Safety Pilot Question

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by MichaelCPS

I know. It is all a fun debate.

Michael

Roger that.

[LoadMasterC141]

Originally Posted by Ian J

Just so you know, I think very highly of your school, and have recommended people check you guys out for flight training. You seem to pay attention to "little details" such as maintenance and customer service - Patrick has probably already given you an earful on what "wrong" looks like in flight schools.

So please don't think I'm bashing your program - far from it.

[PatrickCPS]

Ian-

Thanks for the kind words!

In all seriousness though, Michael are I are both well aware of whats "wrong" at so many operations, and we really do take a personal interest in each and every student that walks in the door at Career Pilot School. I can confidently say I don't think you will find many other schools that take maintenance and customer service as seriously as we do, and to us, those are absolutely not "little things."

While this whole debate regarding the logging of safety pilot time has gotten somewhat off topic, it does shed some light on just how political an issue this particular topic really is.

Originally Posted by Ian J

Just so you know, I think very highly of your school, and have recommended people check you guys out for flight training. You seem to pay attention to "little details" such as maintenance and customer service - Patrick has probably already given you an earful on what "wrong" looks like in flight schools.

So please don't think I'm bashing your program - far from it.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by PatrickCPS

I have no problem with the use of "Safety Pilot" time during legitimate IFR training, however the use of it on cross country, multi engine time building I think is a real disservice to the whole industry. Every flight department you apply to knows exactly what you did when your log shows 100 hours of multi time, with back and forth entries from you and your buddy saying "safety pilot for blank."

Not to mention, if you read the FAR/AIM it specifically states that in order to log safety pilot time, the pilot flying must be wearing an appropriate view limiting device. Really think all those guys flying split multi time on long X-C are under the hood? This is something I feel the FAA really needs to step in and regulate.

I realize there are plenty of people who do this and that they do get hired, but I don't think it has anything to do with pilot training or making you a better pilot.

OK, on another two threads, this same topic is ongoing. You, I do believe, have now reinforced my initial insight regarding safety pilot in IMC during IFR training.

To summarize what I believe you're saying, yes, two pilots can log PIC with one pilot being under the hood and the other pilot performing the duties of the safety pilot in IMC conditions. I believe I verbalized this earlier, and someone contradicted my statement saying it can't be done. I thought it could if both pilot were building time. Here's one example, if I may:

- Both pilots are IFR rated and current.

- One pilot is under the hood; the other is his safety pilot.

I used the example of IMC where the hooded pilot is shooting approaches down to minimums and DH/missed, but IMC conditions are necessarily down to minimums.


Now, I understand the FAR has some "fluff" in its interpretation, but it can be done, right?

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

OK, on another two threads, this same topic is ongoing. You, I do believe, have now reinforced my initial insight regarding safety pilot in IMC during IFR training.

To summarize what I believe you're saying, yes, two pilots can log PIC with one pilot being under the hood and the other pilot performing the duties of the safety pilot. I believe I verbalized this earlier, and someone contradicted my statement saying it can't be done. I thought it could if both pilot were building time.

Now, I understand the FAR has some "fluff" in its interpretation, but it can be done, right?

Might want to go back and look at that other thread again. Pretty sure that "VMC conditions" was specified.

[SteveC]

Here's the post I was thinking of:

Acting as Safety Pilot


Continuing with the discussion, it might be worthwhile to review the duties of a safety pilot and why they are a "required crewmember" in VMC conditions. The safety pilot's purpose is to watch for traffic in VMC conditions while the pilot flying is using a view limiting device. That purpose goes away when in IMC conditions, as does any reason to use the view limiting device since its sole purpose is to simulate IMC.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by PatrickCPS

I can confidently say I don't think you will find many other schools that take maintenance and customer service as seriously as we do, and to us, those are absolutely not "little things."

Yeah, that's why I put "little things" in quotes - just a little sarcasm meaning those are some pretty big things.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by SteveC

Here's the post I was thinking of:

Acting as Safety Pilot


Continuing with the discussion, it might be worthwhile to review the duties of a safety pilot and why they are a "required crewmember" in VMC conditions. The safety pilot's purpose is to watch for traffic in VMC conditions while the pilot flying is using a view limiting device. That purpose goes away when in IMC conditions, as does any reason to use the view limiting device since its sole purpose is to simulate IMC.

My brain hurts, and the Motrin isn't working.

The only place I could find the "required crewmember" related to Part 121/135. Can't the safety pilot watch for traffic in IMC that's not 100% IMC? (No, believe me. . .I'm not trying to split hairs.) For my perspective, not only are they watching for traffic, they are watching for the unexpected ground to come up much too quickly or obstacles that might ruin a perfectly good approach.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

My brain hurts, and the Motrin isn't working.

The only place I could find the "required crewmember" related to Part 121/135. Can't the safety pilot watch for traffic in IMC that's not 100% IMC? (No, believe me. . .I'm not trying to split hairs.) For my perspective, not only are they watching for traffic, they are watching for the unexpected ground to come up much too quickly or obstacles that might ruin a perfectly good approach.

The "required crewmember" status of the safety pilot comes out of 91.109(b) and the way the FAA has interpreted it. All the reg requires is that the flight take place in simulated instrument conditions which pretty much means that the flying pilot is wearing a view limiting device. What the actual weather conditions are is, I think, irrelevant, up to a point (as I suggested in that other Safety Pilot discussion in the CFT Corner part of the forum).

Beyond that I agree with you. The safety pilot has multiple functions beyond simply scanning for traffic.

[MichaelCPS]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

The "required crewmember" status of the safety pilot comes out of 91.109(b) and the way the FAA has interpreted it. All the reg requires is that the flight take place in simulated instrument conditions which pretty much means that the flying pilot is wearing a view limiting device. What the actual weather conditions are is, I think, irrelevant, up to a point (as I suggested in that other Safety Pilot discussion in the CFT Corner part of the forum).

Beyond that I agree with you. The safety pilot has multiple functions beyond simply scanning for traffic.

Here is part of 91.109:

(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and

How can the safety pilot have adequate forward or side to side vision in IMC?

[PatrickCPS]

Ya.... I knew what ya meant

By the way, I was near you last week when I stopped in BDL to get fuel, was a damn cold day!

Originally Posted by Ian J

Yeah, that's why I put "little things" in quotes - just a little sarcasm meaning those are some pretty big things.