Lost Medical and still wants to fly, legal with safety pilot?

U

Unregistered

Guest
Dear POA,

I'm a young and healthy Private Pilot. Today I met an older gentleman who asked if I could fly around with him in his plane. It was my understanding that he wanted to fly his plane around with me mostly sitting there. He explained he had lost his medical but still owned a plane and he still runs it up on the ground. I figured his plane was out of annual and I declined.

Assuming his plane was in annual, would it be legal for him to be basically the sole manipulator of the controls with a pilot-passenger onboard? I told him I had never flown his model of airplane before. (Cessna 182)
 
Sure as long as you were fully capable of being PIC. You wouldnt be a safety pilot, you would need to be acting PIC. He can be sole manipulator if you are comfortable with it.
 
Pretty risky, IMO, from a liability standpoint. I doubt his insurance would cover any incident (assuming he even has insurance) as it would be unlikely you would have enough hours to qualify under "open pilot", assuming you get your complex and hi-po endorsements to legally fly the 182, and he cannot fly it. I see only downside and would recommend that he hire a CFI acceptable to his insurance carrier to fly around with him.
 
Before doing this, you would need to make sure that you were adequately covered by his insurance while you were acting as PIC. You would also need to have a clear understanding with him that you would be the ACTUAL pilot in command, and satisfy yourself that he will obey you if you feel it necessary to exercise your command authority. And of course, you would have to have a high performance endorsement in your logbook.

Even if all the above conditions were met, I don't think I would do it without time in type. And if he wants to fly from the left seat, I would not do it without getting right seat training myself. If he wants to fly from the right seat, I would not go for it unless he had received right seat training. (I've seen more than one person flair high from the right seat.)
 
Make sure you are an approved pilot under his insurance policy and have him obtain a waiver of subrogation for you (or that he has a policy that effectively provides such a waiver for any approved pilot through the wording of the policy itself)

Just to be clear, you wouldn't be a 'safety pilot', you would be PIC for the flight, both in the FAA and insurance sense.

If the insurance thing is covered, I would consider doing it. Depends of course whether it is someone I would like to fly with in the first place.

The other little complication is who pays for the fuel. If you are ppl or commercial with only a third class, there are some great thought exercises one can go through.
 
Assuming you have the HP endorsement, I'd put this in the "legal but probably not safe" department. Aside from the insurance and command issues discussed above, you would be in the position of sitting in the right seat of a type you've never flown and having to evaluate the performance of the person manipulating the controls, deciding if/when it is necessary for you to take control, and then taking control from the right seat and recovering to a safe position. The training on all that is a big chunk of the CFI curriculum, and as a Private Pilot, you're probably a long way from having the necessary skill to do that. Unless you're already comfortable flying a 182 and recovering it from a bad position in the right seat, you would probably be wise to pass on this offer.
 
Talk with him more about it. You probably need to have a nominal few hours with a CFI, learn how to land it (comfortably) from the right seat. You could probably do that in about 5 hours or less. Insurance is the issue, and you'd need to be a named insured on the policy, as he won't be covered without a medical. There aren't a lot of insurance prerequisites for flying a 182.

Frankly, I think it would depend on what the medical issue is. If the guy has a bunch of hours in the plane, and the medical issue is something this is unlikely to be immediately incapacitating, it could be a good time, and you might learn a bit from him.

Jeff
 
I've had somebody approach me about this as well - the things that I asked for were to be named on his insurance, allow me to fly the aircraft when not in use by them (I got a plane to fly... it was great!) and asked them to help with the cost of my check-out in the particular model.

As for the pure stranger aspect, this gentlemen was unknown to me, so I sent him up with a CFI that I trust to tell me whether this guy knows his stuff or not, got him that check out, and then I started flying with them every so often. Its since fizzled out a bit, but the second opinions are the way to do it if you're seriously interested.
 
Years ago a friend of mine who is an ATP and flies Gulfstreams for a living agreed to do this for an aging gentleman who lost his medical. After about 5 years or so the old man died and left the plane to my friend (1984 Socata Trinidad). I thought that was pretty neat.
 
theskunk said:
I've had somebody approach me about this as well - the things that I asked for were to be named on his insurance, allow me to fly the aircraft when not in use by them (I got a plane to fly... it was great!) and asked them to help with the cost of my check-out in the particular model.

