Safety Pilot Endorsements?

MBDiagMan

MBDiagMan

Final Approach
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
5,016
Location
NorthEast Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Doc
In my instrument reading, it specifies that a safety pilot must be certified in the category & class aircraft being flown. It says nothing of things like tailwheel endorsements.

For a safety pilot to be legal in a taildragger, do they need to have a tailwheel endorsement?

Thanks for your help.
 
No. A safety pilot under VFR requires ratings in category and class. No endorsements required (unless, of course, acting as PIC).
 
Thanks Mark! That's good news for me. If I had to find a tailwheel safety pilot, it would make it quite a bit more difficult.
 
Keep in mind that pretty much all the regs requiring an endorsement are applicable only to acting as PIC. These include the 61.31 additional training endorsements (HP, complex, tailwheel, and high altitude) and the 61.56 flight review. In addition, there are other requirements such as landing and instrument recent experience in 61.57 which apply only to the PIC, not a safety pilot not acting as PIC. Those regs very clearly state their applicability, so reading them is useful.
 
Note the one gotcha is that if the simulated instrument flight is conducted under IFR (even in legitimate VFR conditions), the safety pilot must possess an instrument rating (currency not required) even as second in command. There used to be an exemption for safety pilots but it went away without comment in a rule making a few years back when they rejiggered the SIC familiarization requirements for multipilot aircraft.

I submitted a petition for rulemaking to put it back the way it was, but it got all jiggered up and it was compounded by the fact that John Lynch (now gone) felt that the safety pilot should have had an instrument rating under the old rules anyhow.
 
Thanks for the further comments. The person who would have done the most flying with me is not yet instrument rated, so I'm back to square one. Hopefully he will finish his soon.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Thanks for the further comments. The person who would have done the most flying with me is not yet instrument rated, so I'm back to square one. Hopefully he will finish his soon.
Click to expand...
Well you always have the option of doing it under VFR.
 
flyingron said:
Well you always have the option of doing it under VFR.
Click to expand...

...on those days when the weather conditions make it possible to maintain VFR cloud separation and visibility. (I know you know this - just clarifying for the OP.)
 
MBDiagMan said:
Thanks for the further comments. The person who would have done the most flying with me is not yet instrument rated, so I'm back to square one. Hopefully he will finish his soon.
Click to expand...

You're not back to square one. You're fine. Please notice the "under IFR" in his clarification.

So, to summarize. Let's say that you own a high performance complex tailwheel single engine airplane (does one of those even exist?:)). You're rated and endorsed to fly it and meet all requirements to act as pilot in command with a passenger (90 day passenger, BFR, etc.). Let's also say that you have a buddy that is a private pilot and that he does not have any additional endorsements (tailwheel, HP, complex) nor is he current to carry passengers and his BFR is expired. Neither one of you is instrument rated.

Your buddy can act as a safety pilot for you in your aircraft as long as you are performing the hood work "under VFR". Which means that you can not accept an IFR clearance (and thus must also maintain all VFR cloud clearance requirements for the airspace that you are operating in). This is no big deal because neither of you can accept a clearance anyway...since neither of you are instrument rated.
 
Last edited:
MBDiagMan said:
Thanks again to everyone! Sorry to be hard headed.
Click to expand...

No worries. It's complicated stuff! None of what I wrote even gets to who can log PIC for the flight. :)

There are other interesting examples. For instance, an instrument rated private pilot (who is not a CFI/CFII) can act as pilot in command of an aircraft "under IFR" while a non-instrument rated private pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls. That means that if you're instrument rated you can accept an IFR clearance and let your buddy fly your airplane in the clouds. Might not be a good idea...but it IS legal.
 
midlifeflyer said:
No. A safety pilot under VFR requires ratings in category and class. No endorsements required (unless, of course, acting as PIC).
Click to expand...


A safety pilot is PIC. Just ask PanAm. They put two students in a Seminole and send them on a 4 hour cross country. Each flies for two hours with foggles and is safety pilot for the other two and EVERYBODY logs the PIC time.
 
Captain said:
A safety pilot is PIC. Just ask PanAm. They put two students in a Seminole and send them on a 4 hour cross country. Each flies for two hours with foggles and is safety pilot for the other two and EVERYBODY logs the PIC time.
Click to expand...

A safety pilot may be PIC, it's not obligatory.

