Logging instrument approaches

[Slav Inger]

It's been awhile since I flew VFR, and having taken a cursory look
through Part 61 I didn't see anything to the contrary, so I'm going to
throw this out and see what you guys think. It's my understanding that
I can take a VFR-only airplane on a local VFR trip with a PP-rated
safety pilot on board, wear foggles, shoot simulated instrument
approaches and log those approaches as instrument approaches AND log the
entire time as PIC. Correct or incorrect?

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

[JimC]

According to the instructors and DE's that I know, that is a correct
statement. Of course the plane would have to be equipped for the approaches
that you're doing. Hard to log an ILS approach if the plane doesn't have a
GS.

JimC

"Slav Inger" > wrote in message
...
> It's been awhile since I flew VFR, and having taken a cursory look
> through Part 61 I didn't see anything to the contrary, so I'm going to
> throw this out and see what you guys think. It's my understanding that
> I can take a VFR-only airplane on a local VFR trip with a PP-rated
> safety pilot on board, wear foggles, shoot simulated instrument
> approaches and log those approaches as instrument approaches AND log the
> entire time as PIC. Correct or incorrect?
>
> - Slav Inger
> - PP ASEL IA @ YIP

[Justin Maas]

> Hard to log an ILS approach if the plane doesn't have a GS.

Nonsense. I just have the safety pilot point one of his fingers
horizontally on one hand and vertically on the other. Then, while crossing
the fingers and putting them in view of the PIC (with a V.L.D. on, of
course), the safety pilot can look outside and estimate the glideslope.
It's also critical that the S.P. have a good voice range, as emulation of
the marker beacons can be difficult otherwise. It should be noted that beef
jerky sticks can substitute fingers, but equipment function is more likely
if pilot hunger is moderate.

If you want to simulate intercepting a GS too high and receiving an
incorrect angle, have the S.P. consume any alcoholic beverage(s) and/or nail
polish remover. If unwilling, tell him/her that he needs to identify the
100LL with a good sniff, as "fuel gnomes" have been known to steal gas and
replace it with blue water. This should result in faulty "instrumentation."

Sorry, it's late...had to do it...:)

Justin

[Slav Inger]

JimC wrote:
>
> According to the instructors and DE's that I know, that is a correct
> statement. Of course the plane would have to be equipped for the approaches
> that you're doing. Hard to log an ILS approach if the plane doesn't have a
> GS.
>

That goes without saying, I was just making sure I was alright on
legalities.

And Justin, keep taking those pills man. ;)

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

[Teacherjh]

>>
Nonsense. I just have the safety pilot point one of his fingers
horizontally on one hand and vertically on the other. Then, while crossing
the fingers and putting them in view of the PIC (with a V.L.D. on, of
course), the safety pilot can look outside and estimate the glideslope.
It's also critical that the S.P. have a good voice range, as emulation of
the marker beacons can be difficult otherwise. It should be noted that beef
jerky sticks can substitute fingers, but equipment function is more likely
if pilot hunger is moderate.

If you want to simulate intercepting a GS too high and receiving an
incorrect angle, have the S.P. consume any alcoholic beverage(s) and/or nail
polish remover. If unwilling, tell him/her that he needs to identify the
100LL with a good sniff, as "fuel gnomes" have been known to steal gas and
replace it with blue water. This should result in faulty "instrumentation."
<<

I thought that wasn't legal unless you had an FAA approved tuna sandwich.

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ron Natalie]

"Slav Inger" > wrote in message ...
> It's been awhile since I flew VFR, and having taken a cursory look
> through Part 61 I didn't see anything to the contrary, so I'm going to
> throw this out and see what you guys think. It's my understanding that
> I can take a VFR-only airplane on a local VFR trip with a PP-rated
> safety pilot on board, wear foggles, shoot simulated instrument
> approaches and log those approaches as instrument approaches AND log the
> entire time as PIC. Correct or incorrect?

The only requirement to log instrument time is to fly the aircraft by reference
to instruments in simulated or actual conditions. There is no requirement
for the aircraft (or the pilot) to be rated for IFR (as long as they don't actually
operate under IFR).

