If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark Kolber" wrote in message ... 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. -- Bob PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. Not at all. The safety pilot is a crew member who has accepted significant flight responsibility. Passengers are not assigned any duties by the FARs. Safety pilots are. Jose (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:52:56 -0700, "Hilton" wrote:
I'm going to politely disagree with you. Logging has no bearing as to responsibilities; i.e. 'logging' versus 'acting' Exactly. Labels mean nothing. Living up to undertaken responsibilities is everything. Mark Kolber APA/Denver, Colorado www.midlifeflight.com ====================== email? Remove ".no.spam" |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Henry wrote:
Hilton wrote: Robert Henry wrote: 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. 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, See Section 1.1, definition of PIC. The FAA will file paperwork against "the [one] person who has _final_ authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight." There can only be one person with final authority. What will be one way to determine who that one person is? I think the logbooks will come into evidence.... I agree with that. That's why I log SIC when acting as safety pilot, not because of the regs, but because of insurance; i.e. if I logged PIC, it would be easy for the insurance company to show (beyond reasonable doubt - been watching too much TV) that I was PIC in the right seat; i.e they wouldn't have to pay anything as per the school's insurance. While it may look like I'm contradicting myself, I'm not, since had I not logged anything, I was still (at least) SIC, not "just a passenger". If both pilots are violated because it can't even be determined who was operating the controls, fine, but I'd rather argue a defense of any such citation as SIC with black and white (blue and green, whatever) evidence in the logbook. "Operating the controls" is as (ir)relavent as "logging PIC". Jessica Dubroff was just a passenger, but was operating the controls (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X05676&key=1). You could have two private pilots, either one could be operating the controls, either one could be PIC, either one could be hooded, etc. Anyway, coming back to your statement: "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. .". The safety pilot is SIC whether he/she likes/logs it or not, is therefore a required crewmember, and therefore has several responsibilities most importantly looking outside. Hilton |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Hilton" wrote in message ... Anyway, coming back to your statement: "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. .". The safety pilot is SIC whether he/she likes/logs it or not, is therefore a required crewmember, and therefore has several responsibilities most importantly looking outside. So, to be most accurate, the original statement that started all of this should be: Perhaps (words twice), the safety pilot should understand the responsibility they are accepting for the flight even though they are not manipulating the controls, and even more so when agreeing to act as PIC during simulated instrument operation. Acting as PIC carries all of the responsibilities for the flight rather than just those of being the SP and a required crew member. Documenting the safety pilot time as the acting PIC in the logbook leaves very little to doubt about who had the final authority for the conduct, operation and safety of the flight, at least imho. Should a violation or some other event cause an investigation to be brought about the flight, the SP logging PIC should expect to accept that responsibility. I think it's highly probable that there are SPs out there logging PIC who do not understand the implication of that action. Should the flying pilot step up and say, oh no, that's wrong - cite me, the SP is now possibly looking at falsification of a logbook, right? Bob |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Henry" wrote in message news:3p2Ta.19903$o54.11459@lakeread05... I think the logbooks will come into evidence.... The logbooks aren't very good evidence. 1. There is (in general) no requirement for logging anything. 2. The rules for loging PIC time are disassociated (in general) from who is PIC. The FAA and the NTSB have never used the log books to make a determination of who is PIC to my knowledge. The NTSB usually just uses the person in the prime pilot position (left seat on most planes unless they have compelling evidence that that person wasn't the PIC...like he wasn't a pilot). The FAA just goes after whoever they can cause the most damage to (preferring to bang an instructor or commercial pilot on board over a private). If both pilots are violated because it can't even be determined who was operating the controls, Operating the controls has nothing to do with who is pilot in command. I'm only parroting (more or less) the information the AOPA counsel provides to its members. See also Other Considerations in the URL listed below - if you can access it. http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/sftyplt.html You're not parrotting it very well, it says stuff completely contrary to the points you made here. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/sftyplt.html You're not parrotting it very well, it says stuff completely contrary to the points you made here. "Acting as PIC. The safety pilot should not take the role as acting PIC lightly. What if the aircraft is involved in an accident, incident, or violates an FAR? " |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark Kolber" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:42:55 -0400, "Robert Henry" wrote: See Section 1.1, definition of PIC. The FAA will file paperwork against "the [one] person who has _final_ authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight." There can only be one person with final authority. What will be one way to determine who that one person is? I think the logbooks will come into evidence.... But you're making a false assumption that the =only= person that will be gone after is the "officially" acting PIC. Any crewmember who does not do his job has exposure for both FAA certificate action and personal liability. That's not how it works. Yes. I am. I also agree that may not be the way it works - circumstances vary widely as I understand it. (FSDO by FSDO.) All that said, which crewmember(s) is not doing their job when a TFR is busted and the SP is acting PIC? Will both pilots be held responsible? Who is likely to receive the worst penalty (assuming equivalent rating of the pilots)? Now, assume the pilots have equivalent credentials, the SP is SIC. Will the safety pilot be held responsible for a TFR violation? How? (According to what (FAR)?) Bob |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Henry wrote:
Hilton wrote: Anyway, coming back to your statement: "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. .". The safety pilot is SIC whether he/she likes/logs it or not, is therefore a required crewmember, and therefore has several responsibilities most importantly looking outside. So, to be most accurate, the original statement that started all of this should be: Perhaps (words twice), the safety pilot should understand the responsibility they are accepting for the flight even though they are not manipulating the controls, and even more so when agreeing to act as PIC during simulated instrument operation. Acting as PIC carries all of the responsibilities for the flight rather than just those of being the SP and a required crew member. Documenting the safety pilot time as the acting PIC in the logbook leaves very little to doubt about who had the final authority for the conduct, operation and safety of the flight, at least imho. Should a violation or some other event cause an investigation to be brought about the flight, the SP logging PIC should expect to accept that responsibility. I think it's highly probable that there are SPs out there logging PIC who do not understand the implication of that action. Everything you wrote above is 100% correct, especially this last sentence. I would say that most pilots (including CFIs) do not understand the differences between acting and logging PIC. I once had a 'discussion' about this with CFIs at American Flyers. They absolutely disagreed with me, and ended up getting quite angry that I logged SIC because they thought this was more important than PIC. Anyway, the following day I took in an article from AOPA, an FAA letter (or article I forget), and the Jepp book on interpreting the regs - they all refused to even look at it, except one who looked at all three and still disagreed with me and all three articles. They all concluded that by virtue of the fact that you're looking outside makes you PIC - period. Should the flying pilot step up and say, oh no, that's wrong - cite me, the SP is now possibly looking at falsification of a logbook, right? Well, that would be for a court to figure out. I guess (after coming to their senses), they could claim that they just totally misunderstood the regs and the pilot under the hood was PIC. Always make it clear before starting the engine(s) as to who is PIC. Hilton |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Instrument Hole Punch | [email protected] | Home Built | 4 | February 3rd 05 09:17 PM |
Instrument panel labelling options | John Galban | Home Built | 12 | November 18th 04 10:42 PM |
Instrument mounting question | Rob Turk | Home Built | 4 | July 19th 04 10:33 PM |
Aluminum instrument panel finish? | Richard Riley | Home Built | 31 | February 4th 04 02:09 AM |
NDB approaches -- what are they good for? | Dylan Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | July 10th 03 09:15 PM |