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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:09:37 -0400, Slav Inger
wrote: Oh, almost forgot: I don't think I can split the cost of the flight with the safety pilot, can I? Since I wanted to go practice instrument approaches and asked/needed someone to be my safety pilot, the SP is no longer "just a passenger". Since his presence in the airplane is not coincidental, I'm assuming that I can't charge him 50% of the cost. I don't see why not. You're sharing the flight and you're both logging flight time. The rule about sharing costs is designed to prevent you from charging people for acting as a pilot, not to prevent two pilots from sharing the cost of an airplane that they both get a benefit from. Mark Kolber APA/Denver, Colorado www.midlifeflight.com ====================== email? Remove ".no.spam" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, almost forgot: I don't think I can split the cost of the flight with
the safety pilot, can I? Since I wanted to go practice instrument approaches and asked/needed someone to be my safety pilot, the SP is no longer "just a passenger". Since his presence in the airplane is not coincidental, I'm assuming that I can't charge him 50% of the cost. In the literal sense of the word, you can't "charge" him anything without holding a commercial ticket. You have by the way, ruffled my feathers here. First, I, personally, wouldn't ask a stranger to ride safety for me. Second, asking someone I know and trust to ride safety for me is asking them for a favor and I wouldn't have the temerity to require them to compensate me for doing that favor. I dunno, sounds kind of rude... "Hey Billy Bob, will you pay me $50 an hour to be my safety pilot?" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Justin, I must admit to the error of my earlier post. Your approach to
approaches is far more creative and can even do in a pinch. Should low IMC settle in that alcoholic beverage could serve to calm the nerves of the pilot as well. What was I thinking? JimC "Justin Maas" wrote in message ... Hard to log an ILS approach if the plane doesn't have a GS. Nonsense. I just have the safety pilot point one of his fingers horizontally on one hand and vertically on the other. Then, while crossing the fingers and putting them in view of the PIC (with a V.L.D. on, of course), the safety pilot can look outside and estimate the glideslope. It's also critical that the S.P. have a good voice range, as emulation of the marker beacons can be difficult otherwise. It should be noted that beef jerky sticks can substitute fingers, but equipment function is more likely if pilot hunger is moderate. If you want to simulate intercepting a GS too high and receiving an incorrect angle, have the S.P. consume any alcoholic beverage(s) and/or nail polish remover. If unwilling, tell him/her that he needs to identify the 100LL with a good sniff, as "fuel gnomes" have been known to steal gas and replace it with blue water. This should result in faulty "instrumentation." Sorry, it's late...had to do it... Justin |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"JimC" wrote in message .. . Justin, I must admit to the error of my earlier post. Your approach to approaches is far more creative and can even do in a pinch. Should low IMC settle in that alcoholic beverage could serve to calm the nerves of the pilot as well. What was I thinking? JimC You also have to admit that the jerky is low weight, supports extended flight times, and absorbs some of the alcohol. Clearly ATC should have this information, so I propose the slant Juliet equipment suffix. The meaning is equivalent to /G, adding practicing approaches with mode jerky available. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article DE2Ra.15739$o54.2916@lakeread05,
Robert Henry wrote: You also have to admit that the jerky is low weight, supports extended flight times, and absorbs some of the alcohol. And according to the nutrition label, it is certified in the utility category. Just remember to wear a parachute if you tilt it more than 60 degrees. -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Casey Wilson wrote:
First, I, personally, wouldn't ask a stranger to ride safety for me. Second, asking someone I know and trust to ride safety for me is asking them for a favor and I wouldn't have the temerity to require them to compensate me for doing that favor. I dunno, sounds kind of rude... "Hey Billy Bob, will you pay me $50 an hour to be my safety pilot?" Close but no cigar, Casey. First, he's not a stranger, I've known and been flying with this person for quite a while. Second, I never asked for money on any of the trips we've taken together, and at times when he voluntarily offered I always took significantly less than the 50%. All I was asking here was, IF he offers me anything on his own initiative, is it legal to accept up to 50% of the cost. Apparently it is. P.S. I'll agree that the using word "charge" in my post came across a bit too strong, so I see where you're coming from. - Slav Inger - PP ASEL IA @ YIP |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Henry" wrote in message news:QQ1Ra.15617$o54.10140@lakeread05... Perhaps (words twice), the safety pilot who agrees to be/log PIC should understand the liability they are accepting for the flight even though they are not manipulating the controls. At least, that is the more important issue to me. Also, as I understand it, PIC MUST (not better) be worked out in advance. Anytime you have more than one pilot in an airplane, it behooves them to understand what their respective roles are going to be. The "MUST" means that you have to know who is the PIC at the time the fight is occurring, you can't just sit down and juggle the numbers later. How can the PIC assume his job of responsibility if he only finds out he had the job after the flight was over? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"JimC" wrote in message .. . Justin, I must admit to the error of my earlier post. Your approach to approaches is far more creative and can even do in a pinch. Should low IMC settle in that alcoholic beverage could serve to calm the nerves of the pilot as well. What was I thinking? Remember, it's eight feet from bottle to throttle. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:26:08 -0400, "Robert Henry"
wrote: Perhaps (words twice), the safety pilot who agrees to be/log PIC should understand the liability they are accepting for the flight And perhaps you can tell us about a case in which a safety pilot who was acting as PIC was held responsible for an accident. Anything in the last 99.5 years will do. Mark Kolber APA/Denver, Colorado www.midlifeflight.com ====================== email? Remove ".no.spam" |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:25:02 -0400, "Robert Henry"
wrote: In thinking this over, I should have used the word responsibility instead of liability. I'll accept the word responsibility instead of liability. But as requested, here's several accidents that imho satisfy the intent of my comment, just in the last 3 years. But not mine. Going back to the your original comment and my reply: Perhaps (words twice), the safety pilot who agrees to be/log PIC should understand the liability they are accepting for the flight And perhaps you can tell us about a case in which a safety pilot who was acting as PIC was held responsible for an accident. Anything in the last 99.5 years will do. =None= of the three cases involve a safety pilot being held responsible based on his status of acting as PIC. In all three cases (an the last one is hardly a "safety pilot" scenario, the safety pilot is being held responsible for something the safety pilot does personally. In the first (in which according to the report, the SP is =not= acting as PIC) the safety pilot is responsible for a bad landing in which he was flying the airplane (not acting as "eyes"). The lesson I get is, "Don't try to land an airplane that is unfamiliar to you or from a position in the airplane that is unfamiliar to you without some instruction." The second one at least involves the safety pilot's status as safety pilot. But again, the safety pilot is not being given responsibility for being PIC. Rather, he's being held responsible for failing to act properly as a safety pilot. The lesson I get is, "If you are going to act as a safety pilot, don't take it as a joke. It is an important job, so do it correctly." The third, even assuming that the status of first officer in a Part 121 operation is akin to a safety pilot again involves a pilot being held responsible for what the pilot does, in this case, a bad landing, rather than as a PIC responsible for the flight. 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. Mark Kolber APA/Denver, Colorado www.midlifeflight.com ====================== email? Remove ".no.spam" |
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 |