Do you have to solo to get current?

A safety pilot is a required crewmember when the pilot flying is under
the hood. However, when the pilot flying is not under the hood, the
safety pilot is not a required crewmember. That makes him a passenger.

Is there a reg that states that?

It has always been my understanding that if something is not prohibited by
written law, it's not illegal, and therefor permitted.

There is case law, and case law is written (though in the FAA's case,
sometimes I think they make it up as they go along, but don't get me
started). There may be a reg that states it too, but I'm too lazy to
look it up.

In any case, it is =not= true that the only regs are the ones you study.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Skidder wrote:
On 3/8/2007 8:29:28 AM, Judah wrote:
"Skidder" wrote in
:


I don't understand why you think that a person sitting in the
passenger's seat who happens to hold a pilot's certificate is
anything different than a person who happens to not hold a pilot's
certificate.

Safety pilot.


If you are not in a situation where a safety pilot is REQUIRED then he would
be called a passenger. In the accident he might be called "rated pilot"

On 3/8/2007 2:03:33 PM, Jose wrote:

There is case law, and case law is written (though in the FAA's case,
sometimes I think they make it up as they go along, but don't get me
started). There may be a reg that states it too, but I'm too lazy to
look it up.


Agreed, case law is always relavent too.

--
Skidder

On 3/8/2007 2:30:20 PM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:


If you are not in a situation where a safety pilot is REQUIRED then he would
be called a passenger. In the accident he might be called "rated pilot"


The regs don't say that do they??


--
Skidder

Skidder wrote:


He could easily be considered a safety pilot. Nice to have an extra set of
trained eyes, especially at night.

No such thing as a safety pilot, as that term is defined by the FAA, for
this operation. Safety pilot is for IFR training when the person
receiving instruction is under the hood.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 07:37:13 -0600, "Skidder"
wrote:


That's correct, and I read the FAR the same way. But it puts us in a loop
because the entire focus 61.57 is the currency required to carry
*passengers*. My point is, another pilot with a full set of controls in front
of him is not defined anywhere as a passenger. Furthermore, nothing says that
anyone present in an aircraft that only requires one pilot, has to be
considered a passenger.

You're right -- the FARs don't say that the second pilot is a
passenger. Worse, the FARs don't even define "passenger." But the FARs
don't deifne many other words that are liberarly used throughout the
FARs. It's not the written word alone that counts in courts, but the
interpretation of it. And the interpretation would probably consider
the following:

- A person on board a flying aircraft is either a crewmember or a
passenger (a dead person might be considered cargo, but let's not
discuss that here). And your next comment is correct -- this is not
written anywhere in the FARs either, but I have a feeling that FAA,
NTSB, court, and most pilots would agree with this.

- Knowledge and skill of piloting a plane don't make anyone a
crewmember.

- Moreover, full flight controls in front of a pilot don't make
him/her a crewmember.

- Assigned duty makes a person a crewmember (even if the person is not
a pilot and has no flight controls in front of her/him).
But I seriously doubt that you will be able to convince FAA, NTSB, and
court that your chart-handling friend is a bona-fide crewmember, FAR
1.1 notwithstanding.

- Tom

"Skidder" wrote in :

On 3/8/2007 2:30:20 PM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:


If you are not in a situation where a safety pilot is REQUIRED then he
would be called a passenger. In the accident he might be called "rated
pilot"


The regs don't say that do they??

Actually, IIRC, the safety pilot actually acts as PIC of a VFR flight. The
pilot under the hood logs PIC time because he is sole manipulator of the
controls, but the safety pilot accepts ultimate responsibility for the safe
conduct of the flight and is therefore the Pilot in Command. Both pilots
log PIC time because of 61.51.

It brings up an interesting circle of questions...

In theory, I could see how it could be argued that the pilot under the hood
is a required crew member and the safety pilot is PIC, but therefore not in
violation of the non-required crew part of 61.57

However, this would mean that the other pilot was under the hood from the
moment the plane left the ground until the end of the third landing.

Even then, I think it's a stretch, because the two pilots were not really
both required for the safe conduct of the flight. They were required for
the Instrument Currency session... But your attorney can certainly try to
sell his interpretation to the nearest FSDO...

On 3/8/2007 4:40:04 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:


Holy ****!
It's Anthony's dumber little brother!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQCVAwUBRfCmZJMoscYxZNI5AQGS4gP/RBNoK2BD+wKPYmMgj+B9eTl4Gpdv9oIU
zFP+2VlVV7RcgHyHyJT/hGVZ3roGJPiS7BPNmp0yjBGWQ5EnK5x24lOp5a2w6zth
v6iugGxltMmZ301ZsS5Wxpcz3a81HtjlKhVHUa3wd7aL6Dr0S sn/SGrWFmj6JIMt
pWvCMwWM+ac=
=g2ny
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Top of the evening to you to Trollo

--
Skidder

On 3/8/2007 5:46:19 PM, Judah wrote:

Actually, IIRC, the safety pilot actually acts as PIC of a VFR flight. The
pilot under the hood logs PIC time because he is sole manipulator of the
controls, but the safety pilot accepts ultimate responsibility for the safe
conduct of the flight and is therefore the Pilot in Command. Both pilots
log PIC time because of 61.51.

It brings up an interesting circle of questions...

In theory, I could see how it could be argued that the pilot under the hood
is a required crew member and the safety pilot is PIC, but therefore not in
violation of the non-required crew part of 61.57

However, this would mean that the other pilot was under the hood from the
moment the plane left the ground until the end of the third landing.

Even then, I think it's a stretch, because the two pilots were not really
both required for the safe conduct of the flight. They were required for
the Instrument Currency session... But your attorney can certainly try to
sell his interpretation to the nearest FSDO...

He had suggested this too, but it didn't sould like a fit to me. Our
discussion was based on two PPLs, so they couldn't be seeking instrument
currency. They would be doing instrument training during VFR currency.





--
Skidder

On Mar 8, 6:46 pm, Judah wrote:
"Skidder" wrote :
Actually, IIRC, the safety pilot actually acts as PIC of a VFR flight. The
pilot under the hood logs PIC time because he is sole manipulator of the
controls, but the safety pilot accepts ultimate responsibility for the safe
conduct of the flight and is therefore the Pilot in Command. Both pilots
log PIC time because of 61.51.

The safety pilot is not necessarily the PIC. This has to be agreed
between the two pilots. If the safety pilot chooses to be PIC, then he
gets to log time. If he doesn't act as PIC, he doesn't log time.
Furthermore, there could be cases in which the safety pilot cannot act
as PIC, such as being safety pilot in a complex aircraft without being
complex endorsed. Nothing prevents that pilot to be safety pilot, and
long as he has a private certificate in the same category and class
(i.e. ASEL). But he can't act as PIC, therefore, he doesn't get to log
any time. Same if he is not current or he hasn't had a biennial. He
does need a medical certificate because he is a required crewember.