Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Insurance
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: Insurance

Patrick, great catch.  

   

As a retired Pilot Examiner, it is true that the currency of a medical is not a requirement for Right Seat.  Second in Command also has nothing to do with “Required Crew” which by nature is a tattoo placed in the Aircraft Limitations and does not get removed without a lot of re-submittal of paperwork with your FSDO.  Warbirds have extinguished that issue in the effort to take Fat Cats up for joyrides during waivered airspace in conjunction with airshows.  Required Crew is forever.  Restricted to Solo flight is time specific.  

   

When the Phase One says “Restricted to Solo flight”  good luck with your armchair attorney trying to persuade the casualty insurance carrier that your “Good Buddy” was operating as “Required Crew” while you said “Hold my Beer and Watch This” as you log off your Phase One.  Pen and Ink Logbook entries will always be with us.  Great Examiners and Instructors can find those patterns quickly.  It has something to do with the certification statement they sign that they have personally reviewed such entries.  

   

These interpretations have come down from Washington Legal and are not open to individual FSDO Inspector interpretation.  Attorneys are strange about such stuff.    

   

Stay Safe, take along a current Gold Seal CFI or II (who knows your make and model of aircraft) and both of you get to log it.  

   

John   

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com

 Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:34 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Insurance  

  

       

In a message dated 1/22/2008 2:17:46 PM Central Standard Time, rene(at)felker.com writes:  

   	  Quote: 	
		    

Just for clarification......

 

 1.  Pilot not flying, right seat guy/gal must be rated and current in the

 aircraft to fly as safety pilot.

 

 2.  Pilot not flying, assumes PIC for a portion (while pilot flying is under

 the hood) of the flight.

 

 3.  Both pilots can log time.

 

 It is just a way to build a little time at little or no expense.  

 

 Also, pilot not flying is a required crew member ...........

 

 I fly a lot with other pilots and always make sure that we agree on who is

 PIC and who is not.....even with my instructor.  	
  

    

Rene',  

    

   

    

You may want to take a look at FAR 61.51...PIC is the pilot flying the plane (the sole manipulator of the controls) while the other person is a "safety pilot" and not PIC unless 61.51(e) (3)..."an authorized insturctor may log as PIC time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor"..."PIC time for a pilot is only when you are the sole manipulator of the controls for which the pilot is rated or has priveleges"...if you act as Safety Pilot and you are not manipulator of the controls you're not PIC...the pilot flying under the "hood" is PIC, you can log time but not PIC time, unless you are the CFI/I.    

    

   

    

Your point on required crew member is only true if the aircraft you are operating is covered by 61.55 and this covers how the aircraft is certificated not the operation you're performing..I really don't think to many part 91 aircraft have a second in command (required crew member per operation certificate) requirement...  

    

   

    

I don't think it says anywhere that the person acting as safety pilot needs to be current or have a current medical for that matter either just that they have to be rated for category and class.  

    

   

    

If you and your mates are logging PIC time incorrectly, well that's your matter.  But you may want to re-read the regulation and discuss it with a member from the FSDO or a master CFI/I...IMHO  

    

   

    

Patrick  

  



 

         

  

Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.   

  [quote]   [b]

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject: Insurance

In a message dated 1/22/2008 2:17:46 PM Central Standard Time, 

rene(at)felker.com writes:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

     3.  Both pilots can log time.




	


    Yes, this would appear to be true, and both may be able to log PIC 

time if it is agreed beforehand that the safety pilot will act as the 

legal PIC during the time that the pilot manipulating the controls is 

under the hood.



