201er

Quote: galt1074 201er, So in this case, he rents the aircraft and both of us are fully qualified in the aircraft and for the type of flight. He tells me before we take off that I am the safety pilot but we never stated that I would be the PIC...though I did correct a couple things and help him with some local airspace since I've been here a while. In the best spirit of the intent of the CFR, what would you say I should log? I don't need the time, I've got more than I'll ever need to get a job after the Air Force, I just want to log it properly.

Quote: N601RX You log PIC and he logs simulated instrument time. An IFR rating is not required for someone to act as safety pilot, because the flight is not in IMC.

Yes, to the FAA it probably would be fine as commercial pilot. But then you'd have to make sure all other things pertaining to commercial operations such as a recent annual or hundred hour and other things begin to apply. Also it could be a big insurance issue if anything were to happen so a darned good reason to get named. Just let me point out that you don't log PIC for being "responsible for maintaining safe seperation and backing him up?" That is SIC. The only way to both log PIC is if you are actually acting as pilot in command which means meeting all requirements and agreeing that you are pilot in command. This would make more sense in this scenario: You are flying left seat in your own airplane. You did takeoff/landing and are clearly the PIC. In flight you tell your Private Pilot (with nothing else, not even complex) buddy to pop the hood on and act as auto pilot for the next 2 hours under the hood. Even though he is not complex and thus not qualified to act as PIC, he can still log PIC as sole manipulator of the controls (FAR 61.51ei). You still log PIC for the entire flight because you were acting as pilot in command (your plane, your complex, your responsibility). Likewise this can go the other way if you're in the right seat of someone else's plane but they have to bestow upon you acting as PIC which may not go well with their insurance unless you are named or meet the open pilot clause. So my point is that the difference between logging PIC or SIC as safety pilot is the legal role you play even though you're really just doing the same thing keeping him from running into any one/thing.

Quote: galt1074 Okay, so it sounds like I log PIC. He was under goggles, I am fully qualified in the aircraft to include being instrument qualified and current on everything. It was "his airplane" in that I was flying on his dime and for his practice. So I guess he logs PIC time because he was manipulating the controls and I log PIC time because I was responsible for maintaining safe seperation and backing him up? That to me sounds strange but you guys are better at this than me.

You can't just log PIC by acting as safety pilot. You would have to act as PIC which means being responsible and fully qualified for the flight. You must have all ratings and endorsements, flight review, medical, and currency requirements met. Also you would probably need to be qualified for the insurance or flight school requirements for acting as PIC in that airplane. You would also require an instrument rating if on an instrument flight plan or in IMC. Once all of these requirements are met, you can both log PIC time for the length of time that he is flying under the hood as sole manipulator of the controls and you are acting as PIC of the airplane. Otherwise yes, you can log SIC.

Quote: Becca An LLC won't protect you personally from liability due to an accident you've piloted into. What an LLC will do is it WILL protect you against is liability if someone ELSE flies your plane into an accident. E.G., if you had a partner on your plane and no LLC, and your partner crashes, the passenger can come after everyone who has a stake in ownership of the airplane.

Quote: Piloto It will no change the sound quality but improve the noise quieting. The tubing conduct noise from the outside into your ears. The shorter the better. José

Quote: Bnicolette Wouldn't ten million be more appropriate?... Why is 1 million going to protect you but 100K isn't. Where is the basis for these numbers and past court proceedings that says this is the norm and this is the amount of protection you need?

Do your cords droop down like that as well? I just don't like when they get caught on my collar or something. The weighs isn't noticeable. This is a "pilot's headset." so I really wouldn't recommend keeping them for anyone but the pilot or maybe a permanent flying companion that has his/her own headset. Not only is it more personal cause of the tips but it's also a little strange at first and requires some getting used to. I've gotta say though the foam tips are so comfortable and unnoticeable. Just like you, the David Clark and Bose headsets are for everybody else. After not using any other headset for 3 months and trying my Bose back on it felt so heavy/tight!!! I remember when I went from David Clark to Bose i marveled at the imporvement but now there's no going back!