Which Pan Am are we talking about. The real one has been gone for decades.
 
Captain said:
A safety pilot is PIC. Just ask PanAm. They put two students in a Seminole and send them on a 4 hour cross country. Each flies for two hours with foggles and is safety pilot for the other two and EVERYBODY logs the PIC time.
Click to expand...

Partially correct. It is possible for a safety pilot to act as PIC. Doing so allows both pilots to log PIC during the flight. In order for that to be the case the safety pilot would require all necessary ratings/endorsements/currency reqs in order to act as PIC. This has been well covered on this board (and every other aviation board). :D


flyingron said:
A safety pilot may be PIC, it's not obligatory.

Which Pan Am are we talking about. The real one has been gone for decades.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
jason said:
You're not back to square one. You're fine. Please notice the "under IFR" in his clarification.

So, to summarize. Let's say that you own a high performance complex tailwheel single engine airplane (does one of those even exist?:))..
Click to expand...

T-6, F4U, P-51, P-47, ................. :D
 
Captain said:
A safety pilot is PIC. Just ask PanAm.
Click to expand...
The decision as to who is to act as PIC on one of their flights (given both are qualified) belongs to PanAm. If they want to insist that the pilot with eyes open is always PIC, that's PanAm's prerogative for the airplanes it operates (my friend and I operate under a similar rule when we fly together, so long as we are both qualified under FAA rules and the FBO's rental policies).
 
A safety pilot is PIC.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The pilot in command is designated by agreement.

A safety pilot may act as PIC and may log the time accordingly, as the PIC of an aircraft requiring more than one crew member under the regulation under which the flight is operated (91.109(b)).

The pilot flying may instead be the acting PIC. If the pilot flying (with the view limiting device) is the acting PIC (ultimately responsible for the safe outcome of the flight), then the safety pilot need not have a conventional gear endorsement.

If the safety pilot is acting as PIC, then the safety pilot must have the conventional gear (tailwheel) endorsement.
 
Well, I know there are scads of pilots who got a major bulk of their multi time by being PIC both ways on a 4 hour flight...foggles on for 2 and safety pilot for the other 2.

One plane with two pilots both logging PIC. It makes my stomach turn a little to think they are going out and getting hired with these BS hours.

Someone asked which PanAm? Well, when the real PanAm filled bankruptcy a company bought the name. They flew real planes for awhile and did sim centers as well as primary instruction. My airline used the sims for CRJ training. The primary training was done in FortPierce, Fl and Arizona (Pheonix I think). The hurricanes blew the Ft. pierce facility into the ocean. They lost 8 of 20'is planes as they were not airworthy so the got to ride out the storm.

The ones on the ramp got tossed all over the airport and the one in the hangar didn't do much better as the hangar collapsed. Afterwords PanAm pulled out of Florida and consolidated in Arizona. I don't know what they are doing now or if they still send out 2 PICs in one plane.
 
Captain said:
A safety pilot is PIC. Just ask PanAm.
Click to expand...
If they're teaching that is an automatic situation, then the FAA needs to reexamine their instructors. That doesn't mean it can't be that way, but it isn't automatic.

They put two students in a Seminole and send them on a 4 hour cross country. Each flies for two hours with foggles and is safety pilot for the other two and EVERYBODY logs the PIC time.
Click to expand...
If they're each logging the full 4 hours, and the FAA catches them, they will find out what the penalty is for violating 14 CFR 61.59. The safety pilot can only log the time the pilot flying is hooded, and if the pilot flying is wearing the hood for taxi, takeoff, and landing, the FAA is going to hang them both on a 91.13 charge.
 
Captain said:
Well, I know there are scads of pilots who got a major bulk of their multi time by being PIC both ways on a 4 hour flight...foggles on for 2 and safety pilot for the other 2.
Click to expand...
If they present their log that way, the FAA will hang both pilots involved. The safety pilot had better be logging less time than the pilot flying or there will be big trouble.
 
Ron Levy said:
If they present their log that way, the FAA will hang both pilots involved. The safety pilot had better be logging less time than the pilot flying or there will be big trouble.
Click to expand...

They were doing that all the way back into the 90's and the FAA has seen MANY pilots from those sleazy schools for additional ratings throughout this entire time.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm just saying it's slipping by -- or did -- for a very very long time. Most of those 90's pilots are flying Commercial these days, and got there on time logged exactly the way Captain suggested.

