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?!

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 ..."

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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

Totally irrelevant to rules in civvy operations!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

: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?

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.

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.

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?

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