Safety Pilots

[Prunie]

My husband has just renewed his Class 2 medical, but has to fly with a safety pilot. No problem, we always fly together anyway.

BUT .... my medical is due in August (and I'm no spring chicken!) so, what happens if I too have to fly with a Safety Pilot??

The CAA says:

"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."

So can we be safety pilots for each other??

Prunie

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect that nobody has asked that question before, and that it may not be in your interests to ask it officially.

G

[GK430]

Well, that's all well and good until the Insurance claim - best ask the question!

[Prunie]

Yes, Insurance was one of my worries!

But it seems to me we should be OK because the probability of us BOTH keeling over at the same time is considerably lower than the prob of just one of us doing so.

[Camargue]

or the fact that if you both keel over at the same time, insurance will be the least of your problems :)

[Jetblu]

In the legal definition, "safety pilot" is just that. So long as he/she is licensed/current, all should be good.

You have more chances of your prop falling off than both pilots simultaneously keeling over. Insurance co will verify.

[Wide-Body]

I do not know the answer from the private world. However commercially if one pilot has an OML (restriction to fly with another pilot) then the other pilot MUST NOT be so restricted.

[Prunie]

Ah, interesting. I would think it is relevant.

If so there is only one answer - pass my medical with flying colours!

[Genghis the Engineer]

But the situation Wide-Body is describing is one where both pilots are normally required to safely operate the aircraft, and also where farepaying passengers are being protected. I don't think that this is a correct parallel to two qualified pilots flying together for recreational purposes only.

G

[Prunie]

I imagine that the occasion of 2 PPLs needing safety pilots doesn't come up very often.

So I assumed the CAA would try to apply one principle across the board.

[Jetblu]

Take George as well, just to be on the safe side. :)

Good luck with your medical. Hopefully your question will be irrelevant to your circumstances.

[3wheels]

I wonder since when did Insurance Companies became involved in deciding regulation? Apart from using it to avoid payments...

I would suggest having a look at the CAA Safety Pilot Information Sheet and particularly the extract below:

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


Now put yourself in the place of a regulator being asked the question, can 2 safety pilots fly together?

As neither here are allowed to fly solo, and always have to fly with a safety pilot, how can either one comply with this regulation in the case of the other becoming incapacitated?

IMO, therefore, the answer has to be No.

The correct course of action must be to ask the CAA and, if by some chance they allow it, keep a written record of their answer in case of later problems with Insurers.

[Prunie]

3wheels you say "....As neither here are allowed to fly solo, and always have to fly with a safety pilot, how can either one comply with this regulation in the case of the other becoming incapacitated?...."

But the same situation would occur if the Safety Pilot was incapacitated ....

[3wheels]

But the same situation would occur if the Safety Pilot was incapacitated ....

Maybe so...

However, you are looking at in an increased risk, however small, which does not appear to be covered by the current published CAA criteria.

As I said, the correct course of action is to ask for an opinion from the CAA as to whether it is permitted to have two pilots flying together who both require safety pilots.

Only they, not an Insurance company, can give you the definitive answer.

[Prunie]

You're right, of course but meantime I'll just try to keep as fit as possible so I pass my medical.

[Whopity]

The answer lies in the statement"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."If you were only qualified to operate with another pilot, then you are not qualified to act as PIC in a SPA!

[John R81]

What happens when the need for a Class II for PPL disappears this summer (https://www.caa.co.uk/News/Changes-to-private-pilot-medical-requirements-announced/)? Unless you are commercial or performing aerobatics, that is. Can you both self-certificate according to the CAA form (internet based)? If so and under 70 then that's it until you are 70. [If over 70 then you need to self-certificate every 3 years]


That's how I read it, anyway. Now waiting for the Air Navigation Order 2016 to be published.

[Prunie]

Whopity said "if you were only QUALIFIED to operate with another pilot..."

Well my hubby is QUALIFIED, he has all his QUALIFICATIONS. He just has a medical which requires a safety pilot in case of illness.

