Re: IFR logging question - is this legal?

[Brad]

Peter wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is for an N-reg aircraft.
>
> Aircraft: a standard piston single.
>
> P1 seat: a pilot legal to be PIC under VFR.
>
> P2 seat: a pilot legal to be PIC under IFR (but no CFI/CFII rating).
>
> No money changes hands.

Irrelevant to logging time

>
> Let's say one does an IFR flight.
>
> Obviously the one in the P2 seat has to be PIC, to keep it legal.
>
> Can the P1 pilot log anything at all and, if so, what can he log?

I presume P1 is sole manipulator of the controls

>
> Now, is the situation any different if the aircraft is owned by the P2
> person and rented to the P1 person?
>
> I know about the 100-hr check stuff; 91.409: "...no person may operate
> an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire,
> and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft
> which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of
> time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour
> inspection...

Irrelevant to logging time

>
> and this suggests that a 100hr check is NOT required (nobody being
> carried for hire, and nobody doing instructing).

correct

>
> Thank you for any comments.
>
> Can the P1 also log it? I'd hope so!

Only if P1 is sole manipulator of the controls, rated for the category
and class of airplane, and using a view limiting device (91.109) that
would require a second crew member. That second crew member of course
would need to act as PIC. Without a view limiting device, two pilots
are not necessary. P1 would be acting as an organic autopilot. The
regs make no distinction between VMC versus IMC or IFR versus VFR for
the purposes of logging time.

[Brad[_1_]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Brad" > wrote:
>
> >> P1 seat: a pilot legal to be PIC under VFR.
> >> P2 seat: a pilot legal to be PIC under IFR (but no CFI/CFII rating).
>
> >> Can the P1 also log it? I'd hope so!
> >
> >Only if P1 is sole manipulator of the controls, rated for the category
> >and class of airplane,
>
> Correct.
>
> >and using a view limiting device (91.109) that
> >would require a second crew member.
>
> This isn't necessary for *P1* to log it. He's sole
> manipulator.
>
> >That second crew member of course
> >would need to act as PIC. Without a view limiting device, two pilots
> >are not necessary.
>
> Irrelevant as to P1's right to log.

Except that he's asking if they can both log it. Quote: "Can the P1
also log it? I'd hope so!"

They can't BOTH log PIC time.

[Robert M. Gary]

Brad wrote:
> They can't BOTH log PIC time.

Actually they can if P1 is under the hood and flying and P2 is acting
as PIC.

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

Brad wrote:
> The
> regs make no distinction between VMC versus IMC or IFR versus VFR for
> the purposes of logging time.

The safety pilot cannot log time in IMC.

-Robert, CFII

[Dane Spearing]

In article . com>,
Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
>Brad wrote:
>> The
>> regs make no distinction between VMC versus IMC or IFR versus VFR for
>> the purposes of logging time.
>
>The safety pilot cannot log time in IMC.

Unless the pilot who is manipulating the controls is not instrument rated,
in which case the "safety pilot" must be PIC (and had better be
instrument rated and on an active IFR flight plan).

-- Dane

[Michael Ware]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...

> The only way to do this under G without P2 being an instructor, would
> be in VMC, as a VFR flight, in which case P1 can wear an IFR hood, P2
> is a safety pilot (and can't log anything) while P1 can log it all as
> instrument time.
Simulated instrument time, not actual.

[Michael[_1_]]

Peter wrote:
> The Q is whether the flight is legal.

That's a bad question. It implies that FAR's are absolute, like the
laws of physics, or at least interpreted by some reasonably objective
and independent agency, like criminal law. However, that's not how it
is. The FAA interprets its own rules as it sees fit, and the courts
are required to defer to it. There is not even a requirement for
consistency. That's the legal precedent. Thus the only reasonable
question is - if I admit this (such as by logging it) will I get in
trouble. I would say probably not - though there are no guarantees.

Having said that, the flight should be legal because there is no rule
that says it is not. That's how Part 91 ops work. The rules are by
nature permissive - anyhting that is not forbidden is permitted.

P2 would be acting as PIC. P1 would be sole manipulator of the
controls.

Note that logging PIC and being PIC are not the same thing at all.

P1 logs PIC because he is sole manipulator of the controls in an
aircraft for which he is rated. He can't act as PIC.

P2 logs nothing. He is not sole manipulator, and he is not PIC in an
operation where more than one crew member is required.

There is a twist to this that may allow P2 to also log PIC. It won't
work if the weather is solid IMC, but if only a relativelyt small
portion of the flight is spent in IMC and P1 wears a hood, then we can
consider this flight to exist for the purpose of gaining instrument
experience via simulated instrument flight. Now the flight requires
two crew members, and P2 has to be PIC, so he can log it. It is not
true that he can only log the time that P1 is under the hood. He logs
PIC for the flight. That is how the FAA has trditionally seen it.

However, you need to be sensible about it. If the flight is 2 hours of
which 1.5 hours is hood time, .3 is IMC time, and .2 is
taxi/takeoff/landing time, then your argument that this is primarily a
simulated instrument flight and the IMC time is incidental (forced on
you by conditions) is reasonable, and P2 can legitimately log 2 hours
of flight time since he served as PIC for the entire flight.

If it's more like .3 hours hood time and 1.5 hours IMC time, then
you're going to have a tough time convincing someone that the flight
was primarily an instrument training flight.

