The safety pilot must be legally able to take over flying the plane.
It’s not so trivial…. what does that line actually mean?
Practically yes but not necessarily in every respect. I recall reading some CAA regs on this. There are contexts where the safety pilot does not need the full qualifications of the LHS pilot. For example on an IFR flight, actual VMC, doing some approaches under the hood, does the SP need an IR?
This leads to a debate on whether flying an IAP is IFR. I can depart from Shoreham to Lydd, VFR, and fly their ILS. If IFR was required for the ILS, I could change to IFR purely inside my head (Class G) but I would need the IMC Rating at least.
It is pretty obvious that practically speaking a safety pilot does not need any more than 1 eye and a brain and a knowledge of flying, plus possibly a PPL. He doesn’t need to take over an fly back home because if I am under the hood I can just take off the hood when he/she screams we are about to crash and pulls back on the yoke. It will be obvious way back if the flying is going badly.
Obviously for an FAA IR holder wishing to extend his rolling currency, his FAA IR has to be valid at this point (otherwise he has to fly an IPC with an FAA CFII, which can be a huge hassle in Europe). But I can’t see why the SP would need more than a PPL especially if the actual conditions are VMC.
If the SP is to fly the plane, he needs to have a complex signoff (etc, if applicable) and be a named insured too 
Peter wrote:
If the SP is to fly the plane, he needs to have a complex signoff (etc, if applicable) and be a named insured too
Yes, as Jason et al say, he needs to be legally able to take over flying the plane…
Peter wrote:
It’s not so trivial…. what does that line actually mean?Practically yes but not necessarily in every respect. I recall reading some CAA regs on this. There are contexts where the safety pilot does not need the full qualifications of the LHS pilot. For example on an IFR flight, actual VMC, doing some approaches under the hood, does the SP need an IR?
No because you are in simulated not actual IMC. Hence you are in VMC. I assume the rationale is that you must be able to keep a lookout and take over while the PIC is getting his hood off etc and also take over if he somehow loses control.
he needs to be legally able to take over flying the plane
That would mean virtually all safety pilot flights are illegal unless the SP is an FI. Most insurances cover ongoing instruction.
Unless the PIC gets incapacitated, the SP will never “actually fly” the plane but the post-crash implications are quite interesting… Assuming they both died, if the RHS was an FI the insurer may assume it was instruction, which opens another can of worms. Otherwise they may assume the RHS was a passenger, unless they find the remains of the hood If the RHS survives, all bets are off as regards what he will say about the purpose of the flight 
It is interesting, because I think at its simplest, a safety pilot is there as an observer, nothing more, but perhaps as Peter says to keep his hands on the controls during the brief moment the pilot is removing his hood. In some ways it does seem strange that the safety pilot is expected to hold at least the relevant class and type rating.
I think it is easy to believe that we can all fly an aircraft from the right seat, assuming current on class and type. Actually, in my experience, many pilots struggle to fly an aircraft from the right seat during the landing phase, and I wouldnt be at all assured that all pilots could carry out a landing without incident in slighly challenging conditions. Flying form the right seat is a skill.
Peter wrote:
That would mean virtually all safety pilot flights are illegal unless the SP is an FI.
That is interesting – how many policies dictate which seat the aircraft is flown from? (assuming of course the aircraft can be flown from either seat). Of course it is one thing to be instructing, but another to be flying from the other seat. I have flown from the right seat solo for a bit of currency.
I wonder if you have other reservations?
I think the intent of the FAA Safety Pilot qualification is that the guy looking out the windows for traffic alongside a hooded pilot, as is required in VMC, has the eyes and visual judgement of a pilot who has previously qualified to fly the same or similar plane in the existing flight conditions.
I don’t think FAA cares about insurance, or special local requirements to fly on the right side. Those are not requirements or issues under FAA regs, and FAA is not a local policeman.
Peter wrote:
That would mean virtually all safety pilot flights are illegal unless the SP is an FI. Most insurances cover ongoing instruction.
You’ve lost me there…a pilot (PPL) qualified to fly the aircraft and acting as a Safety Pilot is surely not acting illegally if he actually flies the aircraft… unless you are saying they wouldn’t be covered by the insurance policy unless they were a named pilot? And if insurance is mandatory, as it is in Europe (even for an an reg), then the flight is illegal…is that what you mean?
JasonC wrote:
The safety pilot must be legally able to take over flying the plane.
That is not the requirement. The pilot may not qualify for acting as PIC because of missing an endorsement, but that does not disqualify the pilot from being a safety pilot. There are FAA General Counsel opinions to this effect and the literal wording of the safety pilot requirements that only list a requirement for at least private pilot certificate, category and class.
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
Obviously for an FAA IR holder wishing to extend his rolling currency, his FAA IR has to be valid at this point (otherwise he has to fly an IPC with an FAA CFII, which can be a huge hassle in Europe).
If you also hold a valid EASA IR, couldn’t you regain the currency yourself flying the necessary hold, tracking and approaches on the EASA ticket in your home country?
