Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Skid, Feb 1, 2019.
If a view limiting device is being used, a safety pilot is required. Period.
I'm familiar with most of them. They generally involve an instrument lesson with a flying pilot under the hood, a safety pilot, a CFII trainee in the back seat who is giving the instrument instruction, a CFI training the CFIII trainee ...
Problem is it fails at a couple of points, one of which is the very first step - the CFI in the back seat with a safety pilot up front. The FAA Chief Counsel put the kibosh on that one in the 2018 Williams opinion. Summarizing, that part of the letter (it discusses other things too) reads 61.195(g) and 91.109(a) together and comes to the conclusion that, on an instructional flight, the instructor must be seated at a pilot station. No back seat CFI-ing with a safety pilot up front.
Here's the thing. Don't add to the regulations what you want it to say, or what you think it should say. Just read them straight up and answer yes or no, as to whether it applies or not.
It's actually all quite simple. You can be IFR in VMC. You can be VFR in IMC. You can be IFR in IMC. Likewise, you can be on in simulated instrument conditions in VMC or IMC and when VFR or IFR.
Yup. Doesn't matter if it's VMC or IMC outside the aircraft. Pilot flying would log PIC time as sole manipulator and log simulated instrument time (doesn't matter if it's hard IMC outside). Safety pilot would log either PIC (if acting as PIC) or SIC (if not) as a required crewmember.
Pilot flying takes off the view limiting device in hard IMC. Still logging PIC time as sole manipulator. But, is now logging actual instrument time instead of simulated instrument time. Safety pilot is no longer a required crewmember so can't log anything even if acting as PIC.
I must have missed something. Exactly how could you be VFR in IMC?
For example, on a moonless night over the ocean with no discernable horizon.
[QUzOTE="Lindberg, post: 2675442, member: 16966"]For example, on a moonless night over the ocean with no discernable horizon.[/QUOTE]
I have logged instrument time under the above conditions because I did not have enough outside references to control the aircraft but it was not IMC according to how the FAA defines IMC. You are legally VFR in legal VMC on a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon as long as the visibility and cloud clearances for VFR are met. When you wear a hood in VMC, you are not IMC just because you have to use instruments to maintain control of the aircraft since you have no outside reference to use.
I have logged instrument time under the above conditions because I did not have enough outside references to control the aircraft but it was not IMC according to how the FAA defines IMC. You are legally VFR in legal VMC on a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon as long as the visibility and cloud clearances for VFR are met. When you wear a hood in VMC, you are not IMC just because you have to use instruments to maintain control of the aircraft since you have no outside reference to use.[/QUOTE]
Correct...it is “actual instrument time”, but not IMC.
How does the FAA define IMC?
It's not about "IMC" which exists when you are 400' below a cloud deck with unlimited visibility (900' below if you are >10,000 msl). It's about "actual instrument flight conditions" which the FAA defined in the 1984 "moonless night" opinion as "when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft," regardless of weather, clouds or visibility.
IOW, outside conditions require you to use the instruments to keep the shiny side up.
How about this one.
- Two Pilots
- IMC conditions
- IFR Flight Plan
- Sole Manipulator of the Controls is NOT Instrument Rated
- Pilot in right seat IS instrument rated and the one who filed the flight plan
I know the answer just want to drop this one I to the mix
^I've done that when I was in the right seat, I was the acting pic but I did not log any of it apparently since the guy in the left seat did not have foggles on and he was manipulator
Those aren't interchangeable terms. IMC means less than legal VFR. You can operate visually in IMC and you can be in actual instrument conditions in VMC.
They're making sure you haven't busted out of IMC and have traffic. Any time the flying pilot has a view-limiting device on it REQUIRES a safety pilot. Meteorological conditions are irrelevant.
Right, but if the whole point of the safety pilot is to help see and avoid traffic then he's not going to be very helpful in the clouds... even if you can make a legal argument for it
Fair enough, but the impression I got from the OP was that this was a way to spoof or game the system.. most pilots I know hate wearing foggles and enjoy the experience they get from actual IMC.. I know I always took my foggles off once I saw that we were in the clouds and would be there for the foreseeable future. Leaving them on just so Todd next to me can log the time seems a little forced. But that's just me!
It's not the whole point, there's your disconnect. There's more to being a safety pilot that just looking for traffic. Venting fuel, oil on the windscreen are just two things that a safety pilot would be responsible for as PIC.
View limiting device or not?
