5 dead in Bakersfield crash of PA32

acrophile said:
You have to include the PIC's name when you file, but you don't have to be the PIC.
Click to expand...

The person doing the actual filing could be a secretary or dispatcher. But the named pilot on the flight plan form must be the PIC, per 91.169 and 91.153.
 
RotorDude said:
Too late to yank your ticket now :) but you were wrong, as was your CFII for condoning that practice. See 91.169 and 91.153.
When I was training for my IR, I often filed the flight plan, but I would give my CFII's name as PIC, per his request. (And much of our flying was IMC.)
Click to expand...

I gave my CFII's name too, in the remarks section. But I filed under my own name. (These days, I always file online, and I would not be able to log in as my CFII to file as him or her.)
 
RotorDude said:
The person doing the actual filing could be a secretary or dispatcher. But the named pilot on the flight plan form must be the PIC, per 91.169 and 91.153.
Click to expand...

The PIC can be named in the remarks section if the plan is filed under another pilot's name. The regs you cite say only that the PIC information must be included.
 
acrophile said:
I gave my CFII's name too, in the remarks section. But I filed under my own name. (These days, I always file online, and I would not be able to log in as my CFII to file as him or her.)
Click to expand...

The remarks are optional and advisory only. To my knowledge that section is not governed by the FARs. What the FARs do say is that the "pilot" named in the main part of the form (not the remarks) must be the PIC.
 
RotorDude said:
The remarks are optional and advisory only. To my knowledge that section is not governed by the FARs. What the FARs do say is that the "pilot" named in the main part of the form (not the remarks) must be the PIC.
Click to expand...

No, the FARs don't say that at all. They just say the PIC's information must be included in the filed plan. There's no mention of the pilot named in the main part of the form.
 
acrophile said:
No, the FARs don't say that at all. They just say the PIC's information must be included in the filed plan. There's no mention of the pilot named in the main part of the form.
Click to expand...

The FARs (153/169) say "The full name and address of the pilot in command".
Yes, they don't specify which field it must be in, but if you read the standard FAA-issued form, there is a field called "14. PILOT'S NAME, ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER & AIRCRAFT HOME BASE" (never mind that we are in the midst of switching to ICAO).
Any reasonable person (or court if it ever came to that) reading 91.169 and 91.153 would expect that the pilot in item 14 would be the PIC. To argue otherwise is clintonian. :)
 
RotorDude said:
The FARs (153/169) say "The full name and address of the pilot in command".
Yes, they don't specify which field it must be in, but if you read the standard FAA-issued form, there is a field called "14. PILOT'S NAME, ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER & AIRCRAFT HOME BASE" (never mind that we are in the midst of switching to ICAO).
Any reasonable person (or court if it ever came to that) reading 91.169 and 91.153 would expect that the pilot in item 14 would be the PIC.
Click to expand...

By default, yes. But if the remarks say "PIC: Jane Doe, CFII", then any reasonable person would expect Jane Doe to be the PIC. And so would the FAA, or any court. Which is why it's standard practice to file that way, and has been for years, with no repercussions.
 
acrophile said:
By default, yes. But if the remarks say "PIC: Jane Doe, CFII", then any reasonable person would expect Jane Doe to be the PIC. And so would the FAA, or any court. Which is why it's standard practice to file that way, and has been for years, with no repercussions.
Click to expand...

The FAA expects you to follow their guidance in filing the flight plan form, which is detailed in AIM 5.1.8: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf

14. Block 14. Enter the complete name,
address, and telephone number of pilot-in-command,
or in the case of a formation flight, the formation
commander. Enter sufficient information to identify
home base, airport, or operator.
Click to expand...
 
steingar said:
Boy, you just bust my bubble good. I was thinking of that study when I entered legal VFR conditions that might as well have been IFR (mist and water with better than 5 miles of visibility and a ceiling higher than five thousand feet). I managed to keep the shiny side up for a good ten minutes until I recovered the horizon, and thought I was some sort of superman for not auguring in after 30 seconds. Silly me.
Click to expand...

