Instrument Student Pilot Filing IFR

Roy Smith wrote:
"Cirrus" wrote:
I usually only file my last name, and have never received a single
question by the briefer about it. Do any of you know if you are
supposed to file first and last name?

I don't know of any regulation which requires you to put down two names in
the PIC box.

How about 91.153 which requires the "FULL NAME OF THE PILOT IN COMMAND"?

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.

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.

In article ,
Ron Natalie wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:

As PIC, the CFII would be the one officially accepting the clearance (or
not) - non-verbally. The student would only be copying it to paper and
reading it back.

It's not even so involved. The student can accept the clearance.
The PIC is just ultimately responsible. Command is more of a
responsibility thing than any particular act.

That's not true. Being in command is the act of getting screwed when
things go wrong and they need to blame somebody.

(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command
under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar
months, that person has:


so you're correct, you can file, but you can't fly.




"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| The reason is in the FAR, you have to be a certificated
and
| current instrument rated pilot, in an aircraft certified
for
| IFR flight to file an IFR flight plan.
|
| No such FAR.
|
| Simply filing the flight plan OR operating in IMC
condition
| is a violation. IFR flight plan in VMC is a violation
| unless the PIC NAMED, not just PIC is legal.
|
| PIC must be named on ANY flight plan (IFR or VFR).
| 91.153 (a)(3) The full name and address of the pilot in
command.
|
| The IFR plan only adds the alternate airport.

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.

Jim Macklin wrote:
The reason is in the FAR, you have to be a certificated and
current instrument rated pilot, in an aircraft certified for
IFR flight to file an IFR flight plan.

There is no requirement for an instrument rating for *filing* an
instrument flight plan, only for accepting a clearance. There is no
requirement for any kind of aircraft certification for *filing* a flight
plan.

Simply filing the flight plan OR operating in IMC condition
is a violation.

Filing a flight plan is not a violation.

IFR flight plan in VMC is a violation
unless the PIC NAMED, not just PIC is legal.

Meteorological conditions have nothing to do with it. I don't find a
regulation that uses the terminology "PIC NAMED". Perhaps there is case law.

Roy Smith wrote:

ATC only sees some subset of the fields you file in your flight plan. I
don't remember exactly which ones they get (everything up to the REMARKS
section?), but the PIC's name isn't one of them. All that stuff about home
base, souls on board, paint color, etc, is purely for SAR and accident
investigation purposes.

ATC sees the first few characters of the REMARKS, but the string length
is limited. I forget how many characters they see. e.g. if I remark "PLA
FAY", ATC knows I plan to do practice low approaches at Fayetteville.

Ron Natalie wrote:

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.


Another way to look at it, they go after the required crew member(s).

Roy N5804F wrote:




The person who is ABLE to legally recieve the clearance is who's name is
listed as PIC. The student can file.. but the CFII's name goes on the
plan.



How do the heavy crews handle this stuff. ?
Does the dispatcher list who is PIC ?

Roy



Depends upon the carrier.

The one I worked for did not pass any crew information to the FAA.

It is an entirely different ballgame with a FAR-required dispatch office
and reams of FAA-approved operational control procedures.

And, the air carrier flight plan required for international operations
is very different than the FAA flight plan form. I think you would have
to complete the same ICAO form if you were flying from Los Angeles to
New Zealand in your G550. ;-)