Solo IFR Currency

[S Herman]

Assuming VMC conditions, is it legal for a current IR pilot to file an
IFR flight plan, and fly the flight *solo* wearing a hood, to meet
currency requirements? Of course the hood would be off for take-off
and upon completing an approach with a landing. Not that it's the
safest or smartest way to do this, but can it be done legally without
a safety pilot?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
S Herman > wrote:
>Assuming VMC conditions, is it legal for a current IR pilot to file an
>IFR flight plan, and fly the flight *solo* wearing a hood, to meet
>currency requirements? Of course the hood would be off for take-off
>and upon completing an approach with a landing. Not that it's the
>safest or smartest way to do this, but can it be done legally without
>a safety pilot?

Absolutely not.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, S Herman > said:
>Assuming VMC conditions, is it legal for a current IR pilot to file an
>IFR flight plan, and fly the flight *solo* wearing a hood, to meet
>currency requirements? Of course the hood would be off for take-off

No. ****ing. Way.

Even on an IFR flight plan, in VMC the PIC is responsible for separation
from other aircraft. How are you going to do that with a hood on? How
are you going to see and avoid VFR traffic who ATC has no contact with and
no separation responsibility for?

How could you have passed your Private Pilot written without understanding
that ATC has no responsibility for separation between VFR and IFR traffic?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Boromir, with three arrows in your chest, you ARE the Weakest Link, g'bye!"

[Brien K. Meehan]

No, you'd be violating 91.113(b).

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

> > Assuming VMC conditions, is it legal for a current IR pilot to file an
> > IFR flight plan, and fly the flight *solo* wearing a hood, to meet
> > currency requirements? Of course the hood would be off for take-off

It's risky.

ptomblin wrote:

> [...] How could you have passed your Private Pilot written without
> understanding that ATC has no responsibility for separation between
> VFR and IFR traffic?

But in US class B/C (and Canada class C), they do take on that
responsibility.


- FChE

[Maule Driver]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> ptomblin wrote:
>>[...] How could you have passed your Private Pilot written without
>>understanding that ATC has no responsibility for separation between
>>VFR and IFR traffic?
>
> But in US class B/C (and Canada class C), they do take on that
> responsibility.

US Class C? I don't think so. Just trying some logic here with the
books closed, how could they separate VFR traffic that isn't identified
on radar from anyone? Radar ID is not required to enter Class C. I can
just see plugging along with a hood on in VFR while some guy in 2 way
radio contact is transiting the Class C.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Frank Ch. Eigler) said:
>> [...] How could you have passed your Private Pilot written without
>> understanding that ATC has no responsibility for separation between
>> VFR and IFR traffic?
>
>But in US class B/C (and Canada class C), they do take on that
>responsibility.

In the US, only in class B, not in C. A little hard to do a currency
flight that's only going to be in class B in most parts of the country.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
My brother went to Florida, and all he bought me was this stupid election.
- George W. Bush

[Robert M. Gary]

I hope to God this is a joke. I hope you understand that in class E and
D airspace ATC ONLY seperates IFR aircraft from other IFR aircraft. You
are on your own to seperate yourself from VFR aircraft. Some VFR
aircraft may not even have transponders. I hope you don't plan to fly
over my house.

-Robert

[Gary Drescher]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
. com...
> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> ptomblin wrote:
>>>[...] How could you have passed your Private Pilot written without
>>>understanding that ATC has no responsibility for separation between
>>>VFR and IFR traffic?
>>
>> But in US class B/C (and Canada class C), they do take on that
>> responsibility.
>
> US Class C? I don't think so. Just trying some logic here with the
> books closed, how could they separate VFR traffic that isn't identified on
> radar from anyone? Radar ID is not required to enter Class C. I can just
> see plugging along with a hood on in VFR while some guy in 2 way radio
> contact is transiting the Class C.

ATC can provide separation even in areas of no radar coverage. ATC does
separate IFR traffic from IFR and VFR traffic in Class C (AIM 3-2-4e) and
even VFR from VFR in Class B (AIM 3-2-3a). But separation services do not
relieve the PIC of FAR 91.113b's requirement to see and avoid, weather
permitting. Moreover, FAR 91.109b1 explicitly requires having a safety pilot
when you fly under the hood ("simulated instrument conditions"), so doing it
solo would be doubly illegal.

And aside from being illegal and reckless, it wouldn't count towards
instrument currency requirements, since the necessary logging of
instrument-currency flying, according to FAR 61.51b1v, includes the name of
the required safety pilot.

--Gary

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Maule Driver > writes:

> > > [...] ATC has no responsibility for separation between
> > > VFR and IFR traffic?
>
> > But in US class B/C (and Canada class C), they do take on that
> > responsibility.
>
> US Class C? I don't think so.

