Safety Pilot Question

Ventucky Red

Ventucky Red

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
1,993
Display Name
Display name:
Jon
Can a pilot who is not current and working on getting IFR currency back request a pop up clearence in "sever clear" VFR if the saftey pilot on board is IFR current?

I was looking at 61.57 and 91.109.... both have no mention? Or should I say; they are very confusing a dumb jock like me..
 
Maybe. It depends. What's the plane? What endorsements does the safety pilot have? Is the safety pilot also passenger current?

For example, I have a Comanche which requires high performance and complex endorsements for the safety pilot to ACT as PIC. If he can't act as PIC he can't accept the clearance. Also, technically the safety pilot would have to request the pop-pup clearance, because the pilot trying to get current can't accept the clearance.

To answer your question literally. Yes, he (sole manipulator) can request it. But if he accepts the clearance, he's breaking regulations. If the safety pilot would be fully legal to fly the plane with passengers, the safety pilot could request and accept the clearance.

As an aside, why would you want a pop up IFR clearance if CAVU?
 
Last edited:
So the essential point is that if they get an IFR clearance, there has to be someone on board who is PIC-qualified under IFR (and of course, the pilots have to agree that that person IS in fact the acting PIC, dada, dada, dada). To be PIC-qualified, the safety pilot needs to be IFR current but also be appropriately rated and have whatever endorsements are needed, and also day or night current for carrying passengers, depending on what time of day it is, since unless the PIC is wearing a hood, the flight now only requires one crewmember so the PF is legally a passenger.

At least, that's my understanding; corrections are always welcome. :)
 
azure said:
So the essential point is that if they get an IFR clearance, there has to be someone on board who is PIC-qualified under IFR (and of course, the pilots have to agree that that person IS in fact the acting PIC, dada, dada, dada). To be PIC-qualified, the safety pilot needs to be IFR current but also be appropriately rated and have whatever endorsements are needed, and also day or night current for carrying passengers, depending on what time of day it is, since unless the PIC is wearing a hood, the flight now only requires one crewmember so the PF is legally a passenger.

At least, that's my understanding; corrections are always welcome. :)
Click to expand...

It appears from what you wrote you are correct. The person accepting the clearance must be able to be legal PIC. The pilot flying may still log PIC under the the sole manipulator allowance.
 
EdFred said:
As an aside, why would you want a pop up IFR clearance if CAVU?
Click to expand...

Thanks for your previous responce.. In answer to this question we have been known do this from time to time in Southern CA... On minute your detination can be VFR and the next IFR with the unpredictable marine layer..

Makes for good practice:yes:
 
Where is Tim M when you need him?

Sorry to confuse:
Tim, please provide some concurrence and/or clarification to the safety pilot requirements issue in EdFred's post. IIRC in ad-nauseum posts, the safety pilot only needs to be category and class.

EdFred, where that PIC chart you made awhile back?
 
OK, this gets complicated, sort of.

Let's call the two guys
PF - the non-current guy flying the airplane, whether under the hood or in the clouds
SP/PIC - the safety pilot who will be ACTING as PIC.

First, if you're operating under IFR - the person ACTING as PIC and accepting the clearance must:
Be capable of acting as PIC under IFR (duh), meaning fully rated for the airplane (including endorsements), have a current medical, be current for passengers, and be instrument rated and current. So the SP/PIC must meet all these requirements.

When they're in clouds and if the hood is off, the PF can log actual instrument conditions and PIC - he's sole manipulator (PIC), and in clouds (actual). The SP/PIC doesn't get to log PIC, two pilots aren't required. YES, I concede that he's required, but the PF isn't, so he doesn't get to log time just for ACTING because two pilots aren't required. Keep reading for a solution to this.

Out of the clouds and the PF puts on the hood, and still operating under IFR. PF logs PIC (sole manipulator), Sim Instrument (Hood). SP/PIC logs PIC because now two pilots ARE required, one of them is under the hood. Only difference between this and operating under VFR is that the SP/PIC HAS to be acting as PIC.

If the PF keeps the hood on the whole time, then two pilots are still required in my book, you can become visual at any time, and the PF can log PIC (sole manipulator) and the SP/PIC can log PIC too as two pilots are required. I think this is reasonable but can understand where opinions may differ. Whether the PF logs simulated or actual? I really don't know. I do know that when I did my instrument training that I had the hood on even in clouds unless we KNEW we were in a serious thick layer. And I logged it as simulated time when the hood was on.

That's what I think the legal issues regarding logging are.

