Can I file and fly IFR without the rating?

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by VWGhiaBob, Oct 7, 2017.

  1. Caramon13

    Caramon13 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,935
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Romeo
    What? Where did you get that information? Safety pilot can absolutely log PIC time in the clouds AND out of the clouds if he/she is the only IFR rated pilot. They are the legal PIC on an IFR flight plan, doesn't matter if its in or out of the clouds.

    But, so can the person actually doing the flying as sole manipulator of controls.
     
  2. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    15,675
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Throttle
    you can get shots for that now so ya don't haf to spread it around
     
  3. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,266
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    I got that from the reg about LOGGING PIC. There's nothing in there about ACTING as PIC if only one pilot is required, and there's only one pilot required in a single-pilot airplane in the clouds.
     
  4. Caramon13

    Caramon13 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,935
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Romeo
    Gotcha, but that doesn't change the fact that the safety pilot can still log PIC time, in clouds or not if he/she is the only instrument rated pilot in the plane. As long as the other pilot is either "under the hood" or not rated (on an ifr plan), they can log PIC.

    And, technically, even if the sole manipulator is instrument rated and the safety pilot is as well and they are both flying in vfr conditions while the sole manipulator is under the hood, the safety pilot can also log pic time.

    If they they go into a cloud, the safety pilot can continue to log pic time because the instrument rated sole manipulator is still technically "under the hood".

    The real question is, what happens if the instrument rated sole manipulator pilot is "under the hood" in vfr conditions and then they enter a cloud and he/she takes off the hood? Then what? Does the instrument rated sole manipulator become both acting and sole pic? Does the safety pilot become a pax at that point?

    This is the kind of stuff that makes me wonder :). And yes I know..I think about this too much heh.
     
  5. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,889
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    Two pilots are required when the pilot at the controls is under the hood. According to the FAA Chief Counsel's office:

    "If [the safety pilot] agrees to act as PIC for the simulated instrument portion of the flight, then [the safety pilot] may log that time as PIC time under § 61.51 (e)(1)(iii) because he is acting as PIC of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the regulation under which the flight is being conducted. [The pilot under the hood] may also log the time as PIC time under § 61.51(e)(1)(i) as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated."
    https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2012/trussell - (2012) legal interpretation.pdf

    (See answer to Questions 4 and 5.)
     
  6. Greg Bockelman

    Greg Bockelman Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    8,981
    Location:
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Greg Bockelman
    Wow. And on it goes.

    That is not automatically true. And it isn't supported by 61.51 which is the regulation governing the logging of time.

    That is not automatically true. Arrangements have to be made ahead of time as to who the legal PIC is going to be.

    Only if he still has the hood on. If the hood comes off, then the safety pilot is no longer required.

    Answer to the third and fourth question is "Yes".

    And over analyze it.
     
    MikeELP and denverpilot like this.
  7. Caramon13

    Caramon13 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,935
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Romeo
    I said:

    Gotcha, but that doesn't change the fact that the safety pilot can still log PIC time, in clouds or not if he/she is the only instrument rated pilot in the plane. As long as the other pilot is either "under the hood" or not rated (on an ifr plan), they can log PIC.

    That statement, is supported by 61.51:

    When practicing flying in simulated instrument conditions with a safety pilot, both the pilot flying the aircraft by reference to instruments and the safety pilot may log PIC time if the safety pilot is acting as PIC. As long as the pilot flying the aircraft is rated for the aircraft being flown, he/she may log this time as PIC because he/she is sole manipulator of the controls (FAR 61.51).

    The safety pilot would have to be the acting PIC on an IFR flight if the person under the hood was not rated. No choice there, their name is also likely on the flight plan they filed. If they weren't on an IFR flight plan and someone wanted to go up and log simulated time under the hood, the safety pilot again, would have to be acting PIC.

    The part that maybe I missed was that in VFR conditions neither one need be instrument rated. Can have two private pilots go up for example and alternate practice time under the hood. You don't have to be an instrument rated pilot to act as a safety pilot for someone under the hood. However, I thought it was obvious that if you were going to go busting clouds, that you probably would be on an IFR flight plan, and if you aren't rated that you might want to have someone that is.

