I want to go fly some approaches (and a hold) on Sunday. I know from
experience that it's likely that the ceilings will be too high to do any
meaningful approaches in IMC, but high enough that I might be in IMC
during the vectors to the approach or at the hold. I figured I could take
along a safety pilot, and then when I break out on the approach tell him
he's acting PIC while I put on my foggles and complete the approach, and
then when we go back into the clouds on the missed take off the foggles
(or not) and become PIC again.

Has anybody else done this? Is it smart? Safe? Legal?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"As Canadian as possible, under the circumstances"

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> I want to go fly some approaches (and a hold) on Sunday. I know from
> experience that it's likely that the ceilings will be too high to do any
> meaningful approaches in IMC, but high enough that I might be in IMC
> during the vectors to the approach or at the hold. I figured I could take
> along a safety pilot, and then when I break out on the approach tell him
> he's acting PIC while I put on my foggles and complete the approach, and
> then when we go back into the clouds on the missed take off the foggles
> (or not) and become PIC again.
>
> Has anybody else done this? Is it smart? Safe? Legal?
>
>
It seems reasonable. However, why not leave the foggles on all
the time. It's redundant in IMC, but saves you having to fiddle
with them.

There's no need to tell the other pilot to be "PIC", just ask him
to take the controls. There's a difference betweeen operating the
controls and serving as pilot in command.

The FAA rule on the matter is that you gotta have a safety pilot
if you've got the foggles on. Since he's along for the ride anyhow,
he can just stare out into the soup in until you break out into visual
conditions.

"Paul Tomblin" wrote:
> I want to go fly some approaches (and a hold) on Sunday. I know from
> experience that it's likely that the ceilings will be too high to do any
> meaningful approaches in IMC, but high enough that I might be in IMC
> during the vectors to the approach or at the hold. I figured I could take
> along a safety pilot, and then when I break out on the approach tell him
> he's acting PIC while I put on my foggles and complete the approach, and
> then when we go back into the clouds on the missed take off the foggles
> (or not) and become PIC again.
>
> Has anybody else done this? Is it smart? Safe? Legal?

As long as you're flying an IFR clearance, I see no problem with it. Are you
doing it just so you can log the time in actual? Whenever I'm doing practice
approaches in such conditions, I just keep the foggles on the whole time.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Yeah, but there's nothing like those funky shadows you get when you're in
the clouds...

Marco Leon

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> It seems reasonable. However, why not leave the foggles on all
> the time. It's redundant in IMC, but saves you having to fiddle
> with them.

In a previous article, Ron Natalie > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> during the vectors to the approach or at the hold. I figured I could take
>> along a safety pilot, and then when I break out on the approach tell him
>> he's acting PIC while I put on my foggles and complete the approach, and
>It seems reasonable. However, why not leave the foggles on all
>the time. It's redundant in IMC, but saves you having to fiddle
>with them.

Good point.

>There's no need to tell the other pilot to be "PIC", just ask him
>to take the controls. There's a difference betweeen operating the
>controls and serving as pilot in command.

I don't want him to take the controls. I thought that the non-instrument
rated safety pilot in VMC is acting PIC (and both of us can log PIC since
he's acting and I'm sole manipulator), but obviously he can't be acting
PIC when in IMC.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I stayed up all night playing poker with tarot cards. I got a full
house and four people died. -- Steven Wright

Paul Tomblin wrote:

>
>>There's no need to tell the other pilot to be "PIC", just ask him
>>to take the controls. There's a difference betweeen operating the
>>controls and serving as pilot in command.
>
>
> I don't want him to take the controls. I thought that the non-instrument
> rated safety pilot in VMC is acting PIC (and both of us can log PIC since
> he's acting and I'm sole manipulator), but obviously he can't be acting
> PIC when in IMC.
>
It is up to you two to decide WHO is the pilot in command. He can't
be PIC on an instrument plan (regardless of whether it is VMC or IMC).

Ron Natalie > wrote:
> There's no need to tell the other pilot to be "PIC", just ask him
> to take the controls. There's a difference betweeen operating the
> controls and serving as pilot in command.

My recommendation would be to brief your safety pilot before you start
up so you both know what you're expecting from each other. When you
break out on short final is no time for the two of you to be wondering
why the other guy doesn't appear to be doing anything about getting
ready to land (or worse, one guy is pulling the throttle back to land
while the other guy is picking the gear up to go missed).

Ron Natalie > wrote:
: The FAA rule on the matter is that you gotta have a safety pilot
: if you've got the foggles on.

