Safety pilot's?

[Wodka]

Hi guys,

Does anyone need or know anyone that would offer the chance to do some safety pilot volunteering?

I have a job flying skydivers at the moment but am looking to do some safety pilot stuff in order to gain some more experience / a foot in a door for the future.

I'm fATPL, 730hrs with a fair amount of turboprop & MEP time - please PM if you would like more details.

Cheers in advance :ok:

[Don Coyote]

What is a safety pilot?

[mutt]

Isn;t the idea of a safety pilot based on the fact that the safety pilot is qualified on the aircraft? It sounds like you would be less qualified than those you want to assist......

Doesn't make sense, or am I missing something?

Mutt

[Wodka]

My understanding is - sitting in the RHS of a single pilot aircraft. It's not log-able time just a way to help out / gain experience by observation etc.

[WSUshox]

Never use the word "volunteer" when there are so many pilots out there out of work!!

[Don Coyote]

You mean a passenger then!

[Arkwright]

Some operators using single crew certified aircraft, operate a multi-crew environment by way of a Pilots assistant. These assistants, usually PPL holders, assist the commanders management of the aircraft by operating the radio, keeping the plog up to date, and locating the correct Jeppesens !!!

They are also useful in liaising with the passengers. (serving the coffee).

King Air B200's are the only ones I know of, altough I'm sure someone will be along shortly to add other types!

[Don Coyote]

Is that for Public Transport or Commercial Air Transport?

[Arkwright]

Public Transport flights. Not sure what you mean by Commercial Air Transport???

[Don Coyote]

From the ANO Amendment 2/2009:

Commercial air transport (CAT) flight’ means a flight which is required to be operated in accordance with EU-OPS and an aircraft flies for the purpose of commercial air transport if the flight is a commercial air transport flight.

Public transport’ (PT) has the meaning assigned to it by article 260.

If a King Air is operated PT then, as per Article 45, its flight crew must consist of at least 2 pilots.

If it is operated as CAT, under EU-OPS, then all flight crew must be qualified in accordance with EU-OPS Subpart N.

[Vanpilot]

So how do all these Kings airs flying about only have one crew member on board ???

So if we just say its AOC flying subpart G/EEk AMD 1 EU OPS Part 1 Aerial work/charter.

Crew members
(a) An operator shall ensure that all operating flight and cabin crew members have been trained in, and are proficient to
perform, their assigned duties.

E.g making coffee

:ok:

Don Coyote could you please give exact upto date ref EASA for us all to have a look.....cheers

[Arkwright]

There are a lot of Public Transport flights under EU-Ops which don't require two pilots because they are turboprops under 5700kgs.

King Air B200's are just one example.

Commercial air transport (CAT) flight’ means a flight which is required to be operated in accordance with EU-OPS and an aircraft flies for the purpose of commercial air transport if the flight is a commercial air transport flight.

You lost me there!

[PSYCOBFH]

Why can't we have Pilot's assistants now? We always used to.
When I was flying Bandits, we used Pilots Assistants all the time. they were able to build up hours on the empty sectors.

vanpilot - I'm curious, please can you tell me what G/EEk is? sorry for being thick.

Anyone - what is the difference between Commercial Air Transport & Public Transport? I thought it was the same thing????? Confused of Croydon. Thanks.

[compressor stall]

They were able to build up hours on the empty sectors

So they'd be rated on type then??

[Arkwright]

I'm sure my learned colleague Sepp will be along shortly to explain the complexities of Public Transport and Commercial Air Transport!!

Come on Sepp, lets be 'avin you! :ok:

[Don Coyote]

Vanpilot,

I am sorry but I do not know what you mean by subpart G/EEk AMD 1 EU OPS Part 1 Aerial work/charter. Subpart G of EU-OPS is reference to Performance Class A aircraft however if you are referring to EASA Implementing rules then that does not apply until 2012. The King Air may be operated CAT with a single pilot provided it has a serviceable autopilot IAW EU-OPS 1.655, if it is not operated IAW EU-OPS but operated PT IAW the ANO then the minimum crew of the King Air is 2


Arkwright,

Sorry if my quote confused you but that was a direct copy of the definition of CAT from the Air Navigation Order. The difference between the two is explained by the following which is a direct copy from the 2009 version of CAP393:

Explanation of the difference between public transport and commercial air transport
1. In the United Kingdom, the term “public transport” has long been used. This is defined in the Air Navigation Order as any flight on which one or more passengers are carried where valuable consideration has been given or promised for their carriage. A passenger is defined as meaning anyone who is not a member of the flight crew or cabin crew.