Now let's address safety - do you think it's safe to have someone acting as PIC in real instrument conditions if that person isn't experienced in flying in those conditions from the right seat? Personally, I'd want someone with the experience, either someone who's a CFII or who has otherwise demonstrated proficiency flying on instruments from the right seat when they don't have their own set of instruments in front of them.
 
Last edited:
Tim touched on one important point, the acting PIC on an IFR clearance needs to be comfortable and competent flying an approach from the right seat in the example airplane. To me that means he's done it before (and fairly recently) and knows the radios well, etc. That pilot is after all responsible for the safe outcome of the flight and must be prepared to step in if the non-current PF is having trouble. He should also have some pre-determined protocol for taking control and criteria for when he might take over which hopefully would be at a point well before safety is compromised rather than wrestling for control near the ground in an unusual attitude recovery scenario.

Another issue that often gets overlooked is the insurance aspect. Since the PF isn't qualified to ACT as PIC under IFR his coverage is likely null and void if he's the only pilot listed on an owner's policy. If the SP/PIC meets the terms of the owner's OPW the insurance would be in effect but the insurer might have the right to subrogate against the SP/PIC.

And if it's a rental, there may be a clause in the rental agreement requiring the renter (e.g. the PF) to be PIC. Violate that and the FBO's insurer would likely go after both pilots if there was an accident.
 
gismo said:
Tim touched on one important point, the acting PIC on an IFR clearance needs to be comfortable and competent flying an approach from the right seat in the example airplane. To me that means he's done it before (and fairly recently) and knows the radios well, etc. That pilot is after all responsible for the safe outcome of the flight and must be prepared to step in if the non-current PF is having trouble. He should also have some pre-determined protocol for taking control and criteria for when he might take over which hopefully would be at a point well before safety is compromised rather than wrestling for control near the ground in an unusual attitude recovery scenario.

Another issue that often gets overlooked is the insurance aspect. Since the PF isn't qualified to ACT as PIC under IFR his coverage is likely null and void if he's the only pilot listed on an owner's policy. If the SP/PIC meets the terms of the owner's OPW the insurance would be in effect but the insurer might have the right to subrogate against the SP/PIC.

And if it's a rental, there may be a clause in the rental agreement requiring the renter (e.g. the PF) to be PIC. Violate that and the FBO's insurer would likely go after both pilots if there was an accident.
Click to expand...

All good points. Many FBOs require the renter to ACT as PIC and to only do so in the left seat unless they've been specifically checked out for right seat flying.
 
I hate the whole 'logging/acting' argument, so I'll set that aside.

I'm an instrument rated pilot, but not a CFII. I'd be extremely reluctant to fly safety pilot for a non-instrument rated pilot in anything but the most benign IMC.

I have never flown with a hood from the right seat, let alone in real IMC. The first time I try right seat IMC flying I really want at least an instrument rated pilot in the left seat. I've also never come to the official attention of the FAA and I want to keep it that way. YMMV.

I will say that I am happy to fly as safety pilot for any of my friends who are working on their instrument rating. You can count this kind of hood time towards the hours required to take the IFR checkride.

At least in my case, while I was working on my instrument rating I really enjoyed being able to occasionally practice under the hood without the all-seeing eye of my CFII while I stumbled along practicing those #$#@!! patterns!
 
JimNtexas said:
I have never flown with a hood from the right seat, let alone in real IMC. The first time I try right seat IMC flying I really want at least an instrument rated pilot in the left seat. I've also never come to the official attention of the FAA and I want to keep it that way. YMMV.
Click to expand...
Definitely agree. In fact, wouldn't it be better to practice it in VMC with some kind of view-limiting device that doesn't completely block your peripheral vision? In my airplane, I'm not sure I could see the HSI very well from the right seat (it's an electronic display, LCD I think). The DPE on my checkride complained that he really couldn't read it. So it would probably be almost like partial panel to fly instruments from the right seat. Definitely worth it to have an IR pilot I trust in the left seat.
 
azure said:
Definitely agree. In fact, wouldn't it be better to practice it in VMC with some kind of view-limiting device that doesn't completely block your peripheral vision? In my airplane, I'm not sure I could see the HSI very well from the right seat (it's an electronic display, LCD I think). The DPE on my checkride complained that he really couldn't read it. So it would probably be almost like partial panel to fly instruments from the right seat. Definitely worth it to have an IR pilot I trust in the left seat.
Click to expand...
In any airplane that lacks a full 6 pack on the copilot side, it's actually easier to fly "real" IMC from the right seat than to do it under simulated IMC because whatever you use for a "view limiting device" will interfere with your scan. They just weren't designed for looking across the cockpit. And it's not all that difficult once you get used to the weird scan and parallax. Also the Sandel 3308 makes it miserable, the only way I could fly one of those from the right seat was to lean way over to the left.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Can a pilot who is not current and working on getting IFR currency back request a pop up clearence in "sever clear" VFR if the saftey pilot on board is IFR current?

