Narrative:

Backgnd: several days prior to the subject event, I was contacted by a CFI about acting as safety pilot for a private pilot who was working towards getting his instrument rating. I was told by the CFI that this pilot was at the point in his training where he knew how to do all the procedures required for the instrument check ride, but required additional practice to improve proficiency and build confidence. I, myself, am instrument rated and met the currency requirements for IFR flight, however, I am not an instructor. Problem: during our conversation, the CFI offered no advice about whether or not our flight could be conducted under IFR. I assumed that because I was legal to act as PIC under IFR, our flight could be conducted under IFR. When I contacted the pilot to schedule our flight, we discussed this possibility and agreed that it was all right. On the day of the flight, there appeared to be the chance that we might encounter some scattered to broken clouds. The pilot and I discussed whether we should plan on doing the flight under VFR or file IFR, and if we did file IFR, whether the name on the flight plan should be his or mine. I did not feel comfortable having the flight plan in my name, and since I believed that it was all right for him to file an IFR flight plan in his own name as long as I was going to be present, I encouraged him to do so. He agreed and filed the IFR flight plan. We then proceeded with the flight under IFR with him as PIC and myself as safety pilot. As I now understand it, he was not legal to file an IFR flight plan or accept an IFR clearance even with me along. All my previous experience as a safety pilot has been with pilots who were themselves instrument rated and current for IFR flight. I attribute this violation to our lack of adequate understanding of the FARS with respect to non instrument rated pilots flying under simulated instrument conditions and a miscom between myself and the CFI as to how our flight was to be conducted. I am not an instructor, so the opinions that follow are based on my limited experience with instrument training. The PIC seemed to understand the basic ideas of how to do the different maneuvers, but it was my impression that his situational awareness was poor and his reaction times were too slow do them effectively. Furthermore, his slight difficulty with english adversely affected his ability to understand instructions from ATC. I recognized most of the previously mentioned mistakes as they developed during the flight. In these cases I allowed the PIC to continue on, as long as it did not pose a hazard. In the case of the failure to switch to the tower frequency at the final approach fix on the last NDB approach, however, I failed to recognize the error at an appropriate time. While there were some problems with the radios on the aircraft, I attribute the oversight to my being preoccupied with (and overwhelmed by) all the pilot's other difficulties. I now realize that I should not have been flying as safety pilot with this individual. Instead, he should still have been flying with an instrument instructor.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT QUALIFICATION FOR IFR FLT PLANNING IN VIOLATION OF THE FARS.

Narrative: BACKGND: SEVERAL DAYS PRIOR TO THE SUBJECT EVENT, I WAS CONTACTED BY A CFI ABOUT ACTING AS SAFETY PLT FOR A PVT PLT WHO WAS WORKING TOWARDS GETTING HIS INST RATING. I WAS TOLD BY THE CFI THAT THIS PLT WAS AT THE POINT IN HIS TRAINING WHERE HE KNEW HOW TO DO ALL THE PROCS REQUIRED FOR THE INST CHK RIDE, BUT REQUIRED ADDITIONAL PRACTICE TO IMPROVE PROFICIENCY AND BUILD CONFIDENCE. I, MYSELF, AM INST RATED AND MET THE CURRENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR IFR FLT, HOWEVER, I AM NOT AN INSTRUCTOR. PROB: DURING OUR CONVERSATION, THE CFI OFFERED NO ADVICE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT OUR FLT COULD BE CONDUCTED UNDER IFR. I ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE I WAS LEGAL TO ACT AS PIC UNDER IFR, OUR FLT COULD BE CONDUCTED UNDER IFR. WHEN I CONTACTED THE PLT TO SCHEDULE OUR FLT, WE DISCUSSED THIS POSSIBILITY AND AGREED THAT IT WAS ALL RIGHT. ON THE DAY OF THE FLT, THERE APPEARED TO BE THE CHANCE THAT WE MIGHT ENCOUNTER SOME SCATTERED TO BROKEN CLOUDS. THE PLT AND I DISCUSSED WHETHER WE SHOULD PLAN ON DOING THE FLT UNDER VFR OR FILE IFR, AND IF WE DID FILE IFR, WHETHER THE NAME ON THE FLT PLAN SHOULD BE HIS OR MINE. I DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE HAVING THE FLT PLAN IN MY NAME, AND SINCE I BELIEVED THAT IT WAS ALL RIGHT FOR HIM TO FILE AN IFR FLT PLAN IN HIS OWN NAME AS LONG AS I WAS GOING TO BE PRESENT, I ENCOURAGED HIM TO DO SO. HE AGREED AND FILED THE IFR FLT PLAN. WE THEN PROCEEDED WITH THE FLT UNDER IFR WITH HIM AS PIC AND MYSELF AS SAFETY PLT. AS I NOW UNDERSTAND IT, HE WAS NOT LEGAL TO FILE AN IFR FLT PLAN OR ACCEPT AN IFR CLRNC EVEN WITH ME ALONG. ALL MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE AS A SAFETY PLT HAS BEEN WITH PLTS WHO WERE THEMSELVES INST RATED AND CURRENT FOR IFR FLT. I ATTRIBUTE THIS VIOLATION TO OUR LACK OF ADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE FARS WITH RESPECT TO NON INST RATED PLTS FLYING UNDER SIMULATED INST CONDITIONS AND A MISCOM BTWN MYSELF AND THE CFI AS TO HOW OUR FLT WAS TO BE CONDUCTED. I AM NOT AN INSTRUCTOR, SO THE OPINIONS THAT FOLLOW ARE BASED ON MY LIMITED EXPERIENCE WITH INST TRAINING. THE PIC SEEMED TO UNDERSTAND THE BASIC IDEAS OF HOW TO DO THE DIFFERENT MANEUVERS, BUT IT WAS MY IMPRESSION THAT HIS SITUATIONAL AWARENESS WAS POOR AND HIS REACTION TIMES WERE TOO SLOW DO THEM EFFECTIVELY. FURTHERMORE, HIS SLIGHT DIFFICULTY WITH ENGLISH ADVERSELY AFFECTED HIS ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND INSTRUCTIONS FROM ATC. I RECOGNIZED MOST OF THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED MISTAKES AS THEY DEVELOPED DURING THE FLT. IN THESE CASES I ALLOWED THE PIC TO CONTINUE ON, AS LONG AS IT DID NOT POSE A HAZARD. IN THE CASE OF THE FAILURE TO SWITCH TO THE TWR FREQ AT THE FINAL APCH FIX ON THE LAST NDB APCH, HOWEVER, I FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE ERROR AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME. WHILE THERE WERE SOME PROBS WITH THE RADIOS ON THE ACFT, I ATTRIBUTE THE OVERSIGHT TO MY BEING PREOCCUPIED WITH (AND OVERWHELMED BY) ALL THE PLT'S OTHER DIFFICULTIES. I NOW REALIZE THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FLYING AS SAFETY PLT WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL. INSTEAD, HE SHOULD STILL HAVE BEEN FLYING WITH AN INST INSTRUCTOR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.