Single pilot IFR without autopilot

[Hank]

18 minutes ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

While I agree with the idea that it isn’t the place of a safety pilot to unexpectedly fail systems I would also like to make the point that a safety pilot IS NOT a passenger, they are a required crew member while the other pilot is under the hood and have certain duties that must be performed for the safety of the flight.  

It is always a good idea to have a conversation about these duties and what the expectations are before the commencement of the flight.  I would expect everyone involved to confirm to those expectations.   Failure to conform would be a serious issue for me.  

The safety pilot's job is to look out the windows and assure visual separation while the PIC is under the hood. That allows the safety pilot to log simultaneous PIC time while the pilot is hooded.

Pulling breakers and causing failures is the job of a CFII, and should be discussed on the ground prior to flight. No discussion means no creating problems, lest I create some once on the ground and out of the cockpit.

A "friend" doing this to me while being a safety pilot would certainly strain the friendship, and he would be allowed into my aircraft again only under duress and at my own great need. But I cannot envision a need for a second pilot in my Mooney . . .

[MikeOH]

23 minutes ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

safety pilot IS NOT a passenger, they are a required crew member while the other pilot is under the hood and have certain duties that must be performed for the safety of the flight.

And NONE of those safety pilot duties include 'failing' any equipment!

If the "safety" pilot wants to do that he MUST state those intentions BEFORE the flight and, as you say, obtain CONFIRMATION that it is okay from the PIC.  If he does not, he's being a total Alpha Hotel, IMHO.

[IvanP]

30 minutes ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

While I agree with the idea that it isn’t the place of a safety pilot to unexpectedly fail systems I would also like to make the point that a safety pilot IS NOT a passenger, they are a required crew member while the other pilot is under the hood and have certain duties that must be performed for the safety of the flight.  
 

It is always a good idea to have a conversation about these duties and what the expectations are before the commencement of the flight.  I would expect everyone involved to confirm to those expectations.   Failure to conform would be a serious issue for me.  

Yes, you are correct about safety pilot being a requried crew member on IFR simulation fligts [14 CFR 91.109]. However, the regulation does not vest the safety pilot with the authority to tamper with or disable aircraft systems without the consent of the PIC who is the final authority as to the operation of the aircaft [14 CFR 91.3].

The PIC has the authority to set forth the duties and permitted activities of persons on board of aircraft. As such, I prohibit my safety pilot from manipulating the controls and switches unless we agree that training will be conducted that may involve simulated failures of various systems and the safety pilot is closely familiar with the systems in my aircraft. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my prior post.  

Edited May 4 by IvanP

[Utah20Gflyer]

59 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Yes, you are correct about safety pilot being a requried crew member on IFR simulation fligts [14 CFR 91.109]. However, the regulation does not vest the safety pilot with the authority to tamper with or disable aircraft systems without the consent of the PIC who is the final authority as to the operation of the aircaft [14 CFR 91.3].

The PIC has the authority to set forth the duties and permitted activities of persons on board of aircraft. As such, I prohibit my safety pilot from manipulating the controls and switches unless we agree that training will be conducted that may involve simulated failures of various systems and the safety pilot is closely familiar with the systems in my aircraft. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my prior post.  

I was making a technical point about the duties of a safety pilot and clarifying they are not just a passenger, not justifying tampering with equipment without notice.   

[N201MKTurbo]

I have been asking my passengers to pull the throttle to idle at any random time for 40 years. Nobody has done it yet.

[N201MKTurbo]

You guys have a lot more faith in your equipment than I do. Are you afraid you cannot handle the situation?

[MikeOH]

44 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

You guys have a lot more faith in your equipment than I do. Are you afraid you cannot handle the situation?

The issue here has NOTHING to do with whether we can "handle the situation".  You keep missing that point.

[MikeOH]

58 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I have been asking my passengers to pull the throttle to idle at any random time for 40 years. Nobody has done it yet.

So, what?

Your pilot made NO such request of you as SAFETY pilot!

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

The issue here has NOTHING to do with whether we can "handle the situation".  You keep missing that point.

I guess I do. I have no idea why that would upset you? Do you think it is wasting your time? Wasting your money? Violating your dominance of the situation? Safety?

