Instrument Student Pilot Filing IFR

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.

On 11/28/2006 10:32 AM, Dave Butler wrote:
Roy N5804F wrote:

The consensus seems to be that an instrument student cannot file an IFR plan
in his own name.

Let's be precise. The instrument student may file all the flight plans
he cares to. He just can't accept a clearance.

So is it enough that the CFII is in the plane, listening to the radio
exchange while the student requests and copies/reads-back the clearance?

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.

Is this right?

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

Mark Hansen wrote:

Let's be precise. The instrument student may file all the flight plans
he cares to. He just can't accept a clearance.


So is it enough that the CFII is in the plane, listening to the radio
exchange while the student requests and copies/reads-back the clearance?

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.

Is this right?

Works for me... but I am neither the NTSB nor the FAA.

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.

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.



"Roy N5804F" wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| Well thanks to all for the input so far.
| The consensus seems to be that an instrument student
cannot file an IFR plan
| in his own name.
| The basis of that opinion seems to hinge on who is PIC.
| I am not sure, but I think that electronic filing via AOPA
flight planner
| would not give you any opportunity to use other than your
own name ?
| So maybe all filing would have to be done via the
telephone or radio.
|
| Roy
|
|
| "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
|
ups.com...
| Technically the name on the flight plan must be that of
the PIC, which
| in this case is the CFII. However, I doubt that anyone
would care whose
| name is on the flight plan as long as there is a
qualified PIC in the
| cockpit. Just the same as ATC does not care what you use
for navigation
| as long as you fly your clearance. The only time a
question would arise
| is in case of an accident or emergency. In those cases
it would not
| matter whose name was on the flight plan. The presumed
PIC will be at
| fault. In the case of a dual flight, the CFI is the
presumed PIC even
| if he was not actively instructing.
|
|
|
| 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
|
| --
| Roy
| Piper Archer N5804F
|
|
|
|
|

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..."

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.

Is this right?

That's it. You could have your two year old ask for the clearance, or
even the guy at the front desk of the FBO, but the PIC on board is
accepting the clearance by launching a flight in accordance with it.
In the case of the student making the radio calls, he or she is just
the conduit.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

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.

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.

I really appreciate all the input on this topic.
So I think that the consensus of interpretation of the FARs indicates that.
1. A student instrument pilot cannot file an IFR flight plan in his own
name.
2. A student instrument pilot cannot accept an IFR clearance.
Would I be correct in saying therefore, that the first time a pilot can
practice and get real familier with the normal IFR procedures could be his
first flight after being certified ?
If that is the case I would consider that the FAR's fail to address the need
for good operational training prior to being certified for instrument
flight.
Interesting isn't it ?

2. A student instrument pilot cannot accept an IFR clearance.
Would I be correct in saying therefore, that the first time a pilot can
practice and get real familier with the normal IFR procedures could be his
first flight after being certified ?

No.

A student pilot can "relay the CFI's acceptance of a clearance", this
practice is just as good as actually accepting one.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jose ]
Posted At: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:12 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Student Pilot Filing IFR
Subject: Instrument Student Pilot Filing IFR

2. A student instrument pilot cannot accept an IFR clearance.
Would I be correct in saying therefore, that the first time a pilot
can
practice and get real familier with the normal IFR procedures could
be
his
first flight after being certified ?

No.

A student pilot can "relay the CFI's acceptance of a clearance", this
practice is just as good as actually accepting one.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody
knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I'm not sure if it is still a popular practice, but when a student was
ready to work actual conditions in the system the instructor knew it and
was typically willing to delegate the authority for filing, copying,
accepting, executing, and amending the clearance to the student. Notice
I said delegate the authority, not the responsibility. The CFII or ATP
still retained the responsibility because he or she was the PIC and
everything was filed under his or her license.

By the time we had students ready for the system in actual conditions;
we didn't worry about them making silly mistakes. We were only working
on polishing and conditioning responses at that point.

Of course the lawyer population has blossomed since the mid-70s, and
frivolous lawsuits are more commonplace now, so this probably isn't
still an acceptable practice.