How to log safety pilot time

[Unregistered]

Pilot 1 private pilot under the hood in left seat
Pilot 2 instrument rated in right seat acting as safety pilot

Conditions IMC

Can pilot 1 stay under the hood and log simulated, while pilot 2 log actual?

pilot 2 is the responsible PIC for the flight.

Searching FAR's and Google brings up conflicting information.

 

[flyingron]

Pilot 1 could log either simulated or actual (not that it really makes any difference).
If he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, he can log PIC time.

Pilot 2 had BETTER have been pilot in the command in this scenario.
As such, he is the pilot in command of an operation requiring more than one pilot, so he can log PIC time.
If he was flying in conditions requiring reference to instruments, he can long instrument (actual) time.

Google doesn't determine what is legal.
The above is consistent with the literal FARs.

 

[John Collins]

Pilot 1 could log either simulated or actual (not that it really makes any difference).
If he is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is rated, he can log PIC time.

Pilot 2 had BETTER have been pilot in the command in this scenario.
As such, he is the pilot in command of an operation requiring more than one pilot, so he can log PIC time.
If he was flying in conditions requiring reference to instruments, he can long instrument (actual) time.

Google doesn't determine what is legal.
The above is consistent with the literal FARs.

I don't agree.

Pilot 2 is acting as pilot in command for the flight. If Pilot 1 does all the flying, pilot 2 may log PIC time during the time that Pilot 1 is under the hood/foggles and conducting simulated IFR flight. When the aircraft is flying in actual conditions and pilot 1 is flying the aircraft by reference to instrument, pilot 2 is still performing the duties of pilot in command, but does not meet the requirement that more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted. Only one pilot is required under the regulations except when pilot 1 is operating the aircraft in simulated instrument flight (91.109). Actual instrument flight is not simulated instrument flight. Therefore, pilot 2 may not log that time as PIC even though they are still acting as PIC. Also in order to log instrument time, a person who is not acting as an instrument flight instructor may only log the time in actual conditions that they are the sole manipulator of the controls.

 

[Unregistered]

To clarify, pilot 1 is not instrument rated.

This is purely hypothetical. Has not occurred.

 

[poadeleted20]

Pilot 1 private pilot under the hood in left seat
Pilot 2 instrument rated in right seat acting as safety pilot

Conditions IMC

Can pilot 1 stay under the hood and log simulated, while pilot 2 log actual?

pilot 2 is the responsible PIC for the flight.

Searching FAR's and Google brings up conflicting information.

I'm going to start by assuming that when you said "Conditions IMC", you really meant "actual instrument conditions". The two are not the same. If you need an explanation of that, see this post for the explanation.

With that understood...

Pilot 2 can log PIC time all the time Pilot 1 is hooded, but only for the time Pilot 1 is hooded. However, Pilot 2 cannot log actual instrument time even if they are in actual instrument conditions, because you can only log instrument time for the time you are flying the plane, and Pilot 1 is doing the flying.

(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

Pilot 1, being rated in the aircraft, can log it all as PIC time as the sole manipulator of the controls. S/he can log simulated instrument time for all the time s/he is flying the plane while wearing a vision restricting device. However, even if the plane goes into actual instrument conditions, s/he cannot log actual instrument time while wearing that vision restricting device. S/he would have to take it off while in those actual conditions to log actual instrument time, and then would not be logging simulated instrument time for that period.

 

[Unregistered]

Yes actual IMC in the clouds.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Pilot 1 private pilot under the hood in left seat
Pilot 2 instrument rated in right seat acting as safety pilot

Conditions IMC

Can pilot 1 stay under the hood and log simulated, while pilot 2 log actual?

pilot 2 is the responsible PIC for the flight.

Searching FAR's and Google brings up conflicting information.

I am not sure why you felt the need to post this anonymously.

 

[JimNtexas]

..........

 

[Kritchlow]

IMO, there can only be one PIC. The pilot who signs for the aircraft (responsible for the aircraft), is the PIC. That falls on the safety pilot IMO.

The way the regs read certainly leaves a question mark here. That said, think logically....By definition, how is it possible to have two pilots in command?

 

[flyingron]

IMO, there can only be one PIC.

You were right with this statement and then it gets odd...

The pilot who signs for the aircraft (responsible for the aircraft), is the PIC.

Since when is it necessary to "sign" for an aircraft and why does that make you PIC even if you did? Unless this is your way of saying the person "ultimately responsible for the safety of flight.

