Logging Time Under The Hood IMC

[Ejector]

Thanks for the good replies. I do find it very helpful.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by darkroomsource

I haven't been able to do instrument approaches in Oregon without an IFR plan.

Not sure where you were flying or exactly what your experience was, but this is by no means typical. There are dozens of airports in Oregon with instrument approaches which have neither a tower nor approach control, at which it would be perfectly legal to go out and practice instrument approaches to your hearts content in Visual Meteorological Conditions, under VFR. No IFR clearance nor contact with ATC required. (although talking to the overlying ARTCC may be a good idea for traffic avoidance)

Those aren't the only situations where that would be legal, either. As Westhawk pointed out earlier, it would also be perfect legal to do practice approaches under VFR in VMC at an airport with a tower and approach control. ATC may have a very strong *preference* that you be on an IFR clearance, and for their reasons they may not approve you to do that VFR, but that doesn't mean that it's a legal requirement to be on an IFR clearance.

Originally Posted by darkroomsource

And once I've filed an IFR plan, I'm on instrument flight rules.

Well no, not to split hairs (OK, I'm splitting hairs) you're not under instrument flight rules until you accept an IFR clearance.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Westhawk

As an ATP and CFI myself, I realize that I might be found to be at least partially responsible if anything happens while I'm aboard a light aircraft being commanded by another pilot. The precedent has been established for all practical purposes. If seated at a control position and having agreed to be a safety pilot (required crew) as either SIC or as PIC, my acceptance of responsibility is self evident. If anything happens I expect to come under FAA scrutiny regardless of any agreement I and the other pilot might have made prior to the flight. My only protection in this situation is that I act accordingly by fulfilling my responsibility to see that the flight is conducted safely and in compliance with regulations. I'm just going to presume I'm held to that standard and I'll take my naps on the ground thank you!

Good advice, Westhawk. I know of at least two cases where a pilot was held responsible for a violation because he offered input on a flight on which he was otherwise just a passenger. In one, the guy was the owner of the 135 operation and from the back seat he pointed out that his pilot was approaching to land with the gear up. He got tagged with a subsequent violation that occurred on the same flight. There was a fed on board (might have been a checkride.) and the rationale was that when he pointed out that his employee was about to land his plane gear up, he became a crewmember and not a passenger.

The other was an airline pilot who somehow wound up as a passenger in a light plane which wandered into places it wasn't supposed to. In this case he was judged to have become the PIC when he told the pilot to turn around and fly out of the airspace. Both violations were appealed to the NTSB and both were upheld.