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