Logging Time Under The Hood IMC
Thread Starter
Logging Time Under The Hood IMC
In an N registered C152 that has two current FAA PPL holders in America, if the left seat pilot is under the hood flying and practicing IMC flight, flying by hand can the pilot in the right seat log this time as well?
Yes. There are two ways it can be done. The "safety pilot" in the right seat can be the PIC of the flight and as such can log the flight as PIC. Since the pilot in the left seat is "sole manipulator" of the flight controls they can log the the time as PIC. Or the pilot in the left seat can be the PIC. Since a "safety pilot" is required while a pilot flys under the hood, the pilot in the right seat can log SIC time for that time while the left seat pilot is under the hood.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wait a second...if both pilots are PPL single engine land, there can be only one pilot in command. and you better decide before you takeoff who that is.
...if you are practicing IMC...are you in the clouds, or are you simulating instrument flight under the hood (view limiting device)? You cannot file IFR or accept an IFR clearance unless the PIC is instrument rated, current and the plane is properly equipped.
the right seat guy really can't be PIC unless he is a CFI or better.
I suppose you could log the right seat time as safety pilot time/second in command because you are required for that operation...but the MOMent the left seat pilot takes off the hood, the right seat guy is JUST A PASSENGER. Why? Because you don't need a safety pilot to fly without the hood.
I strongly suggest you contact your local FSDO (flight standards district office) ask to speak to an inspector and ask him. I've never logged safety pilot time...but then I've been an instructor and logged it PIC dual given.
I'm sure you may find many opinions...so check with the FAA...and keep your landing light on for enhanced visibility of your plane...be careful!
...if you are practicing IMC...are you in the clouds, or are you simulating instrument flight under the hood (view limiting device)? You cannot file IFR or accept an IFR clearance unless the PIC is instrument rated, current and the plane is properly equipped.
the right seat guy really can't be PIC unless he is a CFI or better.
I suppose you could log the right seat time as safety pilot time/second in command because you are required for that operation...but the MOMent the left seat pilot takes off the hood, the right seat guy is JUST A PASSENGER. Why? Because you don't need a safety pilot to fly without the hood.
I strongly suggest you contact your local FSDO (flight standards district office) ask to speak to an inspector and ask him. I've never logged safety pilot time...but then I've been an instructor and logged it PIC dual given.
I'm sure you may find many opinions...so check with the FAA...and keep your landing light on for enhanced visibility of your plane...be careful!
Last edited by sevenstrokeroll; 17th Dec 2012 at 19:59.
Thread Starter
Sevenstrokerroll, What you say in the above post is both logical and makes sense to me and is the way in many countries, (except the safety pilot can not log anything).
I am talking here just to be clear, a VFR rated single engine land with the pilot in the left seat vision impaired for out side of the aircraft above 1000' AGL & under VFR rules.
I have been told by a flying school that you can rent one of their planes in a block package and pilots pilots can log PIC (and share the cost) effectively under FAA rules.
I find this disturbing in may ways, that is why I have bought it up here.
I am talking here just to be clear, a VFR rated single engine land with the pilot in the left seat vision impaired for out side of the aircraft above 1000' AGL & under VFR rules.
I have been told by a flying school that you can rent one of their planes in a block package and pilots pilots can log PIC (and share the cost) effectively under FAA rules.
I find this disturbing in may ways, that is why I have bought it up here.
7Stroke, you're right, the non-flying pilot can't log the time if they only hold a private certificate. You have to move up a couple certificatges to do that.
What you have to remember is the FAA draws a line between "being the PIC" and "logging PIC time." As to logging the time as a safety pilot, there's no reason to talk to a FSDO, the FAA Chief Counsel has published a bunch of letters on it.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...9/Speranza.pdf
What you have to remember is the FAA draws a line between "being the PIC" and "logging PIC time." As to logging the time as a safety pilot, there's no reason to talk to a FSDO, the FAA Chief Counsel has published a bunch of letters on it.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...9/Speranza.pdf
Last edited by MarkerInbound; 18th Dec 2012 at 05:57.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the confusion probably comes from the fact that the rulings change fairly recently (within the last couple years).
It USED to be that both pilots could be without an IR.
