Quick safety pilot question

M

Mtns2Skies

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,631
Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
I am a student pilot, I know I couldn't log it but could I legally act as a safety pilot for a friend doing hood work?
 
got it thanks.

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
 
Last edited:
Gee, Austin. You COULD have figured that out on your own, couldn't you have?:wink2::D
 
I wasn't sure where it was in the FAR's. Ah well delete the thread if its that obvious Greg
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I wasn't sure where it was in the FAR's. Ah well delete the thread if its that obvious Greg
Click to expand...

I apologize if my tone was snarky...but the answer is obvious if you read the right FAR, so I posted the reference for you to look it up!

Plus, I tried to just put "No" as a response and they told me it was too short to post!
:cheerswine:
 
It's all good. thanks for telling me where it was.
 
I would point out that since it's a pilot certification question, one's first inclination would be to look in Part 61, and I'm guesing that's where Austin looked -- and didn't find it. For whatever reason, the FAA chose to stick that part in the rule about needing a safety pilot when flying under the hood, rather than saying in Part 91 that you need a safety pilot and then saying who's allowed to be a safety pilot in Part 61 -- which would make more sense to me in terms of regulatory organization. Thus, it's a little hard for folks new to the game to find the rule on this point.
 
Ron Levy said:
I would point out that since it's a pilot certification question, one's first inclination would be to look in Part 61, and I'm guesing that's where Austin looked -- and didn't find it. For whatever reason, the FAA chose to stick that part in the rule about needing a safety pilot when flying under the hood, rather than saying in Part 91 that you need a safety pilot and then saying who's allowed to be a safety pilot in Part 61 -- which would make more sense to me in terms of regulatory organization. Thus, it's a little hard for folks new to the game to find the rule on this point.
Click to expand...
Which is one of the reasons I love having the FARs in electronic form, so I can search them! :yes:

In order to search using the online FAR, I go to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl, drill down to 60 - 109, and then select likely parts from the left column, where it lists just the part number. Then use the browser's search function.

(BTW, if you search part 61, you'll encounter "(v) The name of a safety pilot, if required by §91.109(b) of this chapter." which would point you to the right section too.)
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Only problem, Grant, is that site doesn't always have the latest changes to the FAR's. Only place to be sure of having the latest and greatest is the FAA's Regulatory and Guidance Library.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
Click to expand...
Actually Ron, I think that they are both official and legally current. It says at the top of the e-CFR I linked to that "e-CFR Data is current as of December 9, 2010" (that being Thursday, two business days ago) that it was the most recent. If you or someone is concerned that the FAA is putting out a regulation without notifying gpoaccess, they can certainly do a search in the one I linked to, find the appropriate part, and then look in the one you linked to in order to verify that there were no changes in the previous 2 business days.

That said, This is on e-CFR at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...74b096e09875c6c8ca8de7ca5&c=ecfr&tpl=faq.tpl:
When will the e-CFR become an official edition of the CFR?

The Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) has the authority under 44 U.S.C. 1510 to regulate the collation and republication of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with the aim of keeping it as current as practicable. Until recently, it has not been economically practical to update the CFR more frequently than once per year. With the advent of web-based publication formats, the ACFR has requested that OFR and GPO develop and maintain the e-CFR as an authoritative informational resource, which will serve as the model for a currently updated, official edition of the CFR.
The e-CFR will be maintained as an unofficial editorial compilation until all remaining technical and performance issues are resolved. When those issues are satisfactorily resolved, the OFR/GPO partnership will propose to the ACFR that the e-CFR become an official edition of the CFR and a permanent record of the United States government.
Click to expand...
 
I pretty much agree with you Grant. I'm not sure why the republication of the current regs by the website gurus of a single agency is more "legal" than the republication of the current regs by the official government publisher of the regs.

The likelihood of either being seriously out of date is pretty small given the process of adopting new regs. But, if it really came down to it, I'd guess the likelihood of the FAA being a little behind updating one small piece of its website is actually a bit greater than the official government publisher whose sole job it is to keep the regs up to date.

If the language really is current is really an issue in a real situation (which I'd expect to be very, very rare), I'd probably go further than either source. For general purposes, the difference between the two is inconsequential.
 
Last edited:
gprellwitz said:
Actually Ron, I think that they are both official and legally current.
Click to expand...
They may both be official, but they aren't both always up-to-date. I've found many times when the eCFR doesn't have changes already posted in the Federal Register and up on the FAA RGL site, sometimes for weeks or even months.

