Legality of flying as 'safety pilot'

[FlyingGoat]

I'd appreciate opinions on the following situation:

SEP owner loses licence for medical reasons but understandably wishes to continue flying.

Insurance will cover a/c if owner flies with 'safety pilot', not necessarily an instructor.

Insurance stipulates named 'safety pilot' to be current on type and checked out by QFI.

So far, so good.

Questions:

1) Legally, is the 'safety pilot' PIC?

2) In case of an accident, incident, infringement, assume 'safety pilot' carries the can?

Assume 'yes' to both, but would like to hear from those who know.....

[PA28181]

If he has really lost his licence then there is no safety pilot.

don't understand the insurance part. He owns an aircraft he cant fly?

I think there is a bit of confusion about this, there are circumstances where a medically restricted pilot but still licenced can fly with a "safety pilot who has NO status as flight crew ie: can't log P1 (with stipulated conditions on currency/type) provided he/she is given a written document outlining the medical problems.

The CAA do have a document to explain all but i can't find it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Broadly, yes.

If he has a current licence and medical, but it's considered a good idea to have you along "just in case", you can be a safety pilot, but you can't log it.

If he doesn't, you can fly as PiC and log it. But you must take full responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight. He can handle the controls, but can't log it.

Unless, you are an instructor, in which case you can still be captain, he can log it as instruction against some possible future date when he regains his medical.

G

[ShyTorque]

Surely, if the pilot has failed/lost his medical his licence is suspended and he cannot be PIC?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Surely, if the pilot has failed/lost his medical his licence is suspended and he cannot be PIC?
You can have a medical with a "can only fly with a safety pilot" restriction.


The only conceivable point of having such a thing is that you, the person with the restricted medical, can log the time as P1. Otherwise you could simply fly as a passenger (with a non-instructor P1) or as a student (with an instructor P1).


I had such a restriction for a while. As far as I could see it was completely pointless, as I didn't need the P1 hours for anything, so I didn't see what it gave me over and above simply refusing the medical altogether.


So I just got an NPPL medical and flew with that instead (solo and with passengers), as was allowed at the time.

[PA28181]

Surely, if the pilot has failed/lost his medical his licence is suspended and he cannot be PIC?



Correct, as I said in reply, if he has really lost his medical and not just a condition that will require a safety pilot. Then he is "grounded" but can still fly as PU/t unless the CAA say no?

I Know someone who a while ago was diagnosed with diabetes (not sure of type) and was allowed to fly for a while with a safety pilot.

[pulse1]

So I just got an NPPL medical and flew with that instead (solo and with passengers), as was allowed at the time.

And still allowed and will be until at least 2018 as I understand it. Passengers can only be carried if you have a Medical Declaration for public service vehicles. For Permit aircraft it will be allowed for the foreseeable future.

[ShyTorque]

You can have a medical with a "can only fly with a safety pilot" restriction.

But if that's the case here, it wasn't stated. I think the OP wanted an answer about who is classed as P1.

[FlyingGoat]

Many thanks for the comments.

I'll delve deeper with the CAA Medical Dept. as I don't know the full details yet.

One advantage, maybe, if the 'restricted' pilot can log P1, is that it relieves the 'safety pilot' of possible 'blame' in an accident.

I'm posting as the possible 'safety pilot'

[Genghis the Engineer]

Go and do a CRI course of-course, and all of your problems are solved. (Well, if you pass the skill test anyhow).

G

[ChickenHouse]

I admit, I am confused.

There is a former fellow pilot, who lost his license due to medical reason, correct?
He is not on a conditional "safety pilot only" medical, correct?

If so, questions are easy to answer.
1) There is no safety pilot, because without a valid license, the only one aboard is the PIC pilot. Even if it is a CRI, right seat would not be allowed, as a suspended license also prohibits treating the former pilot as student.
2) Of course, as he is the only legal pilot on board and by gods heaven, has to sit left.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Failed medical suspends licence, prevents somebody from flying as a student? Where did you get that from?

