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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"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). |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |