IFR logging question - is this legal?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

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