Safety Pilot

MachFly

MachFly

En-Route
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
2,514
Display Name
Display name:
MachFly
Recently a buddy of mine asked me to fly right seat with him as a safety pilot so he could log some simulated IFR time. I'm not a CFI and I've never really done this before, was wondering if there is anything I should specifically pay attention to that I would not on a normal flight.

Thanks
 
I normally watch for traffic/obstacles and make sure my roommate does make any drastic actions. Stuff like unstable APPs, sudden or erratic control movements and large off course tracks. It works out of us because we are both working on our IFR ticket. We can do a few APPs switch seats and grade each other.

Try not to teach because one as you said you don't hold a CFI and two you can accidentally enforce a bad habit. You can say stuff like "Hey that steep turn had to much bank" or "That APP was to high and you didn't configure before FAF"

Remember per 91.109.

You must hold at least a PPL in the same category and class.

A CFI on here may have better info as I currently just hold a PPL ASEL. :)
 
Last edited:
Historically, the one and only purpose of the safety pilot for someone flying the plane under the hood was to look out for other airplanes and obstructions. You are not an instructor or an evaluator -- just a pair of trained eyes connected by voice to the pilot flying so s/he doen't run into another airplane or an obstacle s/he can't see with the hood on. That's it. The biggest problem with that is resisting the temptation to watch what the hooded pilot is doing and keeping your eyes outside, not inside.

A few years ago, the FAA decided that when operating under IFR, the safety pilot was also there to help make sure the pilot flying didn't do anything improper in the way of IFR procedures, and changed the rule to require that the safety pilot hold an instrument rating when the flight is conducted under IFR. They never said exactly what they consider the safety pilot's additional duties/responsibilities are in that case, so it's something of a vague area which must be decided by the two pilots involved.

And that brings us to the most important issue -- the preflight briefing. Before starting the engine, it's essential that the two pilots involved establish the duties and responsibilities of each so there's no question or confusion in the air. Decide who will be the PIC ultimately responsible for the flight, and what duties will be delegated to the other pilot. Discuss transfer of control procedures, who will handle the radios, how to advise the hooded pilot of traffic, when and how the safety pilot will tell the hooded pilot of other dangers detected, etc. Make sure you both are happy with the other one's view of how this will be done, because the cockpit in flight is no place to hash this out.
 
Ron Levy said:
A few years ago, the FAA decided that when operating under IFR, the safety pilot was also there to help make sure the pilot flying didn't do anything improper in the way of IFR procedures, and changed the rule to require that the safety pilot hold an instrument rating when the flight is conducted under IFR. They never said exactly what they consider the safety pilot's additional duties/responsibilities are in that case, so it's something of a vague area which must be decided by the two pilots involved.
Click to expand...

uh-oh. That's another issue, and one that's seemed about as clear as mud after I read the 2008 thread.

Probably the most important thing for most readers to know is that for the most common case of flying under the hood while using visual flight rules, this is not relevant and no instrument rating is required for the safety pilot.
 
NoHeat said:
Probably the most important thing for most readers to know is that for the most common case of flying under the hood while using visual flight rules, this is not relevant and no instrument rating is required for the safety pilot.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
NoHeat said:
uh-oh. That's another issue, and one that's seemed about as clear as mud after I read the 2008 thread.

Probably the most important thing for most readers to know is that for the most common case of flying under the hood while using visual flight rules, this is not relevant and no instrument rating is required for the safety pilot.
Click to expand...

....and if you are IFR in IMC without foggles, the safety pilot is not a required crew member and you could have mickey mouse occupying the right seat. The rule only seems to apply if you are on a IFR clearance in VMC with a view limiting device.
 
NoHeat said:
uh-oh. That's another issue, and one that's seemed about as clear as mud after I read the 2008 thread.

Probably the most important thing for most readers to know is that for the most common case of flying under the hood while using visual flight rules, this is not relevant and no instrument rating is required for the safety pilot.
Click to expand...

I just wish people were more precise.

It's simulated IMC, not simulated IFR...conditions and rules are not synonymous.
 
weilke said:
....and if you are IFR in IMC without foggles, the safety pilot is not a required crew member and you could have mickey mouse occupying the right seat. The rule only seems to apply if you are on a IFR clearance in VMC with a view limiting device.
Click to expand...
Whether you're in VMC or in IMC, the rule applies -- pilot wearing vision-restricting device -> safety pilot required.
 