NOW, the safety pilot must be IR (and rated in the aircraft as well, but since we're talking about a C152 this doesn't apply here)
You don't have to specify which pilot is PIC for logging, both can log PIC while the limiting device is in place. (You SHOULD define the PIC prior to the flight for purposes of who's in charge if something happens)
So, P1 is in either the left or right seat and will wear the limiting device.
P2 MUST be IR (but does NOT have to have a current medical), is in the other front seat.
If P1 has an IR, P1 can file the IFR flight plan. If not, P2 must be the pilot listed on the flight plan.
During taxi, take-off, and until the limiting device is in place, whoever is actually flying the plane logs PIC.
After the limiting device is in place, both log PIC.
When the limiting device is removed, only the pilot flying the plane logs PIC.
Things change when the aircraft requires SIC, but that's not applicable for a C152.
To 'split' the time and cost, both must be rated for the plane and have medicals, and the time without the limiting device in place is split between the two. For example, P1 does the take-off, P2 does the landing, the rest of the time P1 is 'under the hood' and P2 is the safety pilot.
Again, the rules have changed, P2 must be IR since the change became effective.
It USED to be that both pilots could be without an IR.
NOW, the safety pilot must be IR (and rated in the aircraft as well, but since we're talking about a C152 this doesn't apply here)
You don't have to specify which pilot is PIC for logging, both can log PIC while the limiting device is in place. (You SHOULD define the PIC prior to the flight for purposes of who's in charge if something happens)
So, P1 is in either the left or right seat and will wear the limiting device.
P2 MUST be IR (but does NOT have to have a current medical), is in the other front seat.
If P1 has an IR, P1 can file the IFR flight plan. If not, P2 must be the pilot listed on the flight plan.
During taxi, take-off, and until the limiting device is in place, whoever is actually flying the plane logs PIC.
After the limiting device is in place, both log PIC.
When the limiting device is removed, only the pilot flying the plane logs PIC.
Things change when the aircraft requires SIC, but that's not applicable for a C152.
To 'split' the time and cost, both must be rated for the plane and have medicals, and the time without the limiting device in place is split between the two. For example, P1 does the take-off, P2 does the landing, the rest of the time P1 is 'under the hood' and P2 is the safety pilot.
Again, the rules have changed, P2 must be IR since the change became effective.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
call the FSDO...it doesn't cost YOU any money (except as a taxpayer).
don't just trust some flying school...they just want your money.
there have been many LIES IN LOGBOOKS...I was PIC on an MU2...by regulation it does not require a second in command. However the owners wanted a second pilot just in case.
The acting copilot claimed he could log all the time as PIC because he held a multi engine instructor certifictate. He told me this and said he was giving me Dual instruction (mind you I had been to flight safety on the plane and he had not).
I told him he was not giving me dual and he could log SIC if he liked due to company requirements.
Of course he didn't change his logbook and he is a captain for american airlines now......just proves that lying can get you someplace. He had hundreds of hours in the MU2 and had NEVER landed the plane.
so...please just call FSDO and find out.
don't just trust some flying school...they just want your money.
there have been many LIES IN LOGBOOKS...I was PIC on an MU2...by regulation it does not require a second in command. However the owners wanted a second pilot just in case.
The acting copilot claimed he could log all the time as PIC because he held a multi engine instructor certifictate. He told me this and said he was giving me Dual instruction (mind you I had been to flight safety on the plane and he had not).
I told him he was not giving me dual and he could log SIC if he liked due to company requirements.
Of course he didn't change his logbook and he is a captain for american airlines now......just proves that lying can get you someplace. He had hundreds of hours in the MU2 and had NEVER landed the plane.
so...please just call FSDO and find out.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and do not file an IFR flight plan or accept an instrument clearance/IFR clearance unless the pilot in command is instrument rated, rated for the plane (IE single engine land) and is current as well as the plane meeting IFR req's.
I remember one clown took off in his OWN twin (C303),not instrument rated, with an instrument clearance, his safety pilot was instrument rated BUT NOT rated on multi engine planes. The FAA had a field day esp since the safety pilot was also an air traffic controller!!!!!
call FSDO
I remember one clown took off in his OWN twin (C303),not instrument rated, with an instrument clearance, his safety pilot was instrument rated BUT NOT rated on multi engine planes. The FAA had a field day esp since the safety pilot was also an air traffic controller!!!!!
call FSDO
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkerInbound
Yes. There are two ways it can be done. The "safety pilot" in the right seat can be the PIC of the flight and as such can log the flight as PIC. Since the pilot in the left seat is "sole manipulator" of the flight controls they can log the the time as PIC. Or the pilot in the left seat can be the PIC. Since a "safety pilot" is required while a pilot flys under the hood, the pilot in the right seat can log SIC time for that time while the left seat pilot is under the hood.
