FAR question - safety pilot

[Greg Bockelman]

Hmm. Does that mean the SP would have to be IFR current also?

 

[poadeleted20]

Hmm. Does that mean the SP would have to be IFR current also?

61.57(c) only applies to the PIC. 61.55 has no instrument currency requirement for SIC's.

 

[jesse]

I sure did: "current in the category and class of aircrat being flown" does not necessarily imply Instrument currency.

It implies current, as in current to carry passengers, which is not technically required.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hmm. Does that mean the SP would have to be IFR current also?

No. Let's try a summary for (hopefully) clarity

If the flight is being conducted under IFR,

The rule in 61.57 is that the person acting as PIC must be both instrument rated and instrument current.

The rule in 61.55 is that a person acting as SIC must be instrument rated.

I disagree a bit with Ron. I think there =is= a sort of "currency" requirement for SICs in 61.55(b) (familiarization training within the past 12 calendar months). But there are a number of exceptions in 61.55(f), one of which is for safety pilots.

Take a look at the reg - particularly 61.55(a), (b) and (f) - I'm pretty sure you'll understand it even though it's not the easiest FAR to wade through.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It implies current, as in current to carry passengers, which is not technically required.

I agree which is why I said ASA is wrong. I can't think of =any= form of pilot "currency" that applies to a safety pilot.

 

[KennyFlys]

Reply received from AFS-840 -- the change was intentional. He admitted that they didn't explain it very well in the Federal Register, but it was their intent to require the safety pilot to have an IR if the flight was operating under IFR. So, we'll just have to start teaching it differently to match the new rule.

Ron, can you scan and post the letter or email a copy to me? Thanks.

 

[gismo]

Reply received from AFS-840 -- the change was intentional. He admitted that they didn't explain it very well in the Federal Register, but it was their intent to require the safety pilot to have an IR if the flight was operating under IFR. So, we'll just have to start teaching it differently to match the new rule.

Well that just sucks. Seems to me that requiring a SP to be instrument rated is likely to make it more difficult for pilots to maintain currency. When I do instrument currency work I much prefer to do it under IFR (assuming I'm current at the time) because it's much closer to the "real thing". And I can't see how having an instrument rating will improve the performance of a SP and it probably will even make it worse since an IR SP (non-CFII) is likely to divert more of his attention inside the cockpit when he should be looking outside. It's been tough enough that my SPs must be multi rated although I suppose that most multi pilots are going to be instrument rated too.

 

[midlifeflyer]

it probably will even make it worse since an IR SP (non-CFII) is likely to divert more of his attention inside the cockpit when he should be looking outside.

I'm not sure of that part. A pilot who is already instrument rated may be less curious about what you are doing and less likely to look inside with anything more than a periodic glance to make sure that you aren't doing somehting to get you both in trouble.

There are definitely other issues, but I think this one is pretty neutral.

 

[poadeleted20]

I disagree a bit with Ron. I think there =is= a sort of "currency" requirement for SICs in 61.55(b) (familiarization training within the past 12 calendar months).

There is no requirement for any instrument events in the 61.55(b) 12-month fam training rule, and I believe the question was "IFR/instrument currency."

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, can you scan and post the letter or email a copy to me? Thanks.

Here is the full email response from AFS-840:

This is the information that was in the preamble of the "Second-in-Command Pilot Type Rating" final rule correction (70 FR 61888 - 61891; Issued on October 27, 2005):

14 CFR 61.55(f)
We are amending the introductory language of this paragraph to exempt certain pilots from the familiarization training requirements of 14 CFR 61.55(b). This action corrects an error in pre-existing 14 CFR 61.55(d) that was inadvertently carried over into the August 4, 2005, final rule.
Pilots employed by operators that conduct operations under subpart K of part 91 and parts 121, 125, or 135 do not have to complete the SIC familiarization training described under paragraph (b) of this section. Instead, pilots that are employed by operators that conduct operations under subpart K of part 91 and parts 121, 125, or 135 must comply with the requirements of paragraph
(e) of this section to qualify for a SIC pilot type rating.
(70 FR 61889; Issued on October 27, 2005)

Furthermore, in the rule text section of the this Second-in-Command Pilot Type Rating" final rule correction (70 FR 61890; Issued on October 27, 2005), we stated:

