Safety Pilot Qualification?

[Richard]

I'm sure this has be hashed over many times, but I can't find it now. In
the current issue of "IFR" (December, 2003), an editorial answer to a
reader's question contained the following - (referring to a safety pilot
requirements):

".... if you use a safety pilot and write that safety pilot's name in your
logbook, we'd highly suggest that you treat that safety pilot as a required
crewmember........... If the airplane is high performance, complex, or
tailwheel, that safety-pilot-required-crewmember should have those
additional endorsements, too."

For many years I have been under the impression that a safety pilot must
possess at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings
appropriate to the aircraft being flown. In my case, (182-RG), I don't
think that a safety pilot has to have any of the above additional
endorsements. Has something changed, or have I just been wrong all these
years?

Thanks in advance!

[Ron Natalie]

"Richard" > wrote in message t...
> I'm sure this has be hashed over many times, but I can't find it now. In
> the current issue of "IFR" (December, 2003), an editorial answer to a
> reader's question contained the following - (referring to a safety pilot
> requirements):

I have written the editor who published a correction, which is still wrong.
>
> For many years I have been under the impression that a safety pilot must
> possess at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings
> appropriate to the aircraft being flown. In my case, (182-RG), I don't
> think that a safety pilot has to have any of the above additional
> endorsements. Has something changed, or have I just been wrong all these
> years?

No Paul Berge just isn't that good of an editor. The safety pilot does not need
to meet the endorsement requirements unless he is going to be pilot in command.
A safety pilot can be, but isn't necessarily pilot in command.

[Kobra]

> ".... if you use a safety pilot and write that safety pilot's name in
your
> logbook, we'd highly suggest that you treat that safety pilot as a
required
> crewmember........... If the airplane is high performance, complex, or
> tailwheel, that safety-pilot-required-crewmember should have those
> additional endorsements, too."
>
Notice it says "should have those..." It doesn't say is required to.
Sounds like a recommendation not the law.

Kobra

[Robert Henry]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
> Notice it says "should have those..." It doesn't say is required to.
> Sounds like a recommendation not the law.

Yes, but the phrasing attaches significance to the fact that the safety
pilot's name is written in the logbook when there is no correlation between
the two concepts. For example, consider this: If you type on a computer
keyboard to send a message, you should treat the message as confidential.

[John T]

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message
news:Amzub.27981$HD3.24074@lakeread06
>
> If you type on a computer keyboard to send a message, you should
> treat the message as confidential.

Especially if you send the message to a USENET server... :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

[Robert Henry]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...

>
> Especially if you send the message to a USENET server... :)

Exactly. ;)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:38:33 GMT, "Richard" > wrote:

>Has something changed, or have I just been wrong all these
>years?

Nothing has changed.

IFR is wrong.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:38:33 GMT, "Richard" > wrote:

>a safety pilot must
>possess at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings
>appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

And also a current medical certificate.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Casey Wilson]

I've been following this thread all along. It seems to me the simple answer
at the very beginning is that the "safety pilot" must be legal to fly the
airplane, period.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 03:40:41 GMT, "Casey Wilson" >
wrote:

>
>I've been following this thread all along. It seems to me the simple answer
>at the very beginning is that the "safety pilot" must be legal to fly the
>airplane, period.
>

Then you have inferred the wrong conclusion.

For example, to act as a safety pilot, you do NOT need to be current to
carry passengers.

If the aircraft requires an endorsement such as tail-dragger,
high-performance, complex -- the safety pilot does NOT require that
endorsement.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Natalie]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message ...
>
> I've been following this thread all along. It seems to me the simple answer
> at the very beginning is that the "safety pilot" must be legal to fly the
> airplane, period.
>
Your simple answer is wrong. The safety pilot only need posess a private (or better) pilot
certificate with category and class ratings and a medical. He is not required
to meet the specific pilot in command requirements (currency, BFR, HP/complex
endorsements) etc... unless he is specifically serving in that role.

Here are the only two rules that apply to safety pilot qualifications:

91.109
(b) 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.

