IFR training questions

[Exocetid]

These questions may have been answered here, but I could not find them. So, here goes:

(d) Aeronautical experience for the instrument-airplane rating. A person who applies for an instrument-airplane rating must have logged:

(1) Fifty hours of cross country flight time as pilot in command, of which 10 hours must have been in an airplane; and


Does this include VFR CC, or do you have to have IFR CC?

(2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating, and the instrument time includes:


Does this mean that you can get a buddy to serve as safety pilot while you go under the hood for 25 hours?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

(d) Aeronautical experience for the instrument-airplane rating. A person who applies for an instrument-airplane rating must have logged:

(1) Fifty hours of cross country flight time as pilot in command, of which 10 hours must have been in an airplane; and


Does this include VFR CC, or do you have to have IFR CC?

Cross Country. Period. VFR or IFR or a combination of both, doesn't matter. In fact, since it specifies PIC and not Solo, you can count any cross country time logged during your IFR training toward this requirement as well. In fact, I highly recommend doing lots of XC during your IFR training, working "in the system" and flying approaches away from the home drome.

(2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating, and the instrument time includes:


Does this mean that you can get a buddy to serve as safety pilot while you go under the hood for 25 hours?

Yes, but be sure to get lots of time with a CFII *first* so that you don't develop any bad habits and cause your training to take longer than if you'd just paid the CFI for all 40 hours... And I wouldn't count on getting the IR done with 15 hours of dual.

 

[gismo]

These questions may have been answered here, but I could not find them. So, here goes:

(d) Aeronautical experience for the instrument-airplane rating. A person who applies for an instrument-airplane rating must have logged:

(1) Fifty hours of cross country flight time as pilot in command, of which 10 hours must have been in an airplane; and


Does this include VFR CC, or do you have to have IFR CC?

Unless the rule specifies logging PIC not acting as PIC it will all be VFR. You cannot act as PIC on an IFR flight untiil you have an instrument rating. Either way VFR CC PIC time is all that's required.

(2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating, and the instrument time includes:

Does this mean that you can get a buddy to serve as safety pilot while you go under the hood for 25 hours?

That's indeed what it means. However I don't think the concept of an IR based on 15 hours of dual and 25 hours spent flying under the hood with another IR student as safety pilot is practical. Chances are you will require considerably more than 15 hours of dual instruction and practicing simulated instrument flying with a fellow student is a good way to learn all sorts of bad habits.

 

[Exocetid]

That's indeed what it means. However I don't think the concept of an IR based on 15 hours of dual and 25 hours spent flying under the hood with another IR student as safety pilot is practical. Chances are you will require considerably more than 15 hours of dual instruction and practicing simulated instrument flying with a fellow student is a good way to learn all sorts of bad habits.

Thanks for the clarification. Frankly, this is what I thought it meant and I am a bit blown away by it. In one scenario, you could go out for 25 hours under the hood and fly around with a safety pilot, who I believe does not need to be IFR rated unless you are in IMC, and then do the 15 hours with a CFII.

There are schools that will do the "wrap-up" after you have some level of IFR done already. So, according to FAR, you could do the formal stage in just 15 hours if you were a good enough pilot.

Now I wonder how many have gone this route.

 

[nddons]

Kent and Lance are correct, but also remember that your primary student dual cross countries will not count toward the 50 hour requirement, because you were not acting as PIC during those hours; your CFI was PIC. You would only be PIC when you were on your solo cross countries as a student.

 

[gismo]

Thanks for the clarification. Frankly, this is what I thought it meant and I am a bit blown away by it. In one scenario, you could go out for 25 hours under the hood and fly around with a safety pilot, who I believe does not need to be IFR rated unless you are in IMC, and then do the 15 hours with a CFII.

There are schools that will do the "wrap-up" after you have some level of IFR done already. So, according to FAR, you could do the formal stage in just 15 hours if you were a good enough pilot.

Now I wonder how many have gone this route.

If by "this route" you mean with 15 hours of dual and 25 hours of flying with a non-instrument rated safety pilot I'd say none. Don't forget there's a not so easy practical test at the end that needs to be passed.

 

[Ted]

Also remember that an instrument rated friend can't safety pilot for you in IMC, you need an instructor for you to legally fly in IMC.

 

[TMetzinger]

Ted....