Given the fear-mongering, you deserve credit for not panicking!
 
RotorDude said:
The FAA expects you to follow their guidance in filing the flight plan form, which is detailed in AIM 5.1.8: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks, the AIM reference is pertinent (though not explicitly directed at online filing, as opposed to using FAA Form 7233-1).

In any case, I am not troubled by a minor, commonsense-supported deviation from the (nonregulatory) AIM.

With regard to what the FAA "expects", if naming the PIC in the remarks section were improper, then every such plan filed would constitute proof of a violation. It's vanishingly unlikely that the practice could go on for years without the FAA ever taking action or even mentioning it to anyone.
 
dell30rb said:
Not sure which is worse, this or the guy who flew after doing cocaine?

The pilot held a private pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land issued in July 2012. He did not hold an instrument rating.
Click to expand...

The pilot responded, "Ok, we're going to deviate to the south and try and go through Barstow." Another airplane then reported cloud tops in the Palmdale area of about 21,000 ft and the controller reiterated this information to N36402, advising that it was in the direction that he was heading. The pilot responded, and the controller then provided another weather update, which indicated areas of moderate precipitation at the 11 to 2 o'clock position.

At 1550, the controller asked if the pilot would like to file an IFR clearance to Henderson. The pilot responded in the affirmative, requesting an altitude of 15,000 ft. Two minutes later the airplane began a left turn to the north, and a short time later the controller advised he was ready with the IFR clearance. The controller provided the clearance, and the pilot read it back; however, the airplane had now transitioned to a northeast track. The controller asked if the pilot was turning northbound, and the pilot stated, "Roger, I just took a heading off of Bakersfield and I'm going to change it to the current IFR."


The airplane had fragmented in flight, with the majority of the components coming to rest in an almond orchard, directly below the last radar target, about 9 miles southwest of Bakersfield.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm dumbfounded.

I can see a non-instrument-rated pilot accepting an IFR clearance if it was necessary for the purpose of safely getting out of IMC, but doing it for the purpose of pressing on in it, especially with one's family aboard and over that terrain, really leaves me shaking my head.
 
In the grand scheme of things, I really can't convince myself that which box to put the PIC's name in is all that important.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm dumbfounded.

I can see a non-instrument-rated pilot accepting an IFR clearance if it was necessary for the purpose of safely getting out of IMC, but doing it for the purpose of pressing on in it, especially with one's family aboard and over that terrain, really leaves me shaking my head.
Click to expand...

Me too...... VERY sobering,, and to think no one in his close circle didn't see his disregard for rules...:rolleyes:...
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I can see a non-instrument-rated pilot accepting an IFR clearance if it was necessary for the purpose of safely getting out of IMC, but doing it for the purpose of pressing on in it, especially with one's family aboard and over that terrain, really leaves me shaking my head.
Click to expand...

Yup. He accepted the clearance with no indication to ATC that he was in distress or needed to get to VMC.

I wonder if he'd previously made other illegal IFR/IMC flights.
 
acrophile said:
Thanks, the AIM reference is pertinent (though not explicitly directed at online filing, as opposed to using FAA Form 7233-1).

In any case, I am not troubled by a minor, commonsense-supported deviation from the (nonregulatory) AIM.

With regard to what the FAA "expects", if naming the PIC in the remarks section were improper, then every such plan filed would constitute proof of a violation. It's vanishingly unlikely that the practice could go on for years without the FAA ever taking action or even mentioning it to anyone.
Click to expand...

It seems to me the the FAA realizes that with e-filing it's more difficult for the student to file with the PIC's name, so they quietly allow this practice.
I suppose they need to formalize it (or come up with an equivalent method) at some point, perhaps after the ICAO filing is established.
 