Ejector, as Markerinbound said, what the flight school is proposing is in fact legal under the FAA regulations. For verification see the legal opinion at the end of this post from the FAA's office of Chief counsel. (the only entity in the FAA authorized to interpret regulations. FSDO inspectors may not interpret regulations. If they do, their interpretation has no legal standing) Particularly read the text in red.
Originally Posted by Sevenstrokeroll
wait a second...if both pilots are PPL single engine land, there can be only one pilot in command. and you better decide before you takeoff who that is.
True, but irrelevant to the question asked. You may, under the FAA regulations have more than one pilot *logging* PIC at the same time. Doesn't make sense to me, but then nobody asked me. Regardless it's true. See the Chief Counsel interpretation below.
Originally Posted by Sevenstrokeroll
the right seat guy really can't be PIC unless he is a CFI or better.
Originally Posted by MarkerInbound
7Stroke, you're right, the non-flying pilot can't log the time if they only hold a private certificate. You have to move up a couple certificatges to do that.
Anyway, not true, see discussion directly above and legal interpretation below.
Originally Posted by darkroomsource
Some of the confusion probably comes from the fact that the rulings change fairly recently (within the last couple years).
It USED to be that both pilots could be without an IR.
NOW, the safety pilot must be IR (and rated in the aircraft as well, but since we're talking about a C152 this doesn't apply here)
It USED to be that both pilots could be without an IR.
NOW, the safety pilot must be IR (and rated in the aircraft as well, but since we're talking about a C152 this doesn't apply here)
91.109
(a) and (b) not relevant to discussion.
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and
(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when—
(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and
(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.
(a) and (b) not relevant to discussion.
(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and
(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when—
(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and
(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.
Originally Posted by darkroomsource
You don't have to specify which pilot is PIC for logging, both can log PIC while the limiting device is in place. (You SHOULD define the PIC prior to the flight for purposes of who's in charge if something happens)
Originally Posted by Sevenstrokeroll
I told him he was not giving me dual and he could log SIC if he liked due to company requirements.
Part 61.51
(a)-(e) not relevant to discussion.
(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:
(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of § 61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or
(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.
Originally Posted by Ejector
I find this disturbing in may ways,
Legal Interpretation # 92-52
October 30, 1992
Mr. David M. Reid
Dear Mr. Reid:
Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1992, concerning the
logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time under the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR).
In your letter you ask four questions. First, you ask whether
there are "any circumstances when, during a normal flight, two
Private Pilots may simultaneously act as (and therefore log the
time as) Pilot-In-Command?" The answer is two private pilots may
not simultaneously act as PIC but they may, under certain
circumstances, simultaneously log PIC time.
There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC
time. PIC, as defined in FAR 1.1, means the pilot responsible
for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.
FAR 61.51 deals with logging PIC flight time, and it provides
that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that
flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the
controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the
sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC of an
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the
flight is conducted. It is important to note that FAR 61.51 only
regulates the recording of PIC time used to meet the requirements
toward a higher certificate, higher rating, or for recent flight
experience.
Therefore, while it is not possible for two pilots to act as PIC
simultaneously, it is possible for two pilots to log PIC flight
time simultaneously.
PIC flight time may be logged by both the
PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft
during flight time in accordance with FAR 1.1, and by the pilot
who acts as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft
for which the pilot is rated under FAR 61.51. Enclosed please
find two prior FAA interpretations concerning logging of PIC
time. We hope that these will be of further assistance to you.
In your second question you ask "[h]ow shall two Private Pilots
log their flight time when one pilot is under the hood for
simulated instrument time and the other pilot acts as safety
pilot?" The answer is the pilot who is under the hood may log
PIC time for that flight time in which he is the sole manipulator
of the controls of the aircraft, provided he is rated for that
aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently
log as second in command (SIC) that time during which he is
acting as safety pilot.