I believe an instrument rated pilot can act as PIC for a flight in IMC, and a non-instrument-rated pilot can still fly the airplane and log the time (he's rated for the AIRPLANE, but not the conditions). Not smart, but I believe it's in compliance with the regs. The Instrument Rated Pilot, while acting as PIC, cannot log PIC because he's not the sole manipulator, and the situation doesn't require two pilots.

Again, logging PIC and acting as PIC are different. To act you have to be rated in the airplane and the conditions, but to log you just have to be rated in the airplane. But I don't have the FAR handy as I write this so I may be misremembering 61.51.

Again, this is not smart - a non-CFII pilot may not have the right seat skills to recover from unusual attitudes.

 

[Ted]

You may be right Tim, that just generally sounds like a bad idea. I suppose the scenario I'm picturing is a freshly minted instrument pilot with zero right seat time (especially in the clouds) safety piloting for his friend who's still working on his instrument rating, all in hard IMC. Sounds like a bad idea.

I wouldn't even put it on the table as an option most of the time.

 

[TMetzinger]

You may be right Tim, that just generally sounds like a bad idea. I suppose the scenario I'm picturing is a freshly minted instrument pilot with zero right seat time (especially in the clouds) safety piloting for his friend who's still working on his instrument rating, all in hard IMC. Sounds like a bad idea.

I wouldn't even put it on the table as an option most of the time.

Oh yeah, I'm sure Ron would put it in the "legal but stupid" category - as do I.

 

[Ted]

Oh yeah, I'm sure Ron would put it in the "legal but stupid" category - as do I.

I'm still not sure if it's legal (would have to look it up). Stupid, yeah I'd say as a rule it is. I've done it a few times, but I've also got my CFI and have logged a lot of actual, so it's not been a big deal.

 

[JeffDG]

I'm still not sure if it's legal (would have to look it up). Stupid, yeah I'd say as a rule it is. I've done it a few times, but I've also got my CFI and have logged a lot of actual, so it's not been a big deal.

Stupid: Absolutely!

Legal: Also absolutely. You have an appropriately rated person (IR, even if it's still the temp cert!) acting as PIC, and the person on the left logging PIC as "sole manipulator". That said, unless the sole manipulator is hooded in IMC, the right seater can't log diddly, as unless the pilot's wearing a hood, it's a single-pilot op (OK, bigger planes or Pt. 135 might be dual pilot...)

 

[TMetzinger]

Stupid: Absolutely!

Legal: Also absolutely. You have an appropriately rated person (IR, even if it's still the temp cert!) acting as PIC, and the person on the left logging PIC as "sole manipulator". That said, unless the sole manipulator is hooded in IMC, the right seater can't log diddly, as unless the pilot's wearing a hood, it's a single-pilot op (OK, bigger planes or Pt. 135 might be dual pilot...)

Even if he IS hooded, the right seater is only the safety pilot in visual conditions.

 

[poadeleted20]

Oh yeah, I'm sure Ron would put it in the "legal but stupid" category - as do I.

Ron does. There are fatal accidents on record involving such foolishness. If you want to learn with an instructor and practice with a safety pilot, that's a good idea, but practicing what you haven't yet learned is usually counterproductive.

BTW, the requirement that the safety pilot be instrument rated applies to all IFR operations while the flying pilot is hooded, not just those in IMC. Also, I see nothing in the rules which says a safety pilot is only required when the aircraft is in VMC, so the safety pilot remains required and can continue to log the time if the aircraft passes through IMC while the flying pilot is hooded because they might pop out at any time.

 

[TMetzinger]

Ron does. There are fatal accidents on record involving such foolishness. If you want to learn with an instructor and practice with a safety pilot, that's a good idea, but practicing what you haven't yet learned is usually counterproductive.

BTW, the requirement that the safety pilot be instrument rated applies to all IFR operations while the flying pilot is hooded, not just those in IMC. Also, I see nothing in the rules which says a safety pilot is only required when the aircraft is in VMC, so the safety pilot remains required and can continue to log the time if the aircraft passes through IMC while the flying pilot is hooded because they might pop out at any time.

I need to go look at that last one... I believe that once the flight is in IMC, under IFR, the safety pilot is no longer required by the regs under which the operation is conducted, and thus he can't log the time he's acting but not manipulating. Now the minute they pop out, he IS required again.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

You may be right Tim, that just generally sounds like a bad idea. I suppose the scenario I'm picturing is a freshly minted instrument pilot with zero right seat time (especially in the clouds) safety piloting for his friend who's still working on his instrument rating, all in hard IMC. Sounds like a bad idea.