    Technically yes, and that is part of the passenger brief getting into the plane.

    Yep, I copped to that already :).
     
  8. Kritchlow

    Kritchlow Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    5,155
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kritchlow
    I made a comment about logging PIC about three weeks after I joined this forum.
    I was piled on to the point I never challenge anyone about any of it again.

    I DO maintain that one, if they are looking to advance a professional career, keep track of PIC time as true "decision making" time.
    I used to call it "signing for the aircraft", but also got majorly chastised for that here on POA.

    Bottom line about logging--- You will never be correct. Someone here, or at an employer, will always say you are incorrect.
     
    denverpilot and Caramon13 like this.
  9. Caramon13

    Caramon13 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,935
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Romeo
    That's the internet for you...I debate people most times because I'm bored. Otherwise I agree, it's not worth bothering with. Everyone interprets it their own way apparently.
     
    Kritchlow likes this.
  10. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,334
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    Nope. If the flying pilot is not under the hood, there is no required safety pilot and there is zero in the Universal Rule of Logging Flight Time (61.51) authorizing the instrument rated PIC to log anything.

    Can you find one which does? Check your analysis against the Chief Counsel's: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2011/walker - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf It’s on page 2.

    You highlighted the wrong part in your post. You forgot to highlight "in simulated instrument conditions" which means, "using a view limiting device."
     
    MikeELP likes this.
  11. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,889
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    My recollection is that some of us recognized that the type of time that the airlines want entered as PIC time on an employment application is different from what the FAA wants entered as PIC time on an application for a rating.
     
  12. Kritchlow

    Kritchlow Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    5,155
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kritchlow
    I'm not sure if it's what the FAA "wants", as much as it is what they'll accept.
     
  13. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,266
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    Good news is, its usually pretty easy to tell the difference in the pilot.

    Bad news is, it's usually pretty easy to tell the difference in the pilot.
     
  14. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    14,076
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    Incorrect. Being on an IFR plan makes no difference. Being IMC or not makes no difference.
    The safety pilot can log PIC time when they ARE PIC and the operation requires more than one pilot under the rules (that is, the other pilot is under the hood).

    That's what the regs say, that's what the FAA confirms in their decisions they mean. When you have more than one pilot in the plane, it behooves the pilots to decide who is going to be IN COMMAND and what role the other pilot is going to perform.

    Of course, it is also best to make sure the pilots legally (and technically) qualified for the roles involved. That means the PIC had better be IFR rated and current if operating under IFR (either less than VMC or under an IFR clearance). However none of that has any direct bearing on logging.
     
  15. Greg Bockelman

    Greg Bockelman Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    8,981
    Location:
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Greg Bockelman
    In other words, being the legal PIC does not automatically mean you can log PIC.
     
  16. Caramon13

    Caramon13 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,935
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Romeo
    I corrected myself later on. Before you go jumping on a missed word or two, you might want to read ahead in the thread a bit.
     
  17. Caramon13

    Caramon13 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,935
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Romeo
    Incorrect, in some cases it does. There we go making generalizations ago.
     
  18. Greg Bockelman

    Greg Bockelman Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    8,981
    Location:
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Greg Bockelman
    What exactly is wrong with my statement?
     
  19. Fearless Tower

    Fearless Tower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    13,707
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fearless Tower
    The way you wrote it.....not a damn thing is incorrect about it.

    Some people will argue anything.
     
    dmspilot, azure and Palmpilot like this.
  20. Caramon13

    Caramon13 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,935
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Romeo
    Greg, it's been covered in the thread, I'm not going re-write what someone else has written above, nor am I going to spend multiple paragraphs explaining myself, again. Not sure if I'm being trolled, but probably.

    Making a statement like "In other words, being the legal PIC does not automatically mean you can log PIC" is not "automatically right". I believe there are in fact cases (note I said cases, not EVERY TIME) where being the legal PIC DOES in fact mean you can log PIC. And, yes it can be automatic.