I was looking at 61.57 and 91.109.... both have no mention? Or should I say; they are very confusing a dumb jock like me..
Click to expand...

Technically, yes. The second in command in an instrument flight rules operation is required to also hold an instrument rating. The safety pilot would need to be pilot in command (rated and current). The sic only needs the rating, doesn't need to be current.
 
flyingron said:
Technically, yes. The second in command in an instrument flight rules operation is required to also hold an instrument rating. The safety pilot would need to be pilot in command (rated and current). The sic only needs the rating, doesn't need to be current.
Click to expand...
In that situation, there is really only one pilot required by the regulations -- the one acting as PIC in the right seat. The hooded pilot with hands on the controls but not acting as PIC is not required, and therefore not SIC, and so need not be qualified for anything at all. Of course, if rated in the aircraft, that hooded pilot not acting as PIC but manipulating the controls can log PIC time under 61.51(e)(1)(i) even though s/he is not a required pilot crewmember.
 
Allow me to hijack this thread for a second-- a safety pilot needs a current medical, right?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Yes...
Click to expand...
And it's yes because the SP is a "required crewmember" and required crew always need a valid medical in a non-Light Sport airplane.

To continue the PoA tradition of derailing thread topics, can a PPL fly "simulated IMC" in a Light Sport airplane and if so would the SP need a medical?
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
And it's yes because the SP is a "required crewmember" and required crew always need a valid medical in a non-Light Sport airplane.

To continue the PoA tradition of derailing thread topics, can a PPL fly "simulated IMC" in a Light Sport airplane and if so would the SP need a medical?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the regulations for safety pilot/simulated IMC don't care if it is an LSA or not. Not only that, the SP would still need to be a PP.
 
gismo said:
And it's yes because the SP is a "required crewmember" and required crew always need a valid medical in a non-Light Sport airplane.

To continue the PoA tradition of derailing thread topics, can a PPL fly "simulated IMC" in a Light Sport airplane and if so would the SP need a medical?
Click to expand...

There is a string of half a dozen regulations and interpretations and unwritten practice that leads the experts to the conclusion that you can not act as a safety pilot in an LSA without a medical. But, apparently, you can act as PIC as long as the other person does not log the simulated instrument time.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
There is a string of half a dozen regulations and interpretations and unwritten practice that leads the experts to the conclusion that you can not act as a safety pilot in an LSA without a medical. But, apparently, you can act as PIC as long as the other person does not log the simulated instrument time.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in seeing that string. I haven't looked in depth since I have a medical and it's a moot point for me but I'm kinda expecting that the regs don't actually address this. IIRC the regs on safety pilots don't specifically require a medical, that comes from the rule that mandates a medical for any "required crewmember". And since the latter certainly doesn't apply to a LS pilot why should it apply to any other "required crewmember" in a LS airplane?

Does a LS instructor have to have a medical? Or a CFIG?
 
Huh, Simulated instrument flight specifically requires at least a private pilot certificate for the category class. It matters not whether you're flying an LSA or not. 91.109(b)(1) is pretty explicit.

The exemption for not having a medical when you are a required crewmember is not tied to the aircraft but to the pilot certificate. You don't need a medical when you are only exercising the privileges of sport pilot. In this case, safety piloting is a priv of a private certificate.

You can not be a safety pilot with only a sport pilot certificate.
You can not be a safety pilot without a medical.

(I'm going to omit the goofy case of instrument glider flight.)
 
flyingron said:
Huh, Simulated instrument flight specifically requires at least a private pilot certificate for the category class. It matters not whether you're flying an LSA or not. 91.109(b)(1) is pretty explicit.

The exemption for not having a medical when you are a required crewmember is not tied to the aircraft but to the pilot certificate. You don't need a medical when you are only exercising the privileges of sport pilot. In this case, safety piloting is a priv of a private certificate.

You can not be a safety pilot with only a sport pilot certificate.
You can not be a safety pilot without a medical.
Click to expand...
Sounds pretty clear now. Thanks for the explanation.

(I'm going to omit the goofy case of instrument glider flight.)
Click to expand...
But that's cheating...:D
 
gismo said:
And it's yes because the SP is a "required crewmember" and required crew always need a valid medical in a non-Light Sport airplane.
Click to expand...
Close. The reason is that by 91.109, a safety pilot must have at least a Private Pilot certificate, so when acting as a safety pilot you're exercising Private Pilot privileges, and 61.23 says when exercising Private Pilot privileges, you need a medical valid at least as Third Class.