I'm afraid of trimming them cause it says the length is made like that for best sound clarity (which is why I'm using Halo). But I've seen a picture where it's tucked in neatly but can't figure out how to keep mine from drooping. Once in a while they do get a little caught on something but for the most part I don't feel it. The only other complaint is that the wires are so thin that I feel like they're inevitably going to get torn some day. Other headsets normally come with some heavy duty wiring. Piloto, that's the pic I was referring to. Can't figure out how to make em stay like that.

Quote: Bnicolette Mike............I think you're in a little denial here friend. It's not the headset.

I really like my Halo headset and believe it or not have stopped using the Bose since I got this. The noise cancellation isn't as good as the ANR Bose, especially on takeoff, but the voice clarity is outstanding and clearer so I prefer them. Far better value as well. The only trouble I have is the ear piece cords hang down too much. It's very rare that they get caught on stuff but it makes me look ridiculous in photos. Has anyone figured out a way to keep them out of the way better?

^That's what I'm contemplating.

Quote: jetdriven

Who said I like Mitt? He's "Obama lite" as they call him. I would much prefer your congressman for president Byron and I think you should too! Better to have freedom than endless bureaucracy.

^Thanks... wouldn't be able to afford the health insurance either.

I think we are taught to be paranoid by instructors so that we are better prepared to handle the situation if it were to occur. Then pilots go out into the real world and fly without hiccup for many years and get complacent and are unprepared to deal with it if/when it does happen. I've spoken to several guys who have had engine failures to know that it is real and not just something you read about. Also the issue is that the symptom is the same but the causes can be so vastly different so it's a broader concern.

^Just enough to crash on takeoff...

Am I the only one who realizes how financially screwed the pilot is in the event of a serious yet survivable accident solo? Although bodily injury liability medical coverage exists for passengers, there is little or no coverage for pilot. The mere $5k or whatever they include for medical expenses is chump change. Anyone who has been involved in an accident or knows someone who has been knows that medical expenses can easily spill over $100k. Many of us do a lot of our flying solo (and even if not, we the pilots are the only people occupying that airplane 100% of the time) so we are at highest risk of injury related medical expenses and yet we are provided the least coverage. Peronal health insurance doesn't seem keen on covering medical expenses for self-inclicted adventurism and it seems that aviating falls under that. It seems that the most likely thing to happen in an airplane totalling accident with pilot hospitalization is that the insurance company pays the hull value check to the pilot and then the hospitals seizes that for medical expenses.

Without getting into politics again, what have you found to be the most controversial Mooney topic/debate?

Have you ever shaken your fuel tester with fuel + water in it and watched how quickly the water settles to the bottom? While it may take 5-30 minutes for all water to settle to the sump, I think by the time you close your cap, put back the hose, and get your receipt, first signs of water would be sumpable (especially on the tank you filled first). If you so much as get a drop of water, it may pay to wait for it all to settle. But if no sign of water after sumping a whole cup, I think it's safe. I wonder if anyone's opinion differs? Has anyone ever sumped no water on the first try and then found water in the same tank some time later?

A) Can't pull that way if you have to move forward (forward seems even more difficult than backward when you need to) The cowl seems far more fragile than the prop. It's just a shell supported by itself. I don't have the physics degrees to justify my explanation but to a layman like me it would seem that an essential/functional surface like the prop would be stronger and better supported than a mere aerodynamic/aesthetic item like the cowl?

Here's an NTSB report of a Mooney taking off/crashing from my airport with "large quantities of water." There are so many other mechanical issues that are outside of our control so we must especially take care of the ones directly preventable by our own carefulness. http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/1bvf1h55fhluwdvj223aazev1/X02032012120000.pdf

Quote: N4352H Again...we avert total common sense for the sake of challenge and argument. You mean this? http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa06.pdf . Same AOPA, right? • Avoid pulling the airplane around by the prop. Yes,this seems the perfect solution to a vexing problem ofhow to change the airplane’s position without having towalk around and get the tow bar, but it’s worthwhile tomake the extra effort. Neither the engine nor the propparticularly benefit from the loads imposed by horsingthe whole airplane around.