Safety Pilot - Qualifications Required?

[Marc_CYBW]

Who can act as a safety pilot while I'm under the hood doing simulated IMC flying and approaches in VMC?

I've had various people say:
- a current licensed pilot
- a current IFR rated pilot
- a current commercial pilot
- a certified flight instructor

Waiting for TC to call me back, but in the meantime, please share your understanding on the matter.

Thanks
Marc

[Shiny Side Up]

If I remember rightly, this came up before and TC's interpretation is that you don't need a safety pilot to do this. So put your hood on and go fill your boots getting that instrument practice. That said, common sense might dictate that you maybe take someone who can see for you. Your life on the line, take whomever you think is going to be looking out for you.

[dirtdr]

I had a similar question, but would like to add:

What are the requirements for such hood time to be considered acceptable for the purpose of going towards required night or instrument rating hood time?

[dr.aero]

What are the requirements for such hood time to be considered acceptable for the purpose of going towards required night or instrument rating hood time?

Solo hood time doesn't count towards anything. You would need dual hood time from a qualified person.

This is CAR 425.21(4): "A person who conducts flight training toward the issuance of a night rating shall have a flight instructor rating for the category of aircraft used for the training."

For the 10 dual instrument flight time you require for the night rating - that needs to be done with a flight instructor.

CAR 425.21(9) details the requirements for training towards an instrument rating - either a flight instructor or a commercial pilot with the specified experience.

Notice that these training requirements specifically regard "training toward the issuance of a..." - it does not say who's allowed to give generic instrument flight time (hood).

[Colonel Sanders]

Solo hood time doesn't count towards anything

Well ... if you look at the experience requirements for the
instrument rating, it is quiet on how you get the "other"
20 hours. Most people do it in a sim, but ...

I don't know of any reference to - or definition of - or
even requirement for - a "safety pilot" in the CARs.

I logged PIC under the hood, a very long time ago, for
my instrument rating, back in the days of the PLH.
Why not?

[Beefitarian]

Can I get in trouble for doing this as a part time job? If not I should make up some business cards and bulletin board ads.

Attention licensed pilots, Registered safety pilot available, $15 per hobbs hour.

You will gain valuable instrument skills while logging solo PIC.

I also offer high density airport transition help. Worried about flying into LAX? Don't be! I can show you how to fly in anywhere like a boss.

An invoice/reciept will be provided but as I'm not a registered FTU it might not be usable for tax purposes. Ask about my block rates.

[Colonel Sanders]

You got a CPL, fill your boots!

[photofly]

Solo hood time doesn't count towards anything.

It counts towards the 20 hours of instrument time that isn't required to be flown either with an instructor or a "qualified person" to qualify for an Instrument Rating (CAR 421.46), and it counts towards your recency under 401.05(3).

You don't need a safety "pilot", the PIC simply needs to comply with the obligations to see and avoid other traffic; if the PIC is under the hood he or she needs to make arrangements for those obligations to be met. Someone on this forum was training their dog to bark "traffic", and good luck to them.

I logged PIC under the hood

I try to do some every time I fly cross-country with a sighted passenger I trust.

[Beefitarian]

You got a CPL, fill your boots!

If I had that I might as well log the PIC. I'm not getting paid to fly, do I need one? Seems like a grey area™ to me.
Finally, I don't wear boots now that I'm not working on sites that require them.

[trey kule]

That said, common sense might dictate that you maybe take someone who can see for you. Your life on the line, take

common sense? We ae talking about pilots here!
And it is not just their life that is on the line..All the other poor sods who expect in VMC someone will have their eyes looking outside the cockpilt.

Beef.
I dont think you need a CPL to act a s a safety pilot, but not sure you can charge..It is a grey area as you theortically dont need a pilots license at all as a safety pilot is not mandated. I am sure, however, it is mandatory for you to have time in a Pitts.. And be adept at formation inverted spins from 300 AGL..Those are the qualifications that a real safety pilot needs.. .