[kortopates]

3 hours ago, IvanP said:

The PIC has the authority to set forth the duties and permitted activities of persons on board of aircraft. As such, I prohibit my safety pilot from manipulating the controls and switches unless we agree that training will be conducted that may involve simulated failures of various systems and the safety pilot is closely familiar with the systems in my aircraft. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my prior post. 

Although I realize your response is focused on not enabling your safety pilot to get creative while your flying - I get that. But your prohibition of the safety pilot manipulating the controls is way over zealous and perhaps overly discouraging a safety pilot from performing their most important duty. Remember even when your safety pilot may have suggested you turn a bit right or left for traffic (so far meeting your rules) but then all this fails (maybe traffic turns towards you) its vital that the safety pilot grabs the controls to evade collision.  Their responsibility is to monitor the surroundings, maintain situational awareness, and intervene when necessary to prevent accidents. We just had midair at DCA and many people blame the instructor for not taking the controls and the pilot flying for not moving left as suggested by the instructor - but I don't think we know for sure if the instructor saw the airliner till it was too late. 

[atpdave]

44 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I guess I do. I have no idea why that would upset you? Do you think it is wasting your time? Wasting your money? Violating your dominance of the situation? Safety?

All non sequiturs.

The point is this - I've been safety pilot many times, and it has never occurred to me to disable an aircraft system while performing that role. It's not training, although I have the initials to do it if asked.

You sound pretty sure of yourself, but if your friend had reported what you did to the feds, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[IvanP]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I guess I do. I have no idea why that would upset you? Do you think it is wasting your time? Wasting your money? Violating your dominance of the situation? Safety?

I think it may have something to do with common courtesy. When I am a guest in someone else's plane/boat/car, I do not manipulate the controls or systems without prior permission and I would expect the same courtesy from those riding in my conveyances. Even on training flights with CFI, I set clear limits on what they can do in my plane. You may feel differently and that is your prerogative, but do not be surprised when someone voices disapproval of your actions. Granted, your colleague probably did not have to respond as angrily as you described, but that was his choice.   

Edited May 5 by IvanP

[IvanP]

44 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Although I realize your response is focused on not enabling your safety pilot to get creative while your flying - I get that. But your prohibition of the safety pilot manipulating the controls is way over zealous and perhaps overly discouraging a safety pilot from performing their most important duty. Remember even when your safety pilot may have suggested you turn a bit right or left for traffic (so far meeting your rules) but then all this fails (maybe traffic turns towards you) its vital that the safety pilot grabs the controls to evade collision.  Their responsibility is to monitor the surroundings, maintain situational awareness, and intervene when necessary to prevent accidents. We just had midair at DCA and many people blame the instructor for not taking the controls and the pilot flying for not moving left as suggested by the instructor - but I don't think we know for sure if the instructor saw the airliner till it was too late. 

Valid point on the accident prevention. However, short of some severe instance of disorientation of the pilot flying and the aircraft approaching dangerous attitude, accident prevention in IFR practice flight in VFR conditions can be accomplished by simply communicating the need for action and/or removing the view limiting device. Fighting over the controls is more likely to cause problem than to solve it.

I have acted as a safety pilot for others and, in some instances had to intervene to maintain safety of the flight, but I limited the intervention to verbal alert to correct attitude, heading, etc.. Unless previouly agreed upon, I would never tamper with the aircraft systems as a safety pilot.

The DCA situation may have been different if it was instructional flight. The instructor arguably had the responsibility to take over, but I do not believe that the comparison is appropriate here. 

Edited May 5 by IvanP

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I guess I do. I have no idea why that would upset you? Do you think it is wasting your time? Wasting your money? Violating your dominance of the situation? Safety?

I see @atpdave beat me to it.

[GeeBee]

We actually are talking about two different things here although both have to do with the safety of the flight. The safety pilot announcing he is taking the controls to avoid traffic or the gourd, or directing the pilot to maneuver the aircraft to avoid traffic or the ground is both the job of the safety and expected role of the safety pilot as a crew member.