I wouldn't even put it on the table as an option most of the time.

So, put the safety pilot in the left seat if it's such a big deal...

 

[gismo]

I need to go look at that last one... I believe that once the flight is in IMC, under IFR, the safety pilot is no longer required by the regs under which the operation is conducted, and thus he can't log the time he's acting but not manipulating. Now the minute they pop out, he IS required again.

Nope, the decider is whether or not the pilot flying is wearing a view limiting device, not what the view outside the airplane is like. As long as the sole manipulator is under the hood the safety pilot can log PIC time is he's acting PIC.

 

[poadeleted20]

I need to go look at that last one... I believe that once the flight is in IMC, under IFR, the safety pilot is no longer required by the regs under which the operation is conducted, and thus he can't log the time he's acting but not manipulating. Now the minute they pop out, he IS required again.

When you find the reg that says the safety pilot is only required when the aircraft is in VMC, you let me know. 91.109(b) says a safety pilot is required for simulated instrument conditions, and any time the pilot has on the hood, that's simulated instrument conditions. Remember that IMC and actual/simulated instrument conditions are not the same thing at all. You can be in IMC without being in actual instrument conditions, so a hood is required for logging instrument time, and you can be in actual instrument conditions without being in IMC, so you can log instrument time in VMC without a hood.

 

[poadeleted20]

So, put the safety pilot in the left seat if it's such a big deal...

...and let the pilot not certified for instrument flying even in the left seat try instrument flying cross-cockpit?

 

[TMetzinger]

When you find the reg that says the safety pilot is only required when the aircraft is in VMC, you let me know. 91.109(b) says a safety pilot is required for simulated instrument conditions, and any time the pilot has on the hood, that's simulated instrument conditions. Remember that IMC and actual/simulated instrument conditions are not the same thing at all. You can be in IMC without being in actual instrument conditions, so a hood is required for logging instrument time, and you can be in actual instrument conditions without being in IMC, so you can log instrument time in VMC without a hood.

Yep, I realize now that it's the hood that makes it a two-pilot operation.

Thanks!

 

[TMetzinger]

...and let the pilot not certified for instrument flying even in the left seat try instrument flying cross-cockpit?

Hey, if you're gonna do something stupid, do something REALLY stupid!

 

[gismo]

Hey, if you're gonna do something stupid, do something REALLY stupid!

That's what we call "high quality" stupidity.

 

[Ted]

That's what we call "high quality" stupidity.

If you can't read the smaller ones, the progression is:

"Europe: Worst Country Ever"
"Europe: Not a country, it's a continent"
"Idiots: That is Australia"
"Geographic Education: Because people can't tell the difference between Australia and Africa"
"South America"
"Stupidity: Need I say more?"

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

That's what we call "high quality" stupidity.

So, like, I'm up on a nice sunny CAVU day practicing under the hood with a reasonably qualified pilot sitting next to me (in either seat), and it's stupid? What am I missing?

The OP's question was if hood time with a non-instuctor counted.

 

[poadeleted20]

So, like, I'm up on a nice sunny CAVU day practicing under the hood with a reasonably qualified pilot sitting next to me (in either seat), and it's stupid? What am I missing?

The fact that we had carried the discussion into doing this under IFR in actual instrument conditions. Different situation, different risks from the original question in post #1.

 

[Exocetid]

Kent and Lance are correct, but also remember that your primary student dual cross countries will not count toward the 50 hour requirement, because you were not acting as PIC during those hours; your CFI was PIC. You would only be PIC when you were on your solo cross countries as a student.

This is my understanding as well--the 50 hours CC only counts when solo student or PIC after the PP ticket.

 

[Exocetid]

The fact that we had carried the discussion into doing this under IFR in actual instrument conditions. Different situation, different risks from the original question in post #1.

Yes, and it got carried waaaay too far.

To summarize:

1) You can get 25 hours towards your IFR ticket under the hood (simulated IFR) with your buddy (a PP rated for the airplane) as safety pilot.

2) You may not do this in IMC, because then it isn't simulated anymore.

