Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Safety Pilots

Old 24th May 2016, 18:08
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 15
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 is offline  
Old 24th May 2016, 19:39
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 15
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 ..."
Prunie is offline  
Old 24th May 2016, 20:33
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 75
Posts: 1,066
Qualified to act as Pilot In Command (PIC)
That would exclude someone who needs a safety pilot.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 25th May 2016, 17:49
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 180
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.
3wheels is offline  
Old 25th May 2016, 18:17
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,034
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!
Whopity is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 14:18
  #26 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: MAN. UK.
Posts: 2,719
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.
BoeingBoy is online now  
Old 26th May 2016, 14:34
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 5 nM S of TNT, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 696
Or get an LAPL. The medical is much simpler and lasts for 2 years instead of 1.
muffin is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 15:00
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,051
I was on a unit in the RAF
Totally irrelevant to rules in civvy operations!
foxmoth is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 15:08
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 155
At what point did he say it was relevant? It was just an interesting aside.
MaxR is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 19:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,034
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!
Whopity is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 21:03
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,051
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.
foxmoth is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 05:55
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer View Post
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.
DeltaV is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 13:50
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
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.
Jetblu is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 14:21
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
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?
DeltaV is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 17:00
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
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.
Jetblu is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 19:27
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 460
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?
Croqueteer is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 22:15
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 54
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.
A le Ron is offline  
Old 28th May 2016, 10:54
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
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.
Jetblu is offline  
Old 28th May 2016, 16:28
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 1,436
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?
Crash one is offline  
Old 28th May 2016, 17:00
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,051
FFS, Jetblu asked the right people & got the answer so why continue arguing the toss?
foxmoth is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.