Surreptitously  failing systems such as the autopilot or flight instruments when not expected or briefed, especially when performed by someone other than a trained instructor can result in undesired aircraft states which may result in the loss of the aircraft or life. I have seen several instructors and line check airman lose their positions because of such actions. These actions have no real training value without proper briefing. They may have value in checking and testing but under such circumstances the  pilot being checked knows the rules of engagement and expects a failure, just not when which is how we should aviate anyway. Simply put, pulling the A/P c/b as a safety pilot is a checking function of which most safety pilots are not prepared to deal with the adverse consequences since restoration of control would be beyond the expected portfolio of a safety pilot and could result in control confusion. 

[N201MKTurbo]

I don’t know why this is triggering some so much. I would think you all would welcome the opportunity to test your skills in a safe and controlled environment. 

The guys I have flown with since the beginning of my flying life did this stuff to each other all the time. If your approaches were too easy, a cover was put on your AI, DG, or both. Autopilots were never reliable. Nav systems were never reliable. 
 

The point was that this guy was incapable of handling an autopilot failure. That seems like a much bigger deal.

[MikeOH]

7 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I don’t know why this is triggering some so much. I would think you all would welcome the opportunity to test your skills in a safe and controlled environment. 

Since you are normally very rational in your posts, I'll make one more attempt since you seem to have some kind of mental block preventing you from seeing what you did as unacceptable.

What you did as a SAFETY pilot was well outside the scope of the DUTIES of a SAFETY pilot; it was therefore NOT "a safe and controlled environment".  If that logic still does not make sense to you, try this: If an ordinary passenger suddenly grabs the controls and pulls you into a steep climb you, no doubt, would be able to "handle it". The question is, would you be upset with them?  If not, then I'm done with trying to get you to understand why what you did rightfully upset the pilot.

[hubcap]

38 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I don’t know why this is triggering some so much. I would think you all would welcome the opportunity to test your skills in a safe and controlled environment. 

The guys I have flown with since the beginning of my flying life did this stuff to each other all the time. If your approaches were too easy, a cover was put on your AI, DG, or both. Autopilots were never reliable. Nav systems were never reliable. 
 

The point was that this guy was incapable of handling an autopilot failure. That seems like a much bigger deal.

In my view, this is all about context. If I am flying a few approaches for currency and I need a safety pilot, I expect you to keep your hands off of everything unless we are fixing to bend metal. If you are preparing me for an IPC or my CFII then I would expect you to throw in a few curves. 
 

Just my .02

[GeeBee]

40 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I don’t know why this is triggering some so much. I would think you all would welcome the opportunity to test your skills in a safe and controlled environment. 

The guys I have flown with since the beginning of my flying life did this stuff to each other all the time. If your approaches were too easy, a cover was put on your AI, DG, or both. Autopilots were never reliable. Nav systems were never reliable. 
 

The point was that this guy was incapable of handling an autopilot failure. That seems like a much bigger deal.

That is just it, without pre-briefing of the expectations for the PF and the SP it is neither a safe or controlled environment because neither know what to expect of the other. You are an uncoordinated crew.

Many moons ago, I was aboard a trainer doing touch and goes at a military field. We were swapping seats getting our actual landings in because our sim was not certified Level D. We were flying a tight pattern with 30 degree banks. After one crash and dash, the PF stood up the power,  LCA reset the flaps, the LCA rolled the trim, the LCA trimmed the power and we were off. The LCA and the PF were AF buddies constantly talking about who had the bigger.... At about 800' in a right hand pattern the LCA yanked back the right thrust lever just as we started to turn cross wind. The airplane ended up rolling to about an 80 degree bank as we were all yelling. Both pilots were controlling the airplane to an extent the aileron break out occurred.  We rolled out about 200' AGL with over sped flaps by 15 knots, which grounded the airplane. The LCA lost his letter of authorization and rightly so. It was not briefed, it was at the wrong place, the wrong time on the wrong profile.

[varlajo]

38 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I don’t know why this is triggering some so much.

Imagine a safety pilot knowingly disabling an aircraft system resulting in an accident. Who will be at fault in the eyes of the insurance company and a jury of your peers? 

[Pinecone]

On 5/3/2025 at 5:06 PM, N201MKTurbo said:

Flying IFR to minimums doesn’t scare me at all. Flying in COLD wet bumpy rainy clouds can get scarry.