As for the pure stranger aspect, this gentlemen was unknown to me, so I sent him up with a CFI that I trust to tell me whether this guy knows his stuff or not, got him that check out, and then I started flying with them every so often. Its since fizzled out a bit, but the second opinions are the way to do it if you're seriously interested.
Click to expand...

colojo said:
Years ago a friend of mine who is an ATP and flies Gulfstreams for a living agreed to do this for an aging gentleman who lost his medical. After about 5 years or so the old man died and left the plane to my friend (1984 Socata Trinidad). I thought that was pretty neat.
Click to expand...

Sweet. I may have been overly negative on this but you see that it is a somewhat complex issue, especially if you are a low-time pilot (are you?) without the necessary endorsements (??), and with no time in type. There could be considerable expense getting you set up for this. Maybe the owner can help with that or maybe that is not a concern for you (lucky you). You are, of course, required to pay your pro-rata share also.
 
Since qualification to be PIC of a 182 is a minimum requirement, see if he'll let you use the plane to get any necessary endorsements done with a CFI. It could be an exceptional opportunity if those endorsements are things you might want in the future. Even if it turns out the guy doesn't actually want to go flying often, you'd have them done upfront.

There are other risks regarding insurance, but they're known and can be managed before you get in the plane. I see some positives here but, as in most things, some risk and initiative are required to achieve them.
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
It was considered complex when I learned to fly it in 1976. You are right, rules since changed.
Click to expand...
IIRC, it was considered "high performance" back around then, and that should have been the wording in a pre-1997 endorsement for a 182, but so was a 180HP Mooney. The original additional training endorsement rule lumped all airplanes over 200HP and all airplanes we now call "complex" into one "high performance" set. However, I don't think that HP stuff started until 1978, so I don't think you'll have a HP endorsement from 1976 -- you'd be grandfathered based on your pre-78 182 time, rather than endorsed for HP. Could be wrong, but I can't dig up the FAR's from before 1978.

That was great until they reversed course in 1997 and created the then-new "complex" definition with a separate endorsement requirement. Unfortunately, they kept the "high performance" term for those aircraft which were not complex but had an engine over 200HP, and even kept the paragraph number the same (61.31(f)). The result is people who got a "high performance" endorsement in a plane with no engine over 200HP before 8/4/97 and never acted as PIC in a plane with an engine over 200HP before 8/4/97 have an endorsement which is not valid for the current definition of "high performance" airplanes.

I've bumped into a few people like that, including one IR trainee in a 300HP Piper Lance in about 2007 who had been flying that plane for about five years illegally because the only endorsement he had was a "high performance" endorsement he'd gotten in the 90's in the Arrow he'd previously owned, and he had not flown anything over 200HP before he bought the Lance. Had he flown a 182 or the like between his original HP endorsement in the Arrow and 8/4/97, he'd have been grandfathered for HP under the new definition, but he hadn't, so he was not legal to fly a plane with an engine over 200HP after 8/4/97. It was easy enough to give him the proper endorsement during IR training, but he had five years of illegal flying documented in his logbook if they FAA ever cared to bother with it.

Likewise, if someone had obtained a HP endorsement in a 182 in 1995, that would have been valid in an Arrow from hen until that reg change. If they logged even 0.1 PIC time in an Arrow between getting that endorsement and 8/4/97, the logged PIC time would have grandfathered them for complex starting 8/4/97. If not, they would need a complex endorsement before acting as PIC in a complex airplane even though they'd have been legal to do so up until 8/4/987.

So, when I'm giving anyone training in anything now considered either HP and/or complex, I go back and confirm the source of their HP and/or privileges -- post-97 endorsement, pre-97 endorsement, or grandfathering. If it ain't right, I make sure I put the necessary endorsement in their log before they go to the examiner lest they get sent home in ignominy and the examiner tell the FSDO I screwed up by sending someone to the practical test in a plane they weren't legal to fly.

Silly reg stuff...
 
Last edited:
if he runs it off the runway . . . and you are acting PIC - are you prepared for the 709 ride?

"Lets reconfirm our understanding. This is your aircraft. You have requested that I act as PIC to allow you to fly the aircraft. This means that I am legally responsible for the safe operation of this flight. If I see any reason to take over the controls, I will say: 'My airplane" and you will immediately release the aircraft to my full control, including rudder pedals, throttle, and flaps. Is that ok?"