2. This public transport definition has been interpreted as having a very wide scope. This is intentional. It includes the typical commercial passenger carrying flight, where a customer buys a ticket to fly from A to B on holiday or business, but also captures a variety of other operations. For example, if an operator is paid to carry a police observer, that observer will be a passenger on the flight, which will be a public transport flight. Similarly where a power company pays for an observer to be carried to inspect power lines or where a television company pays for a camera crew to be carried it will be a public transport flight. So the term “public transport” comprises both the typical commercial passenger carrying flight and an extended range of passenger carrying operations.

3. European law does not use the term public transport. It uses the term “commercial air transport”. This is the carriage by air of passengers, mail and/or cargo for remuneration and/or hire. The phrase “commercial air transport” is part of a wider European legislative framework that is of relevance in this context. Thus, any undertaking operating for the purpose of commercial air transport is required, originally by EC Regulation 2407/92 and
now under EC Regulation 1008/2008, to hold an operating licence. The requirement that those carrying out commercial air transport have an operating licence is an economic approval; there are various financial and insurance requirements which must be met to obtain such a licence.

4. Having regard to the purpose of EC Regulation 2407/92 and now EC Regulation 1008/2008, the description of a commercial air transport operation has been interpreted as capturing the typical commercial passenger carrying flight but not the other types of operation coming within the UK definition of public transport. In most European countries these other types of operation are regulated as “aerial work” rather than as a variety of public transport or commercial air transport.

5. Accordingly, we have two terms: “commercial air transport”, which captures normal commercial passenger operations, and “public transport”, which captures both those operations and also a wider range of operations wherever there is payment for the carriage of a person on board an aircraft who is neither a member of the flight crew nor cabin crew.

6. In the United Kingdom the Air Navigation Order contains a comprehensive set of operating rules applicable to public transport operations. Public transport operators must hold a national air operator’s certificate, which is a safety approval.

7. The EU has now adopted EU-OPS (formally Annex III to EC Regulation 3922/91). This contains a comprehensive set of operating rules applicable to commercial air transport by aeroplanes. Operators of aeroplanes for commercial air transport must hold an EU-OPS air operator certificate. Again, this is a safety approval. However, EU-OPS does not apply to other categories of aircraft such as helicopters, balloons and airships.

8. The Air Navigation Order must now be amended to take account of the existence and application of EU-OPS. This means that the operating requirements in the Air Navigation Order cannot and should not be applied to any commercial air transport operation by an aeroplane which is now regulated by EU-OPS.

9. This has been achieved in two main ways. First, certain articles contain a specific provision disapplying them from any operation which is subject to EU-OPS. Secondly, the definition of public transport has been modified so as to exclude commercial air transport by aeroplanes. This means that any article in the Air Navigation Order which applies to public transport will, by definition, not apply to an operation which is subject to EU-OPS i.e. an operation by an aeroplane for commercial air transport.

10. It may help to consider this issue in the form of a matrix. There are two sets of requirements: EU-OPS for commercial air transport and the Air Navigation Order for public transport. There are two categories of aircraft: aeroplanes and other aircraft such as helicopters, balloons and airships. EU-OPS now applies to commercial air transport by aeroplanes. The Air Navigation Order applies to everything else.

There is then a table but I cannot figure how to make it show correctly on here but it is on Pge 7 of the PDF of CAP393 found at CAP 393: Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226)

[Sepp]

Can't do better than DC's last post, mate! :) ... although I would add that quite a few "unpaid" activities involving pax (the words "gratuitously carried" have remained in the rules) may or may not also be definable as "public transport" depending on whether they satisfy one or more of the exemptions in Part 34.

