Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihnp4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!ihnp4!cfiaime
From: cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Safety Pilots
Message-ID: <372@ihnp4.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Jul-83 14:10:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihnp4.372
Posted: Fri Jul  8 14:10:11 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Jul-83 13:46:41 EDT
Organization: BTL Naperville, Il.
Lines: 31

This question of safety pilots, I think, is quite important.
First, a safety pilot is also acting as pilot in command if
anything goes wrong.  Second, because a safety pilot is acting
occaisionally as PIC (including signing the logbook of the 
person under the hood), the pilot must be able to act as PIC
in the airplane with passengers on board.

This concept of two PICs on one flight at one time is covered
in FAR 61 when talking of logging time as a flight instructor, 
and in FAR 121 when talking of the designated second in command
in a crew requiring three pilots.

Anyway, in the case where the safety pilot did not cover for the
pilot under the hood, the safety pilot would be in massive hot
water, not the pilot under the hood.  The safety pilot has 
accepted the responsibility for collision avoidance.  The pilot
under the hood can not, by virtue of the hood, assume the task
of collision avoidance.

It also seems to be that if the safety pilot was not qualified,
the person under the hood is in deep trouble in the case where
a near miss happens.

I don't worry about it anyway.  When out of IFR currancy, I will
get a comp check from one of the othere instructors where I part
time instruct.  I also take my instrument students up in actual
IFR (IMC conditions for you picky ones) and keep currant that way.

Jeff Williams
ihnp4!cfiaime
BTL Naperville