How do you read AIM 3-2-4 e, which reads "... VFR aircraft are
separated from IFR aircraft ..."?

> [...] I can just see plugging along with a hood on in VFR while some
> guy in 2 way radio contact is transiting the Class C.

The original poster was considering practicing with a hood, while
under an active IFR flight plan. Your scenario is different.


- FChE

[xyzzy]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

>>>Assuming VMC conditions, is it legal for a current IR pilot to file an
>>>IFR flight plan, and fly the flight *solo* wearing a hood, to meet
>>>currency requirements? Of course the hood would be off for take-off
>
>
> It's risky.
>
> ptomblin wrote:
>
>
>>[...] How could you have passed your Private Pilot written without
>>understanding that ATC has no responsibility for separation between
>>VFR and IFR traffic?
>
>
> But in US class B/C (and Canada class C), they do take on that
> responsibility.
>

Well yes and no, when I've been under the hood in C when they clear me
for the approach one of the instructions is almost always "maintain VFR" .

[Peter R.]

xyzzy > wrote:

> Well yes and no, when I've been under the hood in C when they clear me
> for the approach one of the instructions is almost always "maintain VFR" .

When on an IFR flight plan? :)

The OP was asking about filing and flying IFR, and then using a hood.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Julian Scarfe]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> No, you'd be violating 91.113(b).

"...vigilance shall be maintained" is somewhat subjective. One could argue
that most pilots bust that one on every flight. What if you pop the hood up
every 30 seconds?

Fortunately 91.109(b) requires no interpretaion whatsoever:

(b) 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...

(Sorry, now I note that Gary has already cited that one.)

Julian

[S Herman]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:03:55 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:


>No. ****ing. Way.

Of course. Sorry guys. For those who were somewhat stunned, it was a
hypothetical question, and a very stupid one at that. In IMC, all
flights are supposed to be under control of ATC, in VMC, not.

[Peter R.]

S Herman > wrote:

> In IMC, all
> flights are supposed to be under control of ATC, in VMC, not.

Huh (to the second part of your statement)?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[xyzzy]

Peter R. wrote:

> xyzzy > wrote:
>
>
>>Well yes and no, when I've been under the hood in C when they clear me
>>for the approach one of the instructions is almost always "maintain VFR" .
>
>
> When on an IFR flight plan? :)

No.

>
> The OP was asking about filing and flying IFR, and then using a hood.

That's different. never mind :)

[xyzzy]

Julian Scarfe wrote:

> "Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>No, you'd be violating 91.113(b).
>
>
> "...vigilance shall be maintained" is somewhat subjective. One could argue
> that most pilots bust that one on every flight. What if you pop the hood up
> every 30 seconds?
>
> Fortunately 91.109(b) requires no interpretaion whatsoever:
>
> (b) 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...

bummer for throwover-yoke Bo pilots

[Maule Driver]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>>US Class C? I don't think so.
>
> How do you read AIM 3-2-4 e, which reads "... VFR aircraft are
> separated from IFR aircraft ..."?
I wasn't reading but considering now
>
>>[...] I can just see plugging along with a hood on in VFR while some
>>guy in 2 way radio contact is transiting the Class C.
>
> The original poster was considering practicing with a hood, while
> under an active IFR flight plan. Your scenario is different.
>
I meant to say "plugging along with a hood on in VMC..." I'm thinking
of the guy who is plugging along on an IFR plan in VMC while a VFR guy
enters the Class C based on his initial call being acknowledged before
his location is known or radar contact is made. Thinking that Class C
entry is permitted once your call is ack'd with your call sign

[S Herman]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:47:59 -0400, "Peter R."
> wrote:

>S Herman > wrote:
>
>> In IMC, all
>> flights are supposed to be under control of ATC, in VMC, not.
>
>Huh (to the second part of your statement)?

Uh, maybe more foot -in-my-mouth? :-) I mean that it's illegal to be
in IMC without a clearance, IOW, under the control of ATC. But in VMC
it's highly probable, outside of B airspace, that there are aircraft
not under ATC control.

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/28/2005 12:53, S Herman wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:47:59 -0400, "Peter R."
> > wrote:
>
>>S Herman > wrote:
>>
>>> In IMC, all
>>> flights are supposed to be under control of ATC, in VMC, not.
>>
>>Huh (to the second part of your statement)?
>
> Uh, maybe more foot -in-my-mouth? :-) I mean that it's illegal to be
> in IMC without a clearance, IOW, under the control of ATC.


Actually, that's not quite true. You are required to have an IFR
flight plan and ATC clearance before you can fly in IMC within
controlled airspace (or within Class A regardless of the weather).

If you're outside controlled airspace, this rule doesn't apply.

