Instrument approach

[JOhnH]

Is it legal for a VFR rated pilot, flying in VFR conditions with a non-certificated passenger to request an instrument approach if they are not under the hood?

Not that it matters but the pilot is about halfway through the IFR training and the non-certificated passenger is a very experienced passneger (ie, has had the controls quite a bit and could probably pass the VFR or IFR written if not the medical).

 

[Bobcat1]

Is it legal for a VFR rated pilot, flying in VFR conditions with a non-certificated passenger to request an instrument approach if they are not under the hood?

As long as the above stipulations are maintained, (you're gonna have to maintain VFR.) We used to request "practice approaches" years ago. The nomenclature might have changed, but the upshot was that we would fly the ILS to published minimums, no hood, and maintain VFR.

Haven't done anything like that in years, so I'm not sure if the policies have changed any. Seeing as you're conducting the entire operation VFR there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is it legal for a VFR rated pilot, flying in VFR conditions with a non-certificated passenger to request an instrument approach if they are not under the hood?

The pilot would half to be careful to make clear that this is a practice approach under VFR, not IFR, but otherwise, yes. Of course, for other reasons, I would not recommend doing this until your instructor has trained you on instrument approaches, but that's not a legal issue.

Not that it matters but the pilot is about halfway through the IFR training and the non-certificated passenger is a very experienced passneger (ie, has had the controls quite a bit and could probably pass the VFR or IFR written if not the medical).

You're correct -- none of that matters.

 

[somorris]

Is it legal for a VFR rated pilot, flying in VFR conditions with a non-certificated passenger to request an instrument approach if they are not under the hood?

As Cap'n Ron says, you need to be very careful. You cannot accept an instrument approach unless you are instrument rated, have an appropriate airplane and are current, unless (maybe) it is a practice approach under VFR and the controller knows that.

 

[poadeleted20]

As Cap'n Ron says, you need to be very careful. You cannot accept an instrument approach unless you are instrument rated, have an appropriate airplane and are current, unless (maybe) it is a practice approach under VFR and the controller knows that.

No maybe -- it's completely legal for a non-IR pilot to do practice approaches under VFR. This is discussed in the AIM.

 

[dell30rb]

The key is to ask for a practice approach. They will usually vector you around like normal while adding "maintain vFR" after any instructions.

 

[Erice]

Doing a practice approach in VFR while not under the hood is NOT loggable as an approach for training purposes (or instrument currency), though. You would have to be under a view limiting device, with an instructor or a safety pilot watching for traffic (who has a current medical, flight review, and is current with take-offs and landings in the past 90 days) in order to log it as an approach.

 

[gismo]

Doing a practice approach in VFR while not under the hood is NOT loggable as an approach for training purposes (or instrument currency), though. You would have to be under a view limiting device, with an instructor or a safety pilot watching for traffic (who has a current medical, flight review, and is current with take-offs and landings in the past 90 days) in order to log it as an approach.

And just for the record, that is also completely legal as long as it's flown in VMC in compliance with VFR.

 

[jason]

And just for the record, that is also completely legal as long as it's flown in VMC in compliance with VFR.

But the passenger would need to be a pilot (as per Erice's example). The passenger in the OP's post is not a pilot.

 

[gprellwitz]

But the passenger would need to be a pilot (as per Erice's example). The passenger in the OP's post is not a pilot.

And in the OP's post he was not under the hood!
I think we're all agreed (simplifying here!):
If the pilot is under the hood, the other person must be a current pilot and it is loggable.
If the pilot is NOT under the hood, there could be a bag of potatoes in the other seat; it doesn't matter, because it is not loggable.
In ANY case, unless they actually request and open an IFR flight plan, they must remain VFR.
They would also be smart to make sure that they hear "remain VFR" from the controller, otherwise they may wish to verify that the controller understands that it is a practice approach.

 

[gismo]

And in the OP's post he was not under the hood!
I think we're all agreed (simplifying here!):
If the pilot is under the hood, the other person must be a current pilot and it is loggable.
If the pilot is NOT under the hood, there could be a bag of potatoes in the other seat; it doesn't matter, because it is not loggable.
In ANY case, unless they actually request and open an IFR flight plan, they must remain VFR.
They would also be smart to make sure that they hear "remain VFR" from the controller, otherwise they may wish to verify that the controller understands that it is a practice approach.

One other inconsistency/vagueness I forgot to mention is that even if the pilot flying is "under the hood", only one of the two pilots needs to be legally qualified to act as PIC. For example if the pilot flying was PIC qualified (landing current, endorsed for complex/HP as appropriate, and BFR current), the safety pilot only needs to be rated in the aircraft category/class (e.g. ASEL) and have a valid medical. The reverse is also legal (PF isn't PIC qualified but the safety pilot is) and it's also legal (but not necessarily safe, YRMV) if the safety pilot is PIC capable (and acting as PIC) with a PF that doesn't have any pilot qualifications.