... and are in VMC, no? No need to scan for traffic in IMC so I wouldn't
think that it's necessary to have a safety pilot. Of course you don't *know* that
it's IMC if you have them on... interesting.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Roy Smith wrote:
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
>>There's no need to tell the other pilot to be "PIC", just ask him
>>to take the controls. There's a difference betweeen operating the
>>controls and serving as pilot in command.
>
>
> My recommendation would be to brief your safety pilot before you start
> up so you both know what you're expecting from each other. When you
> break out on short final is no time for the two of you to be wondering
> why the other guy doesn't appear to be doing anything about getting
> ready to land (or worse, one guy is pulling the throttle back to land
> while the other guy is picking the gear up to go missed).

Agreed, anytime there is more than one pilot in the aircraft it behooves
you to figure out what roles (if any) each will play.

wrote:
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
> : The FAA rule on the matter is that you gotta have a safety pilot
> : if you've got the foggles on.
>
> ... and are in VMC, no?

The rule says "simulated instrument flight." You can argue that the
"foggles on in IMC" isn't really simulated anymore, just severe actual,
but the truth of the matter is, how do you know you're not in visual
conditions?

Dan Luke > wrote:
: As long as you're flying an IFR clearance, I see no problem with it. Are you
: doing it just so you can log the time in actual? Whenever I'm doing practice
: approaches in such conditions, I just keep the foggles on the whole time.
: --

There's one potential problem with this that I can see. If you're trying to
both log PIC time (which is what it sounds like), there's a potential issue. Remember
that in order to both log PIC time, you must agree with each other beforehand that
while you are under the hood, he is ACTING as PIC (and thus legally responsible for
the safe outcome of the flight). Since two pilots are required for that portion of
the flight, his ACTING as PIC allows him to LOG PIC, while your manipulation of the
controls of an aircraft for which you are rated allows you to also LOG PIC for the
same time.

If your safety pilot has an instrument rating, this is fine. If the safety
pilot does NOT have an instrument rating, then you would legally have to terminate IFR
upon entering VMC in order for him to ACT as PIC. No person may accept an IFR
clearance without an instrument rating, whether in VMC or IMC. If you continue to fly
in VMC on and IFR clearance, you must still be ACTING as PIC while you manipulate the
controls so the safety pilot cannot log the time.

Conversely, if you were NOT on an IFR clearance, while it would be legal for
him to ACT as PIC in VMC, you would not be able to enter IMC without first getting a
clearance.

It sounds complicated, but I finally think I have the ACTING vs. LOGGING PIC
time thing figured out. Feel free to poke holes in the logic.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:19:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>I want to go fly some approaches (and a hold) on Sunday. I know from
>experience that it's likely that the ceilings will be too high to do any
>meaningful approaches in IMC, but high enough that I might be in IMC
>during the vectors to the approach or at the hold. I figured I could take
>along a safety pilot, and then when I break out on the approach tell him
>he's acting PIC while I put on my foggles and complete the approach, and
>then when we go back into the clouds on the missed take off the foggles
>(or not) and become PIC again.
>
>Has anybody else done this? Is it smart? Safe? Legal?


Why does he have to become PUC?

Safety pilots don't have to be PIC.

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:51:36 -0600, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

>
>"Paul Tomblin" wrote:
>> I want to go fly some approaches (and a hold) on Sunday. I know from
>> experience that it's likely that the ceilings will be too high to do any
>> meaningful approaches in IMC, but high enough that I might be in IMC
>> during the vectors to the approach or at the hold. I figured I could take
>> along a safety pilot, and then when I break out on the approach tell him
>> he's acting PIC while I put on my foggles and complete the approach, and
>> then when we go back into the clouds on the missed take off the foggles
>> (or not) and become PIC again.
>>
>> Has anybody else done this? Is it smart? Safe? Legal?
>
>As long as you're flying an IFR clearance, I see no problem with it. Are you
>doing it just so you can log the time in actual? Whenever I'm doing practice
>approaches in such conditions, I just keep the foggles on the whole time.


If he was on an IFR clearance, there WOULD be a problem with it if the
safety pilot is not rated.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> I want to go fly some approaches (and a hold) on Sunday. I know from
> experience that it's likely that the ceilings will be too high to do any
> meaningful approaches in IMC, but high enough that I might be in IMC
> during the vectors to the approach or at the hold. I figured I could take
> along a safety pilot, and then when I break out on the approach tell him
> he's acting PIC while I put on my foggles and complete the approach, and
> then when we go back into the clouds on the missed take off the foggles
> (or not) and become PIC again.
>
> Has anybody else done this? Is it smart? Safe? Legal?
>
>

Since you have to file IFR to fly in IMC anyway, why worry about taking
off the foggles? Just leave them on and fly like you are in VMC, but
tell your safety pilot to make sure they keep their eyes open during the
times you pop out of the clouds.


