Logging instrument approaches

"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

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

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)

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"

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

"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

"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.

"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? "

"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

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