61.3(c)
(1) Except as provided for in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a person may not act as pilot in command or in any
other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft, under a certificate issued to that person under
this part, unless that person has a current and appropriate medical certificate...

Nowhere does it say he has to be "qualified to fly the plane." His role is to provide the
see-and-avoid vigilance that the hooded pilot can not provide.

[Casey Wilson]

> > I've been following this thread all along. It seems to me the simple
answer
> > at the very beginning is that the "safety pilot" must be legal to fly
the
> > airplane, period.
> >
> Your simple answer is wrong. The safety pilot only need posess a private
(or better) pilot
> certificate with category and class ratings and a medical. He is not
required
> to meet the specific pilot in command requirements (currency, BFR,
HP/complex
> endorsements) etc... unless he is specifically serving in that role.
>
> Here are the only two rules that apply to safety pilot qualifications:
>
> 91.109
> (b) 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.
>
> 61.3(c)
> (1) Except as provided for in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a person
may not act as pilot in command or in any
> other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft,
under a certificate issued to that person under
> this part, unless that person has a current and appropriate medical
certificate...
>
> Nowhere does it say he has to be "qualified to fly the plane." His role
is to provide the
> see-and-avoid vigilance that the hooded pilot can not provide.

Well, Ron(s), on at least two occasions while acting as safety pilot I
have assumed control of the aircraft. First, when the hooded pilot blew an
approach and started wandering diagonally across the airport and second when
I had to take evasive action to avoid another aircraft.
But those aside, you cited 91.109(b)(1) above. I don't know any other
way to interpret that other than being qualified for "...the aircraft being
flown." I contend that with my SEL certificate, I may NOT act as safety
pilot in a twin-engine aircraft, nor may I act as safety pilot for an
aircraft on floats. On the other hand, the fact that I have zero time in a
V-35 does not mean I can't go there.
I think you are playing with semantics. Qualified does not mean "checked
out in."

[Roy Smith]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote:
> Well, Ron(s), on at least two occasions while acting as safety pilot I
> have assumed control of the aircraft. First, when the hooded pilot blew an
> approach and started wandering diagonally across the airport and second when
> I had to take evasive action to avoid another aircraft.

My standard safety pilot briefing lays out my groundrules. The safety
pilot never touches the controls. First step in traffic avoidance is to
give me a heading to fly. If that's not working, he's to tell me to
take the hood off and point the traffic out to me.

I'm relying on his judgement as a pilot to decide what constitutes safe
separation and to come up with reasonable vectors, but that's it. My
job is to fly the plane. His job is to be my eyes.

In the two situations you cite above, would it have worked to have told
the pilot to take the hood off and go visual?

If you want your safety pilot to take the controls, that's fine. But
make sure you go over expectations, responsibilities, and procedures for
transfer of control before starting up. Close to the ground or close to
traffic is the last place you want there to be any confusion about who's
flying the airplane.

[Casey Wilson]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Casey Wilson" > wrote:
> > Well, Ron(s), on at least two occasions while acting as safety pilot
I
> > have assumed control of the aircraft. First, when the hooded pilot blew
an
> > approach and started wandering diagonally across the airport and second
when
> > I had to take evasive action to avoid another aircraft.
>
> My standard safety pilot briefing lays out my groundrules. The safety
> pilot never touches the controls. First step in traffic avoidance is to
> give me a heading to fly. If that's not working, he's to tell me to
> take the hood off and point the traffic out to me.
>
> I'm relying on his judgement as a pilot to decide what constitutes safe
> separation and to come up with reasonable vectors, but that's it. My
> job is to fly the plane. His job is to be my eyes.
>
> In the two situations you cite above, would it have worked to have told
> the pilot to take the hood off and go visual?