Any answer other than yes and then immediate compliance is reason to never set foot in the aircraft again - and - you need to DO it at least once every couple of flights to ensure compliance . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
snip

"Lets reconfirm our understanding. This is your aircraft. You have requested that I act as PIC to allow you to fly the aircraft. This means that I am legally responsible for the safe operation of this flight. If I see any reason to take over the controls, I will say: 'My airplane" and you will immediately release the aircraft to my full control, including rudder pedals, throttle, and flaps. Is that ok?"

Any answer other than yes and then immediate compliance is reason to never set foot in the aircraft again - and - you need to DO it at least once every couple of flights to ensure compliance . . .
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what I tell my safety pilot to have as a viewpoint when I am under the hood and I encourage them to try me. It is also what I require when I am acting as safety pilot.
 
Ron Levy said:
IIRC, it was considered "high performance" back around then, and that should have been the wording in a pre-1997 endorsement for a 182, but so was a 180HP Mooney. The original additional training endorsement rule lumped all airplanes over 200HP and all airplanes we now call "complex" into one "high performance" set. However, I don't think that HP stuff started until 1978, so I don't think you'll have a HP endorsement from 1976 -- you'd be grandfathered based on your pre-78 182 time, rather than endorsed for HP. Could be wrong, but I can't dig up the FAR's from before 1978.
Click to expand...

Don't recall if there was a specific term for "complex" and I have no such endorsement from back then; got that in 2011 in an Arrow. What I meant is that, back then, the 182 was considered complex for the purpose of commercial rating training and checkride. I think the reg read something like "three of the following; wing flaps, variable pitch prop, cowl flaps, retractable gear". I did take the grandfather on the HP, though.
 
alfadog said:
Don't recall if there was a specific term for "complex" and I have no such endorsement from back then; got that in 2011 in an Arrow. What I meant is that, back then, the 182 was considered complex for the purpose of commercial rating training and checkride.
Click to expand...
There was never a time when the 182 was considered "complex" for that purpose. Retractable gear was always a requirement from the time 61.129 and the CP PTS were revised in that regard. Prior to that, you could do your initial CP-A and CFI-A in a Piper Cub or Cessna 150. After that, you needed retractable gear, and a 182 would not do at that point. OTOH, there has never been a specific horsepower requirement for the plane in which you trained or which you brought to a CP-A or CFI-A practical test -- just that it be able to get you and your instructor/examiner into the air legally and safely.
 
I would do it for an older friend that I know.would have to know their skills and abilities.remember we are all getting older and could be in the same position.Be kind to your younger friends.
 
Ron Levy said:
There was never a time when the 182 was considered "complex" for that purpose. Retractable gear was always a requirement from the time 61.129 and the CP PTS were revised in that regard. Prior to that, you could do your initial CP-A and CFI-A in a Piper Cub or Cessna 150. After that, you needed retractable gear, and a 182 would not do at that point. OTOH, there has never been a specific horsepower requirement for the plane in which you trained or which you brought to a CP-A or CFI-A practical test -- just that it be able to get you and your instructor/examiner into the air legally and safely.
Click to expand...

In 1976, I had to do my commercial work in the 182. I did not finish at that time. Obviously a long time ago but the rationale I recall was as I stated earlier.
 
alfadog said:
That is pretty much what I tell my safety pilot to have as a viewpoint when I am under the hood and I encourage them to try me. It is also what I require when I am acting as safety pilot.
Click to expand...

Any other response - you are not a safety pilot - you are a passenger. Drumming into all of us correctly by IP's
 
alfadog said:
What I meant is that, back then, the 182 was considered complex for the purpose of commercial rating training and checkride. I think the reg read something like "three of the following; wing flaps, variable pitch prop, cowl flaps, retractable gear". I did take the grandfather on the HP, though.
Click to expand...
My 182 does not have "three of the following". ;)
 
alfadog said:
In 1976, I had to do my commercial work in the 182. I did not finish at that time. Obviously a long time ago but the rationale I recall was as I stated earlier.
Click to expand...
Unless it was a 182RG and they had no other complex airplane, someone was feeding you a line. There was not then and has never been any characteristic of a straight 182 which was required for the CP-ASEL training or practical test other than having at least two seats, fixed wings, wheels, and one engine, and none of those ever made it either "high performance" or "complex".
 
Last edited:
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top