God help us if the UK tries to paste these arcane PT rules on top of the "new" OPS, currently under consideration. Imho, they are well past their sell-by date.

---

Mind you, all this is miles off topic... I thought the term "safety pilot" was coined to massage the ego of the PPL-holding owner who wanted to play at 'engine drivers' in a SP jet. :rolleyes::yuk:

Cheers,

Sepp.

[Don Coyote]

Sepp, thanks for bringing us back on topic.

Going back to the above where Awkwright refers to a multi-crew operation, then they would have to be qualified as flight crew and that would depend on whether the aircraft was operated as PT or CAT.

PT would require 2 pilots anyway and CAT would require flight crew qualified in accordance with EU-OPS Subpart N.

Unless anyone can show me otherwise, I cannot see anywhere in the ANO or EU-OPS that allows for an unqualified, non type rated person to operate as flight crew in the safety pilot role described above.

[Sepp]

Well, certainly I would have thought that anyone likely to be required to manipulate the controls of an a/c ought to be trained to operate the beast in question as required by type or class rating rules, as appropriate... and if operating multi-crew, that ought to include MCC, etc.

As regards the B200 - I'm not entirely sure there is such a thing as a "B200 type rating", for the 'safety' pilot* to hold... Obviously, SPA turbo-jets and a/c subject to a type rating require two qualified pilots under OPS, but is the B200 not an SPA, operated under a class rating? If so, why does it require a second pilot any more than does a Seneca or PA31? SPA and multi-crew ops thereof are, as you will see, not my sphere of expertise but I understand your point re. operating under PT vs CAT. There are some important differences in the two sets of regs that can easily catch the unwary - that, however, is a whole different subject!

* I still say this is a sap to the unworthy.. you are either in the constituted flight crew in which case you are P1 or P2, or you ain't, so you're a passenger or cabin crew!

[Charley]

Sepp

Maybe I've missed what you're driving at, but to answer your question literally;

Obviously, SPA turbo-jets and a/c subject to a type rating require two qualified pilots under OPS, but is the B200 not an SPA, operated under a class rating?

No. It's a SPA operated under a Type Rating on account of it being a multi-engined turboprop. The difference between it and the aircraft you mention (Seneca/PA31) is simply the type of powerplant.

It is not the only aircraft designed and certificated to be operated by a single pilot that requires a Type Rating in JAA/EASA land. See also Twin Commander 690/695 series, GAF Nomad, early model PA31T Cheyenne etc... turbine powered. (NB the Cheyenne; a TR is required for this turboprop derivative of the TR-less Chieftain, the latter flown under MEP Class privileges).

But I concede that I've probably missed the thrust of your argument...


ref: List of EASA/JAA Class and Type Ratings, whether JOEB'd or non-JOEB'd (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/List_of_Aeroplanes_class_and_TR_and_endorsement_list.pdf)

edited to add: Cheyenne/Chieftain bit

[Sepp]

There wasn't really a thrust, as such, Charley - I didn't word my last post too well, did I? It was more intended to be a question, and thanks for the info you've provided. Like I said SPA are not on my personal map; I'm familiar with Sec 5/Pt 2 but rarely ponder Table 14 as we only operate jets.

All of which is of course completely moot as the original poster makes no mention of wanting to do anything either PT or CAT, or of any particular type, interesting though the direction the discussion has taken might be!

[usedtofly]

I think the issue's raised here might be influenced by the title 'Safety Pilot'

There are a few operators of single pilot a/c who fly with a second pilot in the r/h seat to ease the minds of the passengers. This is usually at least a PPL or more likely a CPL. I did this myself for a year or so whilst instructing and I gained a useful insight into public transport operations. On empty sectors I was allowed to fly P1 and therefore increase my piston twin time. All of this was very useful indeed and in my case I was fortunate enough to get paid for each flight.

As this type of flying does not (can not afford to) generally pay r/h seat pilots what is the harm in flying in the r/h seat unpaid? The pilot gains valuable experience which will help him further his career (in my case I was offered a full time position within the same company).

