A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Logging PIC time as student instrument pilot in IMC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 1st 03, 05:08 AM
Teacherjh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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)
  #23  
Old August 1st 03, 04:42 PM
Teacherjh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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)
  #24  
Old August 2nd 03, 04:44 AM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? Badwater Bill Home Built 3 June 23rd 04 04:05 PM
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 41 November 20th 03 06:39 AM
Effect of Light Sport on General Aviation Gilan Home Built 17 September 24th 03 06:11 AM
Logging instrument approaches Slav Inger Instrument Flight Rules 33 July 27th 03 11:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.