G

[FlyingGoat]

.....has to sit left could be the start of a whole new thread.

I think I've got to get my facts right, re the exact medical restriction, and then return with the info.

[PA28181]

as he is the only legal pilot on board and by gods heaven, has to sit left.

Nonsense. If that were the case every instructor would be sitting on the left then.

The flight manual will normally dictate were P1 sits. wish that old chestnut would go away.

[ChickenHouse]

FAA:
Pilot Medical Certification Questions and Answers
Who must hold a Medical Certificate?
Any person exercising the privileges of any of the following certificates: airline transport pilot certificate, commercial pilot certificate, private pilot certificate, recreational pilot certificate, flight instructor certificate (when acting as pilot in command if serving as a required pilot flight crewmember), flight engineer certificate, flight navigator certificate, or student pilot certificate.
https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/faq/response3/

EASA:
An ex-pilot is past Solo and has to have a valid medical.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:311:0001:0193:EN:PDF

[FlyingGoat]

Thanks, ChickenH - this is an EASA case.

What's an ex-pilot in this situation? Or which para. in that PDF? There're 326 references to medical in that document!

[thing]

I occasionally fly as safety pilot for someone. He has a current license so he logs P1 and I just go along for the sightseeing.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks, ChickenH - this is an EASA case.

What's an ex-pilot in this situation? Or which para. in that PDF? There're 326 references to medical in that document!

Try page 175...

MED.A.030 Medical certificates
(a) A student pilot shall not fly solo unless that student pilot holds a medical certificate, as required for the relevant
licence

Or possibly page 179...

Operational Safety Pilot Limitation (OSL — Class 2 and LAPL privileges) (i) The holder of a medical certificate with an OSL limitation shall only operate an aircraft if another pilot fully qualified to act as pilot-in-command on the relevant class or type of aircraft is carried on board, the aircraft is fitted with dual controls and the other pilot occupies a seat at the controls


So, if I read that correctly - no medical, can fly non-solo as a student, OSL limitation, can fly PiC so long as there's another qualified pilot on board.


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.

G

[S-Works]

Guys, this is really simple.

No medical means no flying. This is why we have medicals.

If he has lost his medical then he can only fly as a passenger. This will require a commander of the aircraft.

If he wants to log time then he could employ the services of an Instructor and fly as a student. It does not really achieve anything other than filling pages in a logbook.

A safety pilot is only ever used when the commander has an operational medical limitation mandating the carriage of a safety pilot. In this case the safety pilot must be qualified and current to take over the flight in case of incapacitatin of the commander. They log nothing until such a time they are required to take command which hopefully should be never.

[172510]

Genghis:
Being a CRI with a student whose medical requires a safety pilot certainly allows the CRI to log as PIC while the student logs as P/UT.
Yet I'm not sure that a CRI may instruct a student who has no medical at all, in that case the CRI is still the PIC, but the student becomes a simple passenger.

[stevelup]

If he wants to log time then he could employ the services of an Instructor and fly as a student. It does not really achieve anything other than filling pages in a logbook.

Unless you're actually training for something I suppose. My licence was restricted whilst I was originally doing my PPL, but I carried on training whilst the issue was resolved.

[mad_jock]

in this case the safety pilot is the PIC.

In the event of an accident the insurance has said that it will pay out if the passenger, cause that what he is without a medical, is handling the controls.

But the PIC is still responsible for all details and legality's of the flight.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Guys, this is really simple.

No medical means no flying. This is why we have medicals.

No flying as pilot in command, I've yet to see a rule that prohibits a pilot without a valid medical from flying as a student.


Yet I'm not sure that a CRI may instruct a student who has no medical at all,


Why not? They're a qualified pilot, just one without a valid medical.



As I said earlier, why not try for once interpreting the regulations in a way that makes it easier, not harder, for people to safely enjoy their flying hobby.