[pulse1]

Prunie,

May I suggest that you delay your August medical until the new CAA regulation comes out in September. Then you can self declare under the new rules without any known medical issues and carry on as normal. As I understand it you will not be able to do this if your medical shows up any problems. Obviously, if you do pass your medical in August you will be able to self declare as long as you deem yourself to be fit.

[Whopity]

But the new rules will only apply to National Licenses and not JAA/EASA licences, so will only apply to a few pilots!
He just has a medical which requires a safety pilot in case of illness. Which means if his safety pilot conked out, he would not be qualified to be PIC!

[Prunie]

Yes, but the same would apply if he had a Safety Pilot with Class I medical, who keeled over. What should he do, bail out?!

[Prunie]

Not on the CAA write up I saw - it didn't mention the Safety Pilot's medical condition at all just said they had to be:

"... 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 ..."

[The Ancient Geek]

Qualified to act as Pilot In Command (PIC)
That would exclude someone who needs a safety pilot.

[3wheels]

Not on the CAA write up I saw - it didn't mention the Safety Pilot's medical condition at all just said they had to be:

"... 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 ..." Which means he must hold a medical.... "current and qualified"...

Yes, but the same would apply if he had a Safety Pilot with Class I medical, who keeled over. What should he do, bail out?! Isn't that the same as saying a fully medically licensed pilot cannot carry a passenger in case he too passes out and the passenger has to bail out?

Aren't we starting to loose touch with reality now?

Please do ask the people who know...the CAA. I would be interested to know their answer.

[Whopity]

Please do ask the people who know...the CAA. I would be interested to know their answer. As they have just disposed of their Medical Dept I wouldn't be too sure any more.

Having conducted many Medical Flight Tests, if a person has a medical restriction on their licence requiring a second pilot, then they are not qualified to act as a Safety Pilot.

I was on a unit in the RAF where we had a one eyed pilot and the posters wanted to send us another one eyed pilot. The boss dug his heels in as all pilots were dual seat qualified and he envisaged a situation where both eyes at the front could be on the inside!

[BoeingBoy]

The ruling in the airline world is that two pilots who have a two crew restriction and need to operate with another qualified pilot are not allowed to fly together. Each one's medical restriction conflicts with the others licence so assuming a Class 2 interpretation is the same as that of a Class 1 I would do your best to pass your medical.

Good Luck.

[muffin]

Or get an LAPL. The medical is much simpler and lasts for 2 years instead of 1.

[foxmoth]

I was on a unit in the RAF

Totally irrelevant to rules in civvy operations!

[MaxR]

At what point did he say it was relevant? It was just an interesting aside.

[Whopity]

Totally irrelevant to rules in civvy operations! It had nothing to do with any rules, it was an illustration of a situation that nearly happened, because medics had not considered the broader picture!

[foxmoth]

It had nothing to do with any rules, it was an illustration of a situation that nearly happened, because medics had not considered the broader picture!

Maybe so, but in the civvy world it IS down to rules and the legal interpretaion of them - and I would say that there are few on this forum that have the expertise to do this, any opinions here are purely that and not AFAIK backed by any sort of authority.

[DeltaV]

I suspect that nobody has asked that question before, and that it may not be in your interests to ask it officially.

G

I'm with this reply. You are entitled to interpret rules to your best advantage.

If nothing untoward ever occurs where the Safety Pilot has to intervene there will never be an issue. If something did happen where the Safety Pilot had to intervene you are in a far better position as a trained pilot than someone who had perhaps done a 'pinch hitter' course knowing just enough to get the aircraft safely back on the ground.

[Jetblu]

I was curious and decided to ask the CAA for my own knowledge.

The answer......

Medical Dept were uninterested. She said if the pilot was fit to fly but had a 'safety pilot endorsement' it meant just that. She said that it would be a licensing issue and duly transferred me to the licensing dept.

Licensing dept said.... "The 'safety pilot endorsement' means that the pilot cannot undertake the privileges of PIC solo AND MUST have another licensed pilot with them. IF the other pilot had the same 'safety pilot endorsement' THEY CAN fly together under Class two [2] ONLY". He recommended that insurers were notified.