To continue the PoA tradition of derailing thread topics, can a PPL fly "simulated IMC" in a Light Sport airplane and if so would the SP need a medical?
Click to expand...
Yes, and yes. Further, a Sport Pilot with no medical can fly a LSA under the hood while acting as PIC, but the safety pilot and SIC in the other seat needs at least a Private Pilot certificate and a valid medical. Go figure.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
There is a string of half a dozen regulations and interpretations and unwritten practice that leads the experts to the conclusion that you can not act as a safety pilot in an LSA without a medical.
Click to expand...
Correct.

But, apparently, you can act as PIC as long as the other person does not log the simulated instrument time.
Click to expand...
I'm not following that. There is no way for the safety pilot to log simulated instrument time, since s/he is not operating the aircraft in simulated instrument conditions -- only the flying pilot is doing that, and the safety pilot must hold at least a PP and medical. OTOH, a Sport Pilot can certainly act as PIC of that LSA without a medical, put on the hood, and log simulated instrument time as long as there is a PP with a medical in the other control seat acting as safety pilot. What those two folks cannot do is have the Sport Pilot act as safety pilot while the Private Pilot flies under the hood, and it doesn't matter which of them is acting as PIC.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm not following that. There is no way for the safety pilot to log simulated instrument time, since s/he is not operating the aircraft in simulated instrument conditions -- only the flying pilot is doing that, and the safety pilot must hold at least a PP and medical. OTOH, a Sport Pilot can certainly act as PIC of that LSA without a medical, put on the hood, and log simulated instrument time as long as there is a PP with a medical in the other control seat acting as safety pilot. What those two folks cannot do is have the Sport Pilot act as safety pilot while the Private Pilot flies under the hood, and it doesn't matter which of them is acting as PIC.
Click to expand...

Tell me where I go wrong.

PP, drivers license medical.

I can fly solo in an LSA.

I can carry passengers and act as PIC in an LSA.

I can let some other person (pilot or not) manipulate the controls in an' LSA while I act as PIC.

I can let some other person (pilot or not) wear a hood while manipulating the controls while I act as PIC in an LSA.

I can not be a "safety pilot" so said other person can not log the time as simulated instrument while manipulating the controls with a hood on.

If the other person is able to act as PIC of an LSA, I can put a hood on.

If the other person has a PP and a valid medical I can log the time as simulated instrument, otherwise not.

FARs are written in blood.
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Tell me where I go wrong.

PP, drivers license medical.

I can fly solo in an LSA.

I can carry passengers and act as PIC in an LSA.

I can let some other person (pilot or not) manipulate the controls in an' LSA while I act as PIC.
Click to expand...
Good so far.

I can let some other person (pilot or not) wear a hood while manipulating the controls while I act as PIC in an LSA.
Click to expand...
Stop. Now you're acting as a safety pilot. 91.109 says "No person...," not "no pilot." Therefore, regardless of qualifications of the person manipulating the controls, if that person is using a vision restricting device, a safety pilot with at least Private is required, and based on that, 61.23 requires the safety pilot to have a medical.

I can not be a "safety pilot" so said other person can not log the time as simulated instrument while manipulating the controls with a hood on.
Click to expand...
Since you cannot legally act as the regulatorily-required safety pilot, the flight is being conducted illegally regardless of what the other person logs. However, if that person is rated in the aircraft, and wishes to create legal evidence of that illegal operation, that person can log it as PIC and instrument time with your name as safety pilot, in which case you both can be written up on the strength of that evidence.

If the other person is able to act as PIC of an LSA, I can put a hood on.
Click to expand...
Sure, you can put the hood on, but you cannot legally manipulate the controls with that other person acting as safety pilot unless that other person is legal to do so, i.e., has a PP or better and valid medical.

If the other person has a PP and a valid medical I can log the time as simulated instrument, otherwise not.
Click to expand...
If you're rated (or in the case of an LSA, have privileges) in the plane, you can log it regardless of the other person's qualifications. However, if that other person isn't qualified to be a safety pilot, your log entry is creating evidence of violations of at least three regulations by the both of you.

FARs are written in blood.
Click to expand...
That's generally accepted to be so, but sometimes they are written by people simply trying to close loopholes. And remember that there is no regulation prohibiting the manufacture of rope which the FAA can later use to hang you. If you want to put flights which violate various other regs in your logbook, but what you log it IAW 61.51, you are not in violation of 61.51, even though you are creating legally sufficient evidence of your other violations.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Good so far.