G

[Mach Jump]

The role of 'Safety Pilot' shouldn't be taken on lightly. You don't get to log any flight time, but if there is an accident, people will ask 'why didn't you do something?'

I would advise anyone who is contemplating acting as a Safety Pilot to thoroughly familiarise themselves with the medical condition of the Pilot, and be aware what form any incapacitation may take.

Incapacitation takes many forms, and rarely follows the classic chest gripping keel over that tends to spring to mind. The onset of incapacitation is often gradual and can go unrecognised by both the Pilot and Safety Pilot.

At altitude, there should be time for a such a gradual incapacitation to be discovered before it becomes critical, but on final approach, the situation is different.

To guard agains this as Safety Pilot, you may consider asking the Pilot a simple question on final to check for a response. This can be something you pre-arrange with the Pilot, if you think he/she would be receptive to such a thing, or something you just do without them realising it's true purpose.


MJ:ok:

[PA28181]

In would advise anyone who is contemplating acting as a Safety Pilot to thoroughly familiarise themselves with the medical condition of the Pilot, and be aware what form any incapacitation may take.

It is required by the CAA that the P1 will present to the safety pilot a written explanation of the condition and it's likley effects.

[S-Works]

No flying as pilot in command, I've yet to see a rule that prohibits a pilot without a valid medical from flying as a student.


Quote:
Yet I'm not sure that a CRI may instruct a student who has no medical at all,

Why not? They're a qualified pilot, just one without a valid medical.




Genghis, please don't part quote me. I clearly stated they may engage an Instructor and fly as a student.

There is no reason this could not be a CRI. A CRI can only train licence holders, not having a medical does not negate the licence merely prevents the holder excercising the privileges as pilot in command.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I quoted the bit I was responding to, I'm not trying to mislead anybody Bose.


It does all rather feel like we're all in violent agreement anyhow.


- True safety pilot, if mandated by medical conditions, doesn't log unless they're required.

- Can fly with an instructor, and log as P/UT

- Can fly with a qualified pilot, and handle the controls as a passenger, but captain is taking full responsibility for the flight (as of course an instructor would, This is riskier, as the non-instructor pilot doesn't have the supervisory skills.

- The captain, or safety pilot, of any aeroplane, should know about any health issues of somebody else on board, especially if they're handling the controls.

- As the aircraft owner holds a licence, even if it's lapsed or the medical invalid, there's no difference between an FI and a CRI.


Is there anywhere else to go with the arguments?

G

[mad_jock]

this is the on going saga of if a none FI/CRI can do flights as PIC with someone else manipulating the controls on a flight.

We are now going to have the usual round circle of arguments about if anyone other than the PIC can touch the controls during a flight if the PIC isn't a FI or CRI.

The usual people will say its completely illegal.

Then the other group of us will say no its not.

Then there will be a heap of EASA regs posted.

People won't change their minds.

Those that continue to allow it will carry on and those that think it illegal will carry on not letting it happen.

Until there is a test case goes through court nobody will know who is right.


But everyday in the UK there will be people flying aircraft without a FI/CRI onboard and even landing them with the full knowledge and coverage of insurance companys.

[Mach Jump]

PA28181:

But how many actually do? And of those that do how many are read?


MJ:ok:

[PA28181]

mj,

I only quoted a requirement, not the common practice..................

[mad_jock]

But that doesn't apply if they have completely removed the medical.

This situation is uncommon if some one gets diagnosed with parkinsons.

[3 Point]

"Quote:
as he is the only legal pilot on board and by gods heaven, has to sit left.
Nonsense. If that were the case every instructor would be sitting on the left then.

The flight manual will normally dictate were P1 sits. wish that old chestnut would go away."

