IFR logging question - is this legal?

"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

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

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.

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.

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

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.