Safety Pilot - Qualifications Required?

[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.

[Spokes]

... "Big Hat, No Cattle" ...

I love that.

[Shiny Side Up]

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?

I suspect that many people wish to have practice flying wearing their "vision limiting device" for purposes of simulating their flight test conditions. Given that there are a great many people out there holding instrument ratings, or are training towards said rating, who might have never flown in cloud to have their vision limited as such, and practice they've done has all been strictly VFR. They want extra practice with vision limited, since they don't trust that they can just pretend they're in IFR conditions.

As said before, many use a sim for such purpose, others find a buddy pilot to help them practice. I also suspect that there are those who want practice, who really have no buddies, but really don't want to have to pay a pilot to be their buddy for a while who really want to simulate their vision being restricted, more so than they want to fly safe, possibly part of the reason they have no flying buddies, hence why this question occasionally comes up.

[Colonel Sanders]

Don't need a hood. Just fly at night over water
or Algonquin park, and people roll the airplane
upside down, first time, every time.

Ask JFK, jr.

[Talex2]

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.

Negligence. Since it is now a standard practice for aviation regulators to produce some rule like the model presented in Annex 2 I would say the regulator in Canada is not fulfilling its duty of care in this case. What possible reasonable grounds can the regulator advance in support of its failure to exercise its discretionary power in a manner which is well established in many other countries?

This is particularly relevant considering the international character of aviation. Foreign aircraft operating into Canada are entitled to be protected by the regulator from idiots flying their C172s in simulated IF conditions without at least a competent observer on board. In any event the regulator has already prohibited solo simulated instrument flights under Regulation 602.114(a) and 602.115(a) (with the possible exception of simulated IF cruising over-the-top).

I'm not a lawyer and it would be regrettable if some of the users here were given that impression by my previous comments. I am simply asking the question whether the regulator can, or should, be immune in this particular situation.

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.

Any guidance or direction from the regulator which authorises solo simulated IF is open to serious scrutiny. If a person following that guidance collided with another aircraft, or caused injury to persons or property on the ground, then I think the regulator will have opened the door to being sued for negligence, notwithstanding the negligence attributable to a pilot foolish enough to abandon basic airmanship in following the guidance.

[Colonel Sanders]

I would say the regulator in Canada is not fulfilling its duty of care

If you really think this is the biggest problem
that aviation in Canada is facing right now, I
think you need to get out a bit more.

[photofly]

I was honestly just curious why you picked that thread. Here are some other relevant threads:
viewtopic.php?t=139664
viewtopic.php?t=132854

- I fly in class E airspace in contact with FSS.

Why would FSS be able to help you in class E? Wouldn't monitoring the relevant traffic advisory frequency or ATC frequency (if in RADAR airspace) be more helpful?

- I still look for traffic every 10 seconds or so.

If you're head on towards another small aircraft, your closing speed could be 240 knots, or better. Taking your eyes of the sky for ten seconds means you need to guarantee to see anyone conflicting before they're closer than 2/3 of a mile. Further, if you want time to take evasive action. Something to think about.

[Beefitarian]

I just got new glasses.