There was a school here in Denver that specialized in it. They're long gone now, but I would not be in the least bit surprised that the practice and the schools keep popping up and dying, and popping up and dying.

Even putting a fancy "Pan Am" name on themselves to give their lame-ass school some sort of fake legitimacy to 18-20 year olds looking for a quick way into the right seat of an airline puddle jumper, was common. I forget the name of the Denver-based one in the 90's, but it was something similarly "ooh, ahh..." sounding to suck in parents and students wallets, equally.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'll still bet they didn't both log the full time. The FAA was hanging people for that as far back as 1993.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4008.pdf
Click to expand...

All depends on the DPEs up until the point they ever had a real logbook audit, really...

For some, the first check ride those kids took with the FAA when they got their CFI, if they ever did, might have been the only real logbook audit they'd ever seen. Probably corrected at that point, and life went on for them.

The sheer number of places doing it times the number of students, must have meant it was a mess for every FSDO for a long time. Captain's thought about there maybe still being places doing it, notwithstanding... if there are, at least the FSDOs probably know who it is.

A split half-and-half flight would definitely stick out like a sore thumb to a logbook audit, for sure.
 
denverpilot said:
All depends on the DPEs up until the point they ever had a real logbook audit, really...

For some, the first check ride those kids took with the FAA when they got their CFI, if they ever did, might have been the only real logbook audit they'd ever seen. Probably corrected at that point, and life went on for them.

The sheer number of places doing it times the number of students, must have meant it was a mess for every FSDO for a long time. Captain's thought about there maybe still being places doing it, notwithstanding... if there are, at least the FSDOs probably know who it is.

A split half-and-half flight would definitely stick out like a sore thumb to a logbook audit, for sure.
Click to expand...
Not sure how it would stick out in a logbook audit unless someone was looking at both pilots' logbooks at the same time.
 
Captain said:
Someone asked which PanAm? Well, when the real PanAm filled bankruptcy a company bought the name. They flew real planes for awhile and did sim centers as well as primary instruction. My airline used the sims for CRJ training. The primary training was done in FortPierce, Fl and Arizona (Pheonix I think). The hurricanes blew the Ft. pierce facility into the ocean. They lost 8 of 20'is planes as they were not airworthy so the got to ride out the storm.
Click to expand...

Is this the place?

http://www.panamacademy.com/

I thought they had a location at Deer Valley (Phoenix), but they don't seem to be listed there now.
 
Palmpilot said:
Is this the place?

http://www.panamacademy.com/

I thought they had a location at Deer Valley (Phoenix), but they don't seem to be listed there now.
Click to expand...

Yup. I actually worked for them for a spell. A friend of mine asked me to come in on my off time to help. He was furloughed from my airline and got a gig running their 'ACE' program.

It was a CRJ FTD. Full cockpit with a visual display on the wall. They were charging somewhere near $20K per student for two weeks of ground and 25'ish ours of 'sim' time. (sim in quotes as its an FTD, no moving just visual).

They required this BS training prior to students getting their CFI. They also required off the street CFIs to take and pay for this crap. I helped my friend until I saw it for the scam that it was...and the hurricane blew the place into the ocean where it belonged.
 
Ron Levy said:
Gotta have two seats and dual controls to operate legally with one pilot hooded. T-6 qualifies, but I'm not sure about the others.
Click to expand...
Titan P-51 http://www.campbellaeroclassics.com/id55.html with the Honda 3.5L V6 :) Of course, then you're into the question of whether you can certify an Experimental Amateur Built under IFR, which I seem to recall is somewhat questionable now.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'll still bet they didn't both log the full time. The FAA was hanging people for that as far back as 1993.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4008.pdf
Click to expand...

They may have deducted .2 to account for taxi time. I honestly don't know. But just the idea of logging a major chunk of your multi time as a safety pilot smacks of wrong in my book. I flew every second of my multi time save when my instructor was demo'ing something and even then I logged the whole flight as 'dual received'.

Plus, as a matter of fact you know they weren't wearing the foggles. Nobody is there watching. It's their word only. I see this happening most of the time, "hey, I won't tell if you don't".

