Logging PIC time as student instrument pilot in IMC

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:14:00 -0700, "David Brooks"
wrote:

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:17:19 -0700, "David Brooks"

wrote:

If it is "a flight under IFR in
which the controls are, in fact, for at least some of the time,
manipulated
by a pilot who is not IR or not current" then two pilots are required

What regulation requires two pilots under this circumstance?

61.3(e)(1) for the "not IR" option. As I said, I am manufacturing an
artificially rigid definition of the flight to try to figure out if there is
any rationale for logging PIC. Almost a reduction ad absurdum.

-- David Brooks


I don't see 61.3 (e) (1) requiring two pilots in the case where a non-rated
person (or pilot) happens to be manipulating the controls.

The only pilot that is *required* is the one who is acting as PIC.

================
61.3 e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and
instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane,
helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;
==================


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

I don't see 61.3 (e) (1) requiring two pilots in the case where a non-rated
person (or pilot) happens to be manipulating the controls.

The only pilot that is *required* is the one who is acting as PIC.


Well, there's no such requirment for a hood either - the only required pilot is
the PIC. As long as the PIC can see out, you can have a trained hamster under
the hood manipulating the controls.

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On 01 Aug 2003 04:08:54 GMT, (Teacherjh) wrote:

Well, there's no such requirment for a hood either - the only required pilot is
the PIC. As long as the PIC can see out, you can have a trained hamster under
the hood manipulating the controls.

I think what you are saying is that there is no requirement for a second
pilot if the person flying is wearing a hood.

If that is what you are saying, I would disagree. 91.109(b) is pretty
clear in requiring a second pilot if the person flying is wearing a hood:

===============
(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 addition, numerous FAA Chief Council legal opinions have upheld this
interpretation.

Now so far as the trained hamster wearing a hood, the regulation does say
"person" and I would not consider a trained hamster to be a "person" :-))


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

I think what you are saying is that there is no requirement for a second
pilot if the person flying is wearing a hood.


No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's no requirement
to even use a hood unless the "purpose of the flight" is to fly under the hood.
Absent that, the only required pilot is the one not wearing the hood. The one
wearing the hood is superfluous (except that the purpose of the flight is to
give the hooded pilot the chance to fly).

Well, if the thread is really that thin, then it ought to apply in actual too.
If the "purpose of the flight" is to have the non-IR pilot fly in the clouds,
then another pilot is required. But the flight itself could be conducted
without the non-IR pilot, just like the above flight could be conducted without
the hooded pilot.

The only difference I see is the lack of a 91.109(q) which would say:
(q) No person may operate a civil aircraft in actual instrument flight
unless--
[...] or
(2) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at
least a private pilot certificate and instrument rating with category and
class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

Is this what it hangs on?

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On 01 Aug 2003 15:42:55 GMT, (Teacherjh) wrote:


I think what you are saying is that there is no requirement for a second
pilot if the person flying is wearing a hood.


No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's no requirement
to even use a hood unless the "purpose of the flight" is to fly under the hood.
Absent that, the only required pilot is the one not wearing the hood. The one
wearing the hood is superfluous (except that the purpose of the flight is to
give the hooded pilot the chance to fly).

We agree!


Well, if the thread is really that thin, then it ought to apply in actual too.
If the "purpose of the flight" is to have the non-IR pilot fly in the clouds,
then another pilot is required. But the flight itself could be conducted
without the non-IR pilot, just like the above flight could be conducted without
the hooded pilot.

I don't think that 91.109 speaks to the "purpose of the flight". I think
it rather speaks to safety implications.


The only difference I see is the lack of a 91.109(q) which would say:
(q) No person may operate a civil aircraft in actual instrument flight
unless--
[...] or
(2) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at
least a private pilot certificate and instrument rating with category and
class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

Is this what it hangs on?


It doesn't apply in actual because the function of a safety pilot is to
enable the pilot flying (PF) under the hood to avoid conflicting traffic.
So if you can't see out the window, the safety pilot is superfluous.

The "second pilot" requirement allows the safety pilot to log PIC time, if
he is the actual PIC. If there is no second pilot requirement, then only
the PF can log PIC time (even thought the PF is not the PIC).

In general, a PNF/PIC (non-CFI) cannot log PIC time (in small GA a/c).
This is an exception to that general rule.


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