Logging instrument approaches

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"

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?"

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

"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.

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/

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

"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?

"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.

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"

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"