Matt

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, Ron Natalie > said:
>
>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>>>during the vectors to the approach or at the hold. I figured I could take
>>>along a safety pilot, and then when I break out on the approach tell him
>>>he's acting PIC while I put on my foggles and complete the approach, and
>>
>>It seems reasonable. However, why not leave the foggles on all
>>the time. It's redundant in IMC, but saves you having to fiddle
>>with them.
>
>
> Good point.
>
>
>>There's no need to tell the other pilot to be "PIC", just ask him
>>to take the controls. There's a difference betweeen operating the
>>controls and serving as pilot in command.
>
>
> I don't want him to take the controls. I thought that the non-instrument
> rated safety pilot in VMC is acting PIC (and both of us can log PIC since
> he's acting and I'm sole manipulator), but obviously he can't be acting
> PIC when in IMC.
>
>

I'd have to go back and check the regs to be sure, but I don't recall
that the safety pilot has to act as PIC or even should do so.


Matt

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:03:16 -0500, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>I'd have to go back and check the regs to be sure, but I don't recall
>that the safety pilot has to act as PIC or even should do so.

Your recollection is correct. The safety pilot does not even have to be
qualified to act as PIC in VFR conditions!


--ron

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:15:44 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>I thought that the non-instrument rated safety pilot in VMC is acting PIC

That is incorrect. The safety pilot does not even have to be qualified to
act as PIC under VFR! For example, the legal safety pilot may not have the
appropriate endorsements to act as PIC in the aircraft you are using.

> (and both of us can log PIC since he's acting and I'm sole manipulator)

It is possible to arrange for that to happen, but there is no requirement.



--ron

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:19:59 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>I want to go fly some approaches (and a hold) on Sunday. I know from
>experience that it's likely that the ceilings will be too high to do any
>meaningful approaches in IMC, but high enough that I might be in IMC
>during the vectors to the approach or at the hold. I figured I could take
>along a safety pilot, and then when I break out on the approach tell him
>he's acting PIC while I put on my foggles and complete the approach, and
>then when we go back into the clouds on the missed take off the foggles
>(or not) and become PIC again.
>
>Has anybody else done this? Is it smart? Safe? Legal?

Why do you want the safety pilot to become PIC?

There is no requirement for him to do so.

I think the "smart" thing would be to have one PIC for the entire flight.

If the safety pilot is instrument rated and current, then it could be him.
If the safety pilot is not instrument rated and current, then you would
have to terminate your IFR clearance when you became legal VFR and resume
it when the weather conditions became less than legal VFR. It sounds like
an awful lot of coordination between you, your safety pilot and ATC.

So I've never done it; I don't believe it is smart; and I doubt you could
get the necessary coordination with ATC to make it legal if your safety
pilot is not instrument rated.

If it were me, I would just wear the foggles and use the safety pilot when
required by the regulations. Safety pilot logs nothing or SIC if he wishes
for that time when he is required.

You are the PIC for the flight, and log PIC and instrument time.


--ron

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:03:16 -0500, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>I'd have to go back and check the regs to be sure, but I don't recall
>that the safety pilot has to act as PIC or even should do so.

Your recollection is correct. The safety pilot does not even have to be
qualified to act as PIC under VFR!

--ron

Here is method 1:
YOU file an IFR flight plan. YOU are PIC. Wear foggles in the VMC,
take them off in the clouds. Your safety pilot is safety pilot only
when you are in VMC. You log PIC, he doesn't log anything (he COULD
log second in command if he wants).

Here is method 2:
Your SAFETY files the IFR flight plan. You wear foggles in VMC, take
them off in the clouds. Your safety pilot can log PIC (by virtue of
being in charge of the flight). You log PIC by virtue of manipulating
the controls.

You can't do method 2 because your safety pilot is not IFR rated. But
you CAN do method 1. If you rent the plane you probably don't want to
do method 2 anyway, even if your safety is IFR rated. So do method 1.

On 3 Dec 2004 20:07:37 -0800, (Doug)
wrote:

>Here is method 1:
>YOU file an IFR flight plan. YOU are PIC. Wear foggles in the VMC,
>take them off in the clouds. Your safety pilot is safety pilot only
>when you are in VMC. You log PIC, he doesn't log anything (he COULD
>log second in command if he wants).
>
>Here is method 2:
>Your SAFETY files the IFR flight plan. You wear foggles in VMC, take
>them off in the clouds. Your safety pilot can log PIC (by virtue of
>being in charge of the flight). You log PIC by virtue of manipulating
>the controls.

