If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
IFR logging question - is this legal?
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
IFR logging question - is this legal?
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
IFR logging question - is this legal?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
IFR logging question - is this legal?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
IFR logging question - is this legal?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
IFR logging question - is this legal?
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
IFR logging question - is this legal?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
IFR logging question - is this legal?
Perhaps I am not sufficiently clarifying the objective he 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
IFR logging question - is this legal?
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
IFR logging question - is this legal?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. | Douglas Olson | Owning | 1 | May 22nd 05 05:15 AM |
182RG question | Paul Anton | Owning | 11 | May 16th 05 09:45 PM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
Could the Press Grow a Spine? | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 259 | July 11th 04 08:35 PM |