I have, according to my logbook, only nine entries as safety pilot. To
my recollection, in every case we talked about under what conditions I would
assume controls...not that I would NEVER touch them.
In the first case perhaps he would have eventually gotten it together --
I didn't think so. My first action was to tell the pilot he was drifting way
to the right of centerline after he executed a missed. When he did nothing
to correct, I got the feeling he was very disoriented and assumed control.
When he took the hood off moments later he looked flustered.
In the second case, it was my judgement that immediate action had to be
taken when ATC called "Traffic Alert." The only other earlier call from ATC
(flight following) was that the other aircraft was "...five miles and
climbing, no radio contact." Should I have seen the other plane. I dunno, it
was white against an overcast and virtually motionless. Maybe, maybe not.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:53:56 GMT, "Casey Wilson" >
wrote:

> I contend that with my SEL certificate, I may NOT act as safety
>pilot in a twin-engine aircraft, nor may I act as safety pilot for an
>aircraft on floats.

That is certainly true since the safety pilot must have "category and class
ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown". Twins and seaplanes are
in a different class.


That has nothing to do with the fact that you can be safety pilot in an SEL
a/c for which you could not legally act as PIC.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Roy Smith]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote:
> I have, according to my logbook, only nine entries as safety pilot. To
> my recollection, in every case we talked about under what conditions I would
> assume controls...not that I would NEVER touch them.

That's fine, as long as you both understood the situation so there would
be no surprises. Did you also talk about HOW you would assume control?
Consider the following conversation:

ATC: Cessna 123, traffic one o'clock and a mile, southbound, climbing
out of 3000.

Safety: I've got it.

Pilot Flying: OK

How is the pilot flying to interpret "I've got it"? Does it mean "I see
the traffic", or does it mean, "I'm assuming control"?

How is the safety pilot to interpret "OK"? Does it mean "Now that you
see the guy, I assume you're going to keep your eye on him", or does it
mean, "I'm releasing the controls to you"?

One is the right number of people to be in control of the plane at any
given time. Either zero or two is asking for trouble. Take a couple of
minutes before the flight to make sure you know how you're going to work
things.

> In the first case perhaps he would have eventually gotten it together --
> I didn't think so. My first action was to tell the pilot he was drifting way
> to the right of centerline after he executed a missed. When he did nothing
> to correct, I got the feeling he was very disoriented and assumed control.

Was drifting to the right of centerline a bad thing? If the missed
procedure said, "fly runway heading" and there was a crosswind from the
left, you're going to drift to the right. That's the way it works.

> In the second case, it was my judgement that immediate action had to be
> taken when ATC called "Traffic Alert." The only other earlier call from ATC
> (flight following) was that the other aircraft was "...five miles and
> climbing, no radio contact." Should I have seen the other plane. I dunno, it
> was white against an overcast and virtually motionless. Maybe, maybe no

If you never saw the other plane, what information did you have which
put you in a better position than the pilot flying to make an evasive
maneuver? You both heard the same radio calls and neither of you had
visual contact with the traffic.

[Ron Natalie]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message ...

> But those aside, you cited 91.109(b)(1) above. I don't know any other
> way to interpret that other than being qualified for "...the aircraft being
> flown." I contend that with my SEL certificate, I may NOT act as safety
> pilot in a twin-engine aircraft, nor may I act as safety pilot for an
> aircraft on floats. On the other hand, the fact that I have zero time in a
> V-35 does not mean I can't go there.

Correct, I was just trying to point out that category and class is the limit to the
requirements as far as the FAA is concerned. No tail dragger, complex, or high
performance endorsements are required. Nor is their any requirement for currency
or flight reviews on the part of the safety pilot. I never said "checked out" anywhere.
The FAA has no concept of "checked out."

[Ron Natalie]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message ...

> In the first case perhaps he would have eventually gotten it together --
> I didn't think so. My first action was to tell the pilot he was drifting way
> to the right of centerline after he executed a missed. When he did nothing
> to correct, I got the feeling he was very disoriented and assumed control.
> When he took the hood off moments later he looked flustered.

Tlhe safety pilot's regulatory job is to not back up deficient pilots in case
they can't hold it together under the hood. They are mandated to be there
to provide the see-and-avoid vigilance. If you want to play flight instructor
by providing other services to the pilot, you'll have to work that out with them
but it's immaterial to what we were talking about here.