I'm not saying this is gospel, but based on the converations I've had
with the FAA inspectors I've met, I think this is probably how an FAA
inspector would look at it - assuming he wasn't out to get you for
something, in which case there's no point in worrying because he will
get you anyway.

Michael

[Jose[_1_]]

> Perhaps I am not sufficiently clarifying the objective here: it is to
> enable P1 to fly the (N-reg) plane and log it, under actual IFR,
> without P2 being an instructor.
>
> If it is legal, what could P1 log it as? Surely he can't log
> instrument time unless P2 is a CFII?

In the United States, it is legal.

P1 (non instrument rated but otherwise current)
P2 (instrument rated and current)

To BE PIC, one must be current and rated for the aircraft and the
conditions. To LOG PIC it is not necessary to BE PIC. One can BE PIC
without being able to LOG PIC.

Under the conditions noted (IMC, IFR), P1 cannot BE PIC. P2 can be PIC.
Therefore, P2 must be PIC to make the flight legal. This (by itself)
does not allow him to log PIC time.

P2, as sole manipulator, can log PIC time, even though he is not PIC.

==

Now change the conditions slightly. VMC, IFR. P1 still cannot BE PIC.
P2 is required to be PIC. If P1 (sole manipulator) is not wearing a
hood, then no safety pilot is required, so P2 is not a required crew
member. If P1 is under the hood, then a safety pilot is required. I am
not clear on whether this is sufficient (as in VMC, VFR) to allow both
to log PIC, since the flight COULD NOT TAKE PLACE (legally) without P2's
instrument rating, whereas the VMC, VFR flight COULD take place without
P2's instrument rating. I'm inclined to think that both pilots could
log PIC time in this case, and only P2 could BE PIC.

VMC, VFR, with nobody under the hood - No safety pilot is required. The
sole manipulator gets to log PIC time. Either pilot may BE PIC, but
being PIC does not (by itself) allow one to log PIC time.

VMC, VFR, with P1 under the hood. P2, the safety pilot, is a required
crewmember. P1 (rated for the aircraft and conditions) MAY be PIC, but
P2 may also be PIC. Treating these conditions separately:

....if P2 is PIC, he can also LOG PIC time as "pilot in command where
more than one pilot is required". (this is specifically allowed in the
regs and the "letters of clarification"). P1 (sole manipulator) may
also log PIC time, so two pilots get to log PIC time even though only
one is actually the PIC.

....if P2 is NOT PIC, then P1 MUST be PIC. He may log PIC time as sole
manipulator, and also as "pilot in command where more than one pilot is
required". (he doesn't get double hours though. :) In this case, P2
may choose to log SIC time, as a required crewmember. This is what I do
(it's my only SIC time; although I have no interest in flying commercial
jets, I have heard that those hiring like to see SIC time as it shows
crew management experience).

IMC, VFR. This is an illegal flight, and nobody should log anything. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave S]

Michael wrote:

>
> There is a twist to this that may allow P2 to also log PIC. It won't
> work if the weather is solid IMC, but if only a relativelyt small
> portion of the flight is spent in IMC and P1 wears a hood, ....

Why would you need to wear a hood if you were in IMC? IMC by its
definition precludes navigation by reference outside the plane. A hood
or view limiting device is used to SIMULATE IMC when it does not, in
fact, exist.

Dave

[Dave S]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Brad wrote:
>
>>The
>>regs make no distinction between VMC versus IMC or IFR versus VFR for
>>the purposes of logging time.
>
>
> The safety pilot cannot log time in IMC.
>
> -Robert, CFII
>

IF the safety pilot is the one who has the instrument rating, he most
certainly can.. because he IS the PIC.

In the scenario listed above, the pilot flying (P1) is described as
legal for VFR flight.. and P2 is listed for legal for IFR flight.. so
for this IFR flight, only P2 can BE the pilot in command.

Both can log, however.

P1 logs PIC by virtue of being sole manipulator. P2 logs PIC by virtue
of BEING the PIC on the IFR flight plan, because only P2 can BE the PIC
under an IFR clearance under the conditions specified by the original
poster.

Dave

[Ron Natalie]

Dane Spearing wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>> Brad wrote:
>>> The
>>> regs make no distinction between VMC versus IMC or IFR versus VFR for
>>> the purposes of logging time.
>> The safety pilot cannot log time in IMC.
>
> Unless the pilot who is manipulating the controls is not instrument rated,
> in which case the "safety pilot" must be PIC (and had better be
> instrument rated and on an active IFR flight plan).
>
>
Safety pilots do not exist in IMC. Safety pilots are needed only for
simulated IFR. Simulated IFR (along with some part 135/121 os) are the
rules under which "more than one pilot is required." Flying IFR in
actual only requires one pilot.

[Robert M. Gary]

Dane Spearing wrote:
> Unless the pilot who is manipulating the controls is not instrument rated,
> in which case the "safety pilot" must be PIC (and had better be
> instrument rated and on an active IFR flight plan).
>
> -- Dane

No, once the flight is in IMC there is no need for a safety pilot and
therefor the flight does not need 2 pilots.

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

Dave S wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> IF the safety pilot is the one who has the instrument rating, he most
> certainly can.. because he IS the PIC.

There is no such provision under 61.51(e). You do not get to log PIC
just because you are Pilot In Command.