    This web page has a pretty good read of the subject:



<http://www.pilotjourney.com/Aviation_Training/Instrument_Pilot/PIC:_Who_Is_It?_Who_Can_Log_It?/>

http://www.pilotjourney.com/Aviation_Training/Instrument_Pilot/PIC:_Who_Is_It?_Who_Can_Log_It?/



    There are a few others as well:

<http://www.southern-aviator.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=9910&-token.src=column&-nothing>



<http://www.rodmachado.com/Articles/Logging_Flight_Time.htm>



FAA FAQ excerpt here:  

<http://www.rodmachado.com/Articles/Logging_Flight_Time2.htm>



-Dj

-- 

Dj Merrill - N1JOV

Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an 

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: Insurance

Not entirely.

To fly safety you must have at least recreational or private license,

minimum, rated in category and class..e.g. single engine land.  No

endorsements needed...to log SIC. But, does require current medical.

To "act" as PIC you do need to be endorsed for the type of

aircraft...HP, tailwheel, etc.

You are right that safety pilot can act as PIC and log as PIC.

Handling pilot can log PIC as long as they have private license, no

need to be endorsed or current in the plane IF safety is actual PIC.



On Jan 22, 2008 1:11 PM, Rene Felker <rene(at)felker.com> wrote:

[quote] 



 Just for clarification......



 1.  Pilot not flying, right seat guy/gal must be rated and current in the

 aircraft to fly as safety pilot.



 2.  Pilot not flying, assumes PIC for a portion (while pilot flying is under

 the hood) of the flight.



 3.  Both pilots can log time.



 It is just a way to build a little time at little or no expense.



 Also, pilot not flying is a required crew member ...........



 I fly a lot with other pilots and always make sure that we agree on who is

 PIC and who is not.....even with my instructor.



 Rene' Felker

 N423CF

 40322

 801-721-6080



 --

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject: Insurance

Confusion Alert!

FAA General Counsel has ruled. There are no regional or local FSDO

interpretations on safety pilot issues.

Safety pilot IS a required crew member by regulation...has nothing to

do with aircraft type.

As a required crew member, a current medical IS required. (believe me,

this chaps my arse, as my wife is rated, but doesn't have medical).

Warbirds, experimental issues...different can of worms. As you

say...no dual permitted during phase one, no safety pilot allowed.

That is certification requirement, separate from IFR practice with

safety pilot.



On Jan 22, 2008 3:12 PM, John W. Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 Patrick, great catch.



 As a retired Pilot Examiner, it is true that the currency of a medical is

 not a requirement for Right Seat.  Second in Command also has nothing to do

 with "Required Crew" which by nature is a tattoo placed in the Aircraft

 Limitations and does not get removed without a lot of re-submittal of

 paperwork with your FSDO.  Warbirds have extinguished that issue in the

 effort to take Fat Cats up for joyrides during waivered airspace in

 conjunction with airshows.  Required Crew is forever.  Restricted to Solo

 flight is time specific.



 When the Phase One says "Restricted to Solo flight"  good luck with your

 armchair attorney trying to persuade the casualty insurance carrier that

 your "Good Buddy" was operating as "Required Crew" while you said "Hold my

 Beer and Watch This" as you log off your Phase One.  Pen and Ink Logbook

 entries will always be with us.  Great Examiners and Instructors can find

 those patterns quickly.  It has something to do with the certification

 statement they sign that they have personally reviewed such entries.



 These interpretations have come down from Washington Legal and are not open

 to individual FSDO Inspector interpretation.  Attorneys are strange about

 such stuff.



 Stay Safe, take along a current Gold Seal CFI or II (who knows your make and

 model of aircraft) and both of you get to log it.



 John



  ________________________________

 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com

  Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:34 PM



  To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

  Subject: Re: Insurance

 In a message dated 1/22/2008 2:17:46 PM Central Standard Time,

 rene(at)felker.com writes:

 Just for clarification......



  1.  Pilot not flying, right seat guy/gal must be rated and current in the

  aircraft to fly as safety pilot.



  2.  Pilot not flying, assumes PIC for a portion (while pilot flying is

 under

  the hood) of the flight.



  3.  Both pilots can log time.



  It is just a way to build a little time at little or no expense.