    @Kritchlow <sigh> guess I give up now too...
     
  21. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,889
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    I think what you're missing is that the phrase "does not automatically mean" in his statement implies that there are some situations in which being the legal PIC means you can log PIC, and some situations in which it doesn't.

    It's necessary to read the logging reg carefully to tell which is which.
     
  22. Greg Bockelman

    Greg Bockelman Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    8,981
    Location:
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Greg Bockelman
    Sorry, I can't resist.

    No, you are not being trolled.

    Sure it is.
    I think you are misusing the word automatic. There is really nothing nothing AUTOMATIC about logging PIC. It either conforms to 61.51(e) or it doesn't. If it conforms to 61.51(e) you can log it as PIC. If it doesn't you cannot.

    Being a safety pilot does not mean you can AUTOMATICALLY log PIC even if you are the legal PIC. And there IS case law that supports that.
     
  23. azure

    azure Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,648
    Location:
    Vermont
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azure
    Now we're arguing about automatic logging??? WTF is that? Having something logged without you having to pick up a pen (or a mouse/keyboard)? Or does it mean logging something while you're asleep? :dunno: :D
     
    mscard88 likes this.
  24. Checkout_my_Six

    Checkout_my_Six Final Approach

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    6,924
    Location:
    Maryland
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Check_my_Six
    I suppose anyone can file an IFR clearance.....now, accepting one is a whole nuther can of worms.
     
  25. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,889
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    He wrote "automatically mean," not "automatically log."
     
  26. TheGolfPilot

    TheGolfPilot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    Walnut Creek, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Golfpilot
    I think this whole thread is comical.
    Can anybody file IFR... yes
    Can anybody accept an IFR clearance? Yes
    Can anybody fly an approach?
    Can anybody fly an airplane? Yes

    Even the most incompetent person can do anything once. Maybe twice. Or more.

    None of it matters until you screw up. Picking up an IFR clearance without appropriate rating or currency is sort of like landing off field somewhere. Or landing on the unlit runway at night. If you screw up the feds are going to say WTF were you thinking and your insurance may or may not pay out. You are accepting the added risk and potential outcomes.

    Nobody is going to walk up to a pilot and say “hey, you flew that route perfect and did absolutely nothing wrong, let me see your rating”...
     
  27. Kritchlow

    Kritchlow Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    5,155
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kritchlow
    A layman *can* perform heart surgery, but that doesn't make it safe or legal.

    As far as your last statement is concerned, yes they do. Apparantly you have never been ramp checked.
     
    denverpilot and KA550 like this.
  28. TheGolfPilot

    TheGolfPilot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    Walnut Creek, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Golfpilot
    A ramp check would be the exception. They probably don’t do enough of those.
     
    KA550 likes this.
  29. mscard88

    mscard88 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    16,887
    Location:
    Alabama
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    Ramp checks are sometimes annoying and cause delays. I can recall a few at the airline that resulted in departure delays, having to talk w/ flight control/maintenance, sending pics to ATL so they could see the FAA inspector was full of it. Argued with one inspector who was arguing with the prior crew about where in the maintenance log it showed compliance with ADs or something. I got involved and told him it wasn't our responsibility, it was maintenance's responsibility at our company. Think I even had to call maintenance control in ATL and they talked to the inspector and he finally got out of our way.
     
  30. bflynn

    bflynn En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,321
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian Flynn
    On logging time, I know the answer for the PIC pilot is no.

    61.51 (e)(1)(iii) When the pilot ... acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under ... the regulations under which the flight is conducted ...​

    But then I made the mistake of actually reading the 61.51(e) and started doubting, section iii) specifically. Under the part 61 regulations and the way the flight is being flown, two pilots are required, one to operate the controls and one to be the legal PIC. Under the regulations, the flight could not be operated if the PIC pilot is not on board.

    I know the answer. But I don't know why, if the PIC pilot is required by the regulations to file and fly within the IFR system, he is not a second required pilot for the flight.
     