Regarding the matter of multi crew operation a 'safety pilot' is no substitute. Multi crew requires both pilots to be rated (if need be) and operate to company SOP's and comply with the AOC. Simply placing a second pilot in the r/h seat will not do.

I fly a B200 that is always operated with two type rated pilots and it is not allowed to fly single crew on public transport under any circumstance.

So then.......I say cut Wodka some slack and let him get on with it :ok:

UTF

[Charley]

Sepp, no problem! I'm just glad I didn't miss your point somehow... :ok:

The whole subject raises some interesting points. Usedtofly, you say that you fly a B200 with two pilots and must do so when flying Public Transport. Given the PT reference, I assume that it is not in accordance with EU-OPS 1, as described by Don Coyote...? In other words, is it actually genuine multi-crew time in that the PIC and P2 both log the hours? Are you flying CAT or 'aerial work'?

I was under the impression that there's only one company in the UK that is required to operate the B200 in a true multi-crew fashion, that being Flight Precision, due to the nature of their work. All the other B200 operators I know operate single-crew (at least only one guy logging the hours) i.a.w. EU Ops, but I have a somewhat limited exposure to the King Air market.

[Sepp]

UTF - couldn't agree more!

Charley - that's my understanding, also.

[usedtofly]

Hi Charley,

I could tell you but then I would have to kill you ;)

We do operate to EU OPS and yes both pilots log the flight time. For my sins I happen to sit in the l/h seat.

An interesting point tho................our F.O's have multi pilot I/R's whereas Captains also have single pilot I/R's in case the aircraft have to be positioned empty.

Don't shoot me, I was only trying to help Wodka :)

UTF

[Don Coyote]

Usedtofly said,

There are a few operators of single pilot a/c who fly with a second
pilot in the r/h seat to ease the minds of the passengers

Would the passengers feel better if they knew that one of the pilots had neither been properly trained to operate the aircraft nor held a valid licence to operate the aircraft multi-pilot? I assume you wore uniform complete with gold bars to ensure that the passengers thought they had two qualified pilots as flight crew.

Also, how could you increase your piston time unless you were qualified on the class/type or flying with an instructor?

Did you hold a PPL or a CPL when you were paid for each flight?

As this type of flying does not (can not afford to) generally pay r/h
seat pilots what is the harm in flying in the r/h seat unpaid

No problem at all if he is properly trained and qualified, I am sure that all operators would prefer their pilots to come free of charge.

Regarding the matter of multi crew operation a 'safety pilot' is no substitute. Multi crew requires both pilots to be rated (if need be) and operate to company SOP's and comply with the AOC. Simply placing a second pilot in the r/h seat will not do.

I totally agree.

Sorry usedtofly, the above is not meant as a dig at you; I just can't get my head around how Safety Pilots have been allowed. I wonder if their use would continue if the passengers were aware of the situation.

[usedtofly]

Don,

I do actually agree with, but I don't make the rules.....

To answer your questions, yes I had a CPL, yes I was qualified to fly that particular aircraft. As to how the passengers would feel about it...........well that's another story and not for me to comment on.

My personal view is that ALL public transport flying should be multi crew (OMG, all the single pilot guys will hunt me down now!). I have hundreds of hours flying single pilot ops and I will never do it again (don't get me started!)

All the above opinions are my own, I am not an authority on the subject.

Cheers

UTF :)

[Wodka]

Hmmm some interesting points raised, thanks guys. I agree if it's a multi crew operation both pilot's must be rated on type and paid.

I was under the impression that a 'safety pilot' would refer to a 'helper' on a SPA flight... as usedtofly said - I see it as a way to just gain some additional operational experience outside my current scope of flying and... hopefully make some contacts and open possible doors later on down the line.

[Don Coyote]

I was under the impression that a 'safety pilot' would refer to a 'helper' on a SPA flight

And therein lies the problem; to be a helper you could not be a passenger so therefore you must be part of the crew. If you are crew assisting the pilot you would need to be flight crew. If you are flight crew you would need to be qualified in accordance with the requirements.

[Nick Knightly]

"GIV crew is looking for a safety pilot for 1 to 2 months, until they get comfortable with the airplane."