[Ron Natalie]

"Justin Maas" > wrote in message ...
> > Hard to log an ILS approach if the plane doesn't have a GS.
>
> Nonsense. I just have the safety pilot point one of his fingers
> horizontally on one hand and vertically on the other. Then, while crossing
> the fingers and putting them in view of the PIC

You're making it too hard... all he needs to do is simulate the glideslope. Presumably
your NAV radio can track the localizer...

[Slav Inger]

On a similar note (and this one I'm less sure about than my original
question), is there any way the safety pilot can log the time he spends
being the safety pilot? I know my logging requirements as PIC under
simulated instrument conditions (SP's name, etc), but I'm not exactly
sure what the SP himself can log. Thanks.

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

[Slav Inger]

Slav Inger wrote:
>
> On a similar note (and this one I'm less sure about than my original
> question), is there any way the safety pilot can log the time he spends
> being the safety pilot? I know my logging requirements as PIC under
> simulated instrument conditions (SP's name, etc), but I'm not exactly
> sure what the SP himself can log. Thanks.
>

Oh, almost forgot: I don't think I can split the cost of the flight with
the safety pilot, can I? Since I wanted to go practice instrument
approaches and asked/needed someone to be my safety pilot, the SP is no
longer "just a passenger". Since his presence in the airplane is not
coincidental, I'm assuming that I can't charge him 50% of the cost.

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

[Ron Natalie]

"Slav Inger" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> WRT "as long as they don't actually operate under IFR", while the
> airplane must be rated for IFR in this case, I'd just like to clarify
> that it IS legal for a not-yet-rated instrument student to log PIC when
> in IMC and on an IFR flight plan when their CFII is sitting next to
> them.

That is to day, the PIC doesn't need to be the one flying by insturments (and
logging the instrument time). Doesn't need to be a CFII. Any safety pilot
legal to be the IFR PIC can play that role.

[Mark Kolber]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:09:37 -0400, Slav Inger
> wrote:

>Oh, almost forgot: I don't think I can split the cost of the flight with
>the safety pilot, can I? Since I wanted to go practice instrument
>approaches and asked/needed someone to be my safety pilot, the SP is no
>longer "just a passenger". Since his presence in the airplane is not
>coincidental, I'm assuming that I can't charge him 50% of the cost.

I don't see why not. You're sharing the flight and you're both logging
flight time. The rule about sharing costs is designed to prevent you
from charging people for acting as a pilot, not to prevent two pilots
from sharing the cost of an airplane that they both get a benefit
from.

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[Casey Wilson]

> >Oh, almost forgot: I don't think I can split the cost of the flight with
> >the safety pilot, can I? Since I wanted to go practice instrument
> >approaches and asked/needed someone to be my safety pilot, the SP is no
> >longer "just a passenger". Since his presence in the airplane is not
> >coincidental, I'm assuming that I can't charge him 50% of the cost.

In the literal sense of the word, you can't "charge" him anything
without holding a commercial ticket. You have by the way, ruffled my
feathers here. First, I, personally, wouldn't ask a stranger to ride safety
for me. Second, asking someone I know and trust to ride safety for me is
asking them for a favor and I wouldn't have the temerity to require them to
compensate me for doing that favor. I dunno, sounds kind of rude... "Hey
Billy Bob, will you pay me $50 an hour to be my safety pilot?"

[JimC]

Justin, I must admit to the error of my earlier post. Your approach to
approaches is far more creative and can even do in a pinch. Should low IMC
settle in that alcoholic beverage could serve to calm the nerves of the
pilot as well. What was I thinking?