Stop. Now you're acting as a safety pilot. 91.109 says "No person...," not "no pilot." Therefore, regardless of qualifications of the person manipulating the controls, if that person is using a vision restricting device, a safety pilot with at least Private is required, and based on that, 61.23 requires the safety pilot to have a medical.
Click to expand...

That's 180 degrees from what you said the last time this came up (over on the red board)

http://forums.aopa.org/showpost.php?p=1535079&postcount=31
But I guess the common interpretation is that I can let a 5 year old kid fly my airplane all day long as long as he/she doesn't put a hood on?
Click to expand...

Hood on or off the kid, it doesn't matter, since you are the only pilot and your vision is not restricted.
Click to expand...

http://forums.aopa.org/showpost.php?p=1535151&postcount=39

Wait - I can let a non-pilot fly under the hood with me, but not a pilot?
Click to expand...
More or less true. The other pilot can fly the plane, but can't log it, and you must be PIC.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, I was wrong then, because I didn't read the reg carefully. The reg says what it says -- no person.
Click to expand...

OK - so to make sure I have this right - I can let anyone (pilot or not) manipulate the controls as long as they don't have a hood on.

If the other person is at least a sport pilot with the appropriate stuff (endorsement or SEL) to fly my airplane they can log the time minipulating as PIC. Who acts as PIC depends... For example, the other pilot does not need to be tailwheel current to log, but does have to be current to act. In this case, an ATP buddy could log three landings to get tailwheel current while I act as PIC.

If that person is a non-pilot or a student pilot no one logs. I am still acting as PIC.

I can put a hood on only if the other person is at least a PP with a medical - I log PIC and simulated instrument. The other person may or may not log PIC depending on agreements on PIC and if they are "current" to act as PIC.
 
Close. The reason is that by 91.109, a safety pilot must have at least a Private Pilot certificate, so when acting as a safety pilot you're exercising Private Pilot privileges, and 61.23 says when exercising Private Pilot privileges, you need a medical valid at least as Third Class.
Click to expand...

That was the reasoning I came up with. I was hoping to be wrong because it would give me an easy option for a safety pilot.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
OK - so to make sure I have this right - I can let anyone (pilot or not) manipulate the controls as long as they don't have a hood on.
Click to expand...
Yes.

If the other person is at least a sport pilot with the appropriate stuff (endorsement or SEL) to fly my airplane they can log the time minipulating as PIC.
Click to expand...
The actual regulatory phrase is "rated, or has sport pilot privileges," but otherwise, yes.

Who acts as PIC depends... For example, the other pilot does not need to be tailwheel current to log, but does have to be current to act. In this case, an ATP buddy could log three landings to get tailwheel current while I act as PIC.
Click to expand...
Yes.

If that person is a non-pilot or a student pilot no one logs. I am still acting as PIC.
Click to expand...
That's the way the rules appear to read, but the Chief Counsel (actually, the Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations & Enforcement Division, Office of the Chief Counsel) wrote a long time ago (June 22, 1977, to be exact) that "a pilot, rated in category and class (e.g. airplane single-engine) could, as the pilot who 'Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight' log PIC time if another pilot, not appropriately rated, was actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft." That effectively got around the nonsensical idea that there could be a situation on a legally operated aircraft in which nobody could legally log the time.

I can put a hood on only if the other person is at least a PP with a medical - I log PIC and simulated instrument.
Click to expand...
Yes, and yes.

The other person may or may not log PIC depending on agreements on PIC and if they are "current" to act as PIC.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
If that person is a non-pilot or a student pilot no one logs. I am still acting as PIC.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this applies to LS (seems likely) but I do recall reading something official from the FAA that says if you're acting PIC you can LOG PIC if someone who's NOT qualified to LOG PIC as the sole manipulator is operating the controls. IOW assuming there's a pilot at a control station who's legally entitled to ACT as PIC, it's always legal for someone in the plane to LOG PIC. In your example (again assuming LS is the same as PPL in this regard) you could log PIC time.
 
gismo said:
I don't know if this applies to LS (seems likely) but I do recall reading something official from the FAA that says if you're acting PIC you can LOG PIC if someone who's NOT qualified to LOG PIC as the sole manipulator is operating the controls. IOW assuming there's a pilot at a control station who's legally entitled to ACT as PIC, it's always legal for someone in the plane to LOG PIC. In your example (again assuming LS is the same as PPL in this regard) you could log PIC time.
Click to expand...
Yup -- the Beane letter, cited above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top