Safety pilot cannot log PIC while in the clouds unless he is
manipulating the controls.


>
>You can't do method 2 because your safety pilot is not IFR rated. But
>you CAN do method 1. If you rent the plane you probably don't want to
>do method 2 anyway, even if your safety is IFR rated. So do method 1.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:03:16 -0500, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd have to go back and check the regs to be sure, but I don't recall
>>that the safety pilot has to act as PIC or even should do so.
>
>
> Your recollection is correct. The safety pilot does not even have to be
> qualified to act as PIC in VFR conditions!
>
>
The don't even need to be qualified to act as PIC in *ANY* conditions (unless
they are PIC). All it takes is category and class (and type if appropriate)
and a medical.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> That is incorrect. The safety pilot does not even have to be
> qualified to act as PIC under VFR!

....unless the safety pilot wants to log the time as PIC. Otherwise, just
retain PIC, use a safety pilot rated in category and class and all is well.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

As long as you have met the IFR 6 month requirement for passenagers
or current IFR, should be not problem. You may want to clear your
safty pilot with your insurance company. Anything happens, even during
taxing, the safty
pilot is responsible. Avemco told me this bit of information.

5pguy wrote:

> As long as you have met the IFR 6 month requirement for passenagers
> or current IFR, should be not problem. You may want to clear your
> safty pilot with your insurance company. Anything happens, even during
> taxing, the safty
> pilot is responsible. Avemco told me this bit of information.
>

What 6 month requirement for passengers?


Matt

Regs require IFR pilots to fly 6 approaches, a hold and follow a VOR
every 6 months to remain current. If you do this, you are allowed to
have
passengers while in IMC. This is legal. If you are outside "current"
; meaning
6 months and 1 day since you last fullfilled reg 61.57(c), then you can
only
fullfill this reg while in VFR conditions.

So, if a pilot is "in and out" of IMC while doing their 6 approaches
and they are outside of the 6 month period and they have a safty pilot
aboard, that pilot is not flying within the regs.

This is what I was referring to for passengers. Your safty pilot is a
passenager, even thou they are PIC. That's my understanding. If you
are
outside of reg 61.57(c) (6 months, 6 approaches, hold and following the
VOR), then you must remain in VRF conditions.

While talking to the insurance company, they informed me of the
following in general conversation... The safty pilot is PIC and if I
were taxing and dinged another aircraft, the safty pilot is
responsible. Also, I was told that
the safty pilot must be "ok'd" by us ( the insurance company) prior you

your flight.

So, I contact my club. They then told me that I can not simply asking
another VFR pilot who is current to fly with me as a safty pilot. I
think
we were all told in IFR training, that any VFR current pilot of type
aircraft
was ok to use. The club said that I must get someone
from the club to be a safty piloty and yes, it must be cleared by
the club first. So I figured that if the club must ok it first,
then the insurance company must have cleared a list of safty pilots
for that club. Check it out with our insurance provider.

Reg 61.57(c). The 6 approaches, a hold and follow a VOR every 6 months
to remaind current for your IFR rating.

> Regs require IFR pilots to fly 6 approaches, a hold and follow a VOR
> every 6 months to remain current. If you do this, you are allowed to
> have passengers while in IMC

In the US, if you do not do this, you may not fly in IMC or under IFR
even in VMC (though you may fly VFR with a safety pilot and do
practice approaches in VMC). Passengers have nothing to do with it.

There is a separate reg for takeoffs and landings - in the US you must
do (or "one" must have done) three takeoffs =and= landings in order to
be able to carry passengers. If you haven't done this, you can still
fly solo.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Assuming you're talking about a typical single engine aircraft, or any
other that only requires one crew member, the one operating the controls
would be pic while taxiing regardless of what you plan on doing the rest
of the flight. The safety pilot is just a passenger when you don't have
the hood on (I'm assuming you don't wear it for taxi lol) because the
safety pilot is not a required crew member at this time. This is my
understanding based on what I have been taught.

5pguy wrote:
> As long as you have met the IFR 6 month requirement for passenagers
> or current IFR, should be not problem. You may want to clear your
> safty pilot with your insurance company. Anything happens, even during
> taxing, the safty
> pilot is responsible. Avemco told me this bit of information.
>

On 18 Dec 2004 21:24:47 -0800, "5pguy" > wrote:

My comments are related to US rules (Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations)
only.

