Logging IFR PIC without an Instrument Rating...

[MidlifeFlyer]

Maybe it was that way at one time and they started "stretching" the regulation in the sense of perceived fairness. Now, the "acting" vs "logging" are almost completely separate.

FWIW, here is a post I did some time ago on another forum. Obviously not a thorough historical treatment, but...



A friend and I were corresponding about some old versions of the current FAR. He came across a hard copy of the 1926 Air Commerce Regulations, and I've seen some later ones. We were going back and forth on the different ways the FAA counted time toward certificates and ratings.

As far as I've been able to tell, the counting of "LOGGED PIC" time is a child of the FAR and didn't exist in the CAR ("Civil Air Regulations") or the ACR before that. What was counted in the ACR was something called "solo flying" which did not mean "sole occupant." Here's the 1929 version:

==============================
Sec. 61. Meaning of Solo Flying.
As used in these regulations, a person is engaged in solo flying when he is the sole operator of the controls and is in command of aircraft in flight.
==============================

Notice that at least as early as 1929, we have the "sole manipulator" as a concept of how to count flight hours toward certificates and ratings and that back then they were looking for two conditions. - sole manipulator =and= actually in command.

Something analogous to the current version of the rule, still using "solo" instead of PIC ("solo" meaning "sole occupant" shows up in the 1950s) while dropping the need to actually be in command seems to make its first appearance in a 1942 revision to Part 20 of the CAR, adding a new rule on logging:

==============================
20.673 Logging of pilot flight time.

***

(b) The holder of a pilot certificate, other than a student pilot certificate, may log as solo flight time that portion of any flight during which he is the sole manipulator of the controls: Provided, That he may log as solo flight time only 50 percent of any flight time during which a certificated instructor or a certificated airline transport pilot is in the aircraft serving as an instructor for the purpose of reviewing or increasing such pilot's skill;
==============================

Change "solo flight time" to "pilot in command" and, except for removing the instruction debit and adding some more requirements, and it looks like we have had the same rule for the past 65 years. You count sole manipulator time toward certificates and ratings without regard to whether you are in command of a flight.

PS - I know. Time for me to get a life.




Wouldn't it be funny if they decide to use "PIC" instead of "solo" to make it less confusing.

 

[meyers9163]

See, we were having a civilized discussion before about this - not sure why you're taking jabs about it in the original thread. Let's keep it this way! I've got nothing personal against ya!

Personally - I've clarified this with Dallas FSDO, Ft. Worth FSDO, as well as OKC. You're right - you've got enough time to where it's probably negligible, but it makes a big difference when you're training a student and say indy fsdo says the hours that you logged as pic xc, say towards the 50 hours pic xc required for the Instrument rating are worthless. Hence why I was critical about your prior statement.

Interesting this came up though - there's been many issues like this I've taken up with the FSDO, and on several of them, Dallas FSDO vs Ft. Worth had 2 different views.

Understandable! However I dont even know how this subject got brought up! But its good discussion. I appologize if I upset ya with it! However its one of many issues I found with ATP in which they are tip toeing on a fine line. Just the amount of thing lines they were tip toeing drove me crazy.

 

[turbomax97]

Understandable! However I dont even know how this subject got brought up! But its good discussion. I appologize if I upset ya with it! However its one of many issues I found with ATP in which they are tip toeing on a fine line. Just the amount of thing lines they were tip toeing drove me crazy.

Don't worry I know exactly where you're coming from. You definately do NOT take anything for granted. I was a living/ breathing FAR just to make sure my ass didn't get in trouble because of the way that business was run. "We have FSDO's that agree with us" was not an acceptable reason for me - simply because of this very example in this thread. My favorite is overflying 100 hours up to 10 over for training instead of using it to return the a/c to a maintenance facility to get inspected.

One that I thought was really fishy was logging actual as a safety pilot, and logging safety pilot time period when the aircraft is in imc... Discuss?...

 

[Clocks]

One that I thought was really fishy was logging actual as a safety pilot, and logging safety pilot time period when the aircraft is in imc... Discuss?...

Its pretty straight forward that if you are in IMC then a safety pilot isn't needed, meaning the safety pilot can't log it.

 

[turbomax97]

Its pretty straight forward that if you are in IMC then a safety pilot isn't needed, meaning the safety pilot can't log it.

That was my argument as well. I was basically told that I was wrong and that they know better just because they've been in the business for 25+ years. Since I worked there at the time I didn't want to make a big stink and lose my source of income. You can bet that I briefed my students about what ATP wants you to do and what the regs say - I left it up to them.

 

[Fly_Unity]

ATP in their manual says that you cannot log actual as a safety pilot in IMC. Maybe you misunderstood them. They always had this stance as long as I remember. Maybe your instructor thought this way. idk,,, or maybe a nooby dispatcher.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Its pretty straight forward that if you are in IMC then a safety pilot isn't needed, meaning the safety pilot can't log it.

It's even more straight forward that a safety pilot is required whenever in simulated instrument conditions. And simulated instrument conditions exist whenever the pilot flying is using a view limiting device, no matter what it is doing outside (how does the hooded pilot know what it's doing outside?).

Now, =why= a pilot would wear a hood in actual and whether it might lead to a "quacks like a duck" analysis, is a completely different question.

 

[nosehair]

Its pretty straight forward that if you are in IMC then a safety pilot isn't needed, meaning the safety pilot can't log it.

No, it's not pretty straight forward. I have flown with older pilots who are "brushing up" on instruments (as a CFII) and sometimes they prefer to stay under the hood, for security, or to just practice for a checkride; it's different with a hood if you are used to actual. And sometimes, the stuff is so in-and-out, that you might be 3 or 4 minutes at a time in IMC, so the whole 1.5 is hood for him, and .7 actual for me.