That falls on the safety pilot IMO.

This is incorrect for BOTH the actual safety pilot and the logging. Being pilot in command is neither necessary nor sufficient to log it.

Further, there is no requirement that the safety pilot is necessarily the pilot in command. Any time you have more than one pilot, someone has to be the pilot in command and the other pilot has some role delegated to him. The SAFETY PILOT exists for SOLELY ONE REASON: To keep the required visual lookout while the other pilot is "simulating" instrument flight.

It behooves all the pilots aboard to identify which roles they will take in the flight. The safety pilot can be PIC, but so can the hooded pilot (provided all the other requirements are met). A safety pilot doesn't need to be qualified to be PIC if he is not in that role.

The way the regs read certainly leaves a question mark here. That said, think logically....By definition, how is it possible to have two pilots in command?

NOBODY here said anything about there being two pilots in command. You're confusing the logging rules that allow multiple people to LOG PIC.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

IMO, there can only be one PIC. The pilot who signs for the aircraft (responsible for the aircraft), is the PIC. That falls on the safety pilot IMO.

The way the regs read certainly leaves a question mark here. That said, think logically....By definition, how is it possible to have two pilots in command?

Yeah. Well the FAA has at least two definitions of PIC.

 

[flyingron]

Yeah. Well the FAA has at least two definitions of PIC.

No it does not.

The one definition is here:

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.​

As stated, being pilot in command is neither necessary or sufficient to LOG pilot-in-command time.

 

[flyingron]

Pilot 2 is acting as pilot in command for the flight. If Pilot 1 does all the flying, pilot 2 may log PIC time during the time that Pilot 1 is under the hood/foggles and conducting simulated IFR flight. When the aircraft is flying in actual conditions and pilot 1 is flying the aircraft by reference to instrument, pilot 2 is still performing the duties of pilot in command, but does not meet the requirement that more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted. Only one pilot is required under the regulations except when pilot 1 is operating the aircraft in simulated instrument flight (91.109). Actual instrument flight is not simulated instrument flight. Therefore, pilot 2 may not log that time as PIC even though they are still acting as PIC.

If the pilot is wearing a view limiting device, a safety pilot is required no matter what the weather conditions are.

Also in order to log instrument time, a person who is not acting as an instrument flight instructor may only log the time in actual conditions that they are the sole manipulator of the controls.

This I concede was an error.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes actual IMC in the clouds.

While "in the clouds" is both actual instrument and IMC, you can be in IMC outside the clouds and not be in actual instrument conditions, so that distinction is important.

 

[poadeleted20]

IMO, there can only be one PIC. The pilot who signs for the aircraft (responsible for the aircraft), is the PIC.

That is correct. However, 14 CFR 61.51(e) allows for more than one pilot to log PIC at the same time, and for someone other than the PIC to log PIC time, and in some cases does not allow the PIC to log PIC time. This is a potentially confusing regulatory situation which many pilots find very annoying as well as difficult to understand.

That falls on the safety pilot IMO.

You are entitled to that opinion, but the FAA does not share it. From their perspective, it is well within a PIC's authority to delegate the task of outside visual lookout to a second pilot without ceding PIC authority or diluting/sharing PIC responsibility. It is certainly possible for the safety pilot to be the PIC while someone else flies the plane under the hood, but in that case the safety pilot must be fully PIC-qualified, including flight review, landing currency, 61.31 additional training endorsements, etc. OTOH, if the PIC dons the hood, the safety pilot need not be PIC-qualified needs only be a Private Pilot or better with the applicable category/class ratings and a valid medical.

The way the regs read certainly leaves a question mark here. That said, think logically....By definition, how is it possible to have two pilots in command?

It isn't, but it is possible to have two pilots logging PIC time simultaneously even though only one is actually the PIC. In fact, it is even possible to have two pilots logging PIC time without either being PIC, while the real PIC cannot log any time!

 

[JeffDG]

Here's an important issue.

There is nothing prohibiting the Pilot Flying (PF) to keep the foggles in place, even in the soup. If he maintains a view-restricting device while in actual, it is still a two-pilot operation, and the PIC can still log the time as PIC.

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's an important issue.

There is nothing prohibiting the Pilot Flying (PF) to keep the foggles in place, even in the soup. If he maintains a view-restricting device while in actual, it is still a two-pilot operation, and the PIC can still log the time as PIC.

