IFR logging question - is this legal?

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

Peter wrote:
Jose wrote
*What* can he log this time as?

Can he log instrument time, or (if under the hood) simulated
instrument time)? What if the whole flight is VMC on top (most
likely).

He can log PIC as sole manipulate of the controls per 61.51(e). He can
also log actual instrument. Note that in the U.S. BEING PIC and LOGGING
PIC are very, very different things. In the case you propose the
instrument rated pilot in the right seat can log nothing since there is
no provision under 61.51(e) for logging time just because the flying
pilot isn't fully qualified, even if he (you) is serving as PIC.

-Robert

Jose wrote:
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.

Are you sure about that part? I wouldn't have thought so.

Brad

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.

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.

Are you sure about that part? I wouldn't have thought so.

I am not a lawyer and did not write the regs, so I am not "sure" what
the end result of an actual case would be. However wearing a hood in
IMC gives you all the disadvantages of simulated (vs actual) instrument
flight. You are pretending to not be able to see outside.

Look at it this way - if you are under the hood in VFR conditions (say
under an overcast or in LA smog), you are in simulated conditions. If
you enter cloud, you won't know it, because the simulation is so good.

You can be VFR on a moonless night over water, and be in actual
instrument conditions (perhaps we should use AIC instead of IMC), but
put the hood on and you are in simulated instrument conditions. You
won't know when you fly over a city.

So it makes sense to me that you can simulate instrument conditions
while you are actually in instrument conditions.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

This thread and this particular post by Jose finally got me to ask the
question: why would this ever go to trail or why would there ever be a
judge's opinion?

Logging PIC is useful for attaining ratings and licenses, which have to
be granted by the FAA or ICAO in foreign lands. If the logbook(s)
presented meet their approval at the time of the examination, then the
precedent is set for later evaluation isn't it?


-----Original Message-----
From: Jose ]
Posted At: Sunday, July 02, 2006 06:58
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: IFR logging question - is this legal?
Subject: IFR logging question - is this legal?

....
I am not a lawyer and did not write the regs, so I am not "sure" what
the end result of an actual case would be. However wearing a hood in
IMC gives you all the disadvantages of simulated (vs actual)
instrument
flight. You are pretending to not be able to see outside.

....
Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Trial -- not trail... duh!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Carter ]
Posted At: Sunday, July 02, 2006 09:49
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: IFR logging question - is this legal?
Subject: IFR logging question - is this legal?

This thread and this particular post by Jose finally got me to ask the
question: why would this ever go to trail or why would there ever be a
judge's opinion?

Logging PIC is useful for attaining ratings and licenses, which have
to
be granted by the FAA or ICAO in foreign lands. If the logbook(s)
presented meet their approval at the time of the examination, then the
precedent is set for later evaluation isn't it?


-----Original Message-----
From: Jose ]
Posted At: Sunday, July 02, 2006 06:58
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: IFR logging question - is this legal?
Subject: IFR logging question - is this legal?

...
I am not a lawyer and did not write the regs, so I am not "sure"
what
the end result of an actual case would be. However wearing a hood
in
IMC gives you all the disadvantages of simulated (vs actual)
instrument
flight. You are pretending to not be able to see outside.

...
Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

why would this ever go to trail

Maybe the trial is far away?

In any case, if you come to the attention of the FAA (like after a
crash), they go through your logbooks, and if they see that your logging
was irregular, there may be consequences, such as enforcement actions.
If you present your logbook for a rating and it does not meet their
approval, they may investigate further and find, for example, that you
have been flying without the relevant currency. If an insurance company
contested a claim, a judge's opinion might be forthcoming based on your
logbook. Any violation of the law can bite you, although most of the
time you can get away with it.

As for precedents being set, mistakes can also be made and corrected
later (a rating might be reversed if upon pursuing a further rating, it
is found that the original rating should not have been issued).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I understand about the insurance and the ratings game, but the
requirements to prove PIC deal with such low numbers does it really make
a difference? Even if someone improperly logs PIC when he or she
shouldn't, the opportunity for that to occur is probably very infrequent
so the total improperly logged hours should be negligible. If someone's
been actively flying for 5 or 10 years, this shouldn't be a problem;
most newly minted pilots should have had the issue of PIC discussed
thoroughly with their instructor and examiner.

If someone is doing this on a frequent basis I'd expect a BFR or IFC or
something along those lines to expose the problem.

I just wonder how big this problem really is...



-----Original Message-----
From: Jose ]
Posted At: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:30
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: IFR logging question - is this legal?
Subject: IFR logging question - is this legal?

why would this ever go to trail

Maybe the trial is far away?

In any case, if you come to the attention of the FAA (like after a
crash), they go through your logbooks, and if they see that your
logging
was irregular, there may be consequences, such as enforcement actions.
If you present your logbook for a rating and it does not meet their
approval, they may investigate further and find, for example, that you
have been flying without the relevant currency. If an insurance
company
contested a claim, a judge's opinion might be forthcoming based on
your
logbook. Any violation of the law can bite you, although most of the
time you can get away with it.

As for precedents being set, mistakes can also be made and corrected
later (a rating might be reversed if upon pursuing a further rating,
it
is found that the original rating should not have been issued).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I just wonder how big this problem really is...

In terms of the number of people who log inappropriately and then get
ratings they don't merit, it's probably teeny. But in terms of the way
the regs are written, it's a symptom of something pretty big.

Specifically, in terms of instrument time, most of the problem went away
when they dispensed with the 6 hour rule; prior to that I'd say it was
fairly common to use simulated instrument time to get up to six hours in
six months. After a pilot botches an approach enough to come to the
attention of the FAA, it may turn out that he didn't have the six hours
he thought he had.

Often? Dunno. But this is usenet. What happens often is usually dull.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.