Why category AND class for safety pilot?

flyingcheesehead said:
Were it me, I'd be trying to handle the failure under the hood - As I would assume anyone confident with their skills would be - But if that confidence is not warranted...
Click to expand...
Interesting. It would not even occur to me to leave the hood on in the event of a real engine failure. If you're really IMC that's one thing but why make things harder for yourself?

I agree with Lance in that I think a single-engine pilot is capable of being a safety pilot in a multiengine airplane but that's not what the regs say so they can't. I am sure that anyone who can fly a C-150 can figure out how to steer a King Air out of the way of traffic. The only complication might be if the autopilot is engaged but if you pull hard enough you can override it or it will disengage. That could also happen with another single too, though.
 
Everskyward said:
Interesting. It would not even occur to me to leave the hood on in the event of a real engine failure. If you're really IMC that's one thing but why make things harder for yourself?
Click to expand...

I would probably pull it off at some point in the process, but I don't think that would be the first thing I'd do - And before I got to that point I'd at least have the plane stable, and past the point of the worst danger.

I'm not necessarily saying I'd consciously leave it on either, but I don't think going into oh-**** mode and ripping it off is going to be all that helpful either, if the plane was under control to begin with.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Were it me, I'd be trying to handle the failure under the hood - As I would assume anyone confident with their skills would be - But if that confidence is not warranted...
Click to expand...
That's why you want a sport pilot in the right seat - someone who will not consider the engine failure as a routine training excercise and yank the hood off your head before you kill the both of us... :wink2:
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
That's why you want a sport pilot in the right seat - someone who will not consider the engine failure as a routine training excercise and yank the hood off your head before you kill the both of us... :wink2:
Click to expand...
Regrettably for Geoffrey's plans, Sport Pilots are not authorized to act as 91.109(b) safety pilots -- gotta be PP or better.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I would probably pull it off at some point in the process, but I don't think that would be the first thing I'd do - And before I got to that point I'd at least have the plane stable, and past the point of the worst danger.

I'm not necessarily saying I'd consciously leave it on either, but I don't think going into oh-**** mode and ripping it off is going to be all that helpful either, if the plane was under control to begin with.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it would be one of the first things I would do. How difficult is it to look up and/or take it off, anyway? You do it when you are landing out of an approach. I think you would look up instinctively, at the same time as keeping the airplane upright. It takes a little while to process what is happening anyway. It's not like on an instructional flight when you know someone might pull an engine, and it's not like on takeoff when you are ready for it. I had an engine fail in a twin unexpectedly in cruise and I was startled for a couple seconds. I think my first thought was wake turbulence, but there was also all that props out of sync noise. Then I thought, "oh thats right, dead foot, dead engine" and I definitely had one dead foot. Besides, are you really expecting your safety pilot to take over? They wouldn't have their hands and feet on the controls so they would be slower at figuring out what happened even if they are multiengine rated.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I would probably pull it off at some point in the process, but I don't think that would be the first thing I'd do - And before I got to that point I'd at least have the plane stable, and past the point of the worst danger.

I'm not necessarily saying I'd consciously leave it on either, but I don't think going into oh-**** mode and ripping it off is going to be all that helpful either, if the plane was under control to begin with.
Click to expand...

Other than the half second of wasted motion I see no downsides and plenty of upside for removing a view limiting device immediately in the event of any real emergency situation when practicing IFR unless the "emergency" was precipitated by the right seater as part of a planned training exercise. And in that case the right seater should not only be multi-rated (if the rules allowed otherwise), they should be a current CFII-AMEL.

I strongly believe that whenever a true (unexpected) emergency condition arises during practice, the pilot(s) should take every advantage available to them to resolve the problem with the best chance for a successful outcome. As we like to do here, try looking at this from the perspective of an NTSB report: "Following a total power loss of the left engine due to a massive hole in the engine case and subsequent loss of oil pressure the pilot who was wearing a view limiting device failed to notice that the aircraft had rolled into a steep bank to the left. At that point the pilot feathered the right engine leading then managed to safely land the unpowered airplane on the golf course after removing the view limiting device, but the aircraft was destroyed. The pilot's responses may have been adversely affected by the multi-engine rated safety pilot's attempts to assist the pilot on the rudders thereby confusing the pilot WRT which engine had failed".
 
If you are flying with a non-ME pilot, why in the name of Zeus' butthole would you try and solve the problem with the hood on??
 
EdFred said:
If you are flying with a non-ME pilot, why in the name of Zeus' butthole would you try and solve the problem with the hood on??
Click to expand...
I guess Kent just likes a challenge.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I would not be flying with a non-ME pilot to begin with. :no:
Click to expand...
This is getting rather circular. You wouldn't fly (under the hood) with a non-ME safety pilot. You've suggested that an AMEL is needed for SP because they might have to intervene if the pilot flying (you) mishandled an actual engine out emergency. You stated that you'd attempt to handle that emergency while still hooded (for the practice?) which could conceivably lead to the need for intervention on the part of the SP.

