On 01 Aug 2003 15:42:55 GMT, (Teacherjh) wrote:


I think what you are saying is that there is no requirement for a second
pilot if the person flying is wearing a hood.


No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's no requirement
to even use a hood unless the "purpose of the flight" is to fly under the hood.
Absent that, the only required pilot is the one not wearing the hood. The one
wearing the hood is superfluous (except that the purpose of the flight is to
give the hooded pilot the chance to fly).

We agree!


Well, if the thread is really that thin, then it ought to apply in actual too.
If the "purpose of the flight" is to have the non-IR pilot fly in the clouds,
then another pilot is required. But the flight itself could be conducted
without the non-IR pilot, just like the above flight could be conducted without
the hooded pilot.

I don't think that 91.109 speaks to the "purpose of the flight". I think
it rather speaks to safety implications.


The only difference I see is the lack of a 91.109(q) which would say:
(q) No person may operate a civil aircraft in actual instrument flight
unless--
[...] or
(2) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at
least a private pilot certificate and instrument rating with category and
class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

Is this what it hangs on?


It doesn't apply in actual because the function of a safety pilot is to
enable the pilot flying (PF) under the hood to avoid conflicting traffic.
So if you can't see out the window, the safety pilot is superfluous.

The "second pilot" requirement allows the safety pilot to log PIC time, if
he is the actual PIC. If there is no second pilot requirement, then only
the PF can log PIC time (even thought the PF is not the PIC).

In general, a PNF/PIC (non-CFI) cannot log PIC time (in small GA a/c).
This is an exception to that general rule.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)