Safety pilot logging

[CirrusF]

I am IR/ME and FI, but not IRI. I have been working recently as a safety pilot for a client who has PPL/IR/ME but does not feel confident to fly alone under IFR. The aircraft can be flown from either seat as P1, so either of us but not both of us can log as P1.

The client files the flight plans with her name as PIC on the flight plan. But she leaves me to fill out the techlog of the aircraft under my name. So who, technically is P1?

[JUST-local]

The person who will be featured if there is an incident requiring a MOR or an insurance claim.

If you want the hours why not have your no applied instrument removed of your FIC and log it properly. :O

[CirrusF]

The person who will be featured if there is an incident requiring a MOR or an insurance claim.


That's the question I am seeking to answer - the client is P1 on flightplans submitted to CFMU, but I am P1 on the techlog. So which takes precedence?

[puntosaurus]

JUST-Local has answered your question - to the extent it can be answered.

Since either of you could be P1, the answer is whoever you both agree is P1. And if neither of you agree up front then the issue is likely to be settled by appropriate authorities post accident/claim.

I have no legal knowledge but FWIW I would have thought that signing the techlog is likely to take precedence, over the flight plan. Make sure you're happy with that !

There is a very simple way to clear this up. Ask your client whether they are logging the flight. A good idea to do this before the flight I suggest.

[Islander2]

So let me get this straight. You've been happy to take-off, fly IFR, and approach (potentially) to IFR minima with no agreement between the two of you as to who is PIC? Astonishing!

What about captain's briefs before departure and approach? As someone putting themselves forward as a 'safety pilot', do you not consider those to be an essential aspect of IFR operation of a multi-engine aeroplane?

I would suggest this conversation is one that should be urgently directed to your 'client' rather than undertaken academically on PPRuNe!

[DFC]

That's the question I am seeking to answer - the client is P1 on flightplans submitted to CFMU, but I am P1 on the techlog. So which takes precedence?

One could perhaps answer as that the one which has not been falsified.

There are so many ways to look at this.

You have admitted that the difference in signatures is not an error.

Let's say that you are PIC and the tech log signature is correct. Fine. Why then as PIC did you falsely tell ATC that someone else was PIC?

Let's say that the client is PIC and the FPL is correct. In that case I would say that your signing the tech log has no effect. You are not entitled to sign the tech log and it may as well have not been signed at all. There is no record of the PIC having accepted the aircraft etc etc.

I am IR/ME and FI, but not IRI. I have been working recently as a safety pilot for a client

OK so you can not teach for the IR.

Do you hold ME instructor privileges?

You may like to call it safety pilot. Is there any evidence of this i.e. is there a licence limitation or other restriction that required a second pilot?

If you are not entitled to teach and there is no legal requirement or club requirement or insurance requirement for a second pilot then you will simply be a passenger.

One could perhaps argue that by the relationship as service provider / client you have defined the status that exists as being one where your client is qualified to and does the flying but pays you to hold their hand. In that case, there is no doubt that they are PIC, PF and would I be also correct in saying that they always take the left seat and there is only one flying pannel?

Wh prepares the operational flight plan (PLOG), decides on the alternates, and how much fuel etc etc?

Even if the PIC is loosing control of the aircraft, you can assist them, you can advise them but you can not legally take over control unless they ask you to because they are PIC.

Seems to me that they are paying you to be a qualified passenger. Unless you agree in advance to the contrary and the pilot log books correctly reflect the situation then I would side in favour of the "client" being PIC.

Regards,

DFC

[Big Pistons Forever]

DFC has this is right IMHO. I am happy to fly as a passenger with a few (very select few) pilots who I trust....For the rest I make it clear that I am the PIC and all in flight decisions will be either made directly by me or take place after I have given my concurence. Furthermore if I at any time I declare "I have control" they agree they will instantly and without question hand control over to me. If they are unhappy with these conditions I will respectfully but firmly tell them I am not the right person to fly with them.

It is absolutely vital that the cockpit rules of the game be firmly established before takeoff...and there is always only one PIC !

[CirrusF]

Thanks fo the replies:


DFC has this is right IMHO. I am happy to fly as a passenger with a few (very select few) pilots who I trust....For the rest I make it clear that I am the PIC and all in flight decisions will be either made directly by me or take place after I have given my concurence. Furthermore if I at any time I declare "I have control" they agree they will instantly and without question hand control over to me. If they are unhappy with these conditions I will respectfully but firmly tell them I am not the right person to fly with them.



That is the set of rules I use. Client does briefings, flightplans, and makes all in flight decisions, as if I was not there. I only answer her questions if she is not sure about something, suggest better solutions and give advice if I can see she is going to get into trouble or fall behind the aircraft, and generally mentor her confidence and judgement. She is licenced to undertake the flights, but could not do them if I was not there as she is not yet experienced or competent enough for European IFR. I am not instructing, as she has ME/IR and I am not CRI or IRI, but she cedes control to me if I order it.

So let me get this straight. You've been happy to take-off, fly IFR, and approach (potentially) to IFR minima with no agreement between the two of you as to who is PIC? Astonishing!

I am very comfortable with the arrangement.


Let's say that you are PIC and the tech log signature is correct. Fine. Why then as PIC did you falsely tell ATC that someone else was PIC?

Let's say that the client is PIC and the FPL is correct. In that case I would say that your signing the tech log has no effect. You are not entitled to sign the tech log and it may as well have not been signed at all. There is no record of the PIC having accepted the aircraft etc etc.



Thanks - that is what I am seeking to clarify here. I would think that the techlog (which is signed) would take precedence over the flightplan, but if, as you suggest, there is a legal linkage between the two then I will insist that both are in the same name on future flights.

[Islander2]

So who, technically is P1?Why did you need to ask the question, given that:

she cedes control to me if I order it:rolleyes:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Ciirus F

my 0.2 cents

The lady in question appears to lack confidence in her skills and very sensibly IMO has choosen to fly with an experienced pilot. Since you have indicated it is understood you will provide advice and guidance as required and will take control if required than you are the PIC and the Lady is receiving dual instruction. Therefore your status as commander should be reflected in all official documentation and she should log dual time in her personal logbook. For her to log PIC is IMHO unethical as she is not willing to take full responsibilty for the flight. The problem is you are not a certified instructor.
I do not know how the rules work in the UK so I cannot comment on the legality of providing dual instruction to a pilot who allready has all licenses and ratings required.

In Canada this is not an issue as there is no specific IR instructor rating.

[puntosaurus]

Boy oh boy, are we making a meal of this.

If your real question is 'does it matter that the FPL and techlog say different things', then that's the question you should ask. And in answer, I would say that the Pilot in Command field on the CA48 flight plan form is not part of the transmitted flight plan, so I suspect has very little legal standing.

If your question is who is P1, then the answer is whoever you agree is P1. And if you don't agree then you are asking for trouble, because the only time it will matter is when something goes wrong, and at that point your unwillingness to agree up front will become part of the problem.

If you're unwilling to confront the issue, then you can simply ask the client if they intend to log the flight. If they do, then they are P1, because as you yourself pointed out, only one of you can be, and she's paying !