I think I'll start bringing two CFI friends and another friend on all my flights, wear the foggles, and that way we can all log time.. even though, in reality, just one of us is actually *flying* the plane
^dear FAA, this remark is sarcastic, and in jest, and I am not serious^
ok. My point is, it's a silly way to try and game the system.. are people that desperate for hours that they'll bum a ride with their friend on an IMC day just to get some PIC time in? I bet you 9 out of 10 people who do this whole "log time while safety pilot because I am acting PIC" do not actually have that discussion and agreement ahead of time.., which is one of the requirements. In practice it does seem like a cafeteria-esq way of reading the rules
If you have enough IMC in your area to actually make this a plausible scenario, then why not just log actual, and get real experience flying through the clouds and shooting approaches?
But c'est la vie.
Put "looking for traffic" at the absolute bottom of the list of responsibilities of the PIC and reanalyze your position. Since the safety pilot *IS* PIC, he's responsible for anything and everything that could go wrong on that flight.
"In the clouds doesn't equate IMC or actual instrument conditions or vice versa.
I wouldn't put "looking for traffic" at the bottom of the list. It's ON the list. The PIC is equally responsible for everything.
I'm not suggesting it's a bottom of the list item, I was simply saying put it there to reanalyze what being PIC entails.
I disagree with the second sentence. I think it's clear from the Carr letter that there's a difference between IMC, i.e., "when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft," and "weather conditions less than the minimums for visual flight rules."
It's likely possible for me to maintain adequate control of my aircraft without reference to instruments in Class E at 700', under a 900' ceiling as long as I don't fly into a cloud. It would not be legal for me to do that when flying VFR, but that isn't what makes it IMC.
Note that NWS categorizes weather as IFR or VFR rather than IMC and VMC.
Right. But what I was asking is what other definition Witmo is using.
Instrument meteorological conditions conditions?
I thought this threads was going to be a joke thread, “two instrument rated pilots walk into a bar...”
The persistence and variety of confusion in this thread is mind-boggling.
I think part of the problem is that people want FAA regulations and FAA interpretations to make sense, but there are times when they just don't. Nevertheless, they are still binding.
Aviation was so much simpler before the internet and pilot forums... yet somehow there weren’t massive violations and misinterpretations. We all flew, and logged just fine. Aviation went along its merrily way.
No that's not what Carr says. IMC/VMC has nothing to do with whether you have to reference instruments. It's based on the regulatory weather minimums in 91.155.
Carr is describing (actual) "instrument conditions". That is, conditions where flying by reference to instruments is required. As I've stated twice IMC is not the same as "instrument conditions." IMC isn't what determines if you can log instrument time. Instrument conditions are.
Neinter IMC or (actual) instrument conditions has anything to do with the need for a safety pilot. A safety pilot is needed for simulated instrument conditions, that is, when the pilot is wearing a view limiting device. The regs are quite easy to interpret literally and Carr just reaffirms a literal reading of the FARs.
Please point me to what you consider the FAA's definition of IMC.
There's a difference between IMC (<3/1/5/2 or 5/1/1/1) and actual instrument logging.
Edit: had a wrong number
INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
(IMC)− Meteorological conditions expressed
in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling
less than the minima specified for visual meteorological
Exactly, IMC/VMC is distinct from "instrument conditions" in the logging rules.
Noted. And this definition is taken from the ICAO. But when is this definition used by the FAA? Not when the FAA is taking about conditions or logging.
It is used primarily to define airspace operation limitations for VFR pilots. VFR pilot's are not allowed to fly in "IMC" as it may be defined for a particular airspace. For IFR pilots it tells us when we can expect not to encounter VFR pilots who are following the rules, and when we may and may not cancel IFR (as in, you are in violation if you cancel IFR before landing when breaking out in a Class E surface area with less than a 1,000 foot ceiling).
Like almost all FAA operational rules, it has close to zero relevance to logging.
I don't buy the ICAO argument. I'll assert that the ICAO likely got it from the US because that definition has been in place ever since I have been flying and long before the FAA started worrying about inserting ICAOisms into US flight rules.
91.155 exists to assure the ability of pilots to see and avoid. It is NOT concerned with whether a pilot can safely operate by instruments. There are lots VMC times you shouldn't be flying if you're not instrument trained. As Mark points out, it defines the point when you expect IFR separation rather than a mix of IFR and VFR.
You should've seen some of the stuff posted on the MySpace aviation forums.
I once was on an IFR flight plan in IMC. It was IMC because I was about only 10 feet below the base of the cloud deck which did not meet the minimum cloud clearance requirements for VMC. But, I could not log any instrument time because I could easily fly the plane by looking outside.
The title of this thread reminds me of an old joke... a priest, a rabbi, a boy scout, and Nancy Pelosi and on a jet.....
Do you have an example of the FAA using it that way?