A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FAR:Safety Pilot & High Performance/Complex?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old August 10th 03, 04:44 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Peter Duniho wrote:

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
"Many people" included the FAA. The official FAA opinion (before 1997)

was
that a high performance signoff meant you were good to fly either a

complex
or 200 HP aircraft. They did not differentiate (despite whatever the

original
writer of the reg intended).


I never saw that opinion. Was it actually published? Can you provide a
citation? The wording of the regulation, because of the use of the words
"as appropriate", seemed to pretty clearly mean one endorsement did not
qualify for the other. Logically, it makes no sense that it would.


Ron is correct. The regulations were changed in 1997. We now have two
separate endorsements (the "high-performance" endorsement was added). Under
the old regs, there was only one.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers
Ads
  #42  
Old August 10th 03, 06:32 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Ron is correct. The regulations were changed in 1997. We now have two
separate endorsements (the "high-performance" endorsement was added).

Under
the old regs, there was only one.


I know the regulations were changed in 1997. If you'd been paying
attention, you'd have noticed I said so.

But the previous regulation required the endorsement to apply to complex or
high-performance separately "AS APPROPRIATE". Nothing in the regulation
could be logically regarded to mean that an endorsement for high-performance
aircraft would apply to complex aircraft as well. The regulation took pains
to call out that the endorsement needed to be APPROPRIATE to the clause
referred to in the regulation. That is, complex OR high performance.

The new regulation is simply a clarified restatement of the old one. It's
not semantically different.

Pete


  #43  
Old August 11th 03, 04:20 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...

| No a strict reading doesn't say that. He may be a safety pilot, as that
requires
| only ratings. He can not log safety pilot time as PIC time as he can not
legally
| be PIC.

Where does it say that in the regulations?

61.51 (e)(1)(iii) ... is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft requring more
than one pilot...

When acting as pilot in command, you must meet the other requirements
of being pilot in command:

61.31(e)(1) ...no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane unless...


  #44  
Old August 13th 03, 08:51 PM
Roger Halstead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 21:58:42 -0500, "Highfllyer"
wrote:

Nah. The regulation says "properly rated in category and class". Category
and class is "single engine" and "land."

High performance signoff is an endorsement and not a rating and does not
change your "rating" in any way.

It is one of those things that is open to interpretation. Remember when the
safety pilot regs were written there were no such things as "endorsements"
for "complex or high performance."

I have no such "endorsements" in my logbooks and I doubt I ever shall. I
normally fly a 300 HP taildragger! :-)


Me neither and the FAA went on record some years ago that the safety
pilot does not have to have the high performance/complex
endorsement(s) As I mentioned earlier, I do take first time safety
pilots for me, out and give them a good familiarization on how to fly
the Deb.

Now as the safety pilot is "required" I could care less how they log
it. They are "to me", essentially PIC at least part of the time.
I enter their name in my log and leave it up to them how ever they
want to log it in theirs.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)




"John T" wrote in message
ews.com...
"Jim" wrote in message


I "think" John Lynch's take on the question is that you must have the
appropriate endorsements to log PIC when acting as safety pilot. If
the safety pilot does not act as the legal PIC he/she does not need
the proper endorsements, however they may not log the safety pilot
time as PIC.


Yeah, I already posted a retraction on my first answer. SIC would be
allowed under these circumstances, though.

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





  #45  
Old August 15th 03, 12:57 AM
Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There is a difference between (1) serving as pilot in command, (2) acting as
pilot in command, and (3) logging pilot in command. The last two apply to
part 91 operations. Logging pic and acting as pic are not related.

Simon
AWP-FSDO-SDL
  #46  
Old August 16th 03, 06:36 PM
Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Acting as pilot in command is the situation where the pilot is (in his or
her mind) the pilot in command. Logging is independant of acting, you are
correct, in the USA there is a tenuous relationship betwee the two. Serving
as pilot in command does not apply to part 91 operations, as I mentioned in
the relevant post. It is a concept used in air carrier regulatory parts, and
may include time serving as (rated but not yet fully qualified) pic (as in
incomplete IOE) when someone else, such as an IOE check airman, is THE pic,
and this time applies to things like high minimums. That is a very short
summary and does not include the exceptions, wherefores, herinafters,
limited to's, and so on. I include it because it provides a more complete
picture of the concepts discussed.

Fly safe

Simon
AWP-FSDO-SDL
  #47  
Old August 16th 03, 08:02 PM
Robert Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Simon" wrote

Acting as pilot in command is the situation where the pilot is
(in his or her mind) the pilot in command. Logging is
independant of acting, you are correct, in the USA there is a
tenuous relationship betwee the two. Serving as pilot in command
does not apply to part 91 operations, as I mentioned in the
relevant post. It is a concept used in air carrier regulatory
parts, and may include time serving as (rated but not yet fully
qualified) pic (as in incomplete IOE) when someone else, such as
an IOE check airman, is THE pic, and this time applies to things
like high minimums. That is a very short summary and does not
include the exceptions, wherefores, herinafters, limited to's,
and so on. I include it because it provides a more complete
picture of the concepts discussed.


I think that you still have your words mixed-up. Quoting from
FAR 121 concerning Operating Experience:

"Section 121.434: Operating experience, operating cycles, and
consolidation of knowledge and skills.
(a) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person
serve as a required crewmember of an airplane unless the person
has satisfactorily completed, on that type airplane and in that
crewmember position, the operating experience, operating cycles, and
the line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and
skills, required by this section, except as follows:

(1) Crewmembers other than pilots in command may serve as provided
herein for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section.

(2) Pilots who are meeting the pilot in command requirements MAY
SERVE AS SECOND-IN-COMMAND.

(c) Pilot crewmembers must acquire operating experience and operating
cycles as follows:

(1) A pilot in command must --

(i) PERFORM THE DUTIES of a pilot in command under the supervision of
a check pilot;"

No instance of "acting as pilot-in-command" was found in Part 121.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)
  #48  
Old August 16th 03, 09:40 PM
Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I agree. Serving is a 121 concept. Acting is a part 91 concept which applies
to 121 also. The 61.51 provision for logging pic while acting as pic for
those operations requiring the use of an ATP is one such example where
acting as pic applies to 121. My point was not that acting applied to 121
but that serving was a third category of pic.
  #49  
Old August 17th 03, 06:04 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Simon" wrote in message
...
I agree.


Do you?

[...] My point was not that acting applied to 121
but that serving was a third category of pic.


Hmmm...it seems that you don't agree after all. "Serving" is not a category
of PIC at all.

Pete


  #50  
Old August 17th 03, 04:47 PM
Roger Halstead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:04:54 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Simon" wrote in message
...
I agree.


Do you?

[...] My point was not that acting applied to 121
but that serving was a third category of pic.


Hmmm...it seems that you don't agree after all. "Serving" is not a category
of PIC at all.


To me only one thing matters...It only takes Airplane, Single Engine
Land for some one to fly as safety pilot with me in my high
performance/complex/retract. It's up to them how they log it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Pete


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep C J Campbell Instrument Flight Rules 117 July 22nd 04 05:40 PM
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? Badwater Bill Home Built 3 June 23rd 04 04:05 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
Enlisted pilots John Randolph Naval Aviation 41 July 21st 03 02:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.