Instrument Student Pilot Filing IFR

Is it legal for a non-instrument rated pilot to file IFR in his own name in
order to undergo instrument training while accompanied by his CFII ?
In other words.
Who should file IFR for a training instrument flight ? The student or the
CFII ?

Thanks for input

--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F

In article et,
"Roy N5804F" wrote:


Is it legal for a non-instrument rated pilot to file IFR in his own name in
order to undergo instrument training while accompanied by his CFII ?
In other words.
Who should file IFR for a training instrument flight ? The student or the
CFII ?

Thanks for input

If you are not instrument rated, current, etc, it's not legal for you to
act as PIC under IFR. You can file the flight plan (i.e. type it into
DUATS, dictate it to FSS on the phone, etc) but put your instructor's name
down in the PIC box.

On 11/28/2006 04:47 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
In article et,
"Roy N5804F" wrote:


Is it legal for a non-instrument rated pilot to file IFR in his own name in
order to undergo instrument training while accompanied by his CFII ?
In other words.
Who should file IFR for a training instrument flight ? The student or the
CFII ?

Thanks for input

If you are not instrument rated, current, etc, it's not legal for you to
act as PIC under IFR. You can file the flight plan (i.e. type it into
DUATS, dictate it to FSS on the phone, etc) but put your instructor's name
down in the PIC box.

That's interesting. During my training, I filed the IFR flight plans (based
on my CFII's direction) and used my name. I did always put "Instrument
Training Flight" in the Remarks box, but this isn't the same thing.

I guess that's another thing my instructor didn't really understand ;-(



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Mark Hansen wrote:
That's interesting. During my training, I filed the IFR flight plans (based
on my CFII's direction) and used my name. I did always put "Instrument
Training Flight" in the Remarks box, but this isn't the same thing.


I did the same except I didn't bother with the remark. Nothing was ever said
that I did it incorrectly or illegally. I suspect the FAA figured out the
nature of the flight which had numerous approaches but only one landing.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Roy Smith wrote:

If you are not instrument rated, current, etc, it's not legal for you to
act as PIC under IFR. You can file the flight plan (i.e. type it into
DUATS, dictate it to FSS on the phone, etc) but put your instructor's name
down in the PIC box.

I agree. Only problem is that the official flight plan for doesn't say
PIC in the box, only "pilot's name". When I was working on my IR, my
instructor erroneously had me file my name, because it was assumed that
the instructor would be PIC. Made sense at the time since I was a
pilot and I was filing the flight plan. I was instructed that I could
file whatever I wanted to, but that I had to have an IR and meet
61.57(c) in order to accept the clearance.

After working on my CFII and investigating it further, I actually read
91.169 IFR Flight Plan: Information Required" which points to 91.157,
which specifies pilot in command as the name in the pilot's name box.
Funny, I don't remember filing dual XC flights for my private under my
instructor's name either.

Either way, I'd have a hard time believing that the flight plan would
be the determinant information of who was PIC for a flight when more
than one pilot could serve as PIC.

Brad wrote:

Funny, I don't remember filing dual XC flights for my private under my
instructor's name either.

A VFR flight plan is a whole different animal, never gets beyond FSS.
Nobody will care who is listed as PIC on a VFR flight plan, it's only
used for SAR.

Dave Butler wrote:
Brad wrote:

Funny, I don't remember filing dual XC flights for my private under my
instructor's name either.

A VFR flight plan is a whole different animal, never gets beyond FSS.
Nobody will care who is listed as PIC on a VFR flight plan, it's only
used for SAR.

Sure, I know that. But the regs (91.157) specify listing the PIC for a
VFR flight plan. In the event of a hypothetical accident resulting
from a non-instuctional flight flown by a certified private pilot with
a flight instructor on board, could the CFI deny PIC responsibility on
the basis of the PIC listed in the flight plan, if filed by the private
pilot?

By the way, the pilot's name never gets beyond FSS for either VFR or
IFR. Otherwise you might hear a controller say: "Dave, you are cleared
to Anytown airport as filed, maintain 3000..."

Brad wrote:
Dave Butler wrote:

A VFR flight plan is a whole different animal, never gets beyond FSS.
Nobody will care who is listed as PIC on a VFR flight plan, it's only
used for SAR.


Sure, I know that. But the regs (91.157) specify listing the PIC for a
VFR flight plan. In the event of a hypothetical accident resulting
from a non-instuctional flight flown by a certified private pilot with
a flight instructor on board, could the CFI deny PIC responsibility on
the basis of the PIC listed in the flight plan, if filed by the private
pilot?

Only the NTSB or the FAA can answer that question, and if I got an
answer to it, I wouldn't believe it.

By the way, the pilot's name never gets beyond FSS for either VFR or
IFR. Otherwise you might hear a controller say: "Dave, you are cleared
to Anytown airport as filed, maintain 3000..."

OK.

Dave Butler wrote:
Brad wrote:

Funny, I don't remember filing dual XC flights for my private under my
instructor's name either.

A VFR flight plan is a whole different animal, never gets beyond FSS.
Nobody will care who is listed as PIC on a VFR flight plan, it's only
used for SAR.

Nobody cares any more or less on a VFR or IFR plan. The rule is for
VFR plans (inheritted into the IFR plan). The PIC name goes NOWHERE
other than for the SAR record. ATC NEVER SEES IT.

Brad wrote:


Either way, I'd have a hard time believing that the flight plan would
be the determinant information of who was PIC for a flight when more
than one pilot could serve as PIC.

It's not. Specifically not in an enforcement action. The FAA goes
after whoever they determine they can injure the most with the action.