  Also, pilot not flying is a required crew member ...........



  I fly a lot with other pilots and always make sure that we agree on who is

  PIC and who is not.....even with my instructor.



 Rene',



 You may want to take a look at FAR 61.51...PIC is the pilot flying the plane

 (the sole manipulator of the controls) while the other person is a "safety

 pilot" and not PIC unless 61.51(e) (3)..."an authorized insturctor may log

 as PIC time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor"..."PIC

 time for a pilot is only when you are the sole manipulator of the controls

 for which the pilot is rated or has priveleges"...if you act as Safety Pilot

 and you are not manipulator of the controls you're not PIC...the pilot

 flying under the "hood" is PIC, you can log time but not PIC time, unless

 you are the CFI/I.



 Your point on required crew member is only true if the aircraft you are

 operating is covered by 61.55 and this covers how the aircraft is

 certificated not the operation you're performing..I really don't think to

 many part 91 aircraft have a second in command (required crew member per

 operation certificate) requirement...



 I don't think it says anywhere that the person acting as safety pilot needs

 to be current or have a current medical for that matter either just that

 they have to be rated for category and class.



 If you and your mates are logging PIC time incorrectly, well that's your

 matter.  But you may want to re-read the regulation and discuss it with a

 member from the FSDO or a master CFI/I...IMHO



 Patrick



  ________________________________



 Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.



 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List



 http://forums.matronics.com





 http://www.matronics.com/contribution

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2882

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: Insurance

To keep the waters muddy....here's that spooky article about what

can happen when you are in a plane with another pilot.  Funny how

responsibilities can change in a hurry.  Makes you think.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive



---------------

Pilot Counsel: A shifting concept



By John S. Yodice



We as pilots are bound by the laws governing our flying, not only the 

laws in the federal aviation regulations that are most familiar to us, 

but also the laws and interpretations declared in the decisions of the 

National Transportation Safety Board. Unfortunately for us, the laws 

declared by NTSB in the context of FAA enforcement cases are frequently 

skewed “to get the pilot.” As I have observed in past columns, “hard 

cases make bad law.” The board’s efforts to punish errant pilots 

sometimes result in laws and interpretations that don’t make sense, at 

least not to us as pilots.



Last month in this column I reported such an NTSB case (see “Pilot 

Counsel: ‘Airworthy Condition’—Again,” December 2007 Pilot). The case 

declared that insignificant damage (a bent small piece of sheet metal, a 

light shield, on the wingtip of a Cessna 182 that the pilot straightened 

out with his fingers) makes the aircraft “unairworthy,” and declared 

that pilots who fly aircraft with such conditions are in violation of 

the FARs. So, unfortunately for us, if we fly an aircraft with minor 

damage that we conscientiously believe is insignificant and nevertheless 

safe, we stand in danger of second-guessing by the FAA and NTSB.



This month I am reporting a case dealing with a common situation I 

addressed more than a decade ago. “Flying with more than one qualified 

pilot on board a dual-control aircraft is a situation that occurs 

frequently in our everyday flying. Most times it is fairly obvious who 

is pilot in command. But many times it is not, and typically no one 

worries about it—until there is an accident or an incident.” (See “Pilot 

Counsel: Pilot in Command?” November 1995 Pilot.)