It probably means sitting on the jumpseat watching for traffic, but could be fun! It's in Panama

Let me know if you'd like the #

[Pace]

Don

Cannot agree! A safety pilot is just what the description implies ie He/She is a backup pilot/pilots to the required pilot/crew for a particular aircraft.

If the aircraft is single pilot then the safety pilot is if you like it a spare should the unthinkable happen.

The safety pilot could indeed be a passenger.

It is common practice to have a passenger in the right seat on a single pilot aircraft. If that passenger happens to also be a pilot capable of flying the aircraft or assisting the required pilot if the going gets tough he is then a safety pilot.

He is not required to legally make up a crew for the aircraft and infact may not be used at all during the course of the flight.

A larger aircraft which use a crew may carry safety pilots as passengers.

Some very wealthy owners not only carry a spare crew but their own Doctors and medical equiptment.

Pace

[Don Coyote]

Pace,

For private flying that may be the case but for flying under an AOC under EU OPS or the ANO that person is called a copilot and must be properly qualified.

Bear in mind there is nothing to prevent a SPA being operated multi-crew (i.e. captain and copilot)for AOC flying, providing suitable procedures are in the Ops manual; this makes it possible to have a properly qualified pilot in the other seat. Also bear in mind that the exemption under Appendix 1 to OPS 1.005 (a) Subpara 4 details that passengers may be allowed in a pilot seat but also states that they may not be allowed to distract or interfere with the pilot which would prevent him interacting with the pilot "when the going gets tough".

[NuName]

Whatever the nature of the flight, if the crew pop's their clogs it'll be down to the most capable person on board to return the aircraft to mother earth in a condition that allow's any others to survive. No laws would be broken, ah, we remember "Airport":ok:. So, if you think you might peg it, get a safety pilot, even if you don't shuffle off your mortal coil, he/she can be usefull in many ways.:rolleyes:

[Pace]

For private flying that may be the case but for flying under an AOC under EU OPS or the ANO that person is called a copilot and must be properly qualified.

Don

But then you must question the use of the word " safety pilot" in regards to AOC ops indeed they are co pilots.

For me a safety pilot is a person who is there as a backup in case of an emergency ie in the case of incapacitation of the pilot or where the workload gets so high in certain situations that the safety pilot can take on functions which will reduce the workload on the pilot.

In normal operations he is not needed or required by law for the operation of the aircraft and is purely a safeguard.

The above is the relavent bit. With an AOC regulations require the safety pilot to be more than a passenger with ability and hence he is not a safety pilot in the true sense.

Pace

[Awyrennwr]

Most public air transport Beech 200 operators in the UK operate single pilot and most normally carry a pilots assistant/safety pilot as part of the flight crew. The King Air 200 is a sinlge pilot aircraft under 5700kg and is not turbo jet, so a PA does not need to be qualified or carried. For those reasons the rating is officially a BE90/99/100/200 class rating not type rating. Somehow there are operators in the UK flying the King Air 350 single pilot public air transport, not sure how they manage to do that legally!

To the best of my knowledge there are 4 operators in the UK operating the King Air 200 Multi pilot; BAe Systems (Private), Flight Precision (Aerial Work), GAMA Scottish Air Ambulance (Multi Crew AOC), and DragonFly/Executive Aviation Services Ltd (Multi Crew AOC).

I have flown for both Multi Pilot and Single Pilot King Air 200 operators.
The single pilot operators ops manual is for single pilot operation with or without pilots assistant, even with 2 fully qualified crew only p1 can log the flying as it is a single pilot operation with no right hand seat OPC or multicrew SOP's.
The multipilot operators ops manual specifies a minimum of 2 fully qualfied crew so the co-pilot is fully rated & right hand seat OPC'd, the SOP's are multicrew and the flying is logged multi crew by both pilots.

To answer Wodka's original question, yes there is PA work out there, mainly un-paid, the easiest to get into will be with private operators if you can get to know the owner/operator there is PA work out there on private single pilot aircraft i.e PC12's, King Air's, CJ's etc... it's all about who you know, so get networking.