It's only when the safety pilot wants to take advantage of the "loophole" allowing both pilots to log PIC time when the PF is hooded that the SP must be PIC qualified (and acting as PIC).

 

[dmspilot]

Is it legal for a VFR rated pilot, flying in VFR conditions with a non-certificated passenger to request an instrument approach if they are not under the hood?

Not that it matters but the pilot is about halfway through the IFR training and the non-certificated passenger is a very experienced passneger (ie, has had the controls quite a bit and could probably pass the VFR or IFR written if not the medical).

It is legal to request a practice approach, yes. The passenger is irrelevant. You could do it solo, with a student pilot certificate. You could request to fly to the center of the airport at 200 feet and then fly up the ILS backward...

 

[flyingron]

For example if the pilot flying was PIC qualified (landing current, endorsed for complex/HP as appropriate, and BFR current), the safety pilot only needs to be rated in the aircraft category/class (e.g. ASEL) and have a valid medical.

Provided it's done under VFR. If you get an IFR clearance, the safety pilot also needs to possess an instrument rating.

 

[gismo]

Provided it's done under VFR. If you get an IFR clearance, the safety pilot also needs to possess an instrument rating.

I don't believe that's true unless the SP is acting as PIC (in which case all the other stuff is required). If you're saying a SP has to be instrument rated if the (hooded) PF is legally acting as PIC on an IFR flight plan (whatever the weather conditions) I'd like to see a FAR reference.

 

[azure]

I don't believe that's true unless the SP is acting as PIC (in which case all the other stuff is required). If you're saying a SP has to be instrument rated if the (hooded) PF is legally acting as PIC on an IFR flight plan (whatever the weather conditions) I'd like to see a FAR reference.

Sadly it appears to be true, because the FAA considers a safety pilot to be acting as SIC while the PF is under the hood (as the flight then requires two crewmembers during that time). They rewrote the rule that applies to SIC qualifications to require an instrument rating if the flight is conducted under IFR.

The reference is 61.55 (a) (2).

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I don't believe that's true unless the SP is acting as PIC (in which case all the other stuff is required). If you're saying a SP has to be instrument rated if the (hooded) PF is legally acting as PIC on an IFR flight plan (whatever the weather conditions) I'd like to see a FAR reference.

Ron will be along soon with chapter and verse, but yes, it is true. Something about a revision to the regs in 2009, IIRC that required it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron will be along soon with chapter and verse, but yes, it is true. Something about a revision to the regs in 2009, IIRC that required it.

Actually, it was changed in 2005, but because the NPRM process was bypassed, it was several years before anyone outside AFS-810 realized it had happened. Here's the current rule:

Sec. 61.55

Second-in-command qualifications.


(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds:

• 
  (1) At least a private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating; and
  (2) An instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under IFR; and (3) The appropriate pilot type rating for the aircraft unless the flight will be conducted as domestic flight operations within United States airspace.
  

...


(f) The familiarization training requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to a person who is:

• (1) Designated and qualified as pilot in command under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;
  (2) Designated as the second in command under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;
  (3) Designated as the second in command in that specific type of aircraft for the purpose of receiving flight training required by this section, and no passengers or cargo are carried on the aircraft; or (4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by Sec. 91.109 of this chapter.

Here's the old paragraph (d) which became paragraph (f) in 2005:

(d) This section does not apply to a person who is:
(1) Designated and qualified as pilot in command under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;
(2) Designated as the second in command under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;]
(3) Designated as the second in command in that specific type of aircraft for the purpose of receiving flight training required by this section, and no passengers or cargo are carried on the aircraft; or
(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by Sec. 91.109(b) of this chapter.

The change in paragraph then-(d)/now-(f) from "This section" to "The familiarization training requirements of paragraph (b) of this section" is what did it.

 

[flyingron]

Believe me, I put in a Petition for Rule Making to change it back. I got a complete gobblety gook response denying it. Several subsequent email exchanges with the son of a ***** (now gone) John Lynch just caused by BP to rise.

I'd try again, but the FAA has once again decided that they are neither bound by federal law nor their own procedures and my "test the waters" simple thing to change an error in 1.1 has been completely ignored (not even given the dignity of a denial) this time.

 

[gismo]

Sadly it appears to be true, because the FAA considers a safety pilot to be acting as SIC while the PF is under the hood (as the flight then requires two crewmembers during that time). They rewrote the rule that applies to SIC qualifications to require an instrument rating if the flight is conducted under IFR.

The reference is 61.55 (a) (2).

