Re: legal role of safety pilot-another twist

Download ForPilots Logbook today! Forpilots Logbook is the award-winning computerized logbook solution. The software features a simple, easy to use user interface that looks just like a paper logbook, but adds advanced statistics and reporting capabilities. Download ForPilots logbook for free!

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:13:07 GMT, "Stan Prevost" <sprevost2@home.com>
wrote:

>
>Ron, I don't know where you got this. 91.109 only refers to "simulated
>instrument flight" (No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated
>instrument flight unless--) and says *nothing* about VMC vs IMC or VFR vs
>IFR. If you are wearing a view limiting device, IMO you are in simulated
>instrument flight and a safety pilot is required. You are unaware of what
>the outside conditions are and cannot tell when you break out into
>conditions where you would be able to conduct the flight without solely
>referring to instruments, or where you are required to maintain visual
>surveillance for other aircraft. If you are wearing a view limiting device
>you are unable to comply with the regulations other than by having a safety
>pilot, therefore you must have one, the flight must be conducted under
>91.109 and both can log PIC under 91.109 (assuming rated etc.).
>
>You may be right that the non-IFR pilot cannot log PIC in actual without a
>hood, even if properly-qualified safety pilot is present, and that the
>safety pilot cannot log PIC. But all the flying non-IFR pilot has to do is
>don the hood and then he is compliant under 91.109 and both can log.
>
>I can find no definition of "simulated instrument flight".
>

Stan,

First of all, I don't believe I ever said that the non-IFR pilot could not
log PIC in actual without a hood. He certainly could if he was the sole
manipulator of the controls, and another pilot was PIC.

Simulated instrument flight occurs when the pilot's view outside the
aircraft is artificially restricted. Actual occurs when outside conditions
require use of the instruments in order to maintain control. (ref: FAA
Chief Counsel interpretation).

I'm not aware of any interpretation as to which takes priority when both
situations are present.

Now, consider the ramifications of what you propose. You, in effect, are
stating that even though one may be in a situation where the visibility
and/or cloud distances are less than that required for flight under VFR
(i.e. Conditions of flight -- actual instrument), that one can somehow
transform this into "simulated instrument flight", for the purpose not only
of 91.109 but also for the purpose of 61.51, by donning a hood.

My guess is that, if this ever came up in an enforcement action, it would
be decided on the facts of the individual case. For example, I would agree
with the need for a safety pilot, and for a hood for practice, in a
situation where one is flying under IFR, and the weather is occasionally
actual instrument (i.e. in and out of clouds but with the potential for VFR
traffic in the vicinity).

However, I find it unlikely that the FAA (or NTSB) would allow dual logging
of PIC under 61.51 in a situation where the IFR PIC handed the controls
over to another pilot, who then flew in a solid layer of clouds for several
hours, by virtue of the pilot flying wearing a hood.

Best,

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)