-Robert, CFII

[Brad[_1_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Brad wrote:
> > They can't BOTH log PIC time.
>
> Actually they can if P1 is under the hood and flying and P2 is acting
> as PIC.
>
> -Robert, CFII

Read my original reply. I already addressed that.

[Dave S]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Dave S wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>IF the safety pilot is the one who has the instrument rating, he most
>>certainly can.. because he IS the PIC.
>
>
> There is no such provision under 61.51(e). You do not get to log PIC
> just because you are Pilot In Command.
>
> -Robert, CFII
>

But he IS a required crewmember. He's required to be there to operate
under the IFR clearance.

Dave

[Robert M. Gary]

Dave S wrote:
> But he IS a required crewmember. He's required to be there to operate
> under the IFR clearance.

Yes, but the flying pilot is not required to be there. There is nothing
in the FARs that says the flying pilot must be there. However, the FARs
do require a second crew member when the flying pilot is under the hood
in VMC.

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

Dave S wrote:
> But he IS a required crewmember. He's required to be there to operate
> under the IFR clearance.

The operation you decribed does not require more than one pilot by
regulation. Flying under the hood in VMC requires more than one pilot
by regulation. Once you don't need the hood, you don't need more than
one pilot.

61.51(e)(1)
(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of
an^M
aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type^M
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight
is^M
conducted.^M


-Robert, CFII

[Mark Hansen]

On 06/30/06 13:17, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Brad wrote:
>> They can't BOTH log PIC time.
>
> Actually they can if P1 is under the hood and flying and P2 is acting
> as PIC.

Oops, I don't think that's true. This was discussed here at length about
two months ago. The issue is that "acting as PIC" doesn't give a person
the right to "log PIC".

When reading the regs, I thought the pilot not flying would be able to
log PIC as a result of 61.51 (c) (e) (1) (iii). However, the overwhelming
consensus was that the specific reg referred to situations in which
the pilot not flying was a required flight crew member based on the
type certificate, and not because the pilot flying was under the hood
and not instrument rated.

The pilot flying certainly can log PIC as sole manipulator of the
controls (provided he is certificated for the class/category of
aircraft).

The pilot not flying would be able to log PIC if he was a CFI, but
that was not the case presented by the OP.

>
> -Robert, CFII
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Mark Hansen]

On 06/30/06 15:44, Jose wrote:
>> Perhaps I am not sufficiently clarifying the objective here: it is to
>> enable P1 to fly the (N-reg) plane and log it, under actual IFR,
>> without P2 being an instructor.
>>
>> If it is legal, what could P1 log it as? Surely he can't log
>> instrument time unless P2 is a CFII?
>
> In the United States, it is legal.
>
> P1 (non instrument rated but otherwise current)
> P2 (instrument rated and current)
>
> To BE PIC, one must be current and rated for the aircraft and the
> conditions.

.... just aircraft - not conditions. If the pilot flying is sole manipulator
of the controls of an aircraft in which he is rated (category/class), then
he can log PIC. It doesn't matter what the weather conditions are (VMC/IMC/
Day/Night, etc.)


> To LOG PIC it is not necessary to BE PIC. One can BE PIC
> without being able to LOG PIC.
>
> Under the conditions noted (IMC, IFR), P1 cannot BE PIC. P2 can be PIC.
> Therefore, P2 must be PIC to make the flight legal. This (by itself)
> does not allow him to log PIC time.
>
> P2, as sole manipulator, can log PIC time, even though he is not PIC.

All correct.

>
> ==
>
> Now change the conditions slightly. VMC, IFR. P1 still cannot BE PIC.
> P2 is required to be PIC. If P1 (sole manipulator) is not wearing a
> hood, then no safety pilot is required, so P2 is not a required crew
> member. If P1 is under the hood, then a safety pilot is required. I am
> not clear on whether this is sufficient (as in VMC, VFR) to allow both
> to log PIC, since the flight COULD NOT TAKE PLACE (legally) without P2's
> instrument rating, whereas the VMC, VFR flight COULD take place without
> P2's instrument rating. I'm inclined to think that both pilots could
> log PIC time in this case, and only P2 could BE PIC.

This is the argument I made some time ago, and two or three folks
convinced me that this doesn't cause a second crew member requirement.

I still think it does, though...

>
> VMC, VFR, with nobody under the hood - No safety pilot is required. The
> sole manipulator gets to log PIC time. Either pilot may BE PIC, but
> being PIC does not (by itself) allow one to log PIC time.
>
> VMC, VFR, with P1 under the hood. P2, the safety pilot, is a required
> crewmember. P1 (rated for the aircraft and conditions) MAY be PIC, but
> P2 may also be PIC. Treating these conditions separately:
>
> ...if P2 is PIC, he can also LOG PIC time as "pilot in command where
> more than one pilot is required". (this is specifically allowed in the
> regs and the "letters of clarification"). P1 (sole manipulator) may
> also log PIC time, so two pilots get to log PIC time even though only
> one is actually the PIC.
>
> ...if P2 is NOT PIC, then P1 MUST be PIC. He may log PIC time as sole
> manipulator, and also as "pilot in command where more than one pilot is
> required". (he doesn't get double hours though. :) In this case, P2
> may choose to log SIC time, as a required crewmember. This is what I do
> (it's my only SIC time; although I have no interest in flying commercial
> jets, I have heard that those hiring like to see SIC time as it shows
> crew management experience).
>
> IMC, VFR. This is an illegal flight, and nobody should log anything. :)
>
> Jose



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Jose[_1_]]

> Yes, but the flying pilot is not required to be there. There is nothing
> in the FARs that says the flying pilot must be there. However, the FARs
> do require a second crew member when the flying pilot is under the hood
> in VMC.