Added. 

[Pinecone]

There is also the issue of timing.   Failing the autopilot at 3000 feet prior to the FAF on a CAVU day is not the same as failing the autopilot at 500 feet in hard IMC.

[hazek]

On 5/3/2025 at 4:37 PM, AndreiC said:

My question (and several people answered it, thanks) is if flying this way but maintaining the instrument rating is a reasonable thing to do.

All I can think reading various responses that mirror your story is that you and those who like yourself lack sufficient skill proficiency are liable to be this story:
 

[hazek]

And another one. Was this pilot also banking on always keeping things IFR lite?:
 

[kortopates]

All I can think reading various responses that mirror your story is that you and those who like yourself lack sufficient skill proficiency are liable to be this story:
 

You are very right. I believe the vast majority of IFR accidents are exactly those pilots that take such a casual attitude towards their training and currency claiming they only need to be able to fly in "light IFR". Of course there is no such thing. The bottom line is that  pilot that isn't current and proficient has no business filing IFR and launching on an IMC flight. They should get with an instructor (or safety pilot if able) and get IFR proficient before flying in IMC.  What we see is that they are often only one unexpected event away from having an accident. Many of the accidents we see are pilots that are far from being IFR legally current and of course no where near IFR Proficient. Doing 6 approaches in the last 6 months, despite being IFR legally current, its no where near enough to be IFR proficient; especially for a low time IFR pilot. But we see instrument rated pilots try to keep their head in the game by filing IFR as much as they can - which is great practice but no where near enough. They may feel they can rely on their autopilot for some "light IFR" if needed but then for whatever reason the pilots finds conditions more challenging than expected, fall behind and have a loss of control.
Take this twin accident for example which happened in my local area. The pilot was so confused by the circling maneuver at MYF, which is a common occurrence anytime a low moves through giving us a good surface wind out of the south. It really makes you wonder if he ever circled to 23 as a VFR maneuver without a ceiling before the tragic flight.  Its clear though on the radio that his anxiety of how to circle to 23 and expecting he needed a clearance to land on 23 before he started the approach distracted him from getting established on the ILS for 28R. (only the tower can clear you to land after you've crossed the FAF and talking to them - not the controller). I have essentially the same panel he did and it should have been easy to get all that set up on the AP. It was after all an approach he had done many many times - but per his logbook he had never practiced a circling approach with his equipment even though its an IPC requirement. But the distraction allowed him to fall behind the aircraft. You'd think the conditions shouldn't have been that challenging because it was mostly broken ceilings in the accident area, (he had already done the hard flying over the mountains). But going in and out of the clouds and be very distracting and allow a low time pilot to forget the need to go back to basics and focus on the instruments to level wings and hold heading. It can sucker you into looking out the window wondering if you might be able to get down VFR. While he was losing control unable to heed the controller instructions he never thought to use his Blue Level button on his Garmin AP to level the wings; especially right after the controller just instructed to level the wings and climb (he had terrain higher than him very close). 
The more recent accident in Simi Valley is an example of an another pilot that appears wasn't even IFR legally current from reviewing his flight aware history. Since January, the pilot had done 7 IFR flights but only 2 of them included approaches, with two each totaling 4 approaches in the last 5 months. But we have no idea if any actually counted or whether they involved any actual past the FAF or if he was under the hood with a safety pilot. Of course we don't know if he may have logged some approaches on a sim to be legal, all we know is that he wasn't proficient enough to get established on the approach; somewhat similar to the Doctor flying the twin. 
Instrument flying is the fastest pilot skill to perish. The shorter the experience level of the pilot the faster the skills are lost and harder it is to get them back since the basic instrument skills are not as well engrained. Getting an instrument rating is very large undertaking, but its just a license to learn since keeping current is then a life long endeavor of constant practice. The FAA places virtually all of the requirements for maintaining currency on the honor system. No one will care or even notice if a pilot is not maintaining currency until the accident investigation, and then it will mean nothing if the pilot perished except for your heirs being sued.
If we're going to fly in IMC conditions we need to take our proficiency seriously; not just currency.