And, BTW, it was R&W who brought this to my attention some time back.
 
gprellwitz said:
Actually Ron, I think that they are both official and legally current. It says at the top of the e-CFR I linked to that "e-CFR Data is current as of December 9, 2010" (that being Thursday, two business days ago) that it was the most recent. If you or someone is concerned that the FAA is putting out a regulation without notifying gpoaccess, they can certainly do a search in the one I linked to, find the appropriate part, and then look in the one you linked to in order to verify that there were no changes in the previous 2 business days.

That said, This is on e-CFR at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...74b096e09875c6c8ca8de7ca5&c=ecfr&tpl=faq.tpl:
Click to expand...


Just tried it....here's the error message:

Assertion failure (on ecfrlin1.access1.gpo.gov)
Message: No file for tpl=faq.tpl: in collection web space.
URL: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...00aa0;c=ecfr;tpl=faq.tpl:;page=simple;cc=ecfr
Stack trace:

  • DlpsUtils::ASSERT called from line 3440 in package TextClassUtils in file TextClassUtils.pm.
  • Called by TextClassUtils::GetDefaultFileForCGC from line 175 in package TextClassUtils in file TextClassUtils.pm.
  • Called by TextClassUtils::CgiToHtmlTemplate from line 457 in package TextApp in file /usr/local/dlxs/cgi/t/text/TextApp.pm.
  • Called by TextApp:processRequest from line 266 in package TextApp in file /usr/local/dlxs/cgi/t/text/TextApp.pm.
  • Called by TextApp::RunObjectMain from line 117 in package main in file /usr/local/dlxs/cgi/t/text/text-idx.
Please report this error to: webadmin@gpo.gov
--------------------
Low bid contractor....
 
murphey said:
Just tried it....here's the error message:

Assertion failure (on ecfrlin1.access1.gpo.gov)
Message: No file for tpl=faq.tpl: in collection web space.
URL: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...00aa0;c=ecfr;tpl=faq.tpl:;page=simple;cc=ecfr
Stack trace:

  • DlpsUtils::ASSERT called from line 3440 in package TextClassUtils in file TextClassUtils.pm.
  • Called by TextClassUtils::GetDefaultFileForCGC from line 175 in package TextClassUtils in file TextClassUtils.pm.
  • Called by TextClassUtils::CgiToHtmlTemplate from line 457 in package TextApp in file /usr/local/dlxs/cgi/t/text/TextApp.pm.
  • Called by TextApp:processRequest from line 266 in package TextApp in file /usr/local/dlxs/cgi/t/text/TextApp.pm.
  • Called by TextApp::RunObjectMain from line 117 in package main in file /usr/local/dlxs/cgi/t/text/text-idx.
Please report this error to: webadmin@gpo.gov
--------------------
Low bid contractor....
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I get that error too when following the link I gave.:idea: This appears to work: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=faq.tpl

To be honest, I don't know if this was subcontracted or government employees.
 
Ron Levy said:
They may both be official, but they aren't both always up-to-date. I've found many times when the eCFR doesn't have changes already posted in the Federal Register and up on the FAA RGL site, sometimes for weeks or even months.
Click to expand...
I haven't done any sort of statistical analysis of the recency of updates of the two sites. Apparently you have, so I'll defer to you here. I just noted that the gpoacess site gave a date 2 business days in the past (and today it says 12/10/10 on 12/14/10). The FAA site doesn't give a date at all. In general, I tend to go with the one that gives me the freshness date! Do you generally trust plates or charts without a date on them?
Ron Levy said:
And, BTW, it was R&W who brought this to my attention some time back.
Click to expand...
I know better than to get between the two of you! :no:
 
Ron Levy said:
Only problem, Grant, is that site doesn't always have the latest changes to the FAR's. Only place to be sure of having the latest and greatest is the FAA's Regulatory and Guidance Library.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
Click to expand...

The odd thing is that if you go to the FAA's home page, click on FAA Regulations on the Regulations and Policies menu, and then click on Current Federal Aviation Regulations, it takes you to the GPO site, not the FAA site. However, since you have found cases where the GPO site was weeks or months out of date, as you mentioned in another post, it appears this is a case of the FAA saying that the GPO site is current when it may not be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top