This is an old wives tale and we did it to death here recently! I've never seen a flight manual which dictated where the P1 must sit. Certainly it's common (especially in tandem aircraft) for the manual to specify the seat to be used for solo flights but that's not the same thing as dictating where the aircraft commander must sit. If I fly a PA28 with a passenger I can chose to sit in the left or right, nothing to stop me!!

Sometimes a company Ops manual will stipulate who sits where but not the flight manual. Just one last thing; don't go siting in an unfamiliar seat without the appropriate training and experience. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's smart!!

3 Point

[PA28181]

But that doesn't apply if they have completely removed the medical.


As I said in first post "No medical = grounded"


3 point

Maybe the phrasing didn't make the point "I wish that old chestnut would go away" pertaining to to the FM quote...

[Genghis the Engineer]

No medical = no flying as PiC.

G

[9 lives]

I have filled this safety pilot role a few times for friends. In each case I was PIC in their aircraft while they flew. I was not an instructor, and this did rankle Transport Canada, but it was unwinnable fight against me.

But, during one exchange with TC, with the ugly finger wiggling at me, I was reminded that there are three possible medical status for pilots:

Medically fit, Never applied for a pilot medical (= unknown), and medical withdrawn for a known reason.

In the case of withdrawn, it will be for one of two risk reasons: Risk of sudden loss of consciousness, or sudden incapacitation. If it's loss of consciousness, that's lower risk for the safety of flight with an attentive safety pilot (noticing the other pilot is no longer flying in time). If it's sudden incapacitation, there is a greater risk to safety, with a pilot who might induce an unwanted control input.

So, the safety pilot has at least a double problem (triple if their are pax in the back seat). The safety pilot is going to have to fly, and perhaps from the right side, which may be uncommon to them, and, they are going to be worried and distracted by a sudden medical event requiring quick intervention.

So, going back to the finger waving discussion with TC, I pointed out that my being an instructor would not increase the flight safety, if my friend faded, and if he did, there would be the same risk were he to be a pax on the right, or person flying on the left - it's the same controls he would interfere with on either side.

Undertake this with caution, and as a pilot untitled to fly PIC from the seat you will occupy should it come up. It would be wise to do some solo from that side, just to get comfortable.

As for specifying the "P1" seat in the Flight Manual, the only type of many I have checked, which specifies, is the Caravan, which does say PIC left seat only. If not stated, PIC in either position.

[rightbank]

No medical means no flying. This is why we have medicals.

Bose. Slightly simplistic I feel. I have heard of, but do not personally know of (prepared to be shot down here), ppls who have been medically restricted to flying with a safety pilot (i.e. someone who can take over from an otherwise perfectly competent pilot in the event of a heart attack or similar). I would think that this doesn't need to be an instructor (again prepared to be shot down)

In the commercial world I do know of, and indeed have met, pilots who have been restricted to multi-crew licenses due to a medical condition.

So a multi-crew restricted Captain of a 747 is ok but a multi-crew restricted C152 captain isn't??

[ifitaintboeing]

There's an information sheet available on the CAA website for those who have a medical with an Operational Safety Pilot Limitation (OSL). This allows the pilot with the OSL to act as pilot-in-command.

The CAA definition of a safety pilot is:

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.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/20130121SafetyPilotInformationAndBriefingSheet.pdf

If they cannot act as PIC then clearly they are either a student under the guidance of a qualified instructor, or a passenger.

ifitaint...

[mad_jock]

So a multi-crew restricted Captain of a 747 is ok but a multi-crew restricted C152 captain isn't?

Its the difference between a multi crew aircraft and a Single crew aircraft.

The 747 skipper wouldn't be allowed to say teach PPL pre solo exercises I believe in a C152.

[this is my username]

The 747 skipper wouldn't be allowed to say teach PPL pre solo exercises I believe in a C152.

Actually, (s)he probably would be allowed to - an OML on a Class 1 doesn't necessarily restrict Class 2 privileges, and as one can instruct on a Class 2 medical then a pilot with an OML can instruct ab-initio on a light aircraft (or a microlight or any other aircraft type where you can instruct on a Class 2 / medical declaration / whatever).

