in a
airplane to act as a copilot. So, I with my time in Cherokees could act as
a copilot of a Lear. This would be okay with me as long as the PIC did not
expect anything more from me than a pair of eyes and lively conversation.
Now, copilots must at least be FAA rated for the aircraft in question. It
is often the insurance companies, though, that in fact establish the experience
requirements for PIC. Copilot time can only be logged in an aircraft or
type of operation (Part 135 or better) that requires a copilot.
When flying with an instructor, the instructor is always the PIC. When
the instructor is acting as an FAA examiner, or you fly with a real FAA
examiner, then the examiner is an observer and you are the PIC. This may
have come about due to liability problems. Anyway, a student pilot must
either fly alone as the sole occupant of the aircraft, and is for that time
a PIC, or fly with an instructor, who is then the PIC.
Now comes the difficult part. The status of a safety pilot seems only one
rung below that of a copilot (other than being responsible for the ice and
magazines). It is not time that can be logged but the safety pilot should
be able to handle the controls. Whether or not the safety pilot should have the
qualifications to handle the controls as PIC seems to be the question. It is
my opinion that if the safety pilot is expected to handle the controls, they
should be qualified to act as PIC in that aircraft. Only an instructor can
act as PIC without touching the controls (a miracle from the FAA). In single
engine aircraft, the person manipulating the controls is the PIC. If the
safety pilot is allowed to touch the controls (e.g., to recover from an
unusual attitude), then they must be able to assume PIC responsibilities.
So, a student pilot cannot act as a safety pilot.
While the FAA may be ambiguous on this point, I would bet that few
insurance companies have this difficulty. I would bet that they would want
to see the safety pilot capable of assuming PIC responsibilities.
Patrick Wyant
*!ihuxm!gjphw
Bell Labs (Naperville, IL)Mary.Shaw%CMU-CS-A@sri-unix.UUCP (06/17/83)
There are two things to consider when discussing questions such as requirements for safety pilots: 1. What's safe? 2. What's legal? Seems to me that in many cases -- and this is one -- the first question is more important than the second. (Naturally, you should be legal as well as safe, but you can't assume that being legal automatically makes you safe.) My personal rule is that my safety pilot should be completely qualified to serve as PIC for the flight. That means licensed, type-rated, current (including night current if appropriate), in current medical, sober, etc. My reasoning is that the safety pilot is not only providing eyes for traffic avoidance but also backup in case the pilot gets disoriented or confused. It takes a little more skill to take over the controls suddenly than to simply fly the plane, and the safety pilot may have to do so close to the ground. I know that not everyone agrees with me. For example, one evening an acquaintance of mine tried to extract me from a beer party to fly safety for him -- at night, yet. I declined, saying that I'd been drinking -- but he replied, "Well, you haven't had much, have you?" Needless to say, I refused again, but it still bothers me to think about flying out of a field with marginally safe practice operations under way. Mary Shaw (comm glider, ASMEL, CGI-AI)
rob@genrad.UUCP (Rob Wood) (06/18/83)
Patrick's summary was pretty good. One point was wrong. A saftey pilot can log the time. He is a required crew-member for that flight. He should log it as co-pilot time. Whether this is good for anything is not the question, it can be done.
mark@hp-kirk.UUCP (06/22/83)
#R:hp-kirk:5500005:hp-kirk:5500006:000:1896
hp-kirk!mark Jun 20 06:01:00 1983
I admit that my question was more directed to what is legal rather
than what is safe with regard to safety pilots; however, even the
matter of safety is one that can't be shrugged off simply by saying
that to be safe the safety pilot must be at least private rated. Is a
student pilot (I refer here to one who has been signed off for solo
flight and has done so in the plane in question) an unsafe pilot? It
was pointed out that the safety pilot might be required to take
control of the plane and recover from an unusual attitude (I love that
phrase) perhaps fairly close to the ground. Indeed this is a task
that the student pilot is not likely to be skilled at, but I would
also point out that it is a task that the typical private pilot or
even commercial pilot is not likely to be skilled at (as a side
question I am curious about the training that CFIs -who are skilled at
it- have in wresting controls away from hopelessly confused students
to recover from the proverbial unusual attitude). My only point is
that the FAA regulations (even when clearly stated) are not in any
sense adequate for determining what is safe. This is always the sole
and ultimate responsibility of the pilot; thus when I refer to the
FARs my major interest is what is legal, safety is not something I
look up in a book.
Finally, as was pointed out, not only does one need concern themselves
with what is safe and what is legal but also with what is insured, and
alas that is all too often the limiting case in determining what a
pilot (particularly one such as myself who rents aircraft) may and may
not do.
Mark "Death" Rowe
hp-pcd!hp-cvd!mark
Corvallis, Oregonlarson@sri-unix.UUCP (07/08/83)
#R:hp-kirk:5500005:sri-unix:4000005:000:606 sri-unix!larson Jun 13 11:59:00 1983 As I recall, the safety pilot issue was taken up a few years ago in the FAA publication "General Aviation News". Since the student cannot act as pilot in command (except on solo), he is not qualified to operate the plane with someone else under the hood. I believe this would prevent a single engine pilot from operating as safety pilot in a multi-engine aircraft. I recommend you visit the FAA accident prevention counselor at your nearest GADO. He will probably have a file of the back issues and be glad to help research such matters. Every one of them I have met has been very helpful. Alan
larson@sri-unix.UUCP (07/08/83)
#R:hp-kirk:5500005:sri-unix:4000007:000:232 sri-unix!larson Jun 17 12:39:00 1983 Since when I go out and fly VFR under a hood, I must have a safety pilot, he is required --- thus he gets to log the time as second in command, even for part 91 operations in a Cessna 150! (This is from a FAA publication.) Alan