Palmpilot said:
I can see a non-instrument-rated pilot accepting an IFR clearance if it was necessary for the purpose of safely getting out of IMC, but doing it for the purpose of pressing on in it, especially with one's family aboard and over that terrain, really leaves me shaking my head.
Click to expand...

Even as a non-instrument rated pilot, the thing to do is declare an emergency. Controllers will clear the airspace and give simple instructions. There wont be any severe consequences from the FAA. They teach 'climb, confess, comply" if you are a non instrument rated pilot and accidentally wind up in the clouds.

Yes, it sounds like this pilot was heading into weather and accepted an IFR clearance instead of turning around.

He had about 280 hours and had taken some instrument training flights in 2014. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt somehow, but he had to know what he was doing was illegal and dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately there are a LOT of VFR only pilots who push the envelope. I see it often as I'm sure many of you do too. I hope if there are any of those pilots out there reading this that they will use this as a sobering and learning opportunity and apply it to their own flying. If you're doing long XC's at those kinds of altitudes as this incident pilot was doing with your family onboard it is irresponsible in my opinion to not get your instrument rating. I feel really sorry for the family. In the mountains with moderate precipitation in the area, IMC conditions, high cloud tops into the flight levels with night approaching, and no IR rating?... not just stupid but incredibly negligent. A totally avoidable accident that makes us all look bad, increases our insurance rates and worst of all killed a young family completely needlessly.

:mad2:
 
Regardless of what the FARs say about the legality of a non-IR private pilot filing an IFR flight plan with him/herself listed as PIC, the fact is that it is possible for anyone to file an IFR flight plan. IOW they don't check the PIC on the flight plan against their airman database in real time. Doing so would present great unintended problems in any event.

If you're caught doing this you would face the possibility of disciplinary action, but they are not trying to actively weed out VFR pilots filing IFR fpls. If they were then they would have to ask your name over the air when you file a pop-up. Instead, they (usually but not apparently in this case) ask if you're instrument rated and current. You say "affirmative" and get your clearance.

So yeah he *could* have filed an IFR flight plan before departure. That *would* indicate a reckless willingness to enter IMC. We also don't know that he *did in fact* file an IFR flight plan prior to departure. His departure VFR does not answer this one way or the other.

That said, I think it is *likely* that the flight plan referenced in the prelim is the one that the controller filed on his behalf upon offering/issuing the IFR clearance. But the prelim doesn't say for sure.

Thanks for enduring my *scare* quotes...

140207_2724381_Weekend_Update_Segment___Chris_Farley_as_Ben_anvver_2.jpg
 
Last edited:
petrolero said:
R...Instead, they (usually but not apparently in this case) ask if you're instrument rated and current...
Click to expand...

In over twenty years of instrument flying, I never got asked that question, including those occasions when I didn't pre-file.

I agree with the rest of your post, however.
 
Palmpilot said:
In over twenty years of instrument flying, I never got asked that question, including those occasions when I didn't pre-file.

I agree with the rest of your post, however.
Click to expand...

I've been asked a handful of times when requesting a popup clearance. Although the phrase I usually get is 'instrument rated and equipped' rather than rated and current.
 
petrolero said:
So yeah he *could* have filed an IFR flight plan before departure. That *would* indicate a reckless willingness to enter IMC. We also don't know that he *did in fact* file an IFR flight plan prior to departure. His departure VFR does not answer this one way or the other.
Click to expand...

He did, or someone did on his behalf, per the NTSB report.
 
RotorDude said:
He did, or someone did on his behalf, per the NTSB report.
Click to expand...

No. The report says he filed. It doesn't say whether it was before takeoff or while in the air. I'd tend to think the former, but the report's wording is ambiguous, as several posts in this thread have already pointed out.
 
Palmpilot said:
In over twenty years of instrument flying, I never got asked that question, including those occasions when I didn't pre-file.

I agree with the rest of your post, however.
Click to expand...