JeffDG said:
I just wish people were more precise.

It's simulated IMC, not simulated IFR...conditions and rules are not synonymous.
Click to expand...
It's neither of those. It's "simulated instrument conditions." One can be in IMC without being able to log instrument time, and I know of no way to "simulate" being 1900 feet horizontally from a cloud. OTOH, one can easily simulate being in "actual instrument conditions" (i.e., conditions requiring the use of the instruments to maintain aircraft control) by using a vision-restricting device, thus being in "simulated instrument conditions."
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the help!

I might have some more specific questions later on but for now you guys pretty much explained it.
 
Another thing to ask the pilot flying is how does he want you to handle it when you spot traffic that ATC points out. I ask my safety pilots to reply to any ATC calls that involve traffic, and I tell them that I will reply to any calls that involve clearances or instructions, but your buddy may have a different preference.
 
By the way, don't forget that a quirk of a reg rewrite a few years ago made an unannounced change that safety pilots during IFR operations are required to have instrument ratings.
 
Ron Levy said:
Whether you're in VMC or in IMC, the rule applies -- pilot wearing vision-restricting device -> safety pilot required.
Click to expand...

That is why I stated 'without foggles' in my reply.
 
weilke said:
That is why I stated 'without foggles' in my reply.
Click to expand...
My concern was the second part of your post -- "The rule only seems to apply if you are on a IFR clearance in VMC with a view limiting device." If the pilot is wearing a view limiting device, there must be a properly qualified safety pilot wheither you're in VMC or IMC.
 
Ron Levy said:
My concern was the second part of your post -- "The rule only seems to apply if you are on a IFR clearance in VMC with a view limiting device." If the pilot is wearing a view limiting device, there must be a properly qualified safety pilot wheither you're in VMC or IMC.
Click to expand...

Why would you want to wear a view limiting device if the time already 'counts' as you are in IMC ?
 
denverpilot said:
Heh heh. This is fun.

:popcorn:
Click to expand...
There is nothing "fun" about explaining the differences between IMC, VMC, actual instrument conditions, simulated instrument conditions, IFR, and VFR. I believe I understand it well, but it still makes my head hurt and almost always glazes over the eyes of the person to whom I am explaining it. It's a shame the only FAA document which really explains the differences was written by a lawyer and not part of any training book. And it is even more unfortunate that many instructors and aviation writers use those terms interchangeably and/or incorrectly, as that only adds to the confusion in the average pilot's mind.
 
Awww c'mon Ron, you like it... you know you do! :) :) :)

Teaching "Bureaucracy 101" is why every young man grows up and wants to be a CFI, isn't it? ;) ;) ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Awww c'mon Ron, you like it... you know you do! :) :) :)

Teaching "Bureaucracy 101" is why every young man grows up and wants to be a CFI, isn't it? ;) ;) ;)
Click to expand...
Well, let's just say that it's good for the guy at the store where I buy Jack Daniel's Old No. 7.
 
It's actually my opinion that the inclusion of requiring an Instrument rating for IFR safety piloting was inadvertent due to other changes to the SIC regs. However, John Lynch always asserted that the safety pilot always required an instrument rating for the reasons Ron repeated even before the regs were changed to strictly require it.

Of course, the NPRM which changed it didn't mention one word of this change (mostly it was dealing with the training requirements) and none of the people who commented (NBAA/AOPA) caught it.
 
flyingron said:
It's actually my opinion that the inclusion of requiring an Instrument rating for IFR safety piloting was inadvertent due to other changes to the SIC regs. However, John Lynch always asserted that the safety pilot always required an instrument rating for the reasons Ron repeated even before the regs were changed to strictly require it.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly what Mr. Lynch said. He told me he always felt it should have been required for safety pilots under IFR, but until the 2005 change to 61.55 it wasn't. He admitted that he most deliberately inserted that language in the change to 61.55 originally intended only to incorporate the new SIC rating between the NPRM and the Final Rule. That was probably in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, but nobody has challenged that in court, so the rule stands.
 
JeffDG said:
I just wish people were more precise.

It's simulated IMC, not simulated IFR...conditions and rules are not synonymous.
Click to expand...
Funny, I could swear the actual wording in CFR14 was "Simulated Instrument Flight" not IMC and not IFR.
 
There is an excellent article on this very topic in the December issue of Aviation Safety Magazine, if you have access to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top