In this month’s case, the board may have succeeded in punishing what is 

arguably an errant pilot, but in the process of deciding the case, the 

board inadvertently gummed-up for us the shifting status of pilot in 

command. The board declared that a right-seat pilot, who was clearly not 

the pilot in command at the start of a flight, who accompanies the PIC, 

and who temporarily operates the controls of an aircraft, in this case 

to demonstrate a landing, then becomes the pilot in command. The 

decision doesn’t stop there. It goes on to declare that even in a more 

compelling circumstance—a right-seat pilot who is forced to take over 

control when the PIC panics and lets go of the controls—then becomes PIC 

with responsibility for the predicament the aircraft is in. This is 

certainly not the common understanding among pilots. Pilots believe that 

temporarily manipulating the controls does not necessarily make a person 

pilot in command. Just think of the situation of a flight instructor who 

is not acting as pilot in command but is demonstrating a maneuver to the 

PIC, or, more telling, an FAA inspector or designated flight examiner 

who by regulation is not the pilot in command, who temporarily 

manipulates the controls to demonstrate a maneuver or puts the aircraft 

in an unusual attitude for the pilot to recover. As declared by the 

NTSB, the PIC status can shift without any conscious decision of either 

pilot on board, but merely by the manipulation of the flight controls.



Here are the hard facts. The respondent met a woman visiting from Spain 

at the Tamiami Airport, near Miami, Florida. The woman held a Spanish 

commercial pilot certificate but had only 170 flight hours. She had come 

to the United States for three months to build flight time. The 

respondent was an experienced airline transport pilot and a former 

flight instructor with more than 5,000 hours. The woman rented a Cessna 

172 at a Tamiami FBO where she had been renting airplanes for the last 

month or so. She asked the respondent to fly with her in order to obtain 

instruction in landing the aircraft. She rented the aircraft in her own 

name and did not list the respondent as an occupant, either as a 

passenger or a pilot. She preflighted the airplane, called the tower for 

permission to take off, and, occupying the left seat, flew the aircraft 

throughout the flight until the incident.



She intended to fly to Homestead General Aviation Airport to practice 

touch-and-goes. Before taking off, she programmed the Garmin GNS 430 GPS 

for what she thought was Homestead General Aviation Airport. Instead she 

mistakenly programmed the GPS for Homestead Air Reserve Base. The flight 

arrived after sunset at what the pilot thought was Homestead General. 

The airports are only seven miles apart. She performed a touch-and-go. 

The respondent pilot only then took over the controls, telling her that 

he was going to teach her how to land the aircraft. While preparing to 

execute a second touch-and-go, the aircraft was intercepted by a U.S. 

Customs Blackhawk helicopter. Customs directed the flight to land.



Obviously, she had flown the aircraft to the wrong airport, and in the 

process into Class D airspace. As a result, the FAA ordered the 

suspension of the respondent’s ATP for 180 days (later reduced to 90 

days by the law judge). The FAA charged 1) that the respondent operated 

the aircraft in the Class D airspace of Homestead Air Reserve Base 

without establishing two-way radio communication with the control tower, 

2) that he landed and took off without a clearance, 3) that before the 

flight, he failed to familiarize himself with all available information 

concerning the flight, and 4) that in general he was careless or 

reckless. On appeal to the NTSB, even though the respondent testified 

that he did not know that the aircraft was in Class D airspace when he 

took the controls to demonstrate a landing, the board affirmed all of 

the FAA charges.



The FAA, and eventually the board, believed that the respondent did 

something wrong (probably influenced by respondent’s after-the-fact 

claims of an emergency and an electrical problem), but seemed to be 

having difficulty framing the wrong in terms of a regulatory violation. 

Making the respondent a pilot in command finessed that difficulty.



In resolving the issue of which pilot was the PIC during the flight, the 

law judge found that the Spanish woman started the flight as PIC, but 

that when the respondent took over the controls, he became PIC. As PIC, 

“it was his duty to know where the aircraft was and to comply with all 

requirements applicable under the FARs to the conduct of the flight.” 

The full board, echoing the judge, specifically held that the 

“respondent was the PIC after he accepted responsibility and control of 

the flight…[and] when he assumed the status of PIC, it was the 

respondent’s duty to know where the aircraft was located, and to comply 

with all requirements applicable to the conduct of the flight.”



