Logging IFR PIC without an Instrument Rating...

[MidlifeFlyer]

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.

IMO to say that a hooded pilot doesn't need a safety pilot when the hooded pilot has no clue whether he is in or out of instrument conditions and cannot possibly fulfill see and avoid responsibilities is far more absurd.

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

Now I'm confused. What does the requirement for a safety pilot when your vision is intentionally blocked have to do with authority to act as PIC in actual instrument conditions?

You really see an equivalence between these two statements?

1. "What the conditions are outside the cockpit make no difference when considering the requirement for a safety pilot when the flying pilot's vision is blocked."

2. "What the conditions are outside the cockpit make no difference in determining whether a pilot needs an instrument rating."

Are you saying that a pilot is perfectly okay putting on a hood when alone in actual?

That's the trouble with "common sense." It tends to mean whatever you want it to. To me, common sense says that when the flying pilot is waring a hood and has no way of telling what the conditions are outside, 91.109 requires there be a safety pilot.

 

[tgrayson]

You really see an equivalence between these two statements?

Nope, but that's not what you said. You said "...simulated instrument conditions exist whenever the pilot flying is using a view limiting device, no matter what it is doing outside". Can something be simulated and actual at the same time? Seems unlikely, using normal definitions of the constituent words.

You're defining "simulated instrument conditions" as equivalent to wearing a view limiting device, but, as I pointed out earlier, that reads more into the LOI than is obviously there. The author described what was necessary for "simulated instrument flight," but didn't say it was sufficient. I'd bet he assumed the flight was in visual conditions.

A more consistent definition would be "simulated instrument flight occurs when flight by reference to instruments is required due to a view limiting device, rather than atmospheric conditions." That leaves the definitions complementary, rather than overlapping, which is the way it should be.

Here's the math:

Total instrument time = actual instrument time + simulated instrument time​

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

You're defining "simulated instrument conditions" as equivalent to wearing a view limiting device, but, as I pointed out earlier, that reads more into the LOI than is obviously there.

Hmm, the LOI says

==============================
"Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles"
==============================

I'm not sure what extra I read into it.

 

[tgrayson]

==============================
"Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles"
==============================
I'm not sure what extra I read into it.

You're reading it to say "necessary and sufficient". That may indeed be the case, but we don't know that from that letter.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

You're reading it to say "necessary and sufficient". That may indeed be the case, but we don't know that from that letter.

Ok. I understand your point. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

 

[nosehair]

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

No, not an opinion; an obsevation of the regulation as it is printed, ie., "sole manipulator of the controls."

Maybe you read me saying "the instructor gets to decide...", as if he is just making it up for some other purpose. What I mean is the actual daily life of the instructor who has to "help" the student get it lined up and down, or whatever; he has to keep track of the time when he is helping and when he is not so as to accurately log the PIC-sole manipulator time.

Of course, if and when you have that dream student who never needs a little help now and then, than the time difference is negligible. I am talking about the first few hours of any kind of initial training where the instructor is, or should be, doing some of the initial control inputs, and continuing with the occasional "tweak".

I'm only making the point that not ALL THE TIME of EVERY ENTIRE FLIGHT should be expected to be logged as PIC, which seems to be the current mindset; the "Entitlement Mindset".

 

[tgrayson]

he has to keep track of the time when he is helping and when he is not so as to accurately log the PIC-sole manipulator time.

No, he doesn't. It's the student's logbook, not the instructor's.

The instructor is responsible for the training time only, as per 61.51(h):

(h) Logging training time. (1) A person may log training time when that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.
(2) The training time must be logged in a logbook and must:
(i) Be endorsed in a legible manner by the authorized instructor; and
(ii) Include a description of the training given, the length of the training lesson, and the authorized instructor's signature, certificate number, and certificate expiration date.