I've heard them ask other pilots that question but admittedly not recently. I have never needed to do a pop-up.
 
acrophile said:
No. The report says he filed. It doesn't say whether it was before takeoff or while in the air. I'd tend to think the former, but the report's wording is ambiguous, as several posts in this thread have already pointed out.
Click to expand...

No, it says an IFR flight plan had been filed. I read and follow most NTSB reports, and virtually all important accidents since they went online in the 90s, and have never seen that wording used for a popup, so I don't consider it ambiguous.
 
petrolero said:
I've heard them ask other pilots that question but admittedly not recently. I have never needed to do a pop-up.
Click to expand...

I've occasionally gotten that question when requesting a pop-up, but not usually. Conversely, I've sometimes been offered a clearance in marginal weather which I had to turn down because I (or the plane I was flying) wasn't instrument-current.
 
RotorDude said:
No, it says an IFR flight plan had been filed. I read and follow most NTSB reports, and virtually all important accidents since they went online in the 90s, and have never seen that wording used for a popup, so I don't consider it ambiguous.
Click to expand...

Well yes, that's why I too consider the pre-takeoff interpretation probable. But it's not stated explicitly in the report, and it would not be inaccurate to say that a pop-up plan had been "filed" (I've had controllers ask me "Do you want to file in the air?"). So the pre-takeoff interpretation is an (albeit very plausible) assumption that goes beyond what's actually stated, so I don't consider it conclusive.
 
RudyP said:
I've been asked a handful of times when requesting a popup clearance. Although the phrase I usually get is 'instrument rated and equipped' rather than rated and current.
Click to expand...


Ditto, and I was asked to reply with my name and phone number to provide a record. I was shooting a approach that was at minimums if it matters.
 
I've only been asked if I was "qualified and equipped for instrument flight" once but I've heard others asked a number of times. My guess is it depends on the controller and conditions.
 
acrophile said:
Well yes, that's why I too consider the pre-takeoff interpretation probable. But it's not stated explicitly in the report, and it would not be inaccurate to say that a pop-up plan had been "filed" (I've had controllers ask me "Do you want to file in the air?"). So the pre-takeoff interpretation is an (albeit very plausible) assumption that goes beyond what's actually stated, so I don't consider it conclusive.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't think I have ever seen an NTSB accident report (of the probably thousands I have read) that uses the language "an IFR flight plan had been filed" (without elaboration) for a popup clearance. Can you point me to one?
 
According to the press, not filing a flight plan results in crashing and death.
In this case, because a flight plan was filed, the result is death.

Isn't that ironic?
 
garyb said:
According to the press, not filing a flight plan results in crashing and death.
In this case, because a flight plan was filed, the result is death.

Isn't that ironic?
Click to expand...

I didn't see that. Please post the supporting article.
 
I was merely pointing out that the press always seems to indicate that anytime a small plane crashes, not filing a flight plan is part of the reason, and my lack of emoticons may not have conveyed the level of sarcasm I was attempting to portray.
 
garyb said:
I was merely pointing out that the press always seems to indicate that anytime a small plane crashes, not filing a flight plan is part of the reason, and my lack of emoticons may not have conveyed the level of sarcasm I was attempting to portray.
Click to expand...

I know that's sort of an ongoing joke here...
I don't buy it totally. Although filling a flight plan has no direct bearing on a crash, it does force you to think about fuel, routing, altitude choice, and of course can aid in S&R.

A few months ago there was a thread about IFR flight plan alternates. *supposedly* the only reason that exists is to make the pilot think about where they will go. I guess the same concept applies to VFR fuel and route requirements.
 
This morning, a local TV station mentioned the NTSB report, and the one thing the news people thought was significant to mention was that he turned left when he was told to turn right. :rolleyes:
 
Yes, that sure beats the report I saw!
 
The first paragraph says it's all. Seriously why the eff do people keep doing stupid **** like this?

I almost don't feel bad for these peeps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top