Safety Pilot.
- Thread starter Tom-D
- Start date
I don't see how a safety pilot has any responsibility in the take off and landing phases when the sole manipulator is not under the hood. As typically applied, the duty and responsibility of the safety pilot is to provide the "see and avoid" PIC duties in VMC while the sole manipulator is not able to do so due to a view limiting device.
If the safety pilot is also a CFI, there may be more implications and actions on that account as there can be an expected ability to save a bad landing.
Last edited:
SbestCFII
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 766
- Location
- NC
- Display Name
- CFII Scott - The IFR Coach
- Home Airfield
- KJNX
Probably depends on the attorney (haha). Seems the pilot flying is responsible for the take-off and landing, while the safety pilot is there to keep you from smacking into anything during the phases in-between. I also think that, being a CFI / safety pilot doesn't add any responsibility for TO/L incidents if the pilot-flying is a duly certificated and current pilot and the CFI is acting only as a safety pilot and is not "giving instruction."
My 2 cents...
Agreed, however a 709 ride can happen for no reason at all, so whether a CFI will see a 44709 check is hit or miss at best; maybe, maybe not, but certainly within the scope of possibility. On my gear up, if I would have had a PP, they would have cleared it ground training because it was agreed the failure was in fatigue management, not airplane flying. The landing was beautiful and on speed, just without wheels down.
however since I held a CPL, the boss at the Milwakee FSDO needed an in airplane three times around the pattern in a retract. It caused them more of a PITA than me. So the more rated you are does make a difference in what standard you are required to prove competency in a post accident scenario.
It can only apply during that time that the sole manipulator is under the hood. That is confirmed by the logging rules.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,956
- Display Name
- Kritchlow
So when the hood comes off at 100 feet the legal pic changes? If that's true, what if the probable cause of an accident is a "non stabilized approach" (or something that puts the safety pilot as pic at the time) ?
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
On my gear up, if I would have had a PP, they would have cleared it ground training because it was agreed the failure was in fatigue management, not airplane flying. The landing was beautiful and on speed, just without wheels down.
Not necessarily true, but you keep pushing this story.
Except most of it's pure BS.
Wow ,blame the safety pilot.unless you stayed under the hood,following verbal commands,which would be foolish. He who lands the plane,owns the landing,good or bad.
Out here a fuel starvation or gear up is a guaranteed 709 for any certificate no matter what excuse you make for it (even if it's 100% mechanical failure).
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
Fuel starvation yes, gear up, not necessarily.
As far as a 709 for a "100% mechanical failure" out of control of the pilot, that would be a stretch.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'll add.....mid-air to that.
My buddy who survived a mid-air was dogged by the Richmond FSDO for aircraft log books, his pilot logs, and all kinds of other stuff for the totaled aircraft....even after he demonstrated he was hit from underneath and behind.
....and yes, he was "asked" to take a 709 ride.....he was able to successfully fight it with the supervisors.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 21,997
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
You're really equating the "logging" rules with the "acting" rules?
I don't think that's accurate. Yes, the only time the safety pilot is a required crewmember is when the hood comes on the flying pilot. But the choice of who is the PIC during a flight is a completely separate one, unless you are suggesting that if you and I fly together with neither of us under the hood, we can't decide who is PIC (assuming both are qualified), regardless of who is manipulating the controls.
To me (see my signature block), a safety pilot (whether PIC or not) is a flight crewmember with duties. And like any flight crewmember, he ot she can be held accountable for not fulfilling them. While its absolutely true the entire reason for and primary duty of a safety pilot is to fulfill see-and-avoid requirements, I doubt responsibility stops and end there.