>Regs require IFR pilots to fly 6 approaches, a hold and follow a VOR
>every 6 months to remain current.

Not quite. There is no requirement to "follow a VOR". You are probably
thinking of the requirement to intercept and track a course using
navigation systems. There is no requirement that the navigation system be
a VOR.

>If you do this, you are allowed to have passengers while in IMC.

Not necessarily. The rules for carrying passengers are different from the
rules for acting as PIC under IFR. If you have not done at least three
takeoffs and landings in the preceding 90 days, you would not be allowed to
have passengers in IMC even if you are current instruments as you describe.


>If you are outside "current"; meaning 6 months and 1 day since you last
>fullfilled reg 61.57(c), then you can only fullfill this reg while in
>VFR conditions.

Again, not quite. There is no requirement in the regs that currency must
be done in VFR conditions. You are probably confused by the fact that this
non-current pilot cannot act as PIC under IFR. This prohibition would be
true regardless of the weather conditions. However, there is no
requirement that this pilot be acting as PIC when fulfilling the currency
requirement for flying IFR.

>
>So, if a pilot is "in and out" of IMC while doing their 6 approaches
>and they are outside of the 6 month period and they have a safty pilot
>aboard, that pilot is not flying within the regs.

Again, not quite. There is nothing in the regulations precluding the
safety pilot from being designated as PIC under these circumstances
(provided the SP is qualified to do so). If that is the case, there is no
regulation being broken.


>
>This is what I was referring to for passengers. Your safty pilot is a
>passenager, even thou they are PIC. That's my understanding.

Your understanding is incorrect. If anyone is a passenger, it would be the
pilot flying, not the non-flying PIC.

>If you are outside of reg 61.57(c) (6 months, 6 approaches, hold and following the
>VOR), then you must remain in VRF conditions.

Again, there is no FAR requiring this.

>
>While talking to the insurance company, they informed me of the
>following in general conversation... The safty pilot is PIC and if I
>were taxing and dinged another aircraft, the safty pilot is
>responsible. Also, I was told that the safty pilot must be "ok'd"
> by us ( the insurance company) prior you your flight.

That is purely an insurance company regulation without basis in the FAR's.
My insurer does have an open pilot specification. Many do, some don't.

>
>So, I contact my club. They then told me that I can not simply asking
>another VFR pilot who is current to fly with me as a safty pilot. I
>think
>we were all told in IFR training, that any VFR current pilot of type
>aircraft
>was ok to use. The club said that I must get someone
>from the club to be a safty piloty and yes, it must be cleared by
>the club first. So I figured that if the club must ok it first,
>then the insurance company must have cleared a list of safty pilots
>for that club. Check it out with our insurance provider.

Again, these are club rules, or insurance company rules, without basis in
the FAR's.

As a matter of fact, if you are doing your instrument currency requirements
under VFR, then (under US FAR's), the safety pilot does NOT have to be
current. He merely has to be rated in category and class, and have a
current medical. He does NOT require, for example, a high-performance
endorsement; passenger carrying currency (3 takeoffs and landings within 90
days); tail wheel endorsement; etc.


--ron

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 05:42:48 GMT, Jose > wrote:

>In the US, if you do not do this, you may not fly in IMC or under IFR
>even in VMC (though you may fly VFR with a safety pilot and do
>practice approaches in VMC).

You may fly under IFR; you just cannot act as PIC under IFR.

The pilot not flying can act as PIC, while you manipulate the controls.


--ron

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 07:15:35 GMT, Matt Young > wrote:

>Assuming you're talking about a typical single engine aircraft, or any
>other that only requires one crew member, the one operating the controls
>would be pic while taxiing regardless of what you plan on doing the rest
>of the flight. The safety pilot is just a passenger when you don't have
>the hood on (I'm assuming you don't wear it for taxi lol) because the
>safety pilot is not a required crew member at this time. This is my
>understanding based on what I have been taught.

You are close.

Under the (US) regulations, the safety pilot is not necessarily PIC at any
time, unless there is an agreement for him to be PIC.

However, he can be PIC at any time during the flight, even when taxiing and
the other pilot is manipulating the controls, if that is what the two
pilots agree upon (assuming the SP is qualified and current to act as PIC
in the a/c).

However, he may only LOG PIC time during that time when he is acting as
safety pilot.