The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiating the flight
that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the
operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this
is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC
time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may
log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the
sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with
FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i). Enclosed please find a prior FAA
interpretation concerning the logging of flight time under
simulated instrument flight conditions. We hope that this
interpretation will be of further assistance to you.
In your third question you ask "[d]uring instrument training, how
shall a VFR Private Pilot log the following flight time:
Pilot-In-Command time, Simulated Instrument time, and Actual
Instrument time, when that pilot is ... A) ... under the hood?
B) ...in actual instrument conditions? C) ... under the hood in
actual instrument conditions?" The answer is the VFR private
pilot may log all of the flight time you described as PIC flight
time under FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) if he was the sole manipulator of
the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated. Under FAR
61.51(c)(4) the 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. Please note that the FARs do not distinguish between
"actual" and "simulated" instrument flight time. Enclosed is a
prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of instrument
flight time. We hope this interpretation will further assist
you.
Finally you ask "[d]oes FAR 61.57 affect how the VFR Private
Pilot shall log Pilot-In-Command time during instrument training,
either before or after meeting the 6/6/6 requirement, and if so,
how?" FAR 61.57 does not affect how a pilot logs PIC time during
instrument training; FAR 61.51(c)(2) and (4) govern logging of
instrument flight time. FAR 61.57(e) provides currency
requirements for acting as PIC under instrument flight rules
(IFR) or in weather conditions less than the minimums for visual
flight rules (VFR). Enclosed please find a prior FAA
interpretation on instrument flight time and FAR 61.57(e). We
hope this interpretation will further assist you.
We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.
Sincerely,
/s/ Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division
October 30, 1992
Mr. David M. Reid
Dear Mr. Reid:
Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1992, concerning the
logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time under the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR).
In your letter you ask four questions. First, you ask whether
there are "any circumstances when, during a normal flight, two
Private Pilots may simultaneously act as (and therefore log the
time as) Pilot-In-Command?" The answer is two private pilots may
not simultaneously act as PIC but they may, under certain
circumstances, simultaneously log PIC time.
There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC
time. PIC, as defined in FAR 1.1, means the pilot responsible
for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.
FAR 61.51 deals with logging PIC flight time, and it provides
that a private or commercial pilot may log as PIC time only that
flight time during which he is the sole manipulator of the
controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, or when he is the
sole occupant of the aircraft, or when he acts as PIC of an
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the
flight is conducted. It is important to note that FAR 61.51 only
regulates the recording of PIC time used to meet the requirements
toward a higher certificate, higher rating, or for recent flight
experience.
Therefore, while it is not possible for two pilots to act as PIC
simultaneously, it is possible for two pilots to log PIC flight
time simultaneously.
PIC flight time may be logged by both the
PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft
during flight time in accordance with FAR 1.1, and by the pilot
who acts as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft
for which the pilot is rated under FAR 61.51. Enclosed please
find two prior FAA interpretations concerning logging of PIC
time. We hope that these will be of further assistance to you.
In your second question you ask "[h]ow shall two Private Pilots
log their flight time when one pilot is under the hood for
simulated instrument time and the other pilot acts as safety
pilot?" The answer is the pilot who is under the hood may log
PIC time for that flight time in which he is the sole manipulator
of the controls of the aircraft, provided he is rated for that
aircraft. The appropriately rated safety pilot may concurrently
log as second in command (SIC) that time during which he is
acting as safety pilot.
The two pilots may, however, agree prior to initiating the flight
that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the
operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this
is done, then the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC
time in accordance with FAR 1.1 and the pilot under the hood may
log, concurrently, all of the flight time during which he is the
sole manipulator of the controls as PIC time in accordance with
FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i). Enclosed please find a prior FAA
interpretation concerning the logging of flight time under
simulated instrument flight conditions. We hope that this
interpretation will be of further assistance to you.
In your third question you ask "[d]uring instrument training, how
shall a VFR Private Pilot log the following flight time:
Pilot-In-Command time, Simulated Instrument time, and Actual
Instrument time, when that pilot is ... A) ... under the hood?
B) ...in actual instrument conditions? C) ... under the hood in
actual instrument conditions?" The answer is the VFR private
pilot may log all of the flight time you described as PIC flight
time under FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) if he was the sole manipulator of
the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated. Under FAR
61.51(c)(4) the 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. Please note that the FARs do not distinguish between
"actual" and "simulated" instrument flight time. Enclosed is a
prior FAA interpretation concerning the logging of instrument
flight time. We hope this interpretation will further assist
you.