But if the pilot flying were to remove their view limiting device at the first sign of an actual emergency, there'd be no need for the SP to intervene assuming they were no more capable of dealing with the emergency than the pilot flying. So I can't see how your intent to remain hooded in an emergency in any way justifies the need for an AMEL qualified SP any more than you'd need a experienced acrobatic pilot to intervene if you became spatially disoriented under the hood and managed to roll the plane upside down because you stubbornly left the hood on long after the SP warned you of the unusual attitude.
 
Sounds like class warfare.

Evidently I am completely incapable of reading an ASI or pushing on a rudder pedal on the same side as the running engine.
 
EdFred said:
Sounds like class warfare.

Evidently I am completely incapable of reading an ASI or pushing on a rudder pedal on the same side as the running engine.
Click to expand...

Oh, why don't you just be like Migaldi and call me "elitist". :rolleyes:
 
Here's what's even dumber:

A SES only pilot could not safety pilot for a SEL. What's the difference there? Oh yeah, it's easier to keep the SEL going the direction you want in the air. Again FAA = morons.
 
EdFred said:
I was going for the double entendre of "class warfare," you elitist. :D
Click to expand...

:rofl: Yeah, that one went right over my head.

EdFred said:
Here's what's even dumber:

A SES only pilot could not safety pilot for a SEL. What's the difference there? Oh yeah, it's easier to keep the SEL going the direction you want in the air. Again FAA = morons.
Click to expand...

Well... OK, ya got me there. Maybe someday back in the dark ages someone at the FAA decided that any "required crewmember" must be able to get the thing back on the ground on their own? Who knows. :dunno: That's the only thing I can think of, and in this situation it really doesn't make much sense.
 
...because you guys are thinking of the common similarities, and not of the uncommon differences. They are rare, but there may be some 'class' differences out there that would require the specific class experience.

Not all multis are Seminoles, which are really a 2-engine Cherokee. Not all Sea Planes are Land Planes with floats. Some throttle/elevator controls in some sea planes are very different.
 
nosehair said:
...because you guys are thinking of the common similarities, and not of the uncommon differences. They are rare, but there may be some 'class' differences out there that would require the specific class experience.

Not all multis are Seminoles, which are really a 2-engine Cherokee. Not all Sea Planes are Land Planes with floats. Some throttle/elevator controls in some sea planes are very different.
Click to expand...

That can go for planes of the same class you are rated for as well. And we're talking safety pilot here, not a pinch hitter course.
 
EdFred said:
That can go for planes of the same class you are rated for as well. And we're talking safety pilot here, not a pinch hitter course.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely true - but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

But it seems the real issue is the definition, or crew duty, of the Safety Pilot.
Since there isn't a specific definition, we have to do what I always do in these 'gray areas', which is to ask yourself, "What will a jury think?"
 
nosehair said:
But it seems the real issue is the definition, or crew duty, of the Safety Pilot.
Click to expand...
I agree.

If your definition of a safety pilot is "a lookout" and nothing more, there's no need for category or class ratings, nor that the safety pilot be at least a private pilot, nor that the safety pilot need to have a valid medical (except maybe for verification of acceptable vision standards) nor that the safety pilot be instrument rated if the flight is to be accomplished under IFR. Nor should you be giving the safety pilot decision-making authority over whether a flight with a throw-over yoke can be safely accomplished.

Student pilot with solo endorsements (already learned how to scan for traffic) should be enough for the simple job of "lookout"

So I guess the FAA's definition of a safety pilot is a bit more than "lookout" - maybe it takes the safety pilot's role of being acting as PIC or SIC seriously?
 
midlifeflyer said:
I agree.

If your definition of a safety pilot is "a lookout" and nothing more, there's no need for category or class ratings, nor that the safety pilot be at least a private pilot, nor that the safety pilot need to have a valid medical (except maybe for verification of acceptable vision standards) nor that the safety pilot be instrument rated if the flight is to be accomplished under IFR. Nor should you be giving the safety pilot decision-making authority over whether a flight with a throw-over yoke can be safely accomplished.

Student pilot with solo endorsements (already learned how to scan for traffic) should be enough for the simple job of "lookout"

So I guess the FAA's definition of a safety pilot is a bit more than "lookout" - maybe it takes the safety pilot's role of being acting as PIC or SIC seriously?
Click to expand...

I'd rather have an SEL with no complex endorsements be a safety pilot for me in a non-complex SES than I would have them be a safety pilot for me in my Comanche. There's way more going on (and quite a bit faster) in the Comanche than fixed pitch 172 on floats.
 
nosehair said:
That is absolutely true - but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

But it seems the real issue is the definition, or crew duty, of the Safety Pilot.
Since there isn't a specific definition, we have to do what I always do in these 'gray areas', which is to ask yourself, "What will a jury think?"
Click to expand...

I could have a 75 hour TT (yes, it's possible) MES safety pilot, in a Beech 18 on floats, but the 15,000hr ATP with rotorcraft, SEL, 6,000hr MEL, 4,000hr SES, and 13 type ratings is somehow less qualified?