Well, actually the regs don't require the hood to be there either.
Strict logic says that the pilot flying under the hood is not required,
so the flight actually only requires one pilot. However, the FAA
=interprets= the regs as requiring two pilots in order to provide a
venue for instrument training. There is no reason, given this
interpretation, that they can't also interpret it the same way for IMC
training.

Whether they do or not is a legitimate question.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> To BE PIC, one must be current and rated for the aircraft and the conditions.
>
>
> ... just aircraft - not conditions. If the pilot flying is sole manipulator
> of the controls of an aircraft in which he is rated (category/class), then
> he can log PIC. It doesn't matter what the weather conditions are (VMC/IMC/
> Day/Night, etc.)

This doesn't contradict me. Note the difference between BEING and
LOGGING PIC.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> We will do a long flight, under IFR. Clearly my presence is required
> because he doesn't have an IR. Does it mean that I must be PIC on that
> flight (because I am the only one with an IR).

Yes.

> Can he log instrument time, or (if under the hood) simulated
> instrument time)? What if the whole flight is VMC on top (most
> likely).

If under the hood in VMC, he can log PIC time and simulated instrument
time. If not under the hood, and in IMC, he can log actual instrument
time and PIC time.

You, OTOH, might not be able to log PIC time when you are not required
as safety pilot, which would be VMC while he wears the hood. The fact
that you are required as Pilot In Command doesn't let you log PIC.

> I would be suprised if he could log it as instrument instruction,
> because I am not an instructor.

He could not log it as dual.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Brad[_1_]]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 06/30/06 13:17, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > Brad wrote:
> >> They can't BOTH log PIC time.
> >
> > Actually they can if P1 is under the hood and flying and P2 is acting
> > as PIC.
>
> Oops, I don't think that's true. This was discussed here at length about
> two months ago. The issue is that "acting as PIC" doesn't give a person
> the right to "log PIC".
>
> When reading the regs, I thought the pilot not flying would be able to
> log PIC as a result of 61.51 (c) (e) (1) (iii). However, the overwhelming
> consensus was that the specific reg referred to situations in which
> the pilot not flying was a required flight crew member based on the
> type certificate, and not because the pilot flying was under the hood
> and not instrument rated.
>
> The pilot flying certainly can log PIC as sole manipulator of the
> controls (provided he is certificated for the class/category of
> aircraft).
>
> The pilot not flying would be able to log PIC if he was a CFI, but
> that was not the case presented by the OP.
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
> Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
> Sacramento, CA


No, both the sole manipulator of the controls and the safety pilot can
log time, regardless of whether the safety pilot is a flight instructor
or not. If the safety pilot acts as PIC he can log that time as pic
time. If the hooded pilot acts as PIC, then the safety pilot could log
second-in-command time as a required crewmember. He's required under
91.109

[Mark Hansen]

On 06/30/06 21:03, Jose wrote:
>> Yes, but the flying pilot is not required to be there. There is nothing
>> in the FARs that says the flying pilot must be there. However, the FARs
>> do require a second crew member when the flying pilot is under the hood
>> in VMC.
>
> Well, actually the regs don't require the hood to be there either.
> Strict logic says that the pilot flying under the hood is not required,
> so the flight actually only requires one pilot. However, the FAA
> =interprets= the regs as requiring two pilots in order to provide a
> venue for instrument training. There is no reason, given this
> interpretation, that they can't also interpret it the same way for IMC
> training.

Can you please provide a reference to this interpretation? Is it
written up in a legal counsel opinion somewhere?


>
> Whether they do or not is a legitimate question.
>
> Jose



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Well, actually the regs don't require the hood to be there either. Strict logic says that the pilot flying under the hood is not required, so the flight actually only requires one pilot. However, the FAA =interprets= the regs as requiring two pilots in order to provide a venue for instrument training. There is no reason, given this interpretation, that they can't also interpret it the same way for IMC training.
>
>
> Can you please provide a reference to this interpretation? Is it
> written up in a legal counsel opinion somewhere?

It is written up in the FAA FAQs, which used to be available online, but
was taken down a year or two ago. Perhaps a new version is up.

> FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
> 14 CFR, PART 61
> ARRANGED BY SECTION
>
> MAINTAINED BY ALLAN PINKSTON
> PILOT EXAMINER STANDARDIZATION TEAM, AFS-640
> Contact: Allan Pinkston phone: (405) 954 - 6472
> E-Mail:
> (Please include your phone number on e-mail questions)
>
> THE ORIGINAL “Q&A” REFERENCE IS NOTED
> FOLLOWING EACH (GROUP OF) QUESTION (S)
>
> CHANGE NOTICE:
> REVISION #17, DATE: AUGUST 22, 2002
> INCORPORATING Q&A #s: 471-522
> WITH ALL PREVIOUS Q&As 1 - 470
>
> VERTICAL BAR IN LEFT MARGIN DENOTES CHANGES SINCE: 12/12/2001
> NOTE: INFORMATION AND REFERENCES HAVE BEEN CORRECTED TO REPRESENT THE NEW PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL PRACTICAL TEST STANDARDS EFFECTIVE AUGUST 2002.
>
> CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO Part 61 sections: 61.1, 61.13, 61.23, 61.31, 61.35, 61.39, 61.41, 61.45, 61.51, 61.57, 61.58, 61.73, 61.75, 61.77, 61.103, 61.113, 61.123, 61.129, 61.153, 61.157, 61.165, 61.183, 61.193, 61.195, 61.197, 61.215
> UPDATE YOUR FAQs at
> http://av-info.faa.gov or http://afs600.faa.gov
> look under “Other Designee Information” for:
>
> FAQ 14 CFR, Part 61 & 141
>
> THE SOURCE OF ANSWERS IS JOHN LYNCH, AFS-840 CERTIFICATION BRANCH, WASHINGTON, DC UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
>
> Disclaimer Statement: The answers provided to the questions in this website are not legal interpretations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel can provide legal interpretations. The FAA's Office of Chief Counsel does not review this website nor does it disseminate legal interpretations through it. However, there are some answers provided in this website where the FAA Office of Chief Counsel's legal interpretations have been reprinted.
>
> However, the answers in this website address Frequently Asked Questions on 14 CFR part 61 and represents FAA Flight Standards Service policy as it relates to this regulation. The answers are provided for standardization purposes only.

Without scouring the document, here's a sample that illustrates.

> QUESTION: Is it true that a qualified pilot can log pilot-in-command time for all flight time during which he acts as a required safety pilot per 14 CFR §91.109?
>
> ANSWER: Yes, the safety pilot can log the time as PIC time in accordance with §61.51(e)(ii) which states ". . . regulations under which the flight is conducted."
> {Q&A-88}

As it pertains to our discussion, I also came across this in the FAQ:

> QUESTION: Regarding §61.51's definition of "operating an aircraft" an aircraft certified for two pilots is being operated under part 121. The PIC is "flying" the aircraft. The SIC is the non-flying pilot. Can the SIC log actual instrument flight time for those periods of actual IMC conditions when the PIC is flying the aircraft? Is the SIC considered to be "operating" the aircraft at this moment to justify logging this instrument time.
>
> ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(f) and (g); The SIC is permitted to log the time as SIC time, as per §61.51(f). However, he is not permitted to log the time as instrument time, because as per §61.51(g), the person can only log instrument time “. . . for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions . . .” {Emphasis added “operates the aircraft”]. In your scenario, you stated the SIC was the non-flying pilot. So, the SIC crewmember was not operating the aircraft.
>
> And even though you didn’t ask, the logged time has limited value. It cannot be used for the recency of experience under §61.57(c) because “ . . . operates the aircraft . . .” (otherwise meaning hands-on, flying pilot, etc.) is required.
>
> Nor can this SIC time be used for meeting the ATP instrument aeronautical experience requirements of §61.159(a)(3) [i.e., “75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions, subject to . . . .”]
> {Q&A-345}

So, the non-flying safety pilot could not log instrument time even in
IMC. Only the pilot flying (sole manipulator) gets that.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> So, the non-flying safety pilot could not log instrument time even in
> IMC. Only the pilot flying (sole manipulator) gets that.

Yes, the non flying pilot is a passenger (even though he may actually
be serving as PIC). Of course 61.51 makes an exemption for CFIIs

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> Well, actually the regs don't require the hood to be there either.
> Strict logic says that the pilot flying under the hood is not required,
> so the flight actually only requires one pilot. However, the FAA
> =interprets= the regs as requiring two pilots in order to provide a
> venue for instrument training. There is no reason, given this
> interpretation, that they can't also interpret it the same way for IMC
> training.

I don't follow. There is no reg that says IMC flights requires multiple
pilots (which is what 61.51(e) requires for multiple logging). Hood
time does have such a reg.

91.109
(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.

In order for multiple pilots to log time in IMC you would have to point
to a simular reg for actual instrument.

[Jose[_1_]]

> 91.109
> (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument
> flight unless-

In IMC, the pilot flying may keep the hood on, and thus a safety pilot
would be required. The pilot flying would then log this as simulated
instrument flight, even though he is in actual.

The rule is carved out well enough for the feds, but it is a special
exception, given that simulated instrument conditions are an
artificality anyway.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> > 91.109
> > (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument
> > flight unless-
>
> In IMC, the pilot flying may keep the hood on, and thus a safety pilot
> would be required. The pilot flying would then log this as simulated
> instrument flight, even though he is in actual.

So your argument is that actual IMC is "simulated instrument flight"?
Sounds like you'd have to be a real Perry Mason to argue that.

-Robert

[Jose[_1_]]

> So your argument is that actual IMC is "simulated instrument flight"?
> Sounds like you'd have to be a real Perry Mason to argue that.

It is if the pilot flying is wearing a hood.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Moore]

Robert M. Gary wrote

>
> Jose wrote:
>> In IMC, the pilot flying may keep the hood on, and thus a safety pilot
>> would be required. The pilot flying would then log this as simulated
>> instrument flight, even though he is in actual.
>
> So your argument is that actual IMC is "simulated instrument flight"?
> Sounds like you'd have to be a real Perry Mason to argue that.

Yeah, I also think that argument is full of BS.

Bob Moore
ATP FI

[Michael Ware]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
> > 91.109
> > (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument
> > flight unless-
>
> In IMC, the pilot flying may keep the hood on, and thus a safety pilot
> would be required. The pilot flying would then log this as simulated
> instrument flight, even though he is in actual.
>
>
If the fllight is in IMC, then....
1) VFR flight is not legal, therefore...
2) Flight is conducted under IFR.