JimC

"Justin Maas" > wrote in message
...
> > Hard to log an ILS approach if the plane doesn't have a GS.
>
> Nonsense. I just have the safety pilot point one of his fingers
> horizontally on one hand and vertically on the other. Then, while
crossing
> the fingers and putting them in view of the PIC (with a V.L.D. on, of
> course), the safety pilot can look outside and estimate the glideslope.
> It's also critical that the S.P. have a good voice range, as emulation of
> the marker beacons can be difficult otherwise. It should be noted that
beef
> jerky sticks can substitute fingers, but equipment function is more likely
> if pilot hunger is moderate.
>
> If you want to simulate intercepting a GS too high and receiving an
> incorrect angle, have the S.P. consume any alcoholic beverage(s) and/or
nail
> polish remover. If unwilling, tell him/her that he needs to identify the
> 100LL with a good sniff, as "fuel gnomes" have been known to steal gas and
> replace it with blue water. This should result in faulty
"instrumentation."
>
> Sorry, it's late...had to do it...:)
>
> Justin
>
>

[Robert Henry]

"JimC" > wrote in message
.. .
> Justin, I must admit to the error of my earlier post. Your approach to
> approaches is far more creative and can even do in a pinch. Should low
IMC
> settle in that alcoholic beverage could serve to calm the nerves of the
> pilot as well. What was I thinking?
>
> JimC

You also have to admit that the jerky is low weight, supports extended
flight times, and absorbs some of the alcohol.

Clearly ATC should have this information, so I propose the slant Juliet
equipment suffix. The meaning is equivalent to /G, adding practicing
approaches with mode jerky available.

[Ben Jackson]

In article <DE2Ra.15739$o54.2916@lakeread05>,
Robert Henry > wrote:
>
>You also have to admit that the jerky is low weight, supports extended
>flight times, and absorbs some of the alcohol.

And according to the nutrition label, it is certified in the
utility category. Just remember to wear a parachute if you tilt
it more than 60 degrees.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Slav Inger]

Casey Wilson wrote:
>
> First, I, personally, wouldn't ask a stranger to ride safety
> for me. Second, asking someone I know and trust to ride safety for me is
> asking them for a favor and I wouldn't have the temerity to require them to
> compensate me for doing that favor. I dunno, sounds kind of rude... "Hey
> Billy Bob, will you pay me $50 an hour to be my safety pilot?"
>

Close but no cigar, Casey. First, he's not a stranger, I've known and
been flying with this person for quite a while. Second, I never asked
for money on any of the trips we've taken together, and at times when he
voluntarily offered I always took significantly less than the 50%. All
I was asking here was, IF he offers me anything on his own initiative,
is it legal to accept up to 50% of the cost. Apparently it is.

P.S. I'll agree that the using word "charge" in my post came across a
bit too strong, so I see where you're coming from.

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

[Ron Natalie]

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message news:QQ1Ra.15617$o54.10140@lakeread05...

> Perhaps (words twice), the safety pilot who agrees to be/log PIC should
> understand the liability they are accepting for the flight even though they
> are not manipulating the controls. At least, that is the more important
> issue to me. Also, as I understand it, PIC MUST (not better) be worked out
> in advance.
>
Anytime you have more than one pilot in an airplane, it behooves them
to understand what their respective roles are going to be. The "MUST"
means that you have to know who is the PIC at the time the fight is
occurring, you can't just sit down and juggle the numbers later. How
can the PIC assume his job of responsibility if he only finds out he had
the job after the flight was over?

[Ron Natalie]

"JimC" > wrote in message .. .
> Justin, I must admit to the error of my earlier post. Your approach to
> approaches is far more creative and can even do in a pinch. Should low IMC
> settle in that alcoholic beverage could serve to calm the nerves of the
> pilot as well. What was I thinking?
>
Remember, it's eight feet from bottle to throttle.

[Mark Kolber]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:26:08 -0400, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>Perhaps (words twice), the safety pilot who agrees to be/log PIC should
>understand the liability they are accepting for the flight

And perhaps you can tell us about a case in which a safety pilot who
was acting as PIC was held responsible for an accident. Anything in
the last 99.5 years will do.



Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[Mark Kolber]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:25:02 -0400, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>In thinking this over, I should have used the word responsibility instead of
>liability.

I'll accept the word responsibility instead of liability.

>
>But as requested, here's several accidents that imho satisfy the intent of
>my comment, just in the last 3 years.


But not mine. Going back to the your original comment and my reply:


> >Perhaps (words twice), the safety pilot who agrees to be/log PIC should
> >understand the liability they are accepting for the flight
>
> And perhaps you can tell us about a case in which a safety pilot who
> was acting as PIC was held responsible for an accident. Anything in
> the last 99.5 years will do.