[S-Works]

Shsll I use 50 cal to do the shooting?

No medical is no flying unless with an Instructor.

Having a medical restriction that requires a safety pilot is a totally different thing. You still have a medical its just restricted to flying with a safety pilot.


No medical means no flying. This is why we have medicals.
Bose. Slightly simplistic I feel. I have heard of, but do not personally know of (prepared to be shot down here), ppls who have been medically restricted to flying with a safety pilot (i.e. someone who can take over from an otherwise perfectly competent pilot in the event of a heart attack or similar). I would think that this doesn't need to be an instructor (again prepared to be shot down)

In the commercial world I do know of, and indeed have met, pilots who have been restricted to multi-crew licenses due to a medical condition.

So a multi-crew restricted Captain of a 747 is ok but a multi-crew restricted C152 captain isn't??

[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? :confused:

:E

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/49/20130121SafetyPilotInformationAndBriefingSheet.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.... :eek:

[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 :rolleyes:) :

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.... :eek:

[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.

[dobbin1]

The CAP 804 guidance on logging time states that a Pilot acting as a Safety Pilot logs the time as SNY. Seems pretty clear.

[worrab]

The CAP 804 guidance on logging time states that a Pilot acting as a Safety Pilot logs the time as SNY. Seems pretty clear.

Indeed - Enter time in ‘Any other flying’ or spare column and annotate ‘SNY’ - much like GtE said.

[PA28181]

From CAA Safety pilot info (page2)

Safety Pilot Information
&
Briefing Sheet
(To Pilot With
OSL
).Doc
January
-
2013
v
7.1
SAFETY PILOT BRIEFING SHEET
A safety pilot is a pilot who is current and qualified t
o 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.
The following are a few notes to help you in your role as a
safety pilot.
INTRODUCTION
Your pilot has been
assessed
as unfit for solo private flying, but fit to fly with a safety pilot. Although this
may sound medically rather alarming, the standards for such pilots are still high, and he/she would
undoubtedly
be passed fit to lead a ‘normal life’ on the ground. The chances of any problem occurring
during the flight are therefore remote. Nevertheless, as with any aspect of flight safety, remote possibilities
should be assessed, and as far as possible, eliminat
ed. This is the purpose of the safety pilot limitation.
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.
AIRCRAFT CONSIDERATIO
NS
The aircraft must have dual controls and you must be licensed to fly in the proposed airspace and
conditions. The PIC should be sat at one set of controls and the safety pilot at the other set.
TYPE OF INCAPACITATION
You should have some idea of your
pilot’s medical condition, so that you can be alert for the type of
problem(s) that might occur during the flight. These could be due to an obvious or subtle incapacitation in
a pilot who is otherwise functioning perfectly normally. Alternatively, there
may be some fixed problem that
is always present (such as an amputated limb) which may cause difficulties in some circumstances.
When flying with a pilot who might suffer some form of incapacitation, you should particularly monitor the
critical stages of
the flight (such as take off and approach). It may be useful to use some form of question
and answer routine as is done during commercial flights. If your pilot does become incapacitated, the two
priorities are to fly the aeroplane and try to prevent him
/her from compromising the controls. The greatest
help in the latter situation is the continuous wearing of a fixed seat belt and shoulder harness (not an inertia
reel). With a fixed disability it should be possible to anticipate when help may be needed
(maximum
braking for example) and to take appropriate action. Further points of consideration are as follows:
-
a)
You should check the medical certificate of your intended PIC to see if the medical restriction is
associated with an aeroplane with specially
adapted controls, or to a specific type of aeroplane. If
so, ensure your PIC is in compliance in this respect.
b)
Before the flight, discuss with your PIC the circumstances under which you should intercede and
take control of the aeroplane. During this dis
cussion, also establish whether the PIC wishes you to
conduct any flight crew ancillary tasks. If so, these should be clearly specified to avoid confusion
between the PIC and you during the flight. This is particularly important when events are moving
qu
ickly and the aeroplane is near the surface, for example, during take
-
off or final approach to
landing.
c)
Bear in mind that you are not just a passenger but may, at any time during the flight, be called upon
to take over control. Therefore, you will need t
o remain alert to this possible situation at all times.
d)
You should keep in mind that accidents have occurred with two qualified pilots on board when both
pilots thought the other was in control. A means of communication must be established between
you an
d the PIC in order that both of you know who is in control of the aeroplane at any given time.
The spoken words ‘I have control’ from one pilot with the response words ‘you have control’ from
the other pilot is a simple and appropriate method of establish
ing this.
e)
In order to avoid distraction or confusion to the PIC during the flight, you should keep your hands
and feet away from the controls unless safety circumstances arise which require you to take over
control of the aeroplane

