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)