Agreed, but in that situation, the pilot flying cannot log it as actual instrument time (only simulated), and the pilot not flying cannot log it as any sort of instrument time unless the pilot not flying is an instrument instructor giving instrument training to the pilot flying.

BTW, an instrument instructor giving instrument training in actual instrument conditions can log not only actual instrument time while the trainee is flying the plane, but also log for 61.57(c) IFR currency the approaches performed by the trainee. I got 11 approaches for currency over the last two days that way.

 

[midlifeflyer]

IMO, there can only be one PIC. The pilot who signs for the aircraft (responsible for the aircraft), is the PIC. That falls on the safety pilot IMO.

The way the regs read certainly leaves a question mark here. That said, think logically....By definition, how is it possible to have two pilots in command?

Haven't spent much time with the issue, eh?

That's not a slam. But there are over 30 years of published FAA Chief Counsel opinions on the difference between the person who is acting as the pilot in command (only one) and the authority of pilots to log pilot in command time (which could be more than one and has very little to do with who is acting as PIC), as well as the role and logging authority of the safety pilot.

Chances are, unless you have recently taken a seminar on the issue of logging flight time or have hung out in aviation forums (your 25 posts suggests you might have not) it would have been something missed in the course of your training and experience.

If your curious, I have a summary on my website FAQ on Logging Flight Time and you can find the Chief Counsel interpretations that support each point, no matter how silly you might think it sounds.

 

[Kritchlow]

Haven't spent much time with the issue, eh?

That's not a slam. But there are over 30 years of published FAA Chief Counsel opinions on the difference between the person who is acting as the pilot in command (only one) and the authority of pilots to log pilot in command time (which could be more than one and has very little to do with who is acting as PIC), as well as the role and logging authority of the safety pilot.

Chances are, unless you have recently taken a seminar on the issue of logging flight time or have hung out in aviation forums (your 25 posts suggests you might have not) it would have been something missed in the course of your training and experience.

If your curious, I have a summary on my website FAQ on Logging Flight Time and you can find the Chief Counsel interpretations that support each point, no matter how silly you might think it sounds.

You can log whatever you like. The way you do it is probably even correct. I agree with Ron when he said there is a difference between acting as PIC and legally logging PIC

For anyone looking to make aviation a career, if you opt to log PIC when you're not actually PIC, may I suggest keeping a track of your true PIC time separately? If you interview at an airline, most want to see PIC as actually the time you are in command. A friend of mine busted a Southwest interview for logging PIC time when he was not the person who signed for the aircraft.

 

[flyingron]

A friend of mine busted a Southwest interview for logging PIC time when he was not the person who signed for the aircraft.

What's all this "signed for the aircraft" stuff. I've not signed for an aircraft since I left the military aero club.

 

[Kritchlow]

What's all this "signed for the aircraft" stuff. I've not signed for an aircraft since I left the military aero club.

Sorry... It's just a reference meaning the pilot who is actually in charge, as in the captain signing a release.

 

[John Collins]

If the pilot is wearing a view limiting device, a safety pilot is required no matter what the weather conditions are.

This is not clear to me. See the legal opinion http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2011/walker - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf

The fact that the pilot not acting as PIC, but manipulating the controls and is wearing a hood or other view limiting device doesn't change the fact that the aircraft is in actual instrument conditions and not simulated instrument conditions. There may be some wiggle room between the cited opinion because a view limiting device is not noted as being worn when in actual instrument conditions, but my opinion, this is a stretch. The safety pilot must also have adequate vision forward and to the side of the aircraft with the obvious intent to be able to see and avoid other aircraft, terrain, and obstacles. When in actual instrument conditions, they can't perform that duty visually.

 

[Jaybird180]

Pilot 1 is not legal to operate an aircraft in IMC sans CFII, regardless of the other qualifications of Pilot 2. He cannot log the time 'manipulating the controls' without dramatic explanation of who was PIC if there was a "logbook audit" for his next checkride of the time.

 

[flyingron]

This is not clear to me. See the legal opinion http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2011/walker - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf

The fact that the pilot not acting as PIC, but manipulating the controls and is wearing a hood or other view limiting device doesn't change the fact that the aircraft is in actual instrument conditions and not simulated instrument conditions.

I again respectfully disagree and the decision you post doesn't say that EITHER. In the case in the decision, there was no simulated instrument flight at all. No pilot was wearing a view limiting device.

What this decision is saying is just because the pilot manipulating the controls isn't QUALIFIED to be PIC (in actual) doesn't mean that the other pilot is a "safety pilot" making this a multipilot operation.

