Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hp-pcd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!hp-kirk!mark From: mark@hp-kirk.UUCP Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: Re: Safety Pilots - (nf) Message-ID: <1332@hp-pcd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 14-Jul-83 03:20:22 EDT Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.1332 Posted: Thu Jul 14 03:20:22 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Jul-83 11:03:14 EDT Sender: netnews@hp-pcd.UUCP Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Corvallis OR Lines: 23 #R:ihnp4:-37200:hp-kirk:5500009:000:1362 hp-kirk!mark Jul 12 07:12:00 1983 I cannot find anyplace in the FARs where it says that the safety pilot is in any sense second-in-command or is to take control of the plane under any circumstances unless this is to be implied by the otherwise undefined term "safety pilot". In fact the whole issue seems to rest on just what can be implied from the two words "safety pilot". The FARs do not explicitly even relieve the PIC of the responsibility of collision advoidance. They say a "safety pilot" must be there but they do not state what that person can do nor what that person is responsible for. If we make the reasonable assumption that the safety pilot is responsible for collision advoidance and maintaining VFR conditions then this function can be carried out without taking control of the plane. Leastwise ATC has had responsiblilty for collision advoidance in actual IFR for years and has done so without ever actually taking control of a plane. When I fly under the hood, I do so with a prearranged understanding with the safety pilot as to whose doing what, but I really don't know what the FAA stand would be if anything actually goes wrong. who wrote those regs anyway, Death Rowe hp-pcd!hp-cvd!mark Corvallis, Oregon