--ron

5pguy wrote:

> Regs require IFR pilots to fly 6 approaches, a hold and follow a VOR
> every 6 months to remain current. If you do this, you are allowed to
> have
> passengers while in IMC. This is legal. If you are outside "current"
> ; meaning
> 6 months and 1 day since you last fullfilled reg 61.57(c), then you can
> only
> fullfill this reg while in VFR conditions.
>
> So, if a pilot is "in and out" of IMC while doing their 6 approaches
> and they are outside of the 6 month period and they have a safty pilot
> aboard, that pilot is not flying within the regs.
>
> This is what I was referring to for passengers. Your safty pilot is a
> passenager, even thou they are PIC. That's my understanding. If you
> are
> outside of reg 61.57(c) (6 months, 6 approaches, hold and following the
> VOR), then you must remain in VRF conditions.
>
> While talking to the insurance company, they informed me of the
> following in general conversation... The safty pilot is PIC and if I
> were taxing and dinged another aircraft, the safty pilot is
> responsible. Also, I was told that
> the safty pilot must be "ok'd" by us ( the insurance company) prior you
>
> your flight.
>
> So, I contact my club. They then told me that I can not simply asking
> another VFR pilot who is current to fly with me as a safty pilot. I
> think
> we were all told in IFR training, that any VFR current pilot of type
> aircraft
> was ok to use. The club said that I must get someone
> from the club to be a safty piloty and yes, it must be cleared by
> the club first. So I figured that if the club must ok it first,
> then the insurance company must have cleared a list of safty pilots
> for that club. Check it out with our insurance provider.
>

Wow, both a clueless club and a clueless insurance company. A
double-header! :-)


Matt

"5pguy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Regs require IFR pilots to fly 6 approaches, a hold and follow a VOR
> every 6 months to remain current. If you do this, you are allowed to
> have passengers while in IMC.

If you're current, you are allowed to be PIC in IMC. Otherwise, you're not,
with or without passengers. Saying "if you're current, you're allowed to
have passengers while in IMC" is like saying "if you're current, you're
allowed to wear a green sweatshirt while in IMC"--it's technically true, but
only because you're allowed to be PIC in IMC at all (with whomever or
whatever you like).

> If you are outside "current"; meaning
> 6 months and 1 day since you last fullfilled reg 61.57(c), then you can
> only fullfill this reg while in VFR conditions.

No, that's incorrect. It's true that you can only be PIC in VFR conditions.
But you can still fly IFR to regain currency (or for any other purpose) if
another pilot (instructor or otherwise) is the PIC.

> So, if a pilot is "in and out" of IMC while doing their 6 approaches
> and they are outside of the 6 month period and they have a safty pilot
> aboard, that pilot is not flying within the regs.

No, that's legal if the safety pilot is PIC. Otherwise, it's not legal.

> This is what I was referring to for passengers. Your safty pilot is a
> passenager, even thou they are PIC. That's my understanding.

That's incorrect. If the other pilot is PIC, then *you're* the passenger,
even if you're doing the flying.

> While talking to the insurance company, they informed me of the
> following in general conversation... The safty pilot is PIC and if I
> were taxing and dinged another aircraft, the safty pilot is
> responsible.

*If* your safety pilot is PIC for the flight (which would have to be the
case if the flight is IFR and you aren't instrument-current), then indeed
the safety pilot is responsible for whatever occurs during the flight
(including while taxiing). He's responsible in that case not because he's
the safety pilot, but because he's PIC.

> The club said that I must get someone
> from the club to be a safty piloty and yes, it must be cleared by
> the club first.

That's sensible. The safety pilot is a required crew member (whether PIC or
not), so the club should be as careful about authorizing safety pilots as
they are about authorizing PICs.

--Gary

Matt Young > wrote:
> Assuming you're talking about a typical single engine aircraft, or any
> other that only requires one crew member, the one operating the controls
> would be pic while taxiing regardless of what you plan on doing the rest
> of the flight.

The regs only say who is qualified to be PIC for a given flight, they
don't say who *is* PIC. If there are two qualified pilot, they need to
decide between themselves who is PIC.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:47:06 GMT, wrote:

>>However, he can be PIC at any time during the flight, even when taxiing and
>>the other pilot is manipulating the controls, if that is what the two
>>pilots agree upon (assuming the SP is qualified and current to act as PIC
>>in the a/c).
>>
>>However, he may only LOG PIC time during that time when he is acting as
>>safety pilot.
>>
>(assuming he is also acting as PIC)

Well, I thought that was implied when I stated "that is what the two pilots
agree upon", but maybe it was not.