The logic is simple. How does the hooded pilot determine that they are not in legal VMC if hooded? Actual instrument conditions doesn't OBVIATE the requirement to look out the window in case that legal VMC exists.

 

[flyingron]

Pilot 1 is not legal to operate an aircraft in IMC sans CFII, regardless of the other qualifications of Pilot 2. He cannot log the time 'manipulating the controls' without dramatic explanation of who was PIC if there was a "logbook audit" for his next checkride of the time.

HUH? How does a presence or absence of a CFI change ANYTHING. If the guy in the left seat can not legally be PIC, the guy in the left seat had better. The presence of an instructor certificate has no bearing on PIC qualifications. The right seat pilot needs to have a PILOT CERTIFICATE with the appropriate ratings, a medical, and meet the various currency requirements.

A instructor certificate is only necessary to give instruction.

It is not required to be pilot in command nor even legal to be PIC to log PIC time.
All it takes is to be the sole manipulator of an AIRCRAFT for which he is rated.
"Aircraft for which he is rated" doesn't mean instrument ratings, doesn't mean has a current BFR, doesn't mean has a HP/Complex/Tailwheel/etc... endorsement. The FAA has affirmed countless times the regulations mean what they say here.
If he possesses an category and class ratings (and a type rating if such was required for the aircraft), he can log sole manipulator time.

 

[John Collins]

I again respectfully disagree and the decision you post doesn't say that EITHER. In the case in the decision, there was no simulated instrument flight at all. No pilot was wearing a view limiting device.

What this decision is saying is just because the pilot manipulating the controls isn't QUALIFIED to be PIC (in actual) doesn't mean that the other pilot is a "safety pilot" making this a multipilot operation.

Actual Instrument time is distinct from Simulated Instrument time. The reason for 91.109(c) exists is for a second pilot to act as a safety pilot when the pilot manipulating the controls is simulating instrument flight by use of a view limiting device. You are right, the decision does not cover the case because no one has asked the question are simulated instrument time and actual instrument time mutually exclusive. The opinions come close, but no cigar.

From a June 22, 2009 opinion to Gebhart, "A safety pilot provides a visual reference to the ground and other aircraft during the portion of the flight when the pilot manipulating the controls is flying with a view limiting device."

With the definition used in this opinion, the safety pilot could not perform their duties in actual instrument conditions.

I suspect no one wants me to ask the question of the FAA General Counsel, because they may not like the answer.

 

[flyingron]

With the definition used in this opinion, the safety pilot could not perform their duties in actual instrument conditions.

How do you make that reach? I've already stated the exact reasoning why simulated instrument flight (hooded pilot) even in actual instrument conditions MANDATES a safety pilot. "Actual instrument conditions" only means that the pilot needs fly (solely) by reference to the instruments (to keep under control).
It doesn't mean that the plane is necessarily in IMC, and since it's possible that traffic may legally be present a SAFETY PILOT is absolutely required by the STRICT LETTER OF THE REGULATIONS as well as practical safety.

Further, not that it matters the Gehart definition of the safety pilot is wrong. "The Visual contact with the ground" part is absolute non-sense. Nothing precludes simulated instrument flight in VMC "on top" where you can't see the ground. The safety pilot, other than for personal self preservation, isn't there to avoid contact with the ground. Only other aircraft.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is not clear to me. See the legal opinion http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2011/walker - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf

The fact that the pilot not acting as PIC, but manipulating the controls and is wearing a hood or other view limiting device doesn't change the fact that the aircraft is in actual instrument conditions and not simulated instrument conditions. There may be some wiggle room between the cited opinion because a view limiting device is not noted as being worn when in actual instrument conditions, but my opinion, this is a stretch. The safety pilot must also have adequate vision forward and to the side of the aircraft with the obvious intent to be able to see and avoid other aircraft, terrain, and obstacles. When in actual instrument conditions, they can't perform that duty visually.

Since it is possible to be in actual instrument conditions without being in IMC, I strongly disagree. In any event, 91.109(c) does not have any exceptions for either "actual instrument conditions" or IMC in its requirement for a safety pilot when the pilot flying is wearing a vision-restricting device.

And from a practical standpoint, if you're wearing a vision-restricting device in IMC, how would you know when you left IMC so a meeting with a legally operated VFR aircraft was possible,. thus requiring either the removal of the device or the presence of a safety pilot?

