![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. ![]() 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?e...08X05676&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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Instrument Hole Punch | [email protected] | Home Built | 4 | February 3rd 05 09:17 PM |
Instrument panel labelling options | John Galban | Home Built | 12 | November 18th 04 10:42 PM |
Instrument mounting question | Rob Turk | Home Built | 4 | July 19th 04 10:33 PM |
Aluminum instrument panel finish? | Richard Riley | Home Built | 31 | February 4th 04 02:09 AM |
NDB approaches -- what are they good for? | Dylan Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | July 10th 03 09:15 PM |