Well if that's the case there's a lot more to being qualified to act as a safety pilot. 61.55b contains the same language as a WRT operations requiring a SIC. Now I'm wondering if 61.55 (f) eliminates all the specified requirements of 61.55 (b)? It speaks to "familiarization training requirements" of part b without any further hints as to whether that applies to all of (b) yet if that's what meant it could have simply read "paragraph b of this section does not apply..." or paragraph (b) could have contained "except when acting as a safety pilot for purposes required by 91.109" and since neither of those is the case it would seem that perhaps only sub paragraph 2 is excluded. It never ceases to amaze me how poorly written many of the FARs are.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command unless that person has within the previous 12 calendar months:
(1) Become familiar with the following information for the specific type aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested—
(i) Operational procedures applicable to the powerplant, equipment, and systems.
(ii) Performance specifications and limitations.
(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.
(iv) Flight manual.
(v) Placards and markings.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraft or in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—
(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;
(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and
(iii) Crew resource management training.

(f) The familiarization training requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to a person who is:
(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109 of this chapter.

 

[flyingron]

(f) says (b) doesn't apply to safety pilots. The "familiarization requirements" wording is redundant, (b) is the familiarization requirements.

The issue here is not that the reg is poorly written. The issue is that the change was done without calling notice to the change in either the text of the NPRM or in the preamble of the final rule. My personal opinion was that with the paragraph reordering, it was an inadvertent change. Lynch things it was intentional, in which case it was subterfuge to not bring it to light in the rule making procedure. Further none of the respondents (AOPA, NBAA were leaders) noticed it either. Everybody was concentrating on what the supposed purpose of the rule was, which was to change the fam requirements.

 

[gismo]

(f) says (b) doesn't apply to safety pilots. The "familiarization requirements" wording is redundant, (b) is the familiarization requirements.

The issue here is not that the reg is poorly written. The issue is that the change was done without calling notice to the change in either the text of the NPRM or in the preamble of the final rule. My personal opinion was that with the paragraph reordering, it was an inadvertent change. Lynch things it was intentional, in which case it was subterfuge to not bring it to light in the rule making procedure. Further none of the respondents (AOPA, NBAA were leaders) noticed it either. Everybody was concentrating on what the supposed purpose of the rule was, which was to change the fam requirements.

Seems like the new requirement for SPs to be IR for IFR flight could be challenged on the basis that due process wasn't followed then. Probably not a big deal since most flights involving safety pilots aren't flown under IFR.

 

[Palmpilot]

Seems like the new requirement for SPs to be IR for IFR flight could be challenged on the basis that due process wasn't followed then. Probably not a big deal since most flights involving safety pilots aren't flown under IFR.

Maybe it could be challenged under the Administrative Procedures Act, but who the heck wants to spend the money to challenge it? It also seems unlikely that a test case would ever come up, because it seems unlikely that the FAA would find out about violations, or bother to prosecute them even if they did find out.

 

[flyingron]

Seems like the new requirement for SPs to be IR for IFR flight could be challenged on the basis that due process wasn't followed then. Probably not a big deal since most flights involving safety pilots aren't flown under IFR.

I tried. I think it will take a federal court action (which is second in line behind the intentional violation of federal law with regard to the privacy act which is a bigger issue to me).

I disagree with you. A decent amount of instrument currency is done under IFR. I'll ask for an approach and get an IFR clearance and I'll fly end to end in VMC on an IFR clearance. Prior to this boneheaded regulation, it was not a problem. My non-IFR-rated wife is a perfect captive safety pilot for VFR operations.

 

[gismo]

I disagree with you. A decent amount of instrument currency is done under IFR. I'll ask for an approach and get an IFR clearance and I'll fly end to end in VMC on an IFR clearance. Prior to this boneheaded regulation, it was not a problem. My non-IFR-rated wife is a perfect captive safety pilot for VFR operations.

I'm trying to understand your scenario. If you are IFR current you don't need a SP to fly approaches in IMC under IFR for currency and if it's VFR you don't need to be flying IFR. If you're not IFR current then the SP has to be PIC and IR current if you practice under IFR.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm trying to understand your scenario. If you are IFR current you don't need a SP to fly approaches in IMC under IFR for currency and if it's VFR you don't need to be flying IFR. If you're not IFR current then the SP has to be PIC and IR current if you practice under IFR.

One problem is that the weather often is not good enough to fly the approach with VFR cloud clearance or visibility, but not bad enough to be loggable. In that situation, the approach needs to be flown under the hood AND under instrument flight rules. FlyingRon, for example, can no longer use his wife as the safety pilot in those circumstances.

 

[gprellwitz]

I'm trying to understand your scenario. If you are IFR current you don't need a SP to fly approaches in IMC under IFR for currency and if it's VFR you don't need to be flying IFR. If you're not IFR current then the SP has to be PIC and IR current if you practice under IFR.

One problem is that the weather often is not good enough to fly the approach with VFR cloud clearance or visibility, but not bad enough to be loggable. In that situation, the approach needs to be flown under the hood AND under instrument flight rules. FlyingRon, for example, can no longer use his wife as the safety pilot in those circumstances.

Or if the weather is good enough but he was already on an instrument flight plan, then he would have to ask ATC to cancel the instrument plan before he gets to the destination, but continue him on the approach VFR just so that he can put on the hood and his wife can be SP. The solution, of course, is for her to get her instrument rating!