This is the problem with the FAA. They have their head up their ass and don't think. What would a jury think in that case?
 
So, What is the overall thought on the role of a safety pilot?

Someone who will watch out for traffic and terrain, and perform some evasive manuevers should traffic "suddenly appear"? I would guess the sole manipulator who is under the hood, should be able to handle an engine failure, view restricted or not. The only possiblity I can think of, is a safety pilot holding controls long enough to get the hood off.

I'm not sure the safety pilot should have any responsbility for monitoring anything else. The PIC/Sole manipulator should obviously be well qualified to keep an eye on the guages, especially if practicing under the hood. If they are a good pilot at all, they know what wemt wrong and can probably self brief/reflect afterward. Example being, I know If i bust an altitude (if just flying without being under ATC control), and I know I fixated on something else or didn't correct appropriately.

*******
I had to have an instructor take over controls and do some evasive manuevers and we werent flying under the hood. We flew near a glider port and a glider suddenly came out of blind spot under our right wing. I was flying a Piper Seminole. I never saw the glider, but my instructor did and It took some serious manuevering to get away from this guy. It seemed whatever we did, the glider kept turning toward us. We still don't know if the glider knew how close he was or not.
 
ajstoner21 said:
So, What is the overall thought on the role of a safety pilot?

Someone who will watch out for traffic and terrain, and perform some evasive manuevers should traffic "suddenly appear"?
Click to expand...
The main place where the safety pilot will need to be close to the controls, and experienced enough to take over, is on a low approach under the hood. Going down to 200 agl and executing a missed with the safety pilot monitoring everything, and being capable of taking the controls during a botched missed.

Of course, you have the option to not do a low approach to minimums, but you do have to do six to mins to stay legal...

...and, if the safety pilot wants to log PIC, he is, in fact THE PIC. The pilot flying is logging, but not acting, as PIC. But that is up to the participants.

You can opt to have the safety pilot do nuthin but sit and look out for you, but the regulatory requirements give you the option to use him in an actual crew position.


I had to have an instructor take over controls and do some evasive manuevers and we werent flying under the hood. We flew near a glider port and a glider suddenly came out of blind spot under our right wing. I was flying a Piper Seminole. I never saw the glider, but my instructor did and It took some serious manuevering to get away from this guy. It seemed whatever we did, the glider kept turning toward us. We still don't know if the glider knew how close he was or not.
Click to expand...
This is a good example of the need for a qualified pilot to be looking out for you. It is an extreme exmple, but in the many years of flying, with hooded pilots, I have had an occasional 'surprise' that has stopped me from thinking that I had it all under control, and the rules are for newbies.
 
Ed, the FAA has its head up the bu__ anytime you want to do something you're not qualified to do.

Centerline thrust......
 
ajstoner21 said:
I had to have an instructor take over controls and do some evasive manuevers and we werent flying under the hood. We flew near a glider port and a glider suddenly came out of blind spot under our right wing. I was flying a Piper Seminole. I never saw the glider, but my instructor did and It took some serious manuevering to get away from this guy. It seemed whatever we did, the glider kept turning toward us. We still don't know if the glider knew how close he was or not.
Click to expand...
With both engines running, even a Seminole should easily be able to outclimb a glider.:D
 
bbchien said:
Ed, the FAA has its head up the bu__ anytime you want to do something you're not qualified to do.

Centerline thrust......
Click to expand...
That seems to be a general definition of "head of the butt" or "moron" when applied to the FAA - "they don't do it the way I would if I were King."
 
midlifeflyer said:
That seems to be a general definition of "head of the butt" or "moron" when applied to the FAA - "they don't do it the way I would if I were King."
Click to expand...

You're saying the low time MES safety pilot is more qualified than the ATP in my scenario? Even if 1/2 the MEL hours are in a MEL Beech 18?
 
EdFred said:
You're saying the low time MES safety pilot is more qualified than the ATP in my scenario? Even if 1/2 the MEL hours are in a MEL Beech 18?
Click to expand...
Makes no difference. And not the point.

Unless you want 91.109 to be about 164 pages long, there's no way that it can account for all of the permutations we can come up with in which someone technically qualified really isn't. Just like passenger currency - would you say that a pilot who hasn't flown at night in 15 years is making a wise decision if he pops spouse and kids into their airplane for a 500 Nm overnight vacation flight after making 3 stop and goes? OTOH, I have a bunch of night hours and have always landed well at night as a result. Does that make the minimum 3 landing for currency rule inherently "moronic" to you? Should there be en exemption in the rule for "pilots with more than X night hours and Y night landings who think they land well at night"?

Regs are baseline and set minimum standards based on general conditions. And I just can't come to the conclusion that a rule that requires a safety pilot to have something a little less than the base qualifications of a SIC under 61.55 qualifies as "moronic" or "head-up-the butt" thinking just because I may disagree with parts of it.

Of course, that may just reflect a difference in political/social philosophy. I can disagree with something without having to call it stupid or evil. Others (unfortunately most Americans it seems) can't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top