=None= of the three cases involve a safety pilot being held
responsible based on his status of acting as PIC. In all three cases
(an the last one is hardly a "safety pilot" scenario, the safety pilot
is being held responsible for something the safety pilot does
personally. In the first (in which according to the report, the SP is
=not= acting as PIC) the safety pilot is responsible for a bad landing
in which he was flying the airplane (not acting as "eyes"). The lesson
I get is, "Don't try to land an airplane that is unfamiliar to you or
from a position in the airplane that is unfamiliar to you without some
instruction."

The second one at least involves the safety pilot's status as safety
pilot. But again, the safety pilot is not being given responsibility
for being PIC. Rather, he's being held responsible for failing to act
properly as a safety pilot. The lesson I get is, "If you are going to
act as a safety pilot, don't take it as a joke. It is an important
job, so do it correctly."

The third, even assuming that the status of first officer in a Part
121 operation is akin to a safety pilot again involves a pilot being
held responsible for what the pilot does, in this case, a bad landing,
rather than as a PIC responsible for the flight.

You are absolutely right about the situation with TFRs and ADIZs. If
during a flight under the hood the flight busts, say a stadium TFR, I
would expect the safety pilot to be looking at a violation. But,
again, that would be for not performing safety pilot duties properly
and would have nothing to do with their status as PIC or not PIC or
logging sometime or not logging something.



Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[Robert Henry]

"Mark Kolber" > wrote in message
...
> You are absolutely right about the situation with TFRs and ADIZs. If
> during a flight under the hood the flight busts, say a stadium TFR, I
> would expect the safety pilot to be looking at a violation. But,
> again, that would be for not performing safety pilot duties properly
> and would have nothing to do with their status as PIC or not PIC or
> logging sometime or not logging something.

I politely disagree with this conclusion. If the safety pilot logs nothing,
and is not the acting PIC, by or for lack of agreement, I don't see why the
person acting as a safety pilot would have any responsibility for the
conduct/operation of the flight during the violation. Essentially the safety
pilot is just a passenger who helps make certain that the pilot flying
simulated conditions doesn't run into anything or anyone.


--

Bob
PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI

[Hilton]

Robert Henry wrote:
>
> Mark Kolber wrote:
> > You are absolutely right about the situation with TFRs and ADIZs. If
> > during a flight under the hood the flight busts, say a stadium TFR, I
> > would expect the safety pilot to be looking at a violation. But,
> > again, that would be for not performing safety pilot duties properly
> > and would have nothing to do with their status as PIC or not PIC or
> > logging sometime or not logging something.
>
> I politely disagree with this conclusion. If the safety pilot logs
nothing,
> and is not the acting PIC, by or for lack of agreement, I don't see why
the
> person acting as a safety pilot would have any responsibility for the
> conduct/operation of the flight during the violation. Essentially the
safety
> pilot is just a passenger who helps make certain that the pilot flying
> simulated conditions doesn't run into anything or anyone.


Robert,

I'm going to politely disagree with you. :) Logging has no bearing as to
responsibilities; i.e. 'logging' versus 'acting', so who logs what is
irrelavant. Secondly, the safety pilot is a required crew member required
by the FARs and is therefore not 'just a passenger' - needs a private
certificate (or greater) and medical. If a second 'safety pilot' is
required (note the quotes since they'd be called an 'observer'), only then
would they be a 'passenger'.

Take a look at 91.109.

Hilton

[Teacherjh]

>>
Essentially the safety
pilot is just a passenger who helps make certain that the pilot flying
simulated conditions doesn't run into anything or anyone.
<<

Not at all. The safety pilot is a crew member who has accepted significant
flight responsibility.

Passengers are not assigned any duties by the FARs. Safety pilots are.

Jose



(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Mark Kolber]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:52:56 -0700, "Hilton" > wrote:

>I'm going to politely disagree with you. :) Logging has no bearing as to
>responsibilities; i.e. 'logging' versus 'acting'

Exactly. Labels mean nothing. Living up to undertaken responsibilities
is everything.


Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[Hilton]

Robert Henry wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
> > Robert Henry wrote:
>
> > If the safety pilot logs
> > nothing,
> > > and is not the acting PIC, by or for lack of agreement, I don't see
why
> > the
> > > person acting as a safety pilot would have any responsibility for the
> > > conduct/operation of the flight during the violation. >
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > I'm going to politely disagree with you. :) Logging has no bearing as
to
> > responsibilities; i.e. 'logging' versus 'acting', so who logs what is
> > irrelavant. Secondly, the safety pilot is a required crew member
required
> > by the FARs and is therefore not 'just a passenger' - needs a private
> > certificate (or greater) and medical. If a second 'safety pilot' is
> > required (note the quotes since they'd be called an 'observer'), only
then
> > would they be a 'passenger'.
> >
> > Take a look at 91.109.
> >
>
> Hilton,
>
> See Section 1.1, definition of PIC. The FAA will file paperwork against
> "the [one] person who has _final_ authority and responsibility for the
> operation and safety of the flight." There can only be one person with
> final authority. What will be one way to determine who that one person is?
> I think the logbooks will come into evidence....

I agree with that. That's why I log SIC when acting as safety pilot, not
because of the regs, but because of insurance; i.e. if I logged PIC, it
would be easy for the insurance company to show (beyond reasonable doubt -
been watching too much TV) that I was PIC in the right seat; i.e they
wouldn't have to pay anything as per the school's insurance. While it may
look like I'm contradicting myself, I'm not, since had I not logged
anything, I was still (at least) SIC, not "just a passenger".


> If both pilots are violated because it can't even be determined who was
> operating the controls, fine, but I'd rather argue a defense of any such
> citation as SIC with black and white (blue and green, whatever) evidence
in
> the logbook.

"Operating the controls" is as (ir)relavent as "logging PIC". Jessica
Dubroff was just a passenger, but was operating the controls
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X05676&key=1). You could
have two private pilots, either one could be operating the controls, either
one could be PIC, either one could be hooded, etc.

Anyway, coming back to your statement: "If the safety pilot logs nothing,
and is not the acting PIC, by or for lack of agreement, I don't see why the
person acting as a safety pilot would have any responsibility for the
conduct/operation of the flight during the violation. .". The safety pilot
is SIC whether he/she likes/logs it or not, is therefore a required
crewmember, and therefore has several responsibilities most importantly
looking outside.

Hilton

[Robert Henry]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyway, coming back to your statement: "If the safety pilot logs nothing,
> and is not the acting PIC, by or for lack of agreement, I don't see why
the
> person acting as a safety pilot would have any responsibility for the
> conduct/operation of the flight during the violation. .". The safety
pilot
> is SIC whether he/she likes/logs it or not, is therefore a required
> crewmember, and therefore has several responsibilities most importantly
> looking outside.

So, to be most accurate, the original statement that started all of this
should be:

Perhaps (words twice), the safety pilot should understand the responsibility
they are accepting for the flight even though they are not manipulating the
controls, and even more so when agreeing to act as PIC during simulated
instrument operation. Acting as PIC carries all of the responsibilities for
the flight rather than just those of being the SP and a required crew
member.

Documenting the safety pilot time as the acting PIC in the logbook leaves
very little to doubt about who had the final authority for the conduct,
operation and safety of the flight, at least imho. Should a violation or
some other event cause an investigation to be brought about the flight, the
SP logging PIC should expect to accept that responsibility.

I think it's highly probable that there are SPs out there logging PIC who do
not understand the implication of that action.

Should the flying pilot step up and say, oh no, that's wrong - cite me, the
SP is now possibly looking at falsification of a logbook, right?

Bob

[Ron Natalie]

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message news:3p2Ta.19903$o54.11459@lakeread05...

> I think the logbooks will come into evidence....

The logbooks aren't very good evidence.

1. There is (in general) no requirement for logging anything.
2. The rules for loging PIC time are disassociated (in general) from who
is PIC.