So, Pilot in Command must either hold an IR, or be a pilot qualifed to fly
the A/C, with a CFII in the other seat (NOT a safety pilot, not the same
thing).

If you are in IMC, why would you need a hood anyway?

[Jose[_1_]]

> If the fllight is in IMC, then....
> 1) VFR flight is not legal, therefore...
> 2) Flight is conducted under IFR.
>
> So, Pilot in Command must either hold an IR, or be a pilot qualifed to fly
> the A/C, with a CFII in the other seat (NOT a safety pilot, not the same
> thing).

True enough, but misses a sliver.

> If you are in IMC, why would you need a hood anyway?

If you are a VFR only pilot, and want to log some instrument PIC time,
and conditions are IMC, you would need the hood to comply with
91.109(b). You could not BE PIC, but you do not need a CFII either.
You can have an instrument rated safety pilot BE PIC while you, as sole
manipulator, log PIC time. You need IR pilot (who also happens to be
the safety pilot) as PIC for the flight to be legal IFR, and you need
the safety pilot (who also happens to be the PIC) to be a crew member
because when you have the hood on, you need somebody to look outside.
This is regardless of whether you are in IMC or VMC. Clearly in VMC,
even IFR, the safety pilot keeps metal from being bent. In IMC, if the
pilot flying is under the hood, he cannot see that it is IMC (and
separation is provided) nor can he see when he breaks in and out of the
clouds (and separation is no longer provided, thus requiring the safety
pilot). So, in either case, as long as the pilot flying is under the
hood, a safety pilot is required, =and= the pilot flying can log PIC
time. If the pilot flying takes the hood off, he can no longer log PIC
time, which may give him incentive to stay hooded.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael Ware]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.com...
> You need IR pilot (who also happens to be
> the safety pilot) as PIC for the flight to be legal IFR, and you need
> the safety pilot (who also happens to be the PIC) to be a crew member
> because when you have the hood on, you need somebody to look outside.
> This is regardless of whether you are in IMC or VMC. Clearly in VMC,
> even IFR, the safety pilot keeps metal from being bent. In IMC, if the
> pilot flying is under the hood, he cannot see that it is IMC (and
> separation is provided) nor can he see when he breaks in and out of the
> clouds (and separation is no longer provided, thus requiring the safety
> pilot).

OK forget about logging time and hood for a moment. The flight is either VFR
or IFR, it can't just change at will. If it is IFR, then seperation is
provided by ATC, not by someone looking outside. Using the term 'safety
pilot' for IFR is a little misleading. Seems to me you either have the IR
pilot acting as PIC, and the VFR-only pilot is a passenger, OR the IR pilot
is an instructor and the VFR pilot is a student, who also should be able to
log PIC and dual, no? I don't see how the flight can be legal in IMC any
other way.

[Jose[_1_]]

> OK forget about logging time and hood for a moment. The flight is either VFR
> or IFR, it can't just change at will.

but VMC and IMC can.

> If it is IFR, then seperation is provided

Only separation from other IFR traffic. VFR traffic is separated by
eyeball or by clouds. If there are no clouds, then VFR traffic is
separated only by eyeball.

> Seems to me you either have the IR
> pilot acting as PIC, and the VFR-only pilot is a passenger, OR the IR pilot
> is an instructor and the VFR pilot is a student, who also should be able to
> log PIC and dual, no? I don't see how the flight can be legal in IMC any
> other way.

The IR pilot can be PIC while the VFR-only pilot manipulates the
controls. This is completely legal.

Even if the IR pilot is an instructor, the VFR-only pilot cannot BE PIC
(though then he can log it as PIC time).

I do wish they had not used the same terms to mean different things.
But maybe the FAA has stock in USENET. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

>
> OK forget about logging time and hood for a moment. The flight is either
> VFR
> or IFR, it can't just change at will. If it is IFR, then seperation is
> provided by ATC, not by someone looking outside.


Not true!!!! That's a good recipe for a mid-air.

The pilot STILL has to look outside and provide his own separation, even if
IFR, and especially out of cloud. You can't just fly along fat, dumb, and
happy.........thinking ATC will save you ass! There is all sorts of VFR
traffic climbing and descending through your IFR altitudes.


Karl
ATP CFIAIM
"Curator" N185KG

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> If you are a VFR only pilot, and want to log some instrument PIC time,
> and conditions are IMC, you would need the hood to comply with
> 91.109(b). You could not BE PIC, but you do not need a CFII either.
> You can have an instrument rated safety pilot BE PIC while you, as sole
> manipulator, log PIC time. You need IR pilot (who also happens to be
> the safety pilot) as PIC for the flight to be legal IFR, and you need
> the safety pilot (who also happens to be the PIC) to be a crew member
> because when you have the hood on, you need somebody to look outside.

There is no regulation in the above proposal that requires multiple
pilots (the requirement for the non-flying pilot to log PIC under
61.51(e). The FAR that requires multiple pilots says "simulated
instrument conditions".

91.109(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.

[Robert M. Gary]

karl gruber wrote:
> Not true!!!! That's a good recipe for a mid-air.
>
> The pilot STILL has to look outside and provide his own separation, even if
> IFR, and especially out of cloud. You can't just fly along fat, dumb, and
> happy.........thinking ATC will save you ass! There is all sorts of VFR
> traffic climbing and descending through your IFR altitudes.