[DeltaV]

Now I have a question for Jetblu.
Had the answer been less permissive, more restrictive, would you have posted your findings on here? And, had you done so would you expect the OP to be pleased or pissed that you had?

[Jetblu]

DeltaV

The question raised by the OP was a very good one. None of us knew the definitive answer.

1 "Had the answer been less permissive, more restrictive, would you have posted your findings on here?"

Answer - Yes.


2 "And, had you done so would you expect the OP to be pleased or pissed that you had?"

Answer - I, or anyone, have no way of ever knowing if the OP had ever returned to this board to seek any further clarification.
Someone, for sure, WILL be very interested with the answer.

[Croqueteer]

:confused:Thanks, Jetblu. My collegue and I are in the same position, but we only have medical declarations and NPPLs. Did the CAA mention that senario?

[A le Ron]

There's the letter of the law, and the spirit. The clear intention is that a restricted pilot should fly with an unrestricted one, whatever the legalistic arguments manage to prove.

[Jetblu]

Croqueteer

I don't see much difference between 'safety pilot endorsement' on a PPL and a NPPL. The letter of the law and clear intention is that the pilot CANNOT fly solo, nothing more. He [the CAA] did indicate a Class 1 scenario would be a completely different kettle of fish.

Give them a call for your own peace of mind. He was relatively friendly and concurred that the chances of two private pilots keeling over simultaneously was pretty slim.

[Crash one]

Shirley if two restricted pilots fly together with the object of safety, if only one of them conks out the other is now carrying a passenger, so is now illegal?

[foxmoth]

FFS, Jetblu asked the right people & got the answer so why continue arguing the toss?:rolleyes:

[DeltaV]

Shirley if two restricted pilots fly together with the object of safety, if only one of them conks out the other is now carrying a passenger, so is now illegal?
This is the sort of stupidity that arises when you overthink things and do you really want to live in a world where every possible eventuality had been thought about and legislated for? Wouldn't you rather live in a world where there was some freedom of choice and room for taking responsibility for what you do?

What about the occasions, and there was one not too long ago, where the pilot did conk and the passenger had been a passenger from the outset? He, the passenger, had no licence to pilot an aircraft but did that mean he was subsequently prosecuted for doing something for which he was neither trained nor authorised in order to save his own life? Was he pilloried for it? Of course not, rather his actions were celebrated.

[Crash one]

This is the sort of stupidity that arises when you overthink things and do you really want to live in a world where every possible eventuality had been thought about and legislated for? Wouldn't you rather live in a world where there was some freedom of choice and room for taking responsibility for what you do?

What about the occasions, and there was one not too long ago, where the pilot did conk and the passenger had been a passenger from the outset? He, the passenger, had no licence to pilot an aircraft but did that mean he was subsequently prosecuted for doing something for which he was neither trained nor authorised in order to save his own life? Was he pilloried for it? Of course not, rather his actions were celebrated.

FFS did you think I was being serious? I was trying to point out the silly interpretations of the rule.
To me the sensible thing would be a medically fit safety pilot qualified to fly the thing.
I think it's laughable the number of folk who try to interpret the rules to either suit themselves or make them more onerous than they are.

[3wheels]

It has been mentioned on here, on a number of occasions, that one should always always get an important interpretation/ruling from the CAA in writing.
It wouldn't be the first time they change their mind and/or subsequently say they didn't understand the question and/or say the person telephoning misinterpreted their answer and/or deny any knowledge of the question.
Some people even phrase the question to them to obtain the answer they want.
As has already been been pointed out to the OP, several times, she should simply get the definitive answer form the CAA in writing.
Maybe we can leave it there.

[Prunie]

Thanks for all the inputs - SOME very interesting. I will certainly get confirmation (in writing) from the CAA IF I need to.

Thanks Jet Blu for your comments - they are encouraging!

Croqueteer - I am pretty sure the same rules apply to NPPL

Prunie

[squidie]

So you have a class two medical and what licence/rating? You legally have to take a safety pilot and if he/she had a lapsed licence/rating then is not capable as acting as PIC in the event of a takeover. Thus meaning you don’t have a safety pilot.