NO logging of flight as SNY

[mad_jock]

CAA safety leaflets have no standing in law.

And CAP 804 is deemed a higher level of guidance than safety leaflets.

You can long SNY for anything you like if you can be bothered with it means absolutely jack poo in the grand scope of things.

[stevelup]

The CAA Safety document doesn't say anything at all about logging the flight... SNY or otherwise.

PA28181 tagged 'NO logging of flight as SNY' on the end which is a bit misleading to say the least.

[PA28181]

Quite right I should have made it clear I added the last sentence (co's I can't see how to bold/underline)


The CAA Safety document doesn't say anything at all about logging the flight... SNY or otherwise.

???

This is from the document I pasted

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. pretty unambiguous I'd say.

[S-Works]

Erm.... You are both agreeing.

Supernumerary is not logging flight time. It's make an entry in your log that counts for nothing. So you can log the flight as SNY it's just that SNY means nothing and wastes space in your logbook. I have to log upwards of 20 flights a day at work and we try to reduce the number of entries we have to make by block booking. I can't yhink why anyone would want to make work for themselves writing up a flight in a logbook that has no value?

[PA28181]

Yes it's a completely pointless exercise logging SNY in SEP's never mind on big stuff.

But as usual the thread drift has descended into pedantry argument about points never questioned.

As an aside, I do keep track off all my flying (sans holiday flights). Example, flight out as P1 1 hr, flight back pax 1 hr =2 hrs added to number in top right of log book. Purely academic.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If I'm there with a purpose, other than just enjoying the view, I log it, as I almost certainly learned something from it towards my total experience.

If I can't legally log it as pilot, then I put nothing in the flying hours coumn, or if it's somethign I do a lot (in my case flying as a Flight Test Observer or airborne scientist) then it goes in a separate column so I can keep tabs on total experience, without claiming it to be something it isn't. I don't fly as anybody's safety pilot, but if I did, I'd do that also.

For example, the one time I got a go in a Yak-52, I got to handle it, I learned about the aeroplane, it increased my store of aviation knowledge and experience. So it's in my logbook, take-off and landing times are shown, but no number in the pilot hours column. My logbook is my personal record of aviation experience.

Anybody have a problem with such flights being a line in my logbook - tough, I don't care.

G

[S-Works]

I suppose when you get to your age Ghengis you need a memory aid.... :p

Personally I fill enough logbooks at work not to bother with trivia.

[ShyTorque]

Unless you have to take over the controls you are
supernumerary and cannot log any flying time.

That was what I pointed out before. What is the official definition of "have to"?

Apart from the obvious keeling over, stone dead, does it count if the P1 needs to sneeze, or just fancies a rest, or likes the idea of his safety pilot staying in practice in the aircraft they're both flying and letting him fly a leg?

[PA28181]

What is the official definition of "have to"?

Life threatening or as said in CAA guidance "you have control" from now defunct P1 only I'd say?

[9 lives]

Perhaps the term "log" the flying time has created the problem. It's you're log book, you can write whatever you like in it - So "log" whatever you like.