Finally you ask "[d]oes FAR 61.57 affect how the VFR Private
Pilot shall log Pilot-In-Command time during instrument training,
either before or after meeting the 6/6/6 requirement, and if so,
how?" FAR 61.57 does not affect how a pilot logs PIC time during
instrument training; FAR 61.51(c)(2) and (4) govern logging of
instrument flight time. FAR 61.57(e) provides currency
requirements for acting as PIC under instrument flight rules
(IFR) or in weather conditions less than the minimums for visual
flight rules (VFR). Enclosed please find a prior FAA
interpretation on instrument flight time and FAR 61.57(e). We
hope this interpretation will further assist you.
We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.
Sincerely,
/s/ Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division
Last edited by A Squared; 18th Dec 2012 at 23:49.
I need to quit flying planes and go to law school. And the FAA Chief Counsel needs to clean out old letters. At some point in this discussion I was thinking a private pilot could only log time when they were sole manipulator of the controls. That is not the case. Since the reg referenced in A squared letter doesn't exist anymore, here a more up to date letter.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...2/Trussell.pdf
It's a screwed up system but it's what we've got.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...2/Trussell.pdf
It's a screwed up system but it's what we've got.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for explaining...I still think the original poster should call the FSDO as something else may have changed. I've seen one district say one thing and another say something else...
BUT...
Let's say the safety pilot accepts being PIC, the guy under the hood as sole manipulator logs the time...but the plane crashes...and the left seat sole manipulator is the guy renting the plane on the paperwork
both pilots survive...which loses the license to fly?
a friend also who flew MU2's told the company he was too tired to fly and his copilot volunteered to fly the plane as PIC (no type required...just a multi engine ticket)...the original PIC, my friend was takinga nap in back and 10 feet from the controls...HE WAS NOT FLYING nor was he a req'd crewmember.
The copilot, now PIC landed GEAR UP...OOOOOOPS
but my friend lost his license for a year...go figure the FAA. AND The copilot, now PIC had NOTHING against his ticket.
be careful.
BUT...
Let's say the safety pilot accepts being PIC, the guy under the hood as sole manipulator logs the time...but the plane crashes...and the left seat sole manipulator is the guy renting the plane on the paperwork
both pilots survive...which loses the license to fly?
a friend also who flew MU2's told the company he was too tired to fly and his copilot volunteered to fly the plane as PIC (no type required...just a multi engine ticket)...the original PIC, my friend was takinga nap in back and 10 feet from the controls...HE WAS NOT FLYING nor was he a req'd crewmember.
The copilot, now PIC landed GEAR UP...OOOOOOPS
but my friend lost his license for a year...go figure the FAA. AND The copilot, now PIC had NOTHING against his ticket.
be careful.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
BUT...
Let's say the safety pilot accepts being PIC, the guy under the hood as sole manipulator logs the time...but the plane crashes...and the left seat sole manipulator is the guy renting the plane on the paperwork
both pilots survive...which loses the license to fly?
Let's say the safety pilot accepts being PIC, the guy under the hood as sole manipulator logs the time...but the plane crashes...and the left seat sole manipulator is the guy renting the plane on the paperwork
both pilots survive...which loses the license to fly?
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
a friend also who flew MU2's told the company he was too tired to fly and his copilot volunteered to fly the plane as PIC (no type required...just a multi engine ticket)...the original PIC, my friend was takinga nap in back and 10 feet from the controls...HE WAS NOT FLYING nor was he a req'd crewmember.
The copilot, now PIC landed GEAR UP...OOOOOOPS
but my friend lost his license for a year...go figure the FAA. AND The copilot, now PIC had NOTHING against his ticket.
The copilot, now PIC landed GEAR UP...OOOOOOPS
but my friend lost his license for a year...go figure the FAA. AND The copilot, now PIC had NOTHING against his ticket.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Squared
FAR Part 61.57 (c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought—
(i) At least six instrument approaches; (ii) Holding procedures; and (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems.
(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought—
(i) At least six instrument approaches; (ii) Holding procedures; and (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems.
The letter you reference is from 1992. The regulations were changed in 2009 or 2010.