The FAA and the NTSB have never used the log books to make a determination
of who is PIC to my knowledge. The NTSB usually just uses the person in the
prime pilot position (left seat on most planes unless they have compelling evidence
that that person wasn't the PIC...like he wasn't a pilot). The FAA just goes after
whoever they can cause the most damage to (preferring to bang an instructor or
commercial pilot on board over a private).

> If both pilots are violated because it can't even be determined who was
> operating the controls,

Operating the controls has nothing to do with who is pilot in command.


> I'm only parroting (more or less) the information the AOPA counsel provides
> to its members. See also Other Considerations in the URL listed below - if
> you can access it.
>
> http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/sftyplt.html
>
You're not parrotting it very well, it says stuff completely contrary to the points
you made here.

[Robert Henry]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/sftyplt.html
> >
> You're not parrotting it very well, it says stuff completely contrary to
the points
> you made here.
>

"Acting as PIC. The safety pilot should not take the role as acting PIC
lightly. What if the aircraft is involved in an accident, incident, or
violates an FAR? "

[Robert Henry]

"Mark Kolber" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:42:55 -0400, "Robert Henry"
> > wrote:
>
> >See Section 1.1, definition of PIC. The FAA will file paperwork against
> >"the [one] person who has _final_ authority and responsibility for the
> >operation and safety of the flight." There can only be one person with
> >final authority. What will be one way to determine who that one person
is?
> >I think the logbooks will come into evidence....
>
> But you're making a false assumption that the =only= person that will
> be gone after is the "officially" acting PIC. Any crewmember who does
> not do his job has exposure for both FAA certificate action and
> personal liability.
>
> That's not how it works.
>

Yes. I am. I also agree that may not be the way it works - circumstances
vary widely as I understand it. (FSDO by FSDO.)

All that said, which crewmember(s) is not doing their job when a TFR is
busted and the SP is acting PIC? Will both pilots be held responsible? Who
is likely to receive the worst penalty (assuming equivalent rating of the
pilots)?

Now, assume the pilots have equivalent credentials, the SP is SIC. Will the
safety pilot be held responsible for a TFR violation? How? (According to
what (FAR)?)

Bob

[Hilton]

Robert Henry wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, coming back to your statement: "If the safety pilot logs
nothing,
> > and is not the acting PIC, by or for lack of agreement, I don't see why
> the
> > person acting as a safety pilot would have any responsibility for the
> > conduct/operation of the flight during the violation. .". The safety
> pilot
> > is SIC whether he/she likes/logs it or not, is therefore a required
> > crewmember, and therefore has several responsibilities most importantly
> > looking outside.
>
> So, to be most accurate, the original statement that started all of this
> should be:
>
> Perhaps (words twice), the safety pilot should understand the
responsibility
> they are accepting for the flight even though they are not manipulating
the
> controls, and even more so when agreeing to act as PIC during simulated
> instrument operation. Acting as PIC carries all of the responsibilities
for
> the flight rather than just those of being the SP and a required crew
> member.
>
> Documenting the safety pilot time as the acting PIC in the logbook leaves
> very little to doubt about who had the final authority for the conduct,
> operation and safety of the flight, at least imho. Should a violation or
> some other event cause an investigation to be brought about the flight,
the
> SP logging PIC should expect to accept that responsibility.
>
> I think it's highly probable that there are SPs out there logging PIC who
do
> not understand the implication of that action.

Everything you wrote above is 100% correct, especially this last sentence.
I would say that most pilots (including CFIs) do not understand the
differences between acting and logging PIC. I once had a 'discussion' about
this with CFIs at American Flyers. They absolutely disagreed with me, and
ended up getting quite angry that I logged SIC because they thought this was
more important than PIC. Anyway, the following day I took in an article
from AOPA, an FAA letter (or article I forget), and the Jepp book on
interpreting the regs - they all refused to even look at it, except one who
looked at all three and still disagreed with me and all three articles.
They all concluded that by virtue of the fact that you're looking outside
makes you PIC - period.


> Should the flying pilot step up and say, oh no, that's wrong - cite me,
the
> SP is now possibly looking at falsification of a logbook, right?

Well, that would be for a court to figure out. I guess (after coming to
their senses), they could claim that they just totally misunderstood the
regs and the pilot under the hood was PIC.