2. Amend 61.55 as follows:
a. Revise the introductory language of paragraph (a) as set forth below;
b. Revise paragraph (a)(2) as set forth below;
c. Revise the introductory language of paragraph (b) as set forth below;
d. Revise the introductory language of paragraph (b)(2) as set forth below;
e. Revise the introductory language of paragraph (d) as set forth below;
f. Revise the introductory language of paragraph (e) as set forth below;
g. Revise the introductory language of paragraph (f) as set forth below;
h. Revise paragraph (i) as set forth below; and
i. Revise paragraph (j) as set forth below:


I will agree that I should have probably worded it differently and been more blunt about paragraph (f) was only exempting certain pilots from the "familiarization training" as opposed to the ENTIRE SECTION to how
paragraph (d) was previously worded. Ron, I can tell there was no hidden
agenda and I meant to replace the entire introductory text of paragraph (d) and replace it with how paragraph (f) is currently worded.

However, in the interest of safety, do you think it is reasonable for a safety pilot who has no instrument rating to act as a safety pilot on a flight that is under IFR or in IMC? Would you want to use a safety pilot who is not instrument rated to accompany you while you're under the hood on an IFR flight plan or in IMC and that safety pilot has only the 3 hours of instrument training that he/she received during their private pilot training?

(See attached file: SIC TR Correction 10 27 2005.pdf)

John D. Lynch
AFS-810
(202) 267-3844

You'll see from the highlighted part that they never intended 91.109(b) safety pilots to be exempt from the IR requirement when the flight was operated under IFR, and that Mr. Lynch admits he messed up the NPRM by not being clear about this issue.

BTW, I sent him a response on his last paragraph:

> However, in the interest of safety, do you think it is reasonable for
> a safety pilot who has no instrument rating to act as a safety pilot
> on a flight that is under IFR or in IMC?
[Levy] I would point out that a safety pilot is not normally required in actual instrument conditions -- the pilot flying will almost certainly remove the vision restricting device and log actual rather than simulated instrument time.

> Would you want to use a safety pilot
> who is not instrument rated to accompany you while you're under the
> hood on an IFR flight plan or in IMC and that safety pilot has only
> the 3 hours of instrument training that he/she received during their
> private pilot training?
[Levy] No argument with the logic -- I understand the point. OTOH, since only purpose for the person serving only as a 91.109(b) safety pilot is to provide visual lookout for other traffic, one can also argue that there is no additional level of safety provided by the instrument rating -- the safety pilot with PP or better in category/class should already know how to spot other aircraft visually, and the hooded PIC should be fully single-pilot IFR proficient for everything else.

 

[TMetzinger]

However, in the interest of safety, do you think it is reasonable for a safety pilot who has no instrument rating to act as a safety pilot on a flight that is under IFR or in IMC? Would you want to use a safety pilot who is not instrument rated to accompany you while you're under the hood on an IFR flight plan or in IMC and that safety pilot has only the 3 hours of instrument training that he/she received during their private pilot training?

Um - did you tell John Lynch that there's no such thing as a safety pilot in IMC under IFR? Certainly I'd want a required SIC to be instrument rated when flying in IMC under IFR, but not a safety pilot, cause he isn't required in IMC under IFR.

The whole point of a safety pilot is to provide an equivalent level of safety in VMC (whether VFR or IFR), where see-and-avoid is required. I don't see how having an instrument rating helps with the job of the safety pilot.

 

[poadeleted20]

Um - did you tell John Lynch that there's no such thing as a safety pilot in IMC under IFR? Certainly I'd want a required SIC to be instrument rated when flying in IMC under IFR, but not a safety pilot, cause he isn't required in IMC under IFR.

I don't see anything in 91.109(b) that says a safety pilot is no longer required when the pilot is wearing a vision restricting device if the aircraft enters IMC. The aircraft may be in actual instrument conditions, but the pilot is still wearing the hood, and as long as that hood is on, the safety pilot is required. Logic: How else would the hooded pilot know when s/he exited IMC and had to start looking for other airplanes? Of course, as I pointed out to John, not many folks will leave the hood on when they enter actual instrument conditions, since they would probably rather log actual than simulated.

The whole point of a safety pilot is to provide an equivalent level of safety in VMC (whether VFR or IFR), where see-and-avoid is required. I don't see how having an instrument rating helps with the job of the safety pilot.

I agree, and told him so.

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't see anything in 91.109(b) that says a safety pilot is no longer required when the pilot is wearing a vision restricting device if the aircraft enters IMC. The aircraft may be in actual instrument conditions, but the pilot is still wearing the hood, and as long as that hood is on, the safety pilot is required. Logic: How else would the hooded pilot know when s/he exited IMC and had to start looking for other airplanes? Of course, as I pointed out to John, not many folks will leave the hood on when they enter actual instrument conditions, since they would probably rather log actual than simulated.

I didn't think about that. So, if a pilot is wearing a hood inside a cloud, does he log simulated, actual, or both?

 

[gismo]

I didn't think about that. So, if a pilot is wearing a hood inside a cloud, does he log simulated, actual, or both?

There's also the whole issue of being "in IMC" (with a hood) when you are on an active IFR clearance and would be violating the VFR cloud clearance rules if you weren't but still have VFR visibility.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Why do I get a funny feeling that this was a "Lynch Special" with a twist. The Lynch Special is making the rules reflect his own personal beliefs. The twist is that this time he actually changed the language of the rule.

That would account for the absence of any discussion in the Federal Register about the change. No practical opportunity for comment - you =know= there would have been comment on this one.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I didn't think about that. So, if a pilot is wearing a hood inside a cloud, does he log simulated, actual, or both?

I'm surprised, Tim. The question of the hood in actual comes up for discussion a fair number of times.

Except for its effect on what the safety pilot logs, probably doesn't matter which way it's logged so long as it isn't double-counted.

 

[poadeleted20]

Why do I get a funny feeling that this was a "Lynch Special" with a twist. The Lynch Special is making the rules reflect his own personal beliefs. The twist is that this time he actually changed the language of the rule.

That would account for the absence of any discussion in the Federal Register about the change. No practical opportunity for comment - you =know= there would have been comment on this one.

Concur. Although to be fair, he's also run into situations where he's written a rule that reflects what the AFS-800 people wanted, only to have the Chief Counsel tell them it doesn't mean what they intended, e.g., the issue of "rated" for logging PIC time. When they wrote that rule in 1997, they wanted only those who were PIC-qualified (even if not current) to log PIC time, and told folks that's what it meant. The Chief Counsel shot that down two years later and said that "rated" did not include 61.31 additional training endorsements. Whether this is a result of Lynch pushing a personal agenda or a rule that erroneously did not reflect AFS-800's intent is impossible to say at this point.

 

[TMetzinger]

I'm surprised, Tim. The question of the hood in actual comes up for discussion a fair number of times.

Except for its effect on what the safety pilot logs, probably doesn't matter which way it's logged so long as it isn't double-counted.

did you miss the ?

If you keep the hood on, it's simulated. If you take it off, it's actual.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Concur. Although to be fair, he's also run into situations where he's written a rule that reflects what the AFS-800 people wanted, only to have the Chief Counsel tell them it doesn't mean what they intended, e.g., the issue of "rated" for logging PIC time. When they wrote that rule in 1997, they wanted only those who were PIC-qualified (even if not current) to log PIC time, and told folks that's what it meant. The Chief Counsel shot that down two years later and said that "rated" did not include 61.31 additional training endorsements. .

I don't think that's a good example. They didn't "write that rule" in 1997. 61.51 logging as the sole manipulator was barely touched in '97.

Exactly how is

==============================
a recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person-- ... Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated (post 1997 rule)
==============================
different from
==============================
a private or commercial pilot may log as pilot-in-command time only that flight time during which the pilot-- ... Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated (pre-1997 rule interpreted by the Chief Counsel in 1980)
==============================
? Adding gender neutrality is hardly a basis for a complete reinterpretation of the substance of the regulatioin.

and

==============================
"Rating" as used in that section refers to the rating in categories, classes, and types, as listed in Section 61.5, which are placed on pilot certificates.
==============================

The Chief Counsel "shot it down" because, "We didn't change the reg at all, but I intended it to mean somehting different than it did before," just didn't cut it.

And I never bought the "we" wanted to change it stuff. If the FAA wanted to change it in 1997, it would have. Or it would have in the 11 years since.