Free PIC hours to be my safety pilot (KAPA Denver area)

Hey all.. Do you know anyone trying to build PIC hours? I need a safety pilot so I can get my Instrument Hood time.. I'll pay for the plane, I just need someone to keep an eye out and keep me company.. I pay, you log PIC.. Hopefully someone can help me out?

I fly daily (weather permitting) out of KAPA (Centennial, CO), usually around 0900, but thats flexible.

thanks!
Justin

 

Honestly, it shouldnt be.. But seriously, it HAS been this difficult.. I'm actually paying my instructor $50/hr, for the past 20 hours.. And I have another 20 of hood time to go....

 

PMed you.

 

FWIW, I've served as safety pilot for someone who was working through their instrument training at the same time I was. It worked well, we did the pro-rata share thing. It was a 2 leg trip, we swapped roles on the way back. We were in the same flying club, at similar stages of training and our CFII (who we had in common) recommended we fly together.

I would advise using caution, however, as acting as PIC and safety pilot for someone who you don't know very well. Having 2 strangers without CRM training operating as a crew is challenging. If the person manipulating the controls flies poorly or has a deviation, the person ACTING as PIC is going to come under scrutiny (as they should, that is the responsibility of a person acting as PIC). I've found it much more relaxing to simply act as safety pilot, but NOT act as PIC, not log any of the time, AND not pay for that time. I'm there to look out the window and make sure you don't hit the ground, or another plane, and (optionally) to give you a friendly nudge if I believe there's a lateral or vertical deviation in the works and you're not likely to catch it any time soon (that last part is tricky).

Communication ahead of time is key. The need for this is not obvious until you've been on the wrong side of it. It's not so much of an issue if you're flying with someone with whom you regularly fly with and have established a routine. It's very different if you're going up with a relative stranger. There should be a detailed conversation along the lines of, "this is what I am looking for you to do...."

 

I offered. You didn’t respond. Might be my schedule, as I’m only available Friday, Sat and Sunday

 

Sorry Murphey, must have missed it.. I'll send you a DM

 

I had a heck of a time finding one. But I'm also not able to just hang around the FBO or flight schools. We have a really active local FB group for pilots which made all the difference.

 

So all of this angst and effort in multiple posts on this board alone to save $1000?

Seriously, if you have the time available you've indicated and have an instructor available at those times - KNOCK IT OUT! Who knows, you might even learn something from them.

 

I had a good experience with both SP and CFII's for my required hours. When I just wanted to practice what I learned from the CFII, the SP was a great choice. It was more relaxed - sometimes to the point of being boring, just drilling and repeating things when flying. Not a great use of the CFII's time.

I belong to a good club here, so a quick message to the members generated a short list of people willing to be SP's. Maybe reach out to a local club or school where you fly from.

 

Sent you a PM

 

LOL! It's hard to be "that guy" and wrong at the same time. The FAA doesn't care how a flying pilot and safety pilot share expenses or if they share them at all.

 

Are you saying that the Part 61 reg regarding acting as PIC without paying at least the pro-rata share doesn't apply at all...or are you saying the FAA doesn't enforce it? The latter I would agree with. For the former, though, I'll need help on that.

 

I know where you're coming from, but it's not just that. It opens the door to social day trips if the two pilots are friends, which aren't necessarily a thing if you take your CFII instead. I definitely found it beneficial from a training standpoint, too, watching another pilot fly IFR when it wasn't my leg.

 

Its also a timing thing. I get my CFI 2x's per week.. About 3 hours of flight time per week.. not nearly enough..

 

It doesn't apply at all. Here's the help - the 2012 Roberts letter. There's actually two . The other is Trussell, but Roberts is the better one. Trussell is serious in tone; Roberts has more of a "y'know, we really don't care," flavor. I remember chuckling when I first read Roberts back in the day as I pictured the Chief Counsel staff rolling their eyes and laughing when the request was passed around the office.

 

I've never been so happy to be wrong. I hadn't processed the very specific definition of the word 'passenger' in this case. Since both are required crew members, there are effectively no passengers, hence 61.113(a) doesn't apply. Thank you, I'll delete the prior post, it's entirely irrelevant since the reg doesn't apply.

I couldn't imagine a case where it would be enforced...but it's even better to know it flat out doesn't apply.

 

Well, yeah. Sort of. At some point - like when the hood is off - someone is a passenger. From a strict legal analysis one could go either way; perhaps around in circles.

But when you look at all the interpretations about safety pilots, going back at least to the first dual logging interpretation in 1993, you begin to see a pattern. The FAA decides as a matter of policy how a scenario should be handled and interprets the regulations to match.

It's a pattern we see in a number of areas but the safety pilot rules are a great example. You can see it from the very earliest safety pilot logging interpretation . When the safety pilot is PIC, both are permitted to log PIC. The flying pilots logs PIC as sole manipulator and the safety pilot logs PIC on the theory the pilot is acting as PIC on a flight with more than one required crewmember. Really? No, they are not both required crewmembers. Only the PIC is. But the FAA has decided to allow them to both log the time.

I'm not complaining - being able to count the time encourages pilots to get out there and fly and practice together. That's a good thing. That's really all I see in this one too. As you point out, there is no policy reason to care about how two pilots flying together decide to share the expenses of the flight. So the FAA doesn't.