--ron

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:54:38 GMT, wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:36:03 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:47:06 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>>However, he can be PIC at any time during the flight, even when taxiing and
>>>>the other pilot is manipulating the controls, if that is what the two
>>>>pilots agree upon (assuming the SP is qualified and current to act as PIC
>>>>in the a/c).
>>>>
>>>>However, he may only LOG PIC time during that time when he is acting as
>>>>safety pilot.
>>>>
>>>(assuming he is also acting as PIC)
>>
>>Well, I thought that was implied when I stated "that is what the two pilots
>>agree upon", but maybe it was not.
>>
>>
>>--ron
>
>
>Well, an "also" would have helped, but what I added is incomplete as
>well, since the regulations only allow the logging when the safety
>pilot is "required under the regulations".
>
>Presumably, during taxi, a safety pilot is not required, therefore he
>is unable to log any time, no matter what else is happening or what
>agreements exist.

But is he a "safety pilot" when not required by regulations? I think not.
--ron

Ron Rosenfeld Dec 19, 4:34 am show options


>>Regs require IFR pilots to fly 6 approaches, a hold and follow a VOR
>>every 6 months to remain current.


>Not quite. There is no requirement to "follow a VOR". You are probably
>thinking of the requirement to intercept and track a course using
>navigation systems. There is no requirement that the navigation system
be
>a VOR.

Yes, I was thinking "tracking". Thanks for the correction.

>>If you do this, you are allowed to have passengers while in IMC.

>Not necessarily. The rules for carrying passengers are different from
the
>rules for acting as PIC under IFR. If you have not done at least three
>takeoffs and landings in the preceding 90 days, you would not be
allowed to
>have passengers in IMC even if you are current instruments as you
describe.

Ron - So, I was focusing on passengers in IMC and had forgotten to
mention the 90 day rule. I was only thinking the 180 day rule.

>>If you are outside "current"; meaning 6 months and 1 day since you
last
>>fullfilled reg 61.57(c), then you can only fullfill this reg while in

>>VFR conditions.

>Again, not quite. There is no requirement in the regs that currency
must
>be done in VFR conditions. You are probably confused by the fact that
this
>non-current pilot cannot act as PIC under IFR. This prohibition would
be
>true regardless of the weather conditions. However, there is no
>requirement that this pilot be acting as PIC when fulfilling the
currency
>requirement for flying IFR.

Yes, but my reply was to the original poster of flying in and out of
IMC
with a safty pilot. If an IFR pilot had not met reg 61.57(c) of ...

(i) At least six instrument approaches;
(ii) Holding procedures; and
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems.

in the past 180 days, and then asking someone to be their SP, in IMC
conditions is not within the regs. This is "assuming" they have met
the 90 day requirment. Removing the fact that CFII's are not in this
formula as well. True, they don't need a SP when outisde the 180 days,
but they can't have a passenger until 61.57(c) has been met.


>So, if a pilot is "in and out" of IMC while doing their 6 approaches
>and they are outside of the 6 month period and they have a safty pilot
>aboard, that pilot is not flying within the regs.

>Again, not quite. There is nothing in the regulations precluding the
>safety pilot from being designated as PIC under these circumstances
>(provided the SP is qualified to do so). If that is the case, there is
no
>regulation being broken.

Correct Ron, but the poster did not disclose this information. :)



>>While talking to the insurance company, they informed me of the
>>following in general conversation... The safty pilot is PIC and if I
>>were taxing and dinged another aircraft, the safty pilot is
>>responsible. Also, I was told that the safty pilot must be "ok'd"
>> by us ( the insurance company) prior you your flight.

>That is purely an insurance company regulation without basis in the
FAR's.
>My insurer does have an open pilot specification. Many do, some don't.

I brought up insurance because pilots that I talk to, never thought
about
ckecking with their insurance company regarding SP coverage. Yes,
nothing to do with the regs.

Thanks Ron for bringing more in depth discussion into this thread.

On 19 Dec 2004 20:33:46 -0800, "5pguy" > wrote:

>....

I think there may be some disconnects here due to imprecision in writing,
although there may be some conceptual issues also.

There are a number of things one may not do in IMC if one is not "IFR
current". He can't carry elephants in the airplane for hire, either.

But the salient point is that one may not act as PIC under IFR, even solo.
So in his original scenario, the reason he could not accomplish it was NOT
because he was arguably carrying a passenger, but rather because he could
not act as PIC under IFR.

Note also that there is a difference between IMC and IFR. IMC refers only
to the weather conditions. IFR refers to the rules under which the flight
is conducted.

So the non-current instrument pilot may not act as PIC in an aircraft
flying under IFR, even if the weather is VMC.