You actually make an excellent point. We use the term "IMC" and "VMC".
However those terms actually refer to the legal minimums ("IMC" meaning
below VFR minumums). However, a safety pilot is required in IMC
conditions where visibility is clear enough to allow for "see and
avoid" and the flying pilot is under the hood. Above 10,000 feet this
could be as much as 4.9 miles visibility. The safety pilot is requires
anytime the hooded pilot is flying in conditions that allow for
see-and-avoid.

-Robert, CFII

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:33:09 +0100, Peter > wrote:

>
>Jose > wrote
>
>>This doesn't contradict me. Note the difference between BEING and
>>LOGGING PIC.
>
>I didn't wish to go into whether they can *both* log.
>
>The situation here is this:
>
>I am instrument rated. A friend is not, but is legal to fly the plane
>in VFR.
>
>He sits in LH seat, is renting the plane, and understandably wants to
>end up with a nice 10-hour (it's two long flights) logbook entry, in
>return for his money. (I am not sure whether Americans are as dead
>keen as Europeans to log everything they pay for :))
>
>We will do a long flight, under IFR. Clearly my presence is required
>because he doesn't have an IR. Does it mean that I must be PIC on that
>flight (because I am the only one with an IR).
>
>The obvious practical reality is that he can do all the flying.
>
>*What* can he log this time as?

If he is the sole manipulator of the controls, he may, under US rules, log
all of the flying time as PIC.
>
>Can he log instrument time, or (if under the hood) simulated
>instrument time)? What if the whole flight is VMC on top (most
>likely).

If he requires use of the instruments in order to fly the a/c, whether in
actual or simulated, he may log actual instrument time, or simulated
instrument time, as the case may be.

>
>I would be suprised if he could log it as instrument instruction,
>because I am not an instructor.
>

He could NOT log it as dual, as you are not an instructor.

Your name, as safety pilot (for that part of the flight requiring a safety
pilot) must be recorded in his log book.

In the US regs, there is this strange dichotomy between logging PIC, and
acting as PIC. It is possible to act as PIC, but not be able to log it;
and also possible to log PIC, without being authorized to act as PIC.

You could log PIC for that portion of the flight when a safety pilot is
required under 91.109 (i.e. simulated instrument flight). But you would be
the acting PIC for the entire flight if under IFR.



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jose[_1_]]

> There is no regulation in the above proposal that requires multiple
> pilots (the requirement for the non-flying pilot to log PIC under
> 61.51(e). The FAR that requires multiple pilots says "simulated
> instrument conditions".

As soon as you put the hood on, you are in simulated instrument
conditions, whether in cloud or not, and whether IFR or not. You may
=also= be in actual instrument conditions, but that is irrelevant.

Using a flight simulator is still simulated flight, even if the
simulator is on board a flying 747.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> As soon as you put the hood on, you are in simulated instrument
> conditions, whether in cloud or not, and whether IFR or not. You may
> =also= be in actual instrument conditions, but that is irrelevant.
>
> Using a flight simulator is still simulated flight, even if the
> simulator is on board a flying 747.

Ifind the FSDO doesn't find it too amusing when you try to play lawyer
with them and find odd loopholes in the law. I would suspect a call to
the FSDO (which I would actually do if you are thinking of doing this)
would result in some chuckles.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Peter wrote:
> Jose > wrote
>> *What* can he log this time as?
>
> Can he log instrument time, or (if under the hood) simulated
> instrument time)? What if the whole flight is VMC on top (most
> likely).

He can log PIC as sole manipulate of the controls per 61.51(e). He can
also log actual instrument. Note that in the U.S. BEING PIC and LOGGING
PIC are very, very different things. In the case you propose the
instrument rated pilot in the right seat can log nothing since there is
no provision under 61.51(e) for logging time just because the flying
pilot isn't fully qualified, even if he (you) is serving as PIC.

-Robert

[bsalai]

Jose wrote:
>> There is no regulation in the above proposal that requires multiple
>> pilots (the requirement for the non-flying pilot to log PIC under
>> 61.51(e). The FAR that requires multiple pilots says "simulated
>> instrument conditions".
>
> As soon as you put the hood on, you are in simulated instrument
> conditions, whether in cloud or not, and whether IFR or not. You may
> =also= be in actual instrument conditions, but that is irrelevant.
>
Are you sure about that part? I wouldn't have thought so.

Brad

[Jose[_1_]]

> Ifind the FSDO doesn't find it too amusing when you try to play lawyer
> with them and find odd loopholes in the law.

It's what their lawyers do with you if they get the urge. Be ahead of
the game. And it's not an esoteric question - IFR in VMC is not an
uncommon way to get hood time, and in and out of the clouds is not
uncommon either.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> As soon as you put the hood on, you are in simulated instrument conditions, whether in cloud or not, and whether IFR or not. You may =also= be in actual instrument conditions, but that is irrelevant.
>>
> Are you sure about that part? I wouldn't have thought so.

I am not a lawyer and did not write the regs, so I am not "sure" what
the end result of an actual case would be. However wearing a hood in
IMC gives you all the disadvantages of simulated (vs actual) instrument
flight. You are pretending to not be able to see outside.

Look at it this way - if you are under the hood in VFR conditions (say
under an overcast or in LA smog), you are in simulated conditions. If
you enter cloud, you won't know it, because the simulation is so good.

