Instructor or Safety Pilot?

[dublinpilot]

I am a VFR only pilot. No instrument privilidges.

Can I legally put on a pair of foggles for some instrument practice, remain in command, once a safety pilot is on board for lookout? By safety pilot I mean a pilot qualified and current on type.

Or do I need an instructor and be dual?

dp

[IO540]

I'd say that if there is a legal PIC on board then you can wear whatever head gear you like :O

Also, one doesn't need to be an instructor to informally teach someone to fly.

The real issue is whether you can log it. Unless the PIC is an instructor of the correct sort, you can't log it, and that is the crunch - if you are paying for the flight you really really want to be able to log it.

[justinmg]

My understanding was that a pilot was not required, just a competent look out. Happy to be corrected.

[dublinpilot]

Ah yes, but the question can I be pilot in command?

Lets say I go flying as PIC, and have a friend on board whois also current on type. I would like to do a little instrument practice to keep some little instrument currency in case I ever wind in in a situation that I need it.

Can I just put on the foggles, ask my pilot friend to keep lookout and obviously warn me if I 'lose it'. Can I remain PIC, and log it as simulated instrument time?

dp

[slim_slag]

indeed DublinPilot, people should read the question.

Depends on the regime you fly under, but even in the JAA I'd say yes you can. As PIC you can delegate certain aspects of the conduct of the flight to others but still remain responsible for the flight. Otherwise how could a long haul airline captain go have a kip in his bunk when half way across the atlantic? All you are doing is delegating the task of looking out of the window, if the other person is qualified to do and the regulations say he can, then why not?

[Whirlybird]

All you are doing is delegating the task of looking out of the window, if the other person is qualified to do and the regulations say he can, then why not?

Because we're talking about single pilot operations.

[slim_slag]

We are not talking single pilot operations, the guy moving the controls is under a hood VFR, so by regulation he needs a safety pilot. The question is whether the pilot moving the controls can log PIC, or must the safety pilot (required by regulation) log PIC.

[S-Works]

Jesus, who cares? If you want to practice, get a competant observer and give it a go.

This country amazes me with it's obsession for rules and regulations, if we cant find any make them up and make them restrictive and pontificate on it for hours.

Its the reason why we stand in queues and the French laugh at us!

[IO540]

dublinpilot

Can I remain PIC, and log it as simulated instrument time?

I don't have a reference but I am certain you cannot do this legally. Otherwise, an experienced instrument pilot could act as an instructor for the purposes of logging instrument time, and the powers to be will never allow that.

In reality, as bose-x explains this will of course be just fine.

You just cannot log it as instrument time, simulated or real. You have to pretend it never happened.

Many years ago this was possible; a PPL could teach a PPL. Then, those people were given a BCPL to formalise the situation. A BCPL, being like a CPL, then gave you IMC Rating privileges, so you could have become an IMCR instructor without having ever had instrument training. I'd imagine that the original crowd are getting old though.

[Mike Cross]

Many years ago this was possible; a PPL could teach a PPL.
If what you meant to say was "A PPL could teach someone to become a PPL" then he/she still can. (the instruction will only count towards the licence requirements if he/she has an FI rating though).

It's not your licence that qualifies you to instruct, it's the rating on it.

Mike

[slim_slag]

dublinpilot
Can I remain PIC, and log it as simulated instrument time?[

Dubliinpilot asked no such question, you are making things up.

I don't have a reference No surprise there.

Jesus, who cares?Well dublinpilot cares, and seeing as you posted you must do to.

You may not approve, but there are nerds who like this sort of stuff, so let us/them have at it. And it also brings out the usual idiots, which is always a bit of a laugh. Hey, maybe I am one of them, lol.

I would say dublinpilot is obliged to log simulated instrument time (ANO 35.2.d - Oh My God, a reference!) and also be PIC with a suitable safety pilot (nothing in ANO says he cannot, and he will still be wholly responsible for the flight, as the airline captain is who is not actually on the flightdeck, logging PIC when in his bunk).