But ... that's a whole 'nuther can-o-worms ;-)

> But in VMC
> it's highly probable, outside of B airspace, that there are aircraft
> not under ATC control.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[S Herman]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:21:08 -0700, Mark Hansen >
wrote:


>
>Actually, that's not quite true. You are required to have an IFR
>flight plan and ATC clearance before you can fly in IMC within
>controlled airspace (or within Class A regardless of the weather).
>
>If you're outside controlled airspace, this rule doesn't apply.
>
>But ... that's a whole 'nuther can-o-worms ;-)

So, where/when can you fly in the clouds (IMC) without an IFR flight
plan & an ATC clearance?

[max]

>So, where/when can you fly in the clouds (IMC) without an IFR flight
>plan & an ATC clearance?

In class G airspace.

[Rich]

xyzzy wrote:
> Julian Scarfe wrote:
>
>> "Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> No, you'd be violating 91.113(b).
>>
>>
>>
>> "...vigilance shall be maintained" is somewhat subjective. One could
>> argue that most pilots bust that one on every flight. What if you pop
>> the hood up every 30 seconds?
>>
>> Fortunately 91.109(b) requires no interpretaion whatsoever:
>>
>> (b) 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...
>
>
> bummer for throwover-yoke Bo pilots
>

Read the FAR's further... there IS an exception.

Rich

[Ron Natalie]

max wrote:
>>So, where/when can you fly in the clouds (IMC) without an IFR flight
>>plan & an ATC clearance?
>
>
> In class G airspace.
>
Which there is precious little of that meets the IFR rules for
minimum altitudes.

[Ross Richardson]

Now that is interesting. I have been a safety pilot for a friend of mine
that has a single control Bo and I never gave it a thought.


Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI


xyzzy wrote:
> Julian Scarfe wrote:
>
>> "Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> No, you'd be violating 91.113(b).
>>
>>
>>
>> "...vigilance shall be maintained" is somewhat subjective. One could
>> argue that most pilots bust that one on every flight. What if you pop
>> the hood up every 30 seconds?
>>
>> Fortunately 91.109(b) requires no interpretaion whatsoever:
>>
>> (b) 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...
>
>
> bummer for throwover-yoke Bo pilots
>

[Marco Leon]

Wow, so technically you can't practice IFR approaches under the hood in
throw-over yoke Bonanzas? Interesting.

Marco Leon

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> Now that is interesting. I have been a safety pilot for a friend of mine
> that has a single control Bo and I never gave it a thought.
>
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI
>
>
> xyzzy wrote:
> > Julian Scarfe wrote:
> >
> >> "Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>
> >>> No, you'd be violating 91.113(b).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "...vigilance shall be maintained" is somewhat subjective. One could
> >> argue that most pilots bust that one on every flight. What if you pop
> >> the hood up every 30 seconds?
> >>
> >> Fortunately 91.109(b) requires no interpretaion whatsoever:
> >>
> >> (b) 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...
> >
> >
> > bummer for throwover-yoke Bo pilots
> >



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Gary Drescher]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Wow, so technically you can't practice IFR approaches under the hood in
> throw-over yoke Bonanzas? Interesting.

91.109b3: "...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."

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/

[Andy]

S Herman wrote:
> Assuming VMC conditions, is it legal for a current IR pilot to file an
> IFR flight plan, and fly the flight *solo* wearing a hood, to meet
> currency requirements? Of course the hood would be off for take-off
> and upon completing an approach with a landing. Not that it's the
> safest or smartest way to do this, but can it be done legally without
> a safety pilot?

25 years ago I had an instructor that told me he did exactly that on a
flight between Yuma and Long Beach. I never flew with him again.

Andy

[Bill]

Even in B airspace, you are not separated to IFR standards if
you call in VFR.

Bill Hale

[Hilton]

max wrote:
> >So, where/when can you fly in the clouds (IMC) without an IFR flight
> >plan & an ATC clearance?
>
> In class G airspace.

The FAA has ruled that this is in violation of 91.13.

Hilton

[Judah]

"max" > wrote in news:1122595392.037641.117640
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>>So, where/when can you fly in the clouds (IMC) without an IFR flight
>>plan & an ATC clearance?
>
> In class G airspace.

I think there is also an exception for within 1/2 mile of the runway, but
it may be a "Clear of Clouds" exception, not an "In the Clouds" exception.

I'm too tired and lazy to look it up right now, especially because it's
more pilot trivia than practical piloting... :)

[Paul Lynch]

Please be specific. There is lots of G airspace out west that goes over
14K. Granted the weather is not usually IMC in many of those areas, but as
another poster stated, you can file IFR and be IMC without any ATC control.