  31. Larry in TN

    Larry in TN Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    767
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Larry in TN
    He is not the second required pilot for the flight because he is the only required pilot for the flight.

    It is the pilot-flying putting on the view limiting device which triggers the requirement for a second pilot. Without that, only one pilot is required.
     
  32. Greg Bockelman

    Greg Bockelman Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    8,981
    Location:
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Greg Bockelman
    Brian, I am not quite following you here.


    What question are you answering here?

    Well, the person under the hood can be the legal PIC. In that case the safety pilot would be SIC because he is required by 91.109(c).

    Obviously a PIC must be aboard. But just WHO is the PIC? It could be either pilot.

    I will confess that I have lost the context of this thread. I will assume that you are talking about needing a safety pilot and how each pilot can log the time.

    Two sections of the FARs are involved here. 91.109(c) is the regulation that requires a safety pilot if the other pilot is operating under simulated instrument conditions. Simulated conditions are any time a view limiting device is being worn regardless of whether or not the flight is being operated in the clouds.

    61.51 deals with how the flight can be logged. If the safety pilot is the legal PIC, he can log the entire time he is sole manipulator of the controls as PIC, and the safety pilot logs SIC because there cannot be two legal PICs at the same time. And the SIC only logs the time the other pilot is wearing the view limiting device.

    If the Safety pilot is the legal PIC, then both pilots can log PIC for the time the other pilot is wearing a view limiting device. But this is one instance where the legal PIC cannot log the whole flight.

    When the flight is operated in IMC conditions, and the pilot manipulating the controls is not instrument rated, the safety pilot must be instrument rated and file for IFR as PIC. And as long as the other pilot has the view limiting device on, both pilots may log PIC. But operating in the clouds with a hood on is kind of pointless so when he takes it off, the safety pilot is no longer required. The sole manipulator of the controls may still log PIC, but the legal PIC may not because there is no provisions in 61.51 for him to do so.

    It's kind of convoluted, but that is the way it is.
     
  33. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    14,076
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    When they wrote that (iii) they were most likely thinking about Part 135/121 where the regs specifically call for two pilots in most circumstances. However, the FAA long ago affirmed that Simulated Instrument Flight is another situation of a multipilot operation under that rule. Bringing along another pilot because you do not meet the PIC requirements, however, is NOT a situation covered by that rule.
     
  34. Lindberg

    Lindberg Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,098
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Lindberg
    When people come here asking if they can log PIC for this or that flight, they're usually asking whether the regs allow logging it. Whether it's in the category of what any given airline expects to see one a resume is potentially interesting, but also potentially irrelevant. And while people might disagree, the regs are what they are, so there is a correct answer no matter how many incorrect answers are given along with it.
     
  35. bflynn

    bflynn En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,321
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian Flynn
    I agree everyone knows that. Yet, when I read the words, they say "the regulations under which the flight is conducted". In this case, that is part 91 and 61, which require a second pilot for this flight. So now I'm not sure why everyone knows that. Is there a CO case to cite on this or something other than tribal knowledge that we can use to confirm what we all know?
     
  36. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    14,076
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    It doesn't require "more than one pilot." It only requires a single, properly qualified, pilot in command.
     
  37. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,889
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    The second pilot is required because he's the only one who is qualified to be the PIC. The first pilot is not required, because the second pilot could legally do all the flying himself.
     
  38. azure

    azure Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,648
    Location:
    Vermont
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azure
    Ah, but Greg DID write "automatically log", and it was Greg's post that I was referring to.
     
  39. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,889
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
  40. dmspilot

    dmspilot Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,375
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dmspilot
    FAR 61.51 says the acting PIC can log time when "more than one pilot is required".

    Just because Pilot A requires Pilot B to accomplish a certain goal doesn't mean two pilots are required for the flight.

    Only one pilot is required for IFR in IMC. In the scenario in question, the acting PIC is the only pilot required. The pilot operating the controls (i.e., the sole manipulator) is not required. The flight could still be conducted without him or her.

    Simulated instrument flight requires more than one pilot.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017