So there :)

[dublinpilot]

Well, the question is can I remain PIC and log it as simulated instrument time.

What I'm getting at here, is that I am comfortable that the flying is perfectly safe. The practise is certainly useful. I would like to be able to log it, simply as a record that I did practise a necessary safety skill. It's my get out of jail free card should I inadvertently enter cloud. (Which I have no plan to do intentionally.) I would like to record practising this skill, just like I record it when I practise pfl's.

What I want to avoid is logging something that would cause me problems the next time I have my log book examined by the IAA.

Single pilot operations? I'm not sure I see the relevance. Yes the aircraft would only require one crew member, and it can only have one pilot in command. But I'm not aware of anything that says it can't be operated by two pilots. Obviously only REQUIRED crew members could log the time, but I can't see anything to say that two pilots, one in command, can't operate the aircraft.

Bose....for a start I'm not in the same country as you. But as you'll have gathered from the above, it's not the flying I'm concerned about. I'd like to log the time as a record of my practise, but don't want to cause myself problems.

My own thoughts on the legality of logging this as simulated instrument time go like this.

The aircraft would be Irish registered, and this requires a pilot with an IR if it's to be flown under IFR, irrespective of the weather conditions. I have no IR, therefore I can't fly IFR in VMC, so the flight must be under VFR.

In order to be VFR certain weather conditions must be met. No problem this conditions would be met, so I could fly VFR. Below 3000ft, I'd be insight of the surface, albeit choosing not to look at the surface, or above 3000ft I would simply need to be sufficient distance from cloud. (My licence has no requirement to remain in sight of the surface above 3000ft.)

I have the privileges and currency to fly as PIC and carry a passenger.

A lookout must be kept, and it would be kept. The question seems to boil down to must it be the pilot in command that makes the lookout, or can this be done my another competent pilot?

I can't think of anything else that would make the practise illegal, and no-one has yet suggested something which would make it illegal. Lots of opinion about the legality, but nothing saying that a particular requirement or rule has been broken.

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's fine to carry out this practise, and to log is as PIC, and simulated instrument conditions.

[DFC]

DublinPilot,

Yes is the short answer.

You can be pilot in command. You can log the time as flight by sole reference to instruments in the remarks column of your log book.

You can not fly in IMC and you can not log the flight as IFR (unless something like UK at night).

The aircraft must have full dual controls. The other pilot must be qualified ie be a PPL with appropriate Class rating and current.

The time you log will not count towards the experience required for the isue of an IR (other than an FAA one).

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

Slag - If I put something in italics then it is an exact quote from a previous post. Sometimes, posters go back and edit their posts afterwards.

Most interesting comments follow from other posters; a real suprise to me that a basic PPL could generate valid "instrument time" entries in his logbook without an instructor on board. An interesting quirk in the regs. One lives and learns.

[Mike Cross]

If you'd like a reference it's JAR-FCL 1.080 (http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/563247.pdf)
(v) A remarks column will be provided to give details of specific functions e.g. SPIC, PICUS, instrument flight time*, etc.
* A pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.
Details of all flights flown as a pilot shall be kept in a reliable record in a logbook format acceptable to the Authority
Logging of time
(1) Pilot-in-command flight time
(i) The holder of a licence may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time during which he is the pilot-in-command.
(ii) The applicant for or the holder of a pilot licence may log as pilot-in-command time all solo flight time and flight time as student pilot-in command provided that such SPIC time is countersigned by the instructor.
(iii) The holder of an instructor rating may log as pilot-in-command all flight time during which he acts as an instructor in an aeroplane.
(iv) The holder of an examiner’s authorisation may log as pilot-incommand all flight time during which he occupies a pilot’s seat and acts as an examiner in an aeroplane.
(v) A co-pilot acting as pilot-incommand under the supervision of the pilot-in-command on an aeroplane on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aeroplane or as required by JAR–OPS provided such pilot-in-command time under supervision (see (c)(5)) is countersigned by the pilot-in-command.