If any portion of the flight were conducted on an IFR flight plan (e.g., in and out of the clouds and/or even on an IFR flight plan) at least one of the pilots must have an instrument rating and the §1.1 PIC must be instrument current in accordance with §61.57(c) and be Flight Review current in accordance with §61.56(c).
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by darkroomsource
So, for the safety pilot to be PIC (so both can log) that person must be IR and current (in order to fly IFR - to do practice approaches etc.)
The letter you reference is from 1992. The regulations were changed in 2009 or 2010.
The letter you reference is from 1992. The regulations were changed in 2009 or 2010.
*If* we were talking about an operation performed under instrument flight rules, you would be right. We're not. The operation being discussed is under VFR, read Ejector's second post where he clarifies this is the case. Certainly there were changes in the regulations in both 2009 and 2010, the regulations are constantly amended. None of those amendments changed the answer to the question asked. Read the Chief counsel interpretation linked by Markerinbound. It was written in 2012 and gives the same answer as the 1992 interpretation I posted. You still don't have to have an instrument rating to fly VFR; not in the US and I bet not in the UK or Kenya either.
to do practice approaches etc.
And other than that one issue, great post A˛.
westhawk
Last edited by westhawk; 19th Dec 2012 at 08:13.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkroomsource
So, for the safety pilot to be PIC (so both can log) that person must be IR and current (in order to fly IFR - to do practice approaches etc.)
The letter you reference is from 1992. The regulations were changed in 2009 or 2010.
*If* we were talking about an operation performed under instrument flight rules, you would be right. We're not. The operation being discussed is under VFR, read Ejector's second post where he clarifies this is the case. Certainly there were changes in the regulations in both 2009 and 2010, the regulations are constantly amended. None of those amendments changed the answer to the question asked. Read the Chief counsel interpretation linked by Markerinbound. It was written in 2012 and gives the same answer as the 1992 interpretation I posted. You still don't have to have an instrument rating to fly VFR; not in the US and I bet not in the UK or Kenya either.
Originally Posted by darkroomsource
So, for the safety pilot to be PIC (so both can log) that person must be IR and current (in order to fly IFR - to do practice approaches etc.)
The letter you reference is from 1992. The regulations were changed in 2009 or 2010.
*If* we were talking about an operation performed under instrument flight rules, you would be right. We're not. The operation being discussed is under VFR, read Ejector's second post where he clarifies this is the case. Certainly there were changes in the regulations in both 2009 and 2010, the regulations are constantly amended. None of those amendments changed the answer to the question asked. Read the Chief counsel interpretation linked by Markerinbound. It was written in 2012 and gives the same answer as the 1992 interpretation I posted. You still don't have to have an instrument rating to fly VFR; not in the US and I bet not in the UK or Kenya either.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A squared...my pal did lawyer up, and ran out of money fighting and fighting...he ended up screwed and the former copilot, when called to testify REFUSED as he was interviewing for Hawaiian Airlines, or was it Aloha.
DO NOT get screwed, be careful. My pal's career was severely impacted by this miscarriage of justice.
I sincerely wonder if he had gotten off the plane and went to a hotel and the copilot took the plane (legal under part 91) if he still would have gotten screwed.
DO NOT get screwed, be careful. My pal's career was severely impacted by this miscarriage of justice.
I sincerely wonder if he had gotten off the plane and went to a hotel and the copilot took the plane (legal under part 91) if he still would have gotten screwed.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK, US, now more ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 41
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DRS, one can do VMC/VFR practice instrument approaches in Oregon.
Examples would be MMV or CVO. Done them myself, although sometimes IFR plan for radio practice etc. VFR flying shooting ILS does indeed reduce ATC workload and improve efficiency of flight training. I very much doubt PDX would entertain practice approaches flying VFR, nor would probably HIO, with plenty of VFR traffic or S/I approaches of bizjets for 31.
Yeah, SSR, FAA can be anal regarding responsibility/blame when more than one rated/qualified pilot is present. Example would be stories/cases of instructors being passengers and blamed for incident/accident when they weren't the appointed/agreed PIC, but by the virtue of being more experienced and CFI ticket holder.
In the case of being busted/fired/suspended for napping in the back, like your MU2 pilot friend, uff. That's tad more than just 2-6 seater light aircraft with pilots sitting in front. I guess if he had some sort of declaration/disclaimer in writing and witnessed/signed by ground staff. But hey, who'd have thought, right? CYA, as they say.