There was a dispute about the circumstances of the respondent’s 

assumption of the controls. That made the NTSB decision even more 

difficult for us—unnecessarily! According to the respondent, after being 

intercepted by the helicopter, the airplane was “shaking and pitching,” 

he saw panic in the [pilot’s] eyes, and that she started screaming about 

her U.S. visa and that they were going to throw her in jail. The 

respondent said that she lost “spatial orientation” and “just let go of 

the controls.” As a result, the respondent “grabbed the controls.” The 

board said that even if it believed the respondent, its “conclusion 

would remain the same.” In other words, even under the compelling 

circumstances described by the respondent, if true, the respondent 

nevertheless “assumed the status of PIC, with all of its incumbent 

duties and responsibilities.” Tough stuff.



So, pilots are on notice that if they are on board a dual-control 

aircraft with another pilot who is acting as pilot in command, and for a 

legitimate reason they manipulate the controls, even under compelling 

circumstances, such pilots are in jeopardy of being considered as pilots 

in command for purposes of finding regulatory violations. Another 

illustration of how “hard cases make bad law.”



John S. Yodice is the owner of a Cessna 310 and  serves as legal 

counselor to AOPA.

GenGrumpy(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: Insurance

Tim is absolutely correct here.

  

 Fly with somebody doing instrument work and watch and listen....you'll  learn a lot.

  

 However, don't log one tenth of an hour unless you are actually flying the  airplane AND you are doing it solely by reference to the instruments.

  

 Anything else will build you a false level of confidence and can be  disastrous.....

  

 grumpy

  

 do not archive

  

 In a message dated 1/22/2008 1:43:01 P.M. Central Standard Time,  Tim(at)MyRV10.com writes:

 [quote]-->    RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>



You can't    really use that to actually build time, because

you aren't PIC.  Now,    if you were the sole manipulator

of the controls, while the other guy was    the PIC, that

might not be totally the case, but, what good is    the

instrument approach practice to that guy if you're

the one solely    manipulating the controls of the plane.

And, you can't log PIC time if    you're a non-certified

pilot hauling passengers who are    non-instructors.

Otherwise people wouldn't bother to fly the time to

get    their rating...they'd just manipulate the controls

while a buddy pilot acts    as the true PIC.  I'm not

saying it's not of any benefit, but really,    the only way

to honestly and legitimately build loggable time is to

go    out and do the flying.  Also, read this last month's

AOPA article by    that legal column guy and find out how

the NTSB/FAA takes it when the    right-seat pilot is

manipulating the controls.  It got kind of spooky    how

suddenly you assume the role as PIC and could end up

being "in    charge" if there is any sort of incident.



What you want to add, if    possible, is true, loggable PIC

time, to help with insurance rates.     But, you're 100% right

that from a standpoint of getting yourself some IFR    related

education, it would be fantastic to go along and fly    with

someone doing their instrument rating....it may help when

it comes    time to plan your panel.  If you're going to do

that though, you may    as well finish the Private Pilot, and

at least finish and pass the written    for the Instrument

rating.  You don't even need to take ground school    to

take and pass the written, and there's a heck of a lot

of good info    there.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not    archive



Rene Felker wrote:

[quote] --> RV10-List message    posted by: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>

 

 Just an idea    to throw out.....bring on the flames.  One way of building time

    would be to find someone working on their instrument rating or just    doing

 practice approaches and fly with them.  You must be able to    act as pilot in

 command for the aircraft being flown, but you can log    the PIC time.  Also,

 you will get the benefit of learning a lot    about practice approaches, holds,

 etc.....actual IFR...not so    much.

 

 Rene' Felker

 N423CF

 40322

    801-721-6080

 --

bob.kaufmann(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject: Insurance

For what its worth, we tried to get enough interest in the self-insurance to

start an RV program but we did not get enough interest to continue investing

money into the program.  We got only a fraction of those needed.



Bob K



--

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:06 am Post subject: Insurance

In a message dated 1/22/2008 4:26:35 PM Central Standard Time,  deej(at)deej.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Yes,    this would appear to be true, and both may be able to log PIC 

time if it    is agreed beforehand that the safety pilot will act as the 

legal PIC    during the time that the pilot manipulating the controls is 

under the    hood.