[drauk]

If you're wearing a hood/foggles are you in sight of the surface?

[IO540]

The UK is one of the few countries with a "sight of surface" requirement for VFR. I don't know if Ireland has this requirement.

Of course the pilot isn't in sight of anything, with foggles on.

I still find the whole thing very suprising... that a pilot with zero instrument training could accumulate unlimited amounts of "instrument time". This would count towards the FAA instrument experience requirements which makes it even more suprising.

[dublinpilot]

Drauk,

I would argue that I was in sight of the surface, just choosing not to look at it. Anytime I wish to see the surface, I can without any difficulty.

In any case, there is no requirement on my Irish licence to be in sight of the surface. There is a requirement of VFR rules to be in sight of the surface, when at or below 3000ft. Above this there is no requirement to be in sight of the surface.

My reading of the requirement is that the aircraft must be flown in such weather conditions, not that the pilot must have the surface in his field of view at all times.

Except when operating as a special VFR flight, VFR flights shall be conducted so that the aircraft is flown in conditions of visibility and distance from clouds equal to or greater than those specified in the following table:



Actually I think I've found the answer to my own question, in Rule 13 of the SI covering Rules of the Air.

It ties in nicely with what DFC said.

Simulated Instrument Flight
(1) An aircraft shall not be flown under simulated instrument flight conditions unless:
(a) fully functioning dual controls are installed in the aircraft, and
(b) a pilot holding an appropriate licence occupies a control seat to act as safety pilot for the person who is flying in simulated instrument flight.
(2) The safety pilot shall have adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in communication with the safety pilot shall occupy a position in the aircraft from which the observer's field of vision adequately supplements that of the safety pilot.
(3) Within the State an aircraft shall not carry out an instrument approach procedure when flying in Visual Meteorological Conditions unless:
(a) the flight has been notified to the appropriate air traffic control unit; and
(b) if the flight is being carried out as a simulated instrument flight, the provisions of subparagraph (a) and (b) of paragraph (1) of this Rule are complied with or, if the flight is not being carried out as a simulated instrument flight, a competent observer is carried in such a position in the aircraft that the observer has an adequate field of vision and can readily communicate with the pilot-incommand thereof.
(4) In this Rule the expression “simulated instrument flight” means a flight during which any device is used in order to reduce the field of vision or the range of visibility from the cockpit of the aircraft.


Thanks for your help everyone. Much appreciated.

dp

[englishal]

Jesus, who cares? If you want to practice, get a competant observer and give it a go.

This country amazes me with it's obsession for rules and regulations, if we cant find any make them up and make them restrictive and pontificate on it for hours.

Here here :ok:

[slim_slag]

That might be true, but that wasn't really what the thread was about. Like it or not there are rules in aviation which we need to understand. In some regimes the regulator does a pretty poor job of explaining them so one way around this is to come on here and ask a question.

Now you need to be careful as there are people posting on here who clearly don't have a clue, but others like Mike Cross will post references which might help people like dublinpilot understand the rules, which means he is more likely to follow them. If he follow them he is less likely to get into trouble, which can range from killing himself and his passengers, or just having to explain himself infront of somebody in authority.

There are also people on here who think they know best and will ignore the rules even if they are spelled out in black and white. I suppose these are more of a lost cause, but one of these posters has changed his tune recently on an interpretation of an FAA rule, so I guess if you bang against a thick skull often enough you might get through.

So yes there are stupid rules and regs, but in general most aviation rules are there for a good reason, and asking questions about them can only be a good thing. After all, there is no such thing as a stupid question, and I am sure all of us have learned things from reading posts in this forum. Just make sure you listen with an open mind and cross check the answers with a reputable source - which in these examples are the regulations themselves, so posts which cite them are usually the most authoritative. The others also be also very good, or just a source of entertainment.