Examples would be MMV or CVO. Done them myself, although sometimes IFR plan for radio practice etc. VFR flying shooting ILS does indeed reduce ATC workload and improve efficiency of flight training. I very much doubt PDX would entertain practice approaches flying VFR, nor would probably HIO, with plenty of VFR traffic or S/I approaches of bizjets for 31.
Yeah, SSR, FAA can be anal regarding responsibility/blame when more than one rated/qualified pilot is present. Example would be stories/cases of instructors being passengers and blamed for incident/accident when they weren't the appointed/agreed PIC, but by the virtue of being more experienced and CFI ticket holder.
In the case of being busted/fired/suspended for napping in the back, like your MU2 pilot friend, uff. That's tad more than just 2-6 seater light aircraft with pilots sitting in front. I guess if he had some sort of declaration/disclaimer in writing and witnessed/signed by ground staff. But hey, who'd have thought, right? CYA, as they say.
I'm sorry to read of another FAA enforcement case against a pilot who was not acting as a required crewmember but was found responsible following an incident. In the private flying arena there is often no "paper trail" to identify the PIC and in fact the person "designated as PIC" during a flight may be changed at any time by agreement of the individuals concerned. No record of this fact is usually present. So what test can the FAA rely upon to make a determination following an incident where identifying the PIC is necessary?
In air carrier ops a dispatch document is required listing all required crew and their duty position assignment will be specified on the dispatch document. The only way to nominate a new PIC is to issue a new document. If a part 135 or 121 flight is completed and a part 91 tail-end or other repositioning flight is conducted, are the duty position assignments still the same as before? Yes as far as the FAA sees it. If a pilot was switching from SIC to PIC or vice versa during a trip their best protection might be to request that the company issue a new flight release (dispatch document) with the modified duty assignments duly reflected. Otherwise it would be left to the FAA to determine by whatever standards they choose to determine who to enforce against following a flight rules violation or accident.
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!
westhawk
In air carrier ops a dispatch document is required listing all required crew and their duty position assignment will be specified on the dispatch document. The only way to nominate a new PIC is to issue a new document. If a part 135 or 121 flight is completed and a part 91 tail-end or other repositioning flight is conducted, are the duty position assignments still the same as before? Yes as far as the FAA sees it. If a pilot was switching from SIC to PIC or vice versa during a trip their best protection might be to request that the company issue a new flight release (dispatch document) with the modified duty assignments duly reflected. Otherwise it would be left to the FAA to determine by whatever standards they choose to determine who to enforce against following a flight rules violation or accident.
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!
westhawk
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are lots of ways to get screwed...so, having learned from my pal's experience.
one...know who is going to be BOSS, PIC, AC commander as HE/SHE/IT will be held legally liable.
EVEN YOUR BEST friend may leave you in the hot seat. In my friends case the lure of a real live airline job was enough to conveniently NOT tell the whole truth.
There is a judgement/retribution whatever you call it..here on earth too...if this guy forgot the gear once, he might do it again.
When I finally got my airline job, I promised myself I wouldn't fly except for my airline...no rides with pals, no nothing...
as we have learned in the past...and I remember this one...a PILOT who had LOST HIS MEDICAL and could not legally be PILOT IN COMMAND OF ANYTHING had 14,000 hours and went for a ride with someone. The someone crashed the plane, and yes the guy who could NOT LEGALLY BE PIC was blamed by the FAA.
rotsa ruck
one...know who is going to be BOSS, PIC, AC commander as HE/SHE/IT will be held legally liable.
EVEN YOUR BEST friend may leave you in the hot seat. In my friends case the lure of a real live airline job was enough to conveniently NOT tell the whole truth.
There is a judgement/retribution whatever you call it..here on earth too...if this guy forgot the gear once, he might do it again.
When I finally got my airline job, I promised myself I wouldn't fly except for my airline...no rides with pals, no nothing...
as we have learned in the past...and I remember this one...a PILOT who had LOST HIS MEDICAL and could not legally be PILOT IN COMMAND OF ANYTHING had 14,000 hours and went for a ride with someone. The someone crashed the plane, and yes the guy who could NOT LEGALLY BE PIC was blamed by the FAA.
rotsa ruck