Legality of flying as 'safety pilot'

[ShyTorque]

Having a medal restriction that requires a safety pilot is a totally different thing.

A very different thing.

p.s. What is a "medal restriction", exactly?



Now, did anyone else notice that the advice note written by the CAA on the subject of safety pilots implies that a suitably qualified pilot can log P1 time even though he didn't sign for the aircraft? Another often disputed subject.

[Tay Cough]

I struggle with this. One cannot legally hold a valid licence without a valid medical. If you do not hold a valid medical, you cannot be a licensed pilot. No discussion.

If you want to fly an aircraft, fine no problem. You must have a licensed pilot with you who is actually in command. You cannot log it.

The "as or with copilot" restriction only applies to multi-crew aircraft and more importantly, that pilot still holds a medical with the restriction applied.

Not easy is it.

I write as a CRI, a FI and a multi-crew ATPL (with no restrictions).

[stevelup]

You are mistaken. You can have a medical with an 'OSL' restriction.

WHAT IS AN OPERATIONAL SAFETY PILOT LIMITATION (OSL)?
This limitation is added to a medical certificate when a pilot is considered to be at increased risk of incapacitation compared to his/her peer group. The holder of the medical certificate is precluded from solo flying and always has to fly with a safety pilot.

DEFINITION OF A SAFETY PILOT
A safety pilot is a pilot who is current and qualified to act as Pilot In Command (PIC) on the class/type of aeroplane and carried on board the aeroplane for the purpose of taking over control should the person acting as the PIC become incapacitated.

More details here...

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/2013012...efingSheet.pdf

[Tay Cough]

Fair enough. Thanks for the information. Still not sure I agree with the principle though in that there is no mention of an equivalent or better qualification for the safety pilot.

For example, I fly aerobatics and formation quite regularly. Fortunately I don't require a safety pilot but if I did, there is no written requirement for him or her to be able to get us out of the world of pain I'd be able to get him or her into....

[9 lives]

there is no written requirement for him or her to be able to get us out of the world of pain I'd be able to get him or her into....

A safety pilot is a pilot who is current and qualified to act as Pilot In Command (PIC) on the class/type of aeroplane.....

If aerobatics were being flown, the safety pilot would have to be aerobatic qualified?

For the times I have flown as the safety pilot, it's been in a regime of flight in which I was very comfortable. Departure from that flight regime would have really attracted my rapid attention, and intervention. If I were being safety pilot in an aerobatic type, I'd be discussion the expectations in the flight, before we departed....

[cockney steve]

Is it really necessary to keep trying to interpret regulations in the most unhelpful manner available? It does seem to be a habit on some aviation bulletin boards.

If the regulators spent more time writing clear, unambiguous parameters within which a licensee should act, and less time on labarynthine a55-covering"gotchas" , -we wouldn't have a load of professionaly qualified people arguing about the regulations within which they are supposed to aviate.

qualified to act as Pilot In Command (PIC) on the class/type of aeroplane.....

It says nothing about the type of flight, only the type of aircraft...could be , the type is only allowed to be flown byan Aerobatic- qualified pilot....but inthe absenceof type-limitation, if you're checked-out on type,you're legal....(not the same thing as "prudent" or "safe")
Friend had a share in a Chief we flew together....the other shareholder was a CPL and QFI ....he offered to check-out friend in RIGHT SEAT...So I, the passenger...could sit in the left. Me, no logbook no training,no loggable flight-time.....all perfectly legal.

[Tay Cough]

If aerobatics were being flown, the safety pilot would have to be aerobatic qualified?

This is the exactly the point. In an EASA aeroplane, you're almost certainly correct.

In an Annex II aeroplane, no - and on a CAA licence, which is all you need for Annex II, there is no aerobatic qualification. As for formation, no qualification in Europe for that either. I know the FAST scheme exists on your side of the Pond (in Canada as well?).

So back to my original point, and appreciating there is perhaps an over-reliance by the CAA on the use of common sense (makes a change ) :

Fortunately I don't require a safety pilot but if I did, there is no written requirement for him or her to be able to get us out of the world of pain I'd be able to get him or her into....

[Level Attitude]

YOUR QUALIFICATIONS You should be checked out and current on the aircraft. Unless you have to take over the controls you are supernumerary and cannot log any flying time.

The above strongly suggests that if the Safety Pilot has to take over then they will log flight time. The only flight time they could log would be as PIC.

Therefore a Safety Pilot needs to be qualified to act as PIC in the aircraft under all expected flight conditions (Aeros, IMC, Night, etc). They cannot rely on the OSL Pilot's qualifications.

[9 lives]

Therefore a Safety Pilot needs to be qualified to act as PIC in the aircraft under all expected flight conditions

Indeed.

I was once test flying a C 172 with a mod installed. The "Chief Pilot" wanted to come along, so I let him that flight. During the course of the flight we chatted. I learned that neither he, nor his other pilots had flown in the last six months. He was planning to check them all out the following week. When my flight test was done, I said: "Hey, perhaps you should fly a few circuits from the right side, so you're fresh for next week, as I'm here right now anyway.". He agreed.

His first two attempts to land were bad, and I had to "help" to prevent damage. His third would have resulting in damage for sure, other than I took over with an "I've got it". This pilot might have been "qualified" to fly right seat, but he sure was not "qualified". He could not even land himself, much less possibly fix someone elses messed up landing.