There are many reasons why a safety pilot and pilot flying hood may decide to do this. It is not mandated by weather conditions.

As to the PIC time. Let's not forget that the operative phrase is "sole manipulator" of the controls. That is the instructor's call. He gets to decide how much of the time was actually 'sole manipulator'.

 

[Clocks]

It's even more straight forward that a safety pilot is required whenever in simulated instrument conditions. And simulated instrument conditions exist whenever the pilot flying is using a view limiting device, no matter what it is doing outside (how does the hooded pilot know what it's doing outside?).

Now, =why= a pilot would wear a hood in actual and whether it might lead to a "quacks like a duck" analysis, is a completely different question.

Hmm, is that how the reg reads? Guess its been a while.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Hmm, is that how the reg reads? Guess its been a while.

It reads the first part. See for yourself:

==============================
91.109(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless -
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
==============================
FAA Legal has told us what simulated instrument flight is.

As to the second, do you see anything in the reg or know of anything official from the FAA where it's limited to VFR weather?

 

[turbomax97]

ATP in their manual says that you cannot log actual as a safety pilot in IMC. Maybe you misunderstood them. They always had this stance as long as I remember. Maybe your instructor thought this way. idk,,, or maybe a nooby dispatcher.

No that's not correct. If you look on the ATP Safety forum you can lookup my post about this and see the argument where ATP is pretty clear that in actual, you are still logging from both seats. I didn't misunderstand them; oh and my instructor was smart enough to tell me this as well

I prefer to take the safe route on this one - anytime we were in actual, I took out that flight time. At the end of the day - I had about 10 hours of actual on my XC's and that amount of flight time is negligible, especially if working for ATP.

 

[meyers9163]

No that's not correct. If you look on the ATP Safety forum you can lookup my post about this and see the argument where ATP is pretty clear that in actual, you are still logging from both seats. I didn't misunderstand them; oh and my instructor was smart enough to tell me this as well

I prefer to take the safe route on this one - anytime we were in actual, I took out that flight time. At the end of the day - I had about 10 hours of actual on my XC's and that amount of flight time is negligible, especially if working for ATP.

I've got to agree with Turbo. There's nothing. Plus just too many times it was very thing ice you were placed on as an instructor. I really didnt enjoy my time as an instructor at ATP for these very things. Too many people trying to manipulate things for the sake of business.

 

[Fly_Unity]

No that's not correct. If you look on the ATP Safety forum you can lookup my post about this and see the argument where ATP is pretty clear that in actual, you are still logging from both seats. I didn't misunderstand them; oh and my instructor was smart enough to tell me this as well

I prefer to take the safe route on this one - anytime we were in actual, I took out that flight time. At the end of the day - I had about 10 hours of actual on my XC's and that amount of flight time is negligible, especially if working for ATP.

Where is this ATP safety forum? hmm Maybe they changed the rules since I been there a couple years ago. We would tell dispatch when we hit actual and they would credit more time to us. ATP is way to tight with their multi time.. they literally think its gold

 

[turbomax97]

It's a new thing they're doing instead of the message board. I remember being able to tell them the actual instrument flight time back in the day but not anymore!

 

[tgrayson]

And simulated instrument conditions exist whenever the pilot flying is using a view limiting device, no matter what it is doing outside

I believe you're extrapolating beyond the range of the data.

 

[tgrayson]

As to the PIC time. Let's not forget that the operative phrase is "sole manipulator" of the controls. That is the instructor's call. He gets to decide how much of the time was actually 'sole manipulator'..

Let's not forget that this only Nosehair's opinion.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I believe you're extrapolating beyond the range of the data.

Maybe. Neither the reg not the available Legal interpretations say anything about the conditions outside the cockpit, so I surmise that the conditions outside the cockpit don't matter (any more than what color shirt you are wearing matters). IMO, extrapolating that they =do= matter is beyond the range of the data.

As with nosehair, just an opinion. And nosehair answered my question about why someone would want to. Makes complete sense to me and fits nicely with my personal worldview of the FAR.

 

[tgrayson]

I surmise that the conditions outside the cockpit don't matter

So a non-instrument rated private pilot under the hood would be ok entering the clouds, since he's only in "simulated" conditions?

Also, in actual instrument conditions, how could a safety pilot have "adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft" as required by 91.109(a)(2)?

 

[nosehair]

in actual instrument conditions, how could a safety pilot have "adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft" as required by 91.109(a)(2)?

When I am in actual, I have no need to see beyond the outside structure of the aircraft, since I expect no vfr traffic in the immediate vicinity.

Are you trying to fit the definition to your personal preference? Matbe. Maybe that's also my skewed definition.

I also think the actual person (FAA Investigator) who may do the violation or accident investigation may also have a personally skewed definition that will be decided by the NTSB according to the actual perceived conditions and pilot actions/reactions.

That always happens with these 'open-to-interpretation' regulations.

In the mean-time, for logging purposes, I'm comfortable with the instructor making the decision as to when there is actual, and when the student is 'sole manipulator', and this is a mutual agreement between student and instructor.

 

[tgrayson]

When I am in actual, I have no need to see beyond the outside structure of the aircraft, since I expect no vfr traffic in the immediate vicinity....Are you trying to fit the definition to your personal preference?

No, I'm trying to fit them to common sense. To say that you have both simulated and actual conditions at the same time is absurd, and so is saying you have a safety pilot when he can't see anything.