 

[JimNtexas]

What's all this "signed for the aircraft" stuff. I've not signed for an aircraft since I left the military aero club.

Real PIC time ("signed for") meets the definition in 14 CFR Chapter 1.1:

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

Now if you like to draw flowcharts and read nonsense you can go through the opinions that various FAA law clerks have published over the years.

They can be summarized as follows:

Seriously, any pilot who might want to work professionally should be sure that their logbooks clearly separates real PIC time from fake ("sole manipular") time.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Seriously, any pilot who might want to work professionally should be sure that their logbooks clearly separates real PIC time from fake ("sole manipular") time.

I have never had any issues with that. Ever. In many interviews including 121. It just isn't the issue you make it out to be.

 

[Jaybird180]

HUH? How does a presence or absence of a CFI change ANYTHING. If the guy in the left seat can not legally be PIC, the guy in the left seat had better. The presence of an instructor certificate has no bearing on PIC qualifications. The right seat pilot needs to have a PILOT CERTIFICATE with the appropriate ratings, a medical, and meet the various currency requirements.

A instructor certificate is only necessary to give instruction.

It is not required to be pilot in command nor even legal to be PIC to log PIC time.
All it takes is to be the sole manipulator of an AIRCRAFT for which he is rated.
"Aircraft for which he is rated" doesn't mean instrument ratings, doesn't mean has a current BFR, doesn't mean has a HP/Complex/Tailwheel/etc... endorsement. The FAA has affirmed countless times the regulations mean what they say here.
If he possesses an category and class ratings (and a type rating if such was required for the aircraft), he can log sole manipulator time.

Can a guy without an instrument rating legally operate solo in less than VFR conditions, no. Add an IR rated pilot and the IR pilot is PIC. Can he ask the non-IR guy to fly while he eats lunch, sure. The question is: is sole manipulation sufficient in the case where he is not legally qualified as PIC. I say, you can twist the regs to mean that, but it's silly to log. - you have to go thru hoops to explain it, otherwise it's a violation.

Put a CFII in the seat and now you have a signature there that certifies that it was dual instruction in IMC. No further questions about the situation.

I guess the guy who get into inadvertent IMC solo and lives should log that too, eh?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Can he ask the non-IR guy to fly while he eats lunch, sure. The question is: is sole manipulation sufficient in the case where he is not legally qualified as PIC. I say, you can twist the regs to mean that, but it's silly to log. - you have to go thru hoops to explain it, otherwise it's a violation.

Except there are Chief Counsel rulings that you can do exactly that. No reg twisting whatsoever. And it isn't silly to log what is legally logable.

And no, it is NOT a violation.

I guess the guy who get into inadvertent IMC solo and lives should log that too, eh?

He would be within his rights to.

 

[poadeleted20]

Can a guy without an instrument rating legally operate solo in less than VFR conditions, no. Add an IR rated pilot and the IR pilot is PIC. Can he ask the non-IR guy to fly while he eats lunch, sure. The question is: is sole manipulation sufficient in the case where he is not legally qualified as PIC. I say, you can twist the regs to mean that, but it's silly to log. - you have to go thru hoops to explain it, otherwise it's a violation.

In that situation, unless the pilot flying is hooded, the PIC who is not flying cannot log anything, so there is no explanation to be made there. The pilot flying can log it as PIC and actual instrument time, and need only mention in the remarks what was happening to take care of any future question because there is no requirement for any signature from anyone other than the pilot certifying his/her own logbook accuracy.

Put a CFII in the seat and now you have a signature there that certifies that it was dual instruction in IMC. No further questions about the situation.

Agreed, and the regulations require that signature when training is involved regardless of whether the flight was IFR, VFR, in IMC, in VMC, or in or not in actual instrument conditions. But that's not the issue here since training is not involved.

I guess the guy who get into inadvertent IMC solo and lives should log that too, eh?

I don't see the relevance. What we're discussing is the logging of legal operations, and "the guy who get into inadvertent IMC solo" is not operating legally (the 91.3 emergency exception notwithstanding). But if he did log it as authorized by the regulations, any ensuing enforcement action would not be citing a violation of 14 CFR 61.51. Of course, if one had done that, and was trying to conceal from the FAA that it had happened, entering it in one's logbook would be unwisely providing a signed admission that one had violated 14 CFR 61.3, 91.155, and/or any other number of flight and pilot certification regulations, so for that reason, one might choose not to log that time which he would by 14 CFR 61.51 be legally entitled to log.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Now if you like to draw flowcharts and read nonsense you can go through the opinions that various FAA law clerks have published over the years.

