Hello folks,
Apologies but I cannot find the answer to this anywhere online. I have written to the FAA but since I need to renew my currency before the end of the month, I thought I would ask here.
I want to fly my 6HIT in Europe (Italy specifically) to keep my FAA Instrument currency. I got my FAA CPL AMEL IA in July last year so I’m current until the end of Jan 2018. I also hold a valid and current EASA PPL.
FAR 61.57(c) says I can fly my 6HIT in an aircraft in simulated IMC conditions with a safety pilot.
FAR 61.51(b)1(v) says I need to log the name of the safety pilot.
FAR 91.109(c)1 says the safety pilot must be at least a private pilot who is appropriately rated in category and class.
My questions is: from the FAA’s point of view, must the safety pilot possess an FAA PPL or will an EASA or other ICAO PPL do? i.e. does “a private pilot” in 91.109(c) mean a pilot with an FAA issued private pilot certificate or a pilot with any (ICAO?) private pilot certificate/license?
Cactus 1549
Edit: the answer appears to be that the safety pilot must have either an FAA private pilot certificate or greater (as per 14 CFR 91.109c(1)), or a private pilot license issued by the (ICAO) country in which the flight is being performed (as per 14 CFR 61.3).
I dont know the definitive answer but I would suggest pilot means an FAA pilot, on the basis that otherwise the term pilot throughout the FARs would apply to any pilot registered any where in the world, or, I guess, you could claim you had just made up and passed your own pilot exam.
It is established that the safety pilot also needs a current medical.
I think a pilot under 61.75 would count with a current medical of their underlying State, on the basis that a 61.75 is for all purposes and FAA pilot.
The longer-term interpretation is that of anyone with an ICAO license.
This debate of what the FARs mean when talking about a pilot or an instructor etc has been done to death in various circles, most notably whether training outside the USA is acceptable towards an FAA license or rating. Countless thousands of non-US pilots obtained US papers using their previous logbook contents i.e. flight training done by non FAA rated instructors.
AFAIK the FAA has never defined this precisely.
As to what the safety pilot needs to have in terms of papers, that depends on the local jurisdiction and possibly the aircraft reg.
Peter wrote:
As to what the safety pilot needs to have in terms of papers, that depends on the local jurisdiction and possibly the aircraft reg.
I’d suggest the FAA safety pilot can be anybody legal to act as PIC of the plane in the flight conditions and country in which its being flown.
Silvaire wrote:
I’d suggest the FAA safety pilot can be anybody legal to act as PIC of the plane in the flight conditions and country in which its being flown.
I would agree with that. I think the intent is that they are meant to be able to monitor and take over control if needed from the other pilot.
I agree with Siveraire and JasonC. Anyway, I plan make the assumption that that I can preserve FAA IR currency with a non FAA safety pilot in an EASA-country registered plane once I finish my IR. I think you are observing the intent and purpose of the requirement by doing what you suggest.
I also think you are very much observing the intent and purpose. My original post was based more on a strick legal analysis, and in the absence of a definition of pilot, I would hold to the view that strictly it means an FAA pilot, but I dont suppose anyone would take issue. It will be interesting to see what opinion you receive. As I said earlier by imputing ICAO pilot in your post, it is as if you feel that the FAA would need to define what type of pilot so as to eliminate perhaps so called pilots from some third world State, and in which case if they intended to include other than FAA pilots (but only perhaps ICAO pilots) why did they not say so?
I find it interesting in terms of who drafts this stuff that it is so often bereft of easy legal interpretation. In most legislation you would expect to see a long list of definitions – eg for the purpose of this legilsation “pilot” means a person who holds a valid ICAO license. It is after all susch a fundamental part of understanding the legislation. EASA is just as bad.
There is some interesting stuff here:
https://law.und.edu/_files/docs/ndlr/pdf/issues/83/3/83ndlr817.pdf [ local copy ]
God forbid anything going wrong but these cases ullustrate that as a safety pilot or instructor you may even be placing yourself in a situation of responsibility of which you are not fully aware. In the circumstances of the opening question if someone agrees to be a safety pilot in some circumstances it would seem that they as much as you need to be satisfied they understand what they are letting themselves in for and whether they hold the necessary bits of paper and currency to do so! "Telling " your friend to come along as safety pilot without their considering whether they can fulfll that role may not be such a good idea! I can actually think of two occasions when I was sitting in the other seat (not quite sure in what role) and probably averted a critical disaster in circumstances where the pilot was not that currrent or familiar with the aircraft but entitled to be pilot in command.
Of course I am being very pendatic, and whether any of this really matters is another matter, but as you asked!
That’s a very interesting doc you posted, Fuji. I will pick it up when I get time, for a different context.
The problem in this case is that as I wrote earlier the FAA has never defined what is meant by “authorised instructor”. Some axe grinders (with maximum interest in selling logbook time i.e. aircraft+instructor rental) have defined it as “FAA instructor” i.e. CFI/CFII but there is no known support for that (other than the 3hrs within the 60 days preceeding a checkride, which does need an FAA CFI/CFII). Others take the view is that the USA is an ICAO Contracting State and any ICAO instructor is good, and that has been the generally accepted position in the US (I mean on US mainland, not some people working in Europe 
) flight training industry… Just about every European pilot who travelled to the USA to get additional paperwork had his previous training accepted.
My understanding is based on 91.109 which is quoted in part:
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—
(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
This only relates to a plot with at least a private pilot certificate issued by the US. The pilot need not be able to act as PIC, but that would certainly qualify. Examples where the pilot would not be able to act as PIC would be if their US certificate was for Single Engine Land, but did not have a tail wheel, complex, high performance, high altitude or other endorsement required to be able to act as PIC for the subject aircraft. The safety pilot, if not acting as PIC, does not need to be current for carrying passengers day or night. The safety pilot is a look out and a required crew member. As such, they don’t need to be able to takeoff or land the aircraft. Generally, the pilot needs a medical certificate because they are a required crew member, however in the US, this is not always the case because of basic med. The flight time for the safety pilot may be logged as PIC or SIC as a result of agreement between the pilots. A pilot such as myself who has a basic med and no longer has a medical certificate may only perform the duties of the safety pilot if they are also acting as PIC, because basic med only authorizes its use when acting as PIC. So I would be limited to acting as a safety pilot in an aircraft that can be flown by a pilot under basic med.
One other observation, AFAIK, other countries issue pilot licences, the US issues pilot certificates. Both terms are used in 61.75. The only pilot certificate a pilot has is issued either by US part 61 or via 61.75 that is only valid if the pilot’s own country licence is valid.
NCYankee wrote:
One other observation, AFAIK, other countries issue pilot licences, the US issues pilot certificates. Both terms are used in 61.75. The only pilot certificate a pilot has is issued either by US part 61 or via 61.75 that is only valid if the pilot’s own country licence is valid.
Which is a good point and would add weight to the argument that the intention is that it is an FAA licence or a FAA 61.75, which, while based on a ICAO licence, is none the less still an FAA licence (or should I say certificate).
BTW I have just looked at mine and realised it says certifcate not licence, which I never realised!
