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