Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!Mary.Shaw@CMU-CS-A
From: Mary.Shaw%CMU-CS-A@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Regulations Query - (nf)
Message-ID: <2267@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Jun-83 11:57:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.2267
Posted: Fri Jun 17 11:57:00 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Jun-83 18:15:41 EDT
Lines: 29

There are two things to consider when discussing questions such as 
requirements for safety pilots:
   1. What's safe?
   2. What's legal?
Seems to me that in many cases -- and this is one -- the first
question is more important than the second.  (Naturally, you should
be legal as well as safe, but you can't assume that being legal
automatically makes you safe.)

My personal rule is that my safety pilot should be completely
qualified to serve as PIC for the flight.  That means licensed,
type-rated, current (including night current if appropriate), 
in current medical, sober, etc.

My reasoning is that the safety pilot is not only providing eyes for
traffic avoidance but also backup in case the pilot gets disoriented
or confused.  It takes a little more skill to take over the controls
suddenly than to simply fly the plane, and the safety pilot may 
have to do so close to the ground.

I know that not everyone agrees with me.  For example, one evening
an acquaintance of mine tried to extract me from a beer party to fly
safety for him -- at night, yet.  I declined, saying that I'd been
drinking -- but he replied, "Well, you haven't had much, have you?"
Needless to say, I refused again, but it still bothers me to think 
about flying out of a field with marginally safe practice operations
under way.

Mary Shaw   (comm glider, ASMEL, CGI-AI)