Besides, even if they did follow the rules (they didn't), so what? If you flew 100 hours in a MEL...really flew it and I flew 100 hours with half of it (even minus .2 per flight) as a 'safety pilot' then who's experience is better? It's a scam and everyone knows it.
 
gprellwitz said:
Titan P-51 http://www.campbellaeroclassics.com/id55.html with the Honda 3.5L V6 :)
Click to expand...
That looks OK, assuming the hooded pilot is in the back seat (although it doesn't appear there are flight instruments back there), or that you can see forward well enough from the back to act as safety pilot from there.
Of course, then you're into the question of whether you can certify an Experimental Amateur Built under IFR, which I seem to recall is somewhat questionable now.
Click to expand...
I was not aware of any issues in that area. Can you elucidate?
 
Captain said:
They may have deducted .2 to account for taxi time. I honestly don't know. But just the idea of logging a major chunk of your multi time as a safety pilot smacks of wrong in my book.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't worry about it. It's good as PIC for FAA certificates and ratings but I understand that more than one 135 and 121 carrier defines "PIC" for the purpose of employment applications as not including safety pilot time or will discount in in some other way.
 
Captain said:
They may have deducted .2 to account for taxi time. I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
Let us know when you do have the facts.
But just the idea of logging a major chunk of your multi time as a safety pilot smacks of wrong in my book.
Click to expand...
I won't get into the ethics or morality or how prospective employers view that time or whatever -- I'm just talking legality, and it is legal as long as the safety pilot is only logging the time the pilot flying is hooded.
 
Ron Levy said:
Let us know when you do have the facts.

I won't get into the ethics or morality or how prospective employers view that time or whatever -- I'm just talking legality, and it is legal as long as the safety pilot is only logging the time the pilot flying is hooded.
Click to expand...

Well ya don't don't have to get snippy.
 
Ron Levy said:
gprellwitz said:
Of course, then you're into the question of whether you can certify an Experimental Amateur Built under IFR, which I seem to recall is somewhat questionable now.
Click to expand...

I was not aware of any issues in that area. Can you elucidate?
Click to expand...
I thought I recalled reading a year or two back that the FAA was frowning on (but not prohibiting) flying EAB in the IFR system. I'm not finding references right now, though, and this article at EAA doesn't seem to reference it. Of course, I've seen references to that article from 2006, so I don't know how current it is, as there's no dateline.But , presuming that one has the appropriate allowances in the operating limitations, I don't see anything that prohibits it.
 
MBDiagMan said:
In my instrument reading, it specifies that a safety pilot must be certified in the category & class aircraft being flown. It says nothing of things like tailwheel endorsements.

For a safety pilot to be legal in a taildragger, do they need to have a tailwheel endorsement?

Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...

No. I was a safety pilot for a taildragger that was also HP (two sign offs I don't have). Later that weekend I took my first tail dragger lesson and asked the CFI that same question. He took out the FARs and said no (though a different CFI said yes so I was confused).

Anyway, I have since safety piloted a retract Piper Lance (HP, Complex). So I'm pretty sure I'm OK. The trick is you have to have a current medical but you don't need a current BFR.
 
gprellwitz said:
I thought I recalled reading a year or two back that the FAA was frowning on (but not prohibiting) flying EAB in the IFR system. I'm not finding references right now, though, and this article at EAA doesn't seem to reference it. Of course, I've seen references to that article from 2006, so I don't know how current it is, as there's no dateline.But , presuming that one has the appropriate allowances in the operating limitations, I don't see anything that prohibits it.
Click to expand...
You also need the 91.411/413 altimeter/static/transponder certifications as well as everything listed in 91.205(d). You can get past the Part 21 equipment certification requirements that equipment installed in Standard airworthiness aircraft must meet, but you still must have all the listed equipment and it must pass the 91.411/413 tests.
 
Ron Levy said:
You also need the 91.411/413 altimeter/static/transponder certifications as well as everything listed in 91.205(d). You can get past the Part 21 equipment certification requirements that equipment installed in Standard airworthiness aircraft must meet, but you still must have all the listed equipment and it must pass the 91.411/413 tests.
Click to expand...

True. In fact, the article I linked suggests an operating limitation something like “After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with § 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.”
And goes on to talk about the transponder requirements.

The link doesn't seem to be working, though, so try this one:http://members.eaa.org/home/homebui...a Homebuilt for IFR operations.html#TopOfPage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top