Robert Henry wrote:

Mark Kolber wrote:
You are absolutely right about the situation with TFRs and ADIZs. If
during a flight under the hood the flight busts, say a stadium TFR, I
would expect the safety pilot to be looking at a violation. But,
again, that would be for not performing safety pilot duties properly
and would have nothing to do with their status as PIC or not PIC or
logging sometime or not logging something.

I politely disagree with this conclusion. If the safety pilot logs
nothing,
and is not the acting PIC, by or for lack of agreement, I don't see why
the
person acting as a safety pilot would have any responsibility for the
conduct/operation of the flight during the violation. Essentially the
safety
pilot is just a passenger who helps make certain that the pilot flying
simulated conditions doesn't run into anything or anyone.


Robert,

I'm going to politely disagree with you. Logging has no bearing as to
responsibilities; i.e. 'logging' versus 'acting', so who logs what is
irrelavant. Secondly, the safety pilot is a required crew member required
by the FARs and is therefore not 'just a passenger' - needs a private
certificate (or greater) and medical. If a second 'safety pilot' is
required (note the quotes since they'd be called an 'observer'), only then
would they be a 'passenger'.

Take a look at 91.109.

Hilton