	


 

  Not playing FAA here but I believe your agreement to how to operate  has nothing to do with PIC time, it's pretty well spelled out in the  regulations...you must be at the controls to be PIC other than that you can log  the time but not as PIC...I've been at a number of FAA seminars where this was  presented and discussed.  The only duel PIC time is for CFI/I,  generally...

  

 P



Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 

  [quote][b]

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: Insurance

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   In a message dated 1/22/2008 4:26:35 PM Central Standard Time, 

 deej(at)deej.net writes:



     Yes, this would appear to be true, and both may be able to log PIC

     time if it is agreed beforehand that the safety pilot will act as the

     legal PIC during the time that the pilot manipulating the controls is

     under the hood.



  Not playing FAA here but I believe your agreement to how to operate 

 has nothing to do with PIC time, it's pretty well spelled out in the 

 regulations...you must be at the controls to be PIC other than that 

 you can log the time but not as PIC...I've been at a number of FAA 

 seminars where this was presented and discussed.  The only duel PIC 

 time is for CFI/I, generally...

  

 P


	


    The info was taken from an FAQ published by the FAA, which does show 

that the regulations allow the safety pilot to log PIC time.

You can find a subset of it on Rod Machado's website here:

<http://www.rodmachado.com/Articles/Logging_Flight_Time2.htm>



along with a link to the original FAA information.



fyi



-Dj



-- 

Dj Merrill

Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an 

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: Insurance

There is also more information available on the AOPA web site here:

<http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/pic.html?>



Here are some snippets cut from that page:



"One topic that invariably pops up whenever there is a gathering of 

pilots is the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time. The much-coveted 

PIC time has been a controversial subject and can be very confusing. 

After reading this, you may be amazed to find that there are many 

different ways to log PIC!"



"Before we get started, we must define /pilot in command./ The PIC is, 

by Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), responsible for the safe 

operation of the flight (FAR 1.1, 91.3). At any given time, there can 

only be one acting PIC on a flight, no matter how many pilots are on 

board the aircraft. To legally act as PIC, a private, commercial, and 

airline transport pilot must have a current medical certificate and have 

all required endorsements, ratings, and recency of experience for the 

type of aircraft being flown and the flight conditions under which the 

flight is conducted (FAR 61.3, 61.31, 61.56, 61.57). Sport pilots can 

act as PIC with a valid and current driver's license in lieu of the FAA 

medical (FAR 61.23). Before a flight is initiated, an agreement should 

be made to determine who is to be acting as PIC."



"A pilot may log PIC time when he/she is the sole occupant of the 

aircraft; is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for 

which the pilot is rated or has privileges; or is acting as PIC where 

more than one pilot is required (FAR 1.1, 61.51 [e])."



"The FARs provide several situations (see scenarios listed below) where 

two or more pilots may log PIC time, even though there can only be one 

pilot acting as PIC."



"When practicing flying in simulated instrument conditions with a safety 

pilot, both the pilot flying the aircraft by reference to instruments 

and the safety pilot may log PIC time if the safety pilot is acting as 

PIC. As long as the pilot flying the aircraft is rated for the aircraft 

being flown, he/she may log this time as PIC because he/she is sole 

manipulator of the controls (FAR 61.51). Because the pilot flying will 

be wearing a view-limiting device, a safety pilot will be a required 

crewmember on board (FAR 91.109). The safety pilot may log as PIC any 

flight time for which he/she is acting PIC in an operation requiring 

more than one pilot crewmember (FAR 61.51)."



"To act as a safety pilot, a current medical certificate is required 

because a safety pilot will be acting as a required pilot crewmember, 

which requires a current medical certificate (FAR 61.3)."



fyi



-Dj

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: Insurance

Thanks DJ certainly is not covered in the FAR's!

  

 P



Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 

  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum