juxtapilot
Snowflake
A private pilot working on their instrument rating needs a safety pilot. The safety pilot is a current instrument rated private pilot. Can they go IMC and both log PIC?
Safety pilot in IMC
- Thread starter juxtapilot
- Start date
MSUDAWG
Well-Known Member
No....The nonrated instrument pilot can only log PIC during the time in which they are VMC. Once they go IMC, the Instrument rated pilot in the airplane is the only person rated to fly in that condition making him the Pilot IN COMMAND. The nonrated instrument guy cannot log IN COMMAND time during a phase of flight he is not yet rated to fly in.
All of this should be discussed before taking off and one person shall be deemed the PIC for the whole flight if it should be operated in IMC and that person must be Instrument rated......
At least this is the way I interpret the rules....
Barty
Well-Known Member
That's the way I understand it as well.
Then there's the matter of what an insurance company deems being acceptable too. While getting some actual time is, in my opinion, invaluable for any instrument student when practical, an insurance company may put some limits on who can actually be in that right seat when you do venture into IMC, particularly if you are a renter.
Is the safety pilot a CFII? If not, I'd say no.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
I would say technically you could, since the instrument rated safety pilot is acting as PIC. The person under the hood is required to have him there, whether VMC or IMC if he has the hood on. I have to admit, it does sound rediculous.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I agree.
First of all, 91.109 requires a safety pilot whenever the flying pilot is in simulated instrumental flight. Putting on the hood is simulated instrument flight, whatever the condition are outside. Can you find the rule that says that you are not allowed to put on a hood in IMC? Didn't think so.
Second, IMC does not mean in the clouds. For example, if you are over 10,000 msl, 900' below the cloud deck, and with 100 miles visibility, you are in IMC.
Third, if you are talking about "actual" rather than IMC, clouds are not uniform. If you are wearing a good hood, you do not know when you are in and when you are out and "see and avoid" responsibilities are there any time you can see anything.
Maybe it's a bit silly, but, in previous discussions on this board and elsewhere, we've come up with situations that do make sense. The broken to scattered day when you are in and out and want to get more "in" time. The 900' ceiling day when you want to practice flying the approach to minimums. Probably more.
Joe Gremlin
Well-Known Member
I'd log it if I cared about logging time. If you want to be safe, keep the hood on and log the flight as simulated IMC rather than actual. Weeks or months from now, if someone cares enough about it to actually dig out the flight plan, pull the weather conditions and radar tracks, then you've obviously got bigger problems than simply logging a flight incorrectly so I'd log it and not worry about it.
Douglas
Old School KSUX
I think we just had a heated debate about this, maybe it was not here.
I personally think it sounds ridiculous, but technically...
IMHO, it wouldn't be worth the time if I needed to stop and explain and convince it to every person that looked in my log book. That's just me though.
I personally think it sounds ridiculous, but technically...
IMHO, it wouldn't be worth the time if I needed to stop and explain and convince it to every person that looked in my log book. That's just me though.
Joe Gremlin
Well-Known Member
Why would you have to explain it to anyone?
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
How do you figure?
Douglas
Old School KSUX
Joe Gremlin
Well-Known Member
Explain what? That I logged hood time with a safety pilot? Is the FAA or an airline really going to have a problem with that? Read the original post again. It asks can both pilots log PIC. It doesn't say anything about logging IMC. If the left seater keeps a hood on and logs it as hood time, what is there for anyone to question?
TGatch
Well-Known Member
Well the cloud requirements for vfr are 1,000 below and 1,000 above.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
I understand that.
I still don't necessarily buy the argument that you're in IMC though.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Check the definition of IMC in the AIM:
INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS- Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions.
VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS- Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling equal to or better than specified minima.
Or maybe you prefer an FAR?
From FAR 170.3, "Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) means weather conditions below the minimums prescribed for flight under Visual Flight Rules (VFR)."
"Actual" instrument conditions is the term the FAA uses for when outside conditions (as opposed to a hood) mean you can't see out an need the instruments to stay upright
I figure to use the same definitions as the FAA uses instead of making up my own.
Matt13C
Well-Known Member
As FAR 170.3 says, "weather conditions below the minimums prescribed for VFR".
If you are hugging the ceiling at 10k with clear and unlimited below you, you are not IMC, you are simply in violation of VFR flight rules. Weather conditions are not below the prescribed minimums for VFR.
Thats how I would take it anyway.
juxtapilot
Snowflake
I guess the answer is that if said PPL with IR is safety pilot for the PPL w/o IR, then they can take off on an IFR flight plan and when entering the soup the PPL with IR can log actual and the PPL w/o can log nothing.
OR could the PPL w/o IR log SIM IFR if they are wearing the hood and the PPL with IR log actual?
Hmm... i'm thinking probably not but you never know...
OR could the PPL w/o IR log SIM IFR if they are wearing the hood and the PPL with IR log actual?
Hmm... i'm thinking probably not but you never know...
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Almost forgot about the question..
The private pilot working on his instrument rating may log PIC. Logging PIC as the sole manipulator of the controls under 61.51(e) is only based on being rated for the =aircraft=. Condition ratings, like the instrument rating, are irrelevant.
The instrument-rated "safety pilot"? It depends on what you mean by "safety pilot."
If you mean the "safety pilot" required by 91.109, IOW, the flying pilot is wearing a hood, then yes. He's the acting PIC in a simulated flight operation, which the FAA has said for years qualifies as a flight operation requiring two pilots under 61.51(e).
If you mean "safety pilot" in a more general way - a pilot who is there to make sure the flight goes safely and the flying pilot is not waring a hood, then, weirdly enough, no. The non-flying pilot logs zip. There's not 61.51 box he fits into.
Joe Gremlin
Well-Known Member
This is one of those questions where we need to remember that there are times when you are not PIC or PIC qualified and yet still log PIC. And there are times when you are the actual legal PIC and yet can log nothing. This is one of those situations.
Lets assume the following. In the left seat is a PP who lacks an IR, in the right seat is a PP who has an IR. They file an IFR flight plan and launch. Lets also say that its an IMC day and that they are in the soup anytime they are above 200' AGL.
Now since the flight is being operated on an IFR flight plan and the right seater is the only one with an IR, the right seater is the only one qualified to act as PIC during that flight and is the only required crew member. However, the left seater is the sole manipulator of the controls for the entire flight. This gives us a couple of choices as far as who can log what. Legally, the right seater is entitled to log the flight as PIC and actual because he or she is the PIC as required by the regs and legally the left seater is entitled to log the flight as PIC and actual because he or she was the sole manipulator of the controls in a category and class of airplane for which he or she is rated. However, in this situation, there is no clause to allow both to log PIC. It's a one or the other type of situation. If the left seater logs the flight, the right seater legally may log nothing. If the right seater logs the flight, the left seater may log nothing.
Now if the left seater puts on a hood, and keeps it on for the duration of the flight, then both may log PIC just like they could if they were flying along in VMC with one pilot under the hood. But in this situation, the left seater could not log actual and would have to log hood time.
Of course there are those who believe that the airlines will blacklist you from ever working as a pilot anywhere if you apply for a job and your logbook contains an entry which isn't written in the right color of magic ink. I suspect that most of those folks would have an absolute coronary at the suggestion of a PP logging actual IMC without an IR or a CFII sitting in the right seat even though the regs clearly allow such a thing. But that is a debate for a different thread.
And of course there are also thousands of guys walking around with these sorts of flights in their logbooks where the left seater and the right seater (and sometimes a couple of back seaters) all logged PIC and no one has ever looked twice at the entries or questioned them. But that is also a debate for a different thread.
ghogue
Well-Known Member
Joe,
I agree with much of what you posted, however, I have to disagree with your post in regards to the words I've underlined above. The right seater may not legally log this time, even as PIC. He was not the sole manipulator of the controls.
It sounds like you're saying the two pilots would decide who is going to log PIC, and then the other may not. Maybe it was just the way you worded it, but it's not a matter of if the left seater or if the right seater logs the PIC. The left seater logs it and the right seater does not. Even if the right seater logs the PIC, the left seater may log it as well. Not because they are both allowed to, but because the left seater is entitled to, even if the right seater logs it incorrectly (illegally).