Always make it clear before starting the engine(s) as to who is PIC.

Hilton

[Ron Natalie]

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message news:7inTa.20005$o54.503@lakeread05...

> All that said, which crewmember(s) is not doing their job when a TFR is
> busted and the SP is acting PIC? Will both pilots be held responsible? Who
> is likely to receive the worst penalty (assuming equivalent rating of the
> pilots)?

The answer to that is the one that can be harmed the most. The FAA cares
not a hoot who is PIC or logs PIC time.

> Now, assume the pilots have equivalent credentials, the SP is SIC. Will the
> safety pilot be held responsible for a TFR violation? How? (According to
> what (FAR)?)

The PIC is ultimately responsible for the SAFETY of the flight.
All pilots are responsible for obeying the FARs. Where does it say
that 91.137 says it only appiles to the pilot in command. The rule
says "persons." It's even possible for the FAA to string up people
who aren't pilots (for example in the case of air carriers, the operator
may be held liable).

[Mark Kolber]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:29:03 -0400, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>All that said, which crewmember(s) is not doing their job when a TFR is
>busted and the SP is acting PIC? Will both pilots be held responsible? Who
>is likely to receive the worst penalty (assuming equivalent rating of the
>pilots)?

First of all, bear in mind that none of the real situation you found
involve a safety pilot who was held responsible for a dereliction by
the flying pilot.

But that aside, I'll give you a specific scenario and you can tell me
whether the scenario is ridiculous.

Two pilot go for a flight. The flying pilot (FP) will be PIC for a
variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it's at night and
the safety pilot (SP) isn't night current, so SP can't be PIC.

FP is going to practice holds. No ATC communication. They just find a
handy VOR and remain at an altitude that both know is below the MVA so
they are out of the way of IFR. FP is practicing holds in anticipation
of a IPC. Does a really bad job of the hold. Turns to the non holding
side and, unfortunately, busts a Stadium TFR that they both knew
about.

Reasonable scenario?

I'd say SP is screwed. And I'd say he'd get a bigger penalty than the
FP who relied on him (unless the FP knew the SP was an idiot)

This is only an opinion, and you're free to disagree.

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[Ron Natalie]

"Mark Kolber" > wrote in message ...

>
> I'd say SP is screwed. And I'd say he'd get a bigger penalty than the
> FP who relied on him (unless the FP knew the SP was an idiot)

The regulatory role of the safety pilot is to keep you from hitting other
aircraft. He's not there to back up other deficiencies in your flying.
If it wasn't for the regulatory requirement to see-and-avoid in VMC,
you wouldn't need him at all.

That's not to say the FAA won't go after you.

[Mark Kolber]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:36:04 -0400, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>The regulatory role of the safety pilot is to keep you from hitting other
>aircraft. He's not there to back up other deficiencies in your flying.
>If it wasn't for the regulatory requirement to see-and-avoid in VMC,
>you wouldn't need him at all.

Of course being the hooded pilot's "eyes" is the safety pilot's
primary role.

But perhaps you can point me to the part of 91.109(b) that says that
the safety pilot's role is limited to seeing and avoiding other
aircraft. I couldn't find it.

On the other hand, I noticed that a recreational pilot cannot act as a
safety pilot. That despite being able to carry passengers, being rated
in category and class, and having a current medical. Wonder how come?
Could it possibly be because the FAA wanted someone who was also
trained more heavily in navigation and communication, the only two
skill sets that separate the rec from the private certificate?

I also noticed that the airplane must have dual controls, and that if
a throw-over is in the airplane, the safety pilot (notice, not the
PIC!) is given the specific responsibility of determining whether the
flight can be made safely.

Sounds just a little more serious than "hey stupid, turn left!"

I'm not suggesting that suddenly the safety pilot is responsible for
all sorts of things. But only that two concepts I see stated often,
either explicitly or implicitly

1. A safety pilot picks up no responsibility for a flight unless he's
also PIC.

and it's evil twin

2. § 91.3(a) means that no one except the PIC has any responsibility
for the safety of a flight

are incredibly simplistic and have no relationship to the real world
of responsibility and liability

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"