IFR logging question - is this legal?

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.

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