Not in reference to just this post, but several in this thread, under what authority do you make your statements?

 

[JimNtexas]

Not in reference to just this post, but several in this thread, under what authority do you make your statements?

I've read the FARs to include Part 61 and the various opinion letters. I find it ridiculous that any pilot not meeting the definition of PIC given in 1.1 is allowed to log PIC of any form.

According to the way the various opinion letters have evolved you could fill an A380 with 'PICs'. You have the real PIC in the left front seat. To the right of him you have a pilot with a hood on. In the first jump seat you have a CFI instructing the hooded pilot. In the second jump seat you have a CFI instructing the first CFI. In seat 1A you have a CFI instructing the CFI in the second jump seat. In 1B you have a CFI instructing 1A.......until the entire A380 is filled with PIC's.

This sceanrio is absolutely legal. And absolutely stupid.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've read the FARs to include Part 61 and the various opinion letters. I find it ridiculous that any pilot not meeting the definition of PIC given in 1.1 is allowed to log PIC of any form.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion. However, in this case, the only opinion so far expressed on this issue which has any legal weight is that of the FAA Chief Counsel, which Greg, Mark, I, and others have tried to explain to those who are asking the questions.

According to the way the various opinion letters have evolved you could fill an A380 with 'PICs'. You have the real PIC in the left front seat. To the right of him you have a pilot with a hood on. In the first jump seat you have a CFI instructing the hooded pilot. In the second jump seat you have a CFI instructing the first CFI. In seat 1A you have a CFI instructing the CFI in the second jump seat. In 1B you have a CFI instructing 1A.......until the entire A380 is filled with PIC's.

I don't think the FAA will accept the idea of someone giving flight training from outside the cockpit, so your suggestion is little more than fantasy.

 

[Jaybird180]

I went back and reread the OP.

Who the would wear a hood in IMC? That's dumb.

A hood's purposes is to simulate the conditions of being in AIC, but since you are in IMC it's the silliest redundancy of redundancies.

Only place it makes sense is that silly mis write of the regulations pertaining to AATDs, which should be fixed too.

 

[poadeleted20]

Who the would wear a hood in IMC? That's dumb.

It's often necessary in order to log instrument time/events. Too often you're near the tops or bases, or in and out of a few/scattered layer, and without a vision restricting device, you could only log a few minutes of instrument time. I suppose you could pop it up and down each time you go in or out of a cloud, but that really gets tiresome. Sure, if you're operating in the clouds for an extended period, it wouldn't make sense to put on the hood, but there are many occasions where you're in IMC but not actual instrument conditions, or you're popping in and out of actual instrument conditions, where just putting on the hood and leaving it on is essential to logging significant instrument time.

A hood's purposes is to simulate the conditions of being in AIC, but since you are in IMC it's the silliest redundancy of redundancies.

As discussed above, being in IMC does not mean you're in actual instrument conditions, and you must be in actual instrument conditions (not just IMC) to log actual instrument time.

Only place it makes sense is that silly mis write of the regulations pertaining to AATDs, which should be fixed too.

To which "silly mis write of the regulations pertaining to AATDs" are you referring? If it's the one which said you need a vision restricting device to log instrument time on an ATD, that's been fixed.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I've read the FARs to include Part 61 and the various opinion letters. I find it ridiculous that any pilot not meeting the definition of PIC given in 1.1 is allowed to log PIC of any form.

Lots of people think that.

Lots of folks also think that logged PIC has the sole purpose of meeting FAA requirements for FAA certificates, ratings and operating privileges and there is nothing particularly silly about the FAA deciding that "sole manipulator" or some other defined time can be used for that purpose.

Me? I think the argument is far more ridiculous than the rules. It's probably unfortunate the FAA chose to use the term PIC for a certain time of flight time used to meet FAA requirements for FAA certificates and ratings rather than making up some word like "zmxtk" so that, for example, 61.65(d)(1) would say

==============================
Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, 50 hours of cross-country flight time as zmxtk, of which 10 hours must have been in an airplane
==============================

and everyone would stop whining.

 

[flyingron]

It's happened to me in training. I'm buzzing along with the foggles on and finally the instructor says "You can take them off, we're pretty much in it solid now."

Frankly, many people find it easier to fly with them on (when legal to do so). No distractions.