IFR flight plan

Flymeariver

Flymeariver

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
1,866
Location
Delaware
Display Name
Display name:
Justin
When filing an IFR flight plan do I list the Instructor as the Pilot or myself ? I have been putting my instructors name in the slot, but wondering is there harm in filing under my name?
 
Unless you are fully qualified to be the PIC including holding instrument privileges, you put the instructor's name in the PIC block. If you're using DUATS, which won't let you change the PIC's name from your own, put "PIC [instructor's name]" in the Remarks block (an FAA-accepted workaround).
 
Ron Levy said:
Unless you are fully qualified to be the PIC including holding instrument privileges, you put the instructor's name in the PIC block. If you're using DUATS, which won't let you change the PIC's name from your own, put "PIC [instructor's name]" in the Remarks block (an FAA-accepted workaround).
Click to expand...

Thanks, thats what I thought :). Thanks for the verification.
 
Ron Levy said:
Unless you are fully qualified to be the PIC including holding instrument privileges, you put the instructor's name in the PIC block. If you're using DUATS, which won't let you change the PIC's name from your own, put "PIC [instructor's name]" in the Remarks block (an FAA-accepted workaround).
Click to expand...

...and when you call FSS and ask them to do that they may get argumentative with you
 
Silly nit for clarification, but I thought anyone could file the flight plan but only a qualified and current pilot could accept the clearance. With all of the caveats to who is actually pic vs logging pic, is the name on the flight plan of regulatory significance?
 
Anybody can file a plan (there is some argument whether this construes "intent" to operate IFR though I don't agree with that argument).

Yes the name on the plan DOES have regulatory significance. 14 CFR 91.169 tells you what you are required to put on an IFR plan which refers you to 91.153, which requires the name of the pilot in command.
 
Jaybird180 said:
...and when you call FSS and ask them to do that they may get argumentative with you
Click to expand...
When you're calling Flight Service, you don't have the problem of DUATS's inability to enter someone else's name in the PIC block, so there's no need to put "PIC [instructor's name]" in the Remarks block.
 
ChrisK said:
Silly nit for clarification, but I thought anyone could file the flight plan but only a qualified and current pilot could accept the clearance. With all of the caveats to who is actually pic vs logging pic, is the name on the flight plan of regulatory significance?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Sec. 91.173

ATC clearance and flight plan required.

No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has--
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.
Click to expand...

Sec. 91.169

IFR flight plan: Information required.

(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing an IFR flight plan must include in it the following information:
(1) Information required under Sec. 91.153 (a) of this part;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an alternate airport.
Click to expand...
Sec. 91.153

VFR flight plan: Information required.

(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing a VFR flight plan shall include in it the following information:
(1) The aircraft identification number and, if necessary, its radio call sign.
(2) The type of the aircraft or, in the case of a formation flight, the type of each aircraft and the number of aircraft in the formation.
(3) The full name and address of the pilot in command or, in the case of a formation flight, the formation commander.
(4) The point and proposed time of departure.
(5) The proposed route, cruising altitude (or flight level), and true airspeed at that altitude.
(6) The point of first intended landing and the estimated elapsed time until over that point.
(7) The amount of fuel on board (in hours).
(8) The number of persons in the aircraft, except where that information is otherwise readily available to the FAA.
(9) Any other information the pilot in command or ATC believes is necessary for ATC purposes.
Click to expand...
14 CFR 61.3 said:
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;
(2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate aircraft category, class, and type rating (if required) for the aircraft being flown;
(3) For a glider, a pilot certificate with a glider category rating and an airplane instrument rating; or (4) For an airship, a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating and airship class rating.
Click to expand...
So, from a regulatory standpoint, if you intend to pick up an IFR clearance based on that filed IFR flight plan, the named PIC must have instrument privileges per 61.3(e). In particular, if anything goes wrong on a flight with two pilots aboard and the FAA gets involved, and there's any question about determining which of the two was the PIC (and thus the person to be the pig at the FAA's pig roast), the name in the PIC block on the flight plan will be heavily considered as part of that determination.
 
Last edited:
Has the FAA ever busted someone on this?

All of my training IFR training flights it was my name on it. The black helicopters never came looking for me. It's like some of you feel the need to ask the FAA permission to fart while in their airspace.
 
EdFred said:
Has the FAA ever busted someone on this?

All of my training IFR training flights it was my name on it. The black helicopters never came looking for me. It's like some of you feel the need to ask the FAA permission to fart while in their airspace.
Click to expand...


Not that I've heard of. That doesn't however give carte blanche to deviate from the FAR.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Palmpilot said:
Well OBVIOUSLY, that's careless or reckless! ;)
Click to expand...

You know me. Breaking a reg on every flight. Hell, I break regs before every flight.

I don't put my seat belt on when taxiing to the fuel pumps. The horror!
 
Ron Levy said:
When you're calling Flight Service, you don't have the problem of DUATS's inability to enter someone else's name in the PIC block, so there's no need to put "PIC [instructor's name]" in the Remarks block.
Click to expand...

Do you use duats.com? I just tried it with duat.com, and it did accept a flight plan with a name other than my own.
 
Palmpilot said:
Do you use duats.com? I just tried it with duat.com, and it did accept a flight plan with a name other than my own.
Click to expand...

Both services will let you type in a name other than your own but when it actually files it, you'll find the name of the account that filed it is substituted for whatever you put on the form.

The FAA required them to do this.
 
Ron Levy said:
So, from a regulatory standpoint, if you intend to pick up an IFR clearance based on that filed IFR flight plan, the named PIC must have instrument privileges per 61.3(e). In particular, if anything goes wrong on a flight with two pilots aboard and the FAA gets involved, and there's any question about determining which of the two was the PIC (and thus the person to be the pig at the FAA's pig roast), the name in the PIC block on the flight plan will be heavily considered as part of that determination.
Click to expand...

Lesson learned: if you plan on doing anything sketchy and plan on pinning it on the guy sitting next to you, make sure you file a pop-up IFR flight plan. :wink2:
 
EdFred said:
Has the FAA ever busted someone on this?
Click to expand...

I recall a DC SFRA violation where there was a CFI (who BTW got indignant as I recall) and a rusty pilot getting a 61.56. They violated airspace and one of the questions in the revocation appeal was 'who was PIC'.

I am on my phone and will not look it up
 
Jaybird180 said:
I recall a DC SFRA violation where there was a CFI (who BTW got indignant as I recall) and a rusty pilot getting a 61.56. They violated airspace and one of the questions in the revocation appeal was 'who was PIC'.

I am on my phone and will not look it up
Click to expand...

Not exactly the same situation.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I recall a DC SFRA violation where there was a CFI (who BTW got indignant as I recall) and a rusty pilot getting a 61.56. They violated airspace and one of the questions in the revocation appeal was 'who was PIC'.

I am on my phone and will not look it up
Click to expand...
It's Administrator v. Moeslein. Since the trainee was legal to be PIC, the qualifications of the person named on the flight plan wasn't the legal issue since the flight plan was never activated or in any way used (and if it had been, there wouldn't have been a problem). Also, in the interest of accuracy, the trainee wasn't either rusty or receiving a flight review (he was a CP trainee prepping for the CP practical test) and it was the ADIZ then, not yet the SFRA.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top