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> max wrote:
>> >So, where/when can you fly in the clouds (IMC) without an IFR flight
>> >plan & an ATC clearance?
>>
>> In class G airspace.
>
> The FAA has ruled that this is in violation of 91.13.
>
> Hilton
>
>

[Hilton]

Paul Lynch wrote:
> Please be specific. There is lots of G airspace out west that goes over
> 14K. Granted the weather is not usually IMC in many of those areas, but
as
> another poster stated, you can file IFR and be IMC without any ATC
control.

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF

Hilton


> Hilton wrote:
> > max wrote:
> >> >So, where/when can you fly in the clouds (IMC) without an IFR flight
> >> >plan & an ATC clearance?
> >>
> >> In class G airspace.
> >
> > The FAA has ruled that this is in violation of 91.13.
> >
> > Hilton

[[email protected]]

Hilton > wrote:
: Paul Lynch wrote:
: > Please be specific. There is lots of G airspace out west that goes over
: > 14K. Granted the weather is not usually IMC in many of those areas, but
: as
: > another poster stated, you can file IFR and be IMC without any ATC
: control.

: http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF

: Hilton

I read this, and find it a load of crap. Not that I think it's a good idea to
do what he did (depart into IMC without a clearance under VFR since it was
uncontrolled airspace), his argument is basically sound. Basically, the FAA agreed
that he was legal to do this. They then used the catchall "careless and reckless" to
bust him anyway. He made a valid point saying that if it's illegal to do it, then the
rule should be changed to make it clear. Here's the response:

"With regard to the respondent's assertion that, "[i]f anytime an aircraft enters
clouds in uncontrolled airspace it is careless without a clearance then the FAR's
should be change," we note that it would be neither wise nor possible for the FAA to
attempt to specifically prohibit every form of conduct that it considers careless."

So basically, you have to follow all the rules, but they won't tell you what
they all are. Bottom line is, if you don't have a problem, there won't be a
regulatory problem. But if you have a problem, they'll find a regulator problem.

-Cory

: > Hilton wrote:
: > > max wrote:
: > >> >So, where/when can you fly in the clouds (IMC) without an IFR flight
: > >> >plan & an ATC clearance?
: > >>
: > >> In class G airspace.
: > >
: > > The FAA has ruled that this is in violation of 91.13.
: > >
: > > Hilton



--

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

[Hilton]

Cory,

> Hilton wrote:
> : Paul Lynch wrote:
> : > Please be specific. There is lots of G airspace out west that goes
over
> : > 14K. Granted the weather is not usually IMC in many of those areas,
but
> : as
> : > another poster stated, you can file IFR and be IMC without any ATC
> : control.
>
> : http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF
>
> : Hilton
>
> I read this, and find it a load of crap. Not that I think it's a good
idea to
> do what he did (depart into IMC without a clearance under VFR since it was
> uncontrolled airspace), ...

Why is it not a good idea to do what he did? [Warning: Loaded question]


> Basically, the FAA agreed
> that he was legal to do this. They then used the catchall "careless and
reckless" to
> bust him anyway. He made a valid point saying that if it's illegal to do
it, then the
> rule should be changed to make it clear. Here's the response:
>
> "With regard to the respondent's assertion that, "[i]f anytime an aircraft
enters
> clouds in uncontrolled airspace it is careless without a clearance then
the FAR's
> should be change," we note that it would be neither wise nor possible for
the FAA to
> attempt to specifically prohibit every form of conduct that it considers
careless."
>
> So basically, you have to follow all the rules, but they won't tell you
what
> they all are. Bottom line is, if you don't have a problem, there won't be
a
> regulatory problem. But if you have a problem, they'll find a regulator
problem.

There are numerous FARs that are delibrately vague. If you disagree with
this, why not start writing up a list of 'reckless' things a pilot could
do - I bet you'll shoot right past 100 and keep going. It's impossible to
specifically state all the things a pilot may not do.

Hilton

[Paul Lynch]

That certainly answers the "specific" part. I agree with another poster the
ruling logic is not sound, although I can understand why the busted him for
careless and reckless. He could have easily filed a clearance.

Live and painfully learn...

"Hilton" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Paul Lynch wrote:
>> Please be specific. There is lots of G airspace out west that goes over
>> 14K. Granted the weather is not usually IMC in many of those areas, but
> as
>> another poster stated, you can file IFR and be IMC without any ATC
> control.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF
>
> Hilton
>
>
>> Hilton wrote:
>> > max wrote:
>> >> >So, where/when can you fly in the clouds (IMC) without an IFR flight
>> >> >plan & an ATC clearance?
>> >>
>> >> In class G airspace.
>> >
>> > The FAA has ruled that this is in violation of 91.13.
>> >
>> > Hilton
>
>