However, the contents of a logbook will serve any of four primary purposes:

Evidence of flying experience to support the application for a license or rating,

Evidence of flying experience for insurance purposes,

Evidence of flying experience to show currency for renting,

Or, to reminisce over when you're old.

Anything you write in your logbook is fine for the latter, but first three items would require that you actually flew the aircraft as a crew member required by the aircraft type design. As a safety pilot, you are not a required crew member by the type design, unless there is no other functioning pilot (as all those GA aircraft only require one pilot). So there is no piloting credit for you occupying that "other" seat, unless you assume the responsibilities of PIC for the remainder of the flight.

[ShyTorque]

Life threatening or as said in CAA guidance "you have control" from now defunct P1 only I'd say?

unless you assume the responsibilities of PIC for the remainder of the flight.

So there are the two slightly different definitions already!

The P1 might just feel like he needs a rest, iaw the terms of his medical limitation and the CAA's guidance notes on the matter of "safety pilots" doesn't specify apart from the words "have to". Once taken over as P1, could control be handed back to the original P1 for the remainder of the flight time? No guidance is given.

There have been a number of previous discussion about the situation where two qualified pilots sit side by in an aircraft certificated for singe pilot operation, as most, if not all light aircraft are. Both might wish to claim & log P1 for part of the flight.

Question is, what's the difference? Can a qualified pilot claim P1 time flown from the "wrong" seat, or not, if he handles the controls in flight where he hasn't signed the tech log, as in the case of medical incapacitation of the person who has signed?

[PA28181]

It really is simple, irrespective of all the talk re: "safety pilots and the logging of time", there will only ever be one person logging P1 at any given time, it matters not one jot which seat your in (R/L) so long as you can reach all controls necessary for safe flight.

PS: If you think the restricted P1 is going to cark it in the air stick him/her in the RH seat you in left and you will happy as larry if he goes.

[mad_jock]

I haven't flown in the LHS of a SEP in 8 years and 900 hours.

Think I will just stay in the RHS.

[9 lives]

it matters not one jot which seat your in (R/L) so long as you can reach all controls necessary for safe flight.

Generally, yes, though there a few types which specify which seat the PIC must fly from. Cessna Caravan is one. Read the Flight Manual before assuming is does not matter.

[PA28181]

Generally, yes, though there a few types which specify which seat the PIC must fly from. Cessna Caravan is one. Read the Flight Manual before assuming is does not matter.


Yes we remember you posting that previously, As generally most here don't fly Caravans maybe only tow them to Cornwall, that would mean NO safety pilot if restricted and want to fly your Caravan then from the "proper" seat? In fact it would bar all safety pilots if there was only one P1 seat wouldn't it?

[9 lives]

Hmmm, the point I was trying to make is that it is up to the PIC to determine which seat they may/must occupy. (Not rely on an internet post). If they are required to take along a safety pilot, that would be governed by operational requirements, not aircraft design requirements. If a safety pilot is not required, the aircraft design requirements would prevail.

[PA28181]

Surely the fact you are required to take a safety pilot must mean you cannot for certain determine which seat needs to be occupied. This silly which seat argument will not go away.

PS I have admittedly only scanned through all 536 pages of the Cessna 208 Caravan flight manual and would appreciate the page number the seat requirement for p1 is on?

[9 lives]

page number the seat requirement for p1 is on?

C 208B Flight Manual, Section 2, Limitations, page 2-10, Flight Crew Limits, "One pilot required in left seat".

I entirely agree that most GA aircraft do not specify the seat to be occupied, and it doesn't matter for a pilot competent in either seat. But please extend the courtesy that the aircraft certification authority might have placed a limitation for this, and it should be respected.

[ShyTorque]

Agree, the aircraft I fly must be flown from the right seat. There are no brakes on the other side and not all of the instruments can be seen, or reached to set them. It's in the limitations section.