Generally, I view the role of "safety pilot" with caution. I'm worried that there are pilots out there doing this, even for another pilot who's just not current, and the sum of "qualification" in the cockpit is still a bit below what would be ideal.

If the regulators spent more time writing clear, unambiguous parameters within which a licensee should act, and less time on labarynthine a55-covering"gotchas" , -we wouldn't have a load of professionaly qualified people arguing about the regulations within which they are supposed to aviate.

But give 'em a break. They are writing the "last word" - the one which will be dissected to death by the lawyers later. They have to assure the intent is fully conveyed. And then, the justice department will review the proposed wording, before it becomes a reg. If they cannot figure out how they would apply it in court later, it is rejected. I spent a plot of time participating in working groups for regulatory change, and was very pleased with the care and precision I saw being applied to regulatory development.

[dobbin1]

One of our group members has just been given a restricted medical that requires him to fly with a safety pilot.

The situation seems perfectly clear to me. His first 3 landings will need to be with an FI or CRI, since he is outside of the 90 day currency to take passengers and he can't fly solo. He would log the time as PU/T and the instructor as PIC. Some people might argue that he could do his three landings as "sole manipulator of the controls" whilst flying as a passenger with a non-instructor PIC, but I don't buy that particular interpretation.

After the first three landings, he will be able to fly with any pilot qualified to be PIC on the aircraft. He would log the time as PIC and the safety pilot would be a passenger and would not log the time at all, unless they had to actually take over.

[Level Attitude]

dobbin1,
I would agree fully with your Post.

Supplementary question:
Is there any reason why a pilot with an OSL should not carry other passengers IN ADDITION TO the Safety Pilot?
ie C-172 OSL plus Safety Pilot in the front and one, or two, other passengers in the back.

[mad_jock]

if the other pilot has to be on board then they are not pax any more but crew.

Other wise they would be called safety passenger.

Therefore 90 day currency doesn't apply.

For the purposes of renting, insurance or common sense there may be more stringent requirements.

[worrab]

not pax any more but crew.

But in yer average SEP there is only one crew and that is the PIC. The safety pilot can't log anything unless they have to take over - whence they become PIC. Unless the safety pilot is an instructor, (s)he's a passenger.

Logically this would mean that to gain 90-day currency the safety pilot must be an instructor and the pilot must log the time as Pu/t.

[dobbin1]

if the other pilot has to be on board then they are not pax any more but crew.

Other wise they would be called safety passenger.

Therefore 90 day currency doesn't apply.

Good point, I did not consider that possibility. The safety pilot should therefore log the time as SNY I suppose.

[PA28181]

The safety pilot should therefore log the time as SNY I suppose.

Not a chance. Not P1 no loggee.

if the other pilot has to be on board then they are not pax any more but crew.

Other wise they would be called safety passenger.

Therefore 90 day currency doesn't apply.

For the purposes of renting, insurance or common sense there may be more stringent requirements.

Don't try testing this legally IMHO

Just reading the CAA guidance on safety pilots will put this to bed forever.


This is going round in circles.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A classic solution to a semi-classic problem.

Take a spare logbook column, change the heading to "Safety Pilot", make entries, add them up at the bottom of the page, don't add them into either the PiC or Dual columns.

G

[flybymike]

Is there any reason why a pilot with an OSL should not carry other passengers IN ADDITION TO the Safety Pilot?
ie C-172 OSL plus Safety Pilot in the front and one, or two, other passengers in the back.

Personally I can see no reason at all, and yet I believe the "only" passenger has to be the safety pilot. This is daft, either the safety pilot saves the day or he doesn't (in which case he is useless) I think the rule has arisen purely as a result of careless drafting.
The restriction in any event serves no purpose since exactly the same flight with passengers on board, and the safety pilot theoretically nominated as P1, would be perfectly legal.

[mad_jock]

Don't try testing this legally IMHO

I wouldn't have a problem doing so I would just bring up the same fact that a instructor doesn't need to be in 90 day check with a student.

You have role on the aircraft which if you weren't there the flight would not take place. Therefore you are crew. Realistically the CAA wouldn't touch it with a barge pole like many other situations with poorly defined law on the subject and no case law previous to back them up. If there is nothing else they can stick you for the costs of bring the prosecution in England/Wales they won't go near it. In Scotland the proc fiscal has better things to do with their time. And I am 95% sure a letter stating the above argument that you were crew would been the case not in the public interest to prosecute.

And G has it for the solution for logging.

Any way I have been safety pilot in an aircraft with the autopilot shagged, unrated on type not a bloody clue how the thing work or for that matter can reach any of the switches in the RHS.

CAA FOI in the back.

No I didn't log a thing.

[worrab]

Therefore you are crew

I would suggest that that is a non-sequitur. Just because your presence in required it doesn't make you crew.

CAA wouldn't touch it with a barge pole

Quite likely, unless someone died.

In UK law, it's moot until there is a case. M'lud interprets the law in relation to the presented facts and that then becomes the binding precedent.

[mad_jock]

Just because your presence in required it doesn't make you crew.

Well there is plenty of other legislation out there that uses this principle to define required operating crew.


And it doesn't matter what they decide in England/wales. Scotland may interpret things differently.

I don't think it would go to court even if someone did die. They may tack it onto something else hoping to get them to plead guilty to reduced costs. But absolutely no chance on a stand alone because there is a heap of contradictory legislation on the subject muddled up with similar situations which they have given guidance on that that says that other legislation doesn't apply to because the person is crew.