You can be VFR on a moonless night over water, and be in actual
instrument conditions (perhaps we should use AIC instead of IMC), but
put the hood on and you are in simulated instrument conditions. You
won't know when you fly over a city.

So it makes sense to me that you can simulate instrument conditions
while you are actually in instrument conditions.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

This thread and this particular post by Jose finally got me to ask the
question: why would this ever go to trail or why would there ever be a
judge's opinion?

Logging PIC is useful for attaining ratings and licenses, which have to
be granted by the FAA or ICAO in foreign lands. If the logbook(s)
presented meet their approval at the time of the examination, then the
precedent is set for later evaluation isn't it?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jose ]
> Posted At: Sunday, July 02, 2006 06:58
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: IFR logging question - is this legal?
> Subject: Re: IFR logging question - is this legal?
>
....
> I am not a lawyer and did not write the regs, so I am not "sure" what
> the end result of an actual case would be. However wearing a hood in
> IMC gives you all the disadvantages of simulated (vs actual)
instrument
> flight. You are pretending to not be able to see outside.
>
....
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Trial -- not trail... duh!!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Carter ]
> Posted At: Sunday, July 02, 2006 09:49
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: IFR logging question - is this legal?
> Subject: Re: IFR logging question - is this legal?
>
> This thread and this particular post by Jose finally got me to ask the
> question: why would this ever go to trail or why would there ever be a
> judge's opinion?
>
> Logging PIC is useful for attaining ratings and licenses, which have
to
> be granted by the FAA or ICAO in foreign lands. If the logbook(s)
> presented meet their approval at the time of the examination, then the
> precedent is set for later evaluation isn't it?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jose ]
> > Posted At: Sunday, July 02, 2006 06:58
> > Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> > Conversation: IFR logging question - is this legal?
> > Subject: Re: IFR logging question - is this legal?
> >
> ...
> > I am not a lawyer and did not write the regs, so I am not "sure"
what
> > the end result of an actual case would be. However wearing a hood
in
> > IMC gives you all the disadvantages of simulated (vs actual)
> instrument
> > flight. You are pretending to not be able to see outside.
> >
> ...
> > Jose
> > --
> > The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> > for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> why would this ever go to trail

Maybe the trial is far away? :)

In any case, if you come to the attention of the FAA (like after a
crash), they go through your logbooks, and if they see that your logging
was irregular, there may be consequences, such as enforcement actions.
If you present your logbook for a rating and it does not meet their
approval, they may investigate further and find, for example, that you
have been flying without the relevant currency. If an insurance company
contested a claim, a judge's opinion might be forthcoming based on your
logbook. Any violation of the law can bite you, although most of the
time you can get away with it.

As for precedents being set, mistakes can also be made and corrected
later (a rating might be reversed if upon pursuing a further rating, it
is found that the original rating should not have been issued).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

I understand about the insurance and the ratings game, but the
requirements to prove PIC deal with such low numbers does it really make
a difference? Even if someone improperly logs PIC when he or she
shouldn't, the opportunity for that to occur is probably very infrequent
so the total improperly logged hours should be negligible. If someone's
been actively flying for 5 or 10 years, this shouldn't be a problem;
most newly minted pilots should have had the issue of PIC discussed
thoroughly with their instructor and examiner.

If someone is doing this on a frequent basis I'd expect a BFR or IFC or
something along those lines to expose the problem.

I just wonder how big this problem really is...



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jose ]
> Posted At: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:30
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: IFR logging question - is this legal?
> Subject: Re: IFR logging question - is this legal?
>
> > why would this ever go to trail
>
> Maybe the trial is far away? :)
>
> In any case, if you come to the attention of the FAA (like after a
> crash), they go through your logbooks, and if they see that your
logging
> was irregular, there may be consequences, such as enforcement actions.
> If you present your logbook for a rating and it does not meet their
> approval, they may investigate further and find, for example, that you
> have been flying without the relevant currency. If an insurance
company
> contested a claim, a judge's opinion might be forthcoming based on
your
> logbook. Any violation of the law can bite you, although most of the
> time you can get away with it.
>
> As for precedents being set, mistakes can also be made and corrected
> later (a rating might be reversed if upon pursuing a further rating,
it
> is found that the original rating should not have been issued).
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I just wonder how big this problem really is...

In terms of the number of people who log inappropriately and then get
ratings they don't merit, it's probably teeny. But in terms of the way
the regs are written, it's a symptom of something pretty big.

Specifically, in terms of instrument time, most of the problem went away
when they dispensed with the 6 hour rule; prior to that I'd say it was
fairly common to use simulated instrument time to get up to six hours in
six months. After a pilot botches an approach enough to come to the
attention of the FAA, it may turn out that he didn't have the six hours
he thought he had.

Often? Dunno. But this is usenet. What happens often is usually dull.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> > Ifind the FSDO doesn't find it too amusing when you try to play lawyer
> > with them and find odd loopholes in the law.
>
> It's what their lawyers do with you if they get the urge.

But there isn't much you can do to prevent that. The only thing that
will prevent that is to convince the FAA Chief Council to issue a
formal ruling. Short of that, the FAA can (and does ) change its mind
during enforcement.

-Robert

[Jose[_1_]]

> But there isn't much you can do to prevent that [finding odd loopholes in the law].

If you see odd loopholes, you can ensure that you are not in them, so
you are not surprised.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.