With regard to OP, the only way he could legally accomplish his described
flight, would be if the SP were acting as PIC. Obviously, in order for the
SP to act as PIC, he must be qualified to do so. And, realistically, the
SP would have to be acting as PIC for the entire flight since, as I read
the scenario, the flight would have to be conducted under IFR. (Not
necessarily IMC for the entire flight, but certainly IFR for the entire
flight).

(Let's please not get into the purely hypothetical of cancelling IFR
whenever it is legal VFR, and refiling before the weather becomes IMC
again).

I would be surprised if the insurance policy had a clause specifically
mentioning "safety pilot". It is more likely that the policy has a clause
regulating who may act as PIC, and the club has a policy (or a
misinterpretation of the regulations) indicating that a safety pilot must
be PIC.

....onward through the fog...
--ron

> wrote in message
...
> On 18 Dec 2004 21:24:47 -0800, "5pguy" > wrote:
> A pilot is njot allowed to even file an IFR flight plan if he is not
> current,

Where did you get that?

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:28:22 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> On 18 Dec 2004 21:24:47 -0800, "5pguy" > wrote:
>>> A pilot is njot allowed to even file an IFR flight plan if he is not
>>> current,
>>
>>Where did you get that?
>>
>>
> Hey it wasn't me that said that.

Sorry, darn multilevel postings/replies (as in above).

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:33:51 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:28:22 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>> On 18 Dec 2004 21:24:47 -0800, "5pguy" > wrote:
>>>> A pilot is njot allowed to even file an IFR flight plan if he is not
>>>> current,
>>>
>>>Where did you get that?
>>>
>>>
>> Hey it wasn't me that said that.
>
>Sorry, darn multilevel postings/replies (as in above).

It would make threads easier to read if people would check
how that thread is going and then use one form (top/bottom posting)
when adding commentary... But anyway.

Is box 14 on the standard FAA flight plan (Pilot's Name) supposed to
be listing the PIC? If it is and you're not rated (or have fallen out
of currency) wouldn't filing an IFR flight plan under your name be
against 61.57(c) ('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,')? Or are we
splitting hairs (you can file all you want, it's fine until you call
up to get the clearance and start working under IFR)?

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:09:07 -0500, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>Is box 14 on the standard FAA flight plan (Pilot's Name) supposed to
>be listing the PIC? If it is and you're not rated (or have fallen out
>of currency) wouldn't filing an IFR flight plan under your name be
>against 61.57(c) ('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,')? Or are we
>splitting hairs (you can file all you want, it's fine until you call
>up to get the clearance and start working under IFR)?

No, the hair splitting comes from the fact (and common practice by
students) that there is no requirement for the PIC to be the person
actually filing the flight plan.




--ron

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Is box 14 on the standard FAA flight plan (Pilot's Name) supposed to
> be listing the PIC? If it is and you're not rated (or have fallen out
> of currency) wouldn't filing an IFR flight plan under your name be
> against 61.57(c) ('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,')? Or are we
> splitting hairs (you can file all you want, it's fine until you call
> up to get the clearance and start working under IFR)?
>

I don't call it splitting hairs when the issue is legality.

Yes, box 14 of the flight plan is supposed to list the name of the person
who is planned to be PIC on the proposed flight. But nothing says that the
actual PIC must be the filed PIC. The clearance will not have a name
associated with it, and ATC will not know nor do they care who the PIC is or
whether you are rated or current.

I don't believe that filing a plan for a proposed flight is "acting as PIC".
When someone files a flight plan, they are not acting "as pilot in command
under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for
VFR".

I don't believe that accepting a clearance is "acting as PIC". When someone
accepts a clearance, they are not acting "as pilot in command under IFR or
in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR".

I do believe that operating an aircraft, or being in the aircraft while it
is being operated and being responsible for its operation, can be "acting as
PIC".

But I don't think any of that really matters much, practically, it is just
getting to the actual meaning of the regulation. What matters is that the
flight itself must be conducted in accordance with the regulations. The
only time I am aware that the issue even comes up is when one files a flight
plan for VFR Flight Following. To route a flight plan to ATC rather than to
FSS, the "IFR" block must be checked. Someone always wants to argue that
that is filing an IFR flight plan and a VFR pilot cannot do that. First,
there is no prohibition against it. Second, it is not a proposal for a
flight to be conducted under IFR, it is a proposal for a flight to be
conducted under VFR and for which certain radar services to VFR aircraft are
requested; the IFR/VFR block on the flight plan serves as a routing flag to
cause the computers to send the flight proposal to the provider of those
services, ATC.

Regards,
Stan