[Marc_CYBW]

After several conversations with a CFI and another IFR pilot, it appears that, for maintaining "6-6-6" currency purposes, "Safety Pilot" is not defined anywhere in Cdn Regulations. Furthermore, it appears that "Simulated IMC" is not defined for currency purposes either. So, if that is true, one can simply focus on instruments and perform precision and non-precision approaches without a vision limiting device (simulated IMC).

Seems odd, but I'm still waiting to hear from Transport Canada.

[Beefitarian]

Rats, my new business is going the way of my trucking empire allready.

Maybe I should get a CPL try to switch from fairy pilot to ferry pilot.

[Talex2]

Who can act as a safety pilot while I'm under the hood doing simulated IMC flying and approaches in VMC?

There is an existing International Standard promulgated in ICAO Annex 2, Chapter 3, for simulated instrument flights. Canada, as a Contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, is bound by Article 38 to notify any departures from the relevant international standard to ICAO. There is no notification, required of Canada by Annex 15, of such a departure in the current edition of the Canadian AIP (Gen 1.7).

ICAO Annex 2
§ 3.2.4 'Simulated instrument flights'

An aircraft shall not be flown under simulated instrument flight conditions unless:

a) fully functioning dual controls are installed in the aircraft ; and

b) a qualified pilot occupies a control seat to act as safety pilot for the person who is flying under simulated instrument conditions. The safety pilot shall have adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft , or a competent observer in communication with the safety pilot shall occupy a position in the aircraft from which the observer's field of vision adequately supplements that of the safety pilot.

The above text is available at EUROCONTROL's SKYbrary: http://sissy.skybrary.aero/index.php

[Colonel Sanders]

That's real nice, but I have a dumb question.

If you didn't comply with the above, what CAR
would TC charge you with contravening?

Let's say I don't go whole-hog and train a monkey
to sit in the right seat, and gibber when he sees
an aircraft. Sweet idea, but ...

Let's say I put a pilot in the right seat as a lookout,
but not a qualified pilot. Say, . Yeager or
Bob Hoover with an expired medical.

The only reg I can think of is the Old Favorite, CAR
602.01 - careless and reckless. I think TC would have
a tough time making CAR 602.01 stick if you used
. Yeager (with an expired medical) as a lookout.

Are they going to claim in court that . Yeager
doesn't have good vision? Or that because he doesn't
have a TC licence, he doesn't know how to spot traffic?

[Talex2]

I think TC would have
a tough time making CAR 602.01 stick if you used
. Yeager (with an expired medical) as a lookout.

Are they going to claim in court that . Yeager
doesn't have good vision? Or that because he doesn't
have a TC licence, he doesn't know how to spot traffic?

The what extent the safety pilot must be qualified is left to the relevant Contracting State(s) to decide however it is self-evident that the intention of the relevant section is to ensure that the safety pilot is capable of safely manipulating the controls should the nature of the exercise necessitate it. In the example of, say, a qualified and medically fit fixed-wing pilot acting as a safety pilot on board a helicopter in which he has had insufficient operating experience to safety manipulate the controls, I should like to believe a court would rule that he was insufficiently qualified.

A very poor legal precedent would be established if the extensive operating experience of a pilot were deemed a sufficient compensation for his inadequate vision, and it would be patently foolish to argue that only a person holding a TC licence is able to identify aerial traffic.

[Colonel Sanders]

Do keep in mind that a very senior flight instructor here
has repeatedly stated that TC in his region has told people
to go fly solo under the hood - no lookout required.

I have trouble believing it, but nothing surprises me any more.

A very poor legal precedent

You're trying to pull my chain, right? You are aware that the
Tribunal accepts evidence from illegal search & seizure (wrong
address on search warrant but hey who cares, right?).

[Beefitarian]

ensure that the safety pilot is capable of safely manipulating the controls should the nature of the exercise necessitate it.

As a Registered Safety Pilot, I won't be logging time or manipulating the controls unless it's absolutely necessary ie. you become temporarally incapacitated.

My role is to watch for terrain, scan for and find traffic, then verbally alert you to it's location and motion in relation to us, well before it becomes a potential conflict.

[Shiny Side Up]

The only reg I can think of is the Old Favorite, CAR
602.01 - careless and reckless. I think TC would have
a tough time making CAR 602.01 stick if you used
. Yeager (with an expired medical) as a lookout.

Lets face it though, this is what they would ding you with if something did happen while you had your vision limited and had an incident/accident. . Yeager in the other seat, a trained monkey or nothing. Remember that TC is not in the business of preventing occurances, but rather in the business of assigning blame when they occur. The idea that engaging in an activity might increase your chances of violating a CAR is irrelevant to them. Legal and safe not being equivilents. TC notably is loathe to tell us what they think is "safe" or wise in these cases, they have a long ingrained CYA tendancy, determining safe is strictly the realm of the PIC.

[Talex2]

... determining safe[ty] is strictly the realm of the PIC.

What defence would TC use against its liability in tort in the event of a serious incident, or accident, occurring which, had a clear rule requiring a specific kind of safety pilot existed, would not have occurred? Since no departure from the ICAO standard has been filed by Canada it is reasonable to expect section 3.2.4 to be binding upon simulated instrument flight operations in Canada. The section is certainly binding upon Canadian civil aircraft operating over the high seas.

There is nothing extraordinary in hindsight apropos a collision occurring in the course of simulated instrument flying and as a foreseeable occurrence it is reasonable to consider the pilot in command's liability. Whilst TC would be failing to discharge its duty if asserting that no safety pilot is needed there is still a duty for the pilot in command to abide by the rules of air - particularly his duty to avoid collisions whilst operating in VMC - and it cannot be realised during simulated instrument flying if a safety pilot is not carried on board.

The more intriguing question is the extent of the safety pilot's liability. The United States has held that a safety pilot, holding a higher level of licence than the pilot operating "under the hood," may be held liable for regulatory breaches caused by the pilot in command. NTSB Order No. EA-4537 (1997).

[photofly]

What defence would TC use against its liability in tort in the event of a serious incident, or accident, occurring which, had a clear rule requiring a specific kind of safety pilot existed, would not have occurred?

What is the tort, here?

You can't draw the inference that if a rule had existed the accident wouldn't have occurred; meanwhile you're trying to shift the responsibility from the pilot onto the regulator because they didn't specifically forbid something.

Now spell "far fetched".

The more intriguing question is the extent of the safety pilot's liability. The United States has held that a safety pilot, holding a higher level of licence than the pilot operating "under the hood," may be held liable for regulatory breaches caused by the pilot in command.

A guy I know in the US with an ATPL got busted by the FAA for an airspace violation while he was a passenger in the back seat with two licensed pilots in the front two seats, merely because, out of all the occupants, he held the highest category of licence.

[Colonel Sanders]

Now spell "far fetched"

uh huh.

I think some people need to spend a lot more
time in the cockpit, than worrying about how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Or, as I like to put it, "All chalk, no stick".

[photofly]

Are the angels pushing or pulling?

so sorry...

[Colonel Sanders]

Not sure if you've heard of him or not, but there's
an economist called Steven Levitt that has achieved
a certain amount of success by collecting data to
learn about what happens in the real world:



Hm. He's not exactly "all chalk", is he? He only
has a PhD from MIT, so he's probably not in
Denker's league, though.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Who can act as a safety pilot while I'm under the hood doing simulated IMC flying and approaches in VMC?

Why do you wear a hood?

[Colonel Sanders]

A more important question might be, why is this
forum called "Flight Training"? Pretty misleading.

I think "Big Hat, No Cattle" might be a better name
for it.