3) If you do this with little or no instruction, then it will be wasted and possibly damaging to the expediency of later learning under dual with a CFII.
​

A good approach would be to get CFII dual time, then practice with a buddy as described in (1), then get more dual, then practice, etc. This way you do your 40 hours in the least expensive fashion while getting corrective action by the instructor on a regular basis. Sort of like "homework". The assumption is that your buddy charges you a six-pack per hour, where CFII's are pulling $40+.

...and yes, you only give him the six-pack or help him drink it 1) while on the ground and 2) 8 hours before any flying.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

2) You may not do this in IMC, because then it isn't simulated anymore.

You may do this in IMC. Where does it say that your instrument time must be "simulated?" In fact, you should try to get as much actual IMC as possible, with a CFII.

 

[dmccormack]

You may do this in IMC. Where does it say that your instrument time must be "simulated?" In fact, you should try to get as much actual IMC as possible, with a CFII.

Exactly!!! Please don't take your non-CFII buddy up and put him in the right seat while you fly actual....



It's worth the few extra dollars to have someone aboard who can recognize and recover should something untoward occur.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

BTW, another wake-up call with respect to the questions asked on this thread:

It took me about 3 months and 42.6 hours to get my Private. It took me more like a year and a half to get my instrument, and took 106.2 total hours (flight time, not instrument time - I'm assuming you're trying to figure out how to do this "on the cheap" so there's no hiding the fact that you have to pay for the non-instrument time as well). Instrument time was around 83.9 hours simulated and 6.6 actual.

Could I have gotten the rating in less? Sure. Am I glad that I had a hard-ass instructor? You betcha. There's a big difference between being an instrument pilot and just being an instrument rated pilot.

In fact, there's a good post about this very subject today: http://www.av8rdan.com/2010/03/this-is-why-instrument-training-is-hard.html

The bottom line is this: What you don't see can and will kill you, and fast, when you're flying on instruments. The instrument rating is hard, and with good reason. It's also the one with the biggest delta between "can pass the checkride" and "is a safe pilot." Choose wisely.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Could I have gotten the rating in less? Sure. Am I glad that I had a hard-ass instructor? You betcha. There's a big difference between being an instrument pilot and just being an instrument rated pilot.

If you had spent more time flying from the right seat you would have learned faster.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is my understanding as well--the 50 hours CC only counts when solo student or PIC after the PP ticket.

You don't have to be the PIC, you just have to be able to log PIC time per 61.51(e), and there are times you can do that without being the PIC, particularly when taking flight training from your instructor in a plane for which you are rated, and that includes post-PP instrument training (unless.you're doing it in a twin, say, as part of a double upgrade program -- IR and ME at the same time).

 

[poadeleted20]

1) You can get 25 hours towards your IFR ticket under the hood (simulated IFR) with your buddy (a PP rated for the airplane) as safety pilot.

Unless you got your ticket a very long time ago, you'll probably need only 22 hours of non-instrument-instructor instrument time because the three hours you did for PP count towards the 40 total instrument hours.

2) You may not do this in IMC, because then it isn't simulated anymore.

Your instrument time for IR can be under either actual or simulated conditions, regardless of IMC/VMC. In fact, when I'm giving instrument training, I always take advantage of actual instrument conditions to provide realistic training. Of course, if it's in IMC, it must be under IFR, and for the reasons stated above, I think it is unwise to attempt to fly under IFR either under the hood or in actual instrument conditions with a non-instructor acting as safety pilot/PIC unless that person is trained and qualified to evaluate the performance of other pilots and to know when it is necessary to take control, and knows how to take control safely in a critical situation in actual instrument conditions. Some non-CFI-IA's may be able to do that, but I think most PP's can't.

3) If you do this with little or no instruction, then it will be wasted and possibly damaging to the expediency of later learning under dual with a CFII.

That's generally true.

A good approach would be to get CFII dual time, then practice with a buddy as described in (1), then get more dual, then practice, etc. This way you do your 40 hours in the least expensive fashion while getting corrective action by the instructor on a regular basis. Sort of like "homework".

Yep -- that's how Charlie Rothschild and I got our IR's in the absolute minimum time. We took lessons together (one flying, one observing from the back, swapping seats halfway through) and then traded hood time practicing what we had learned.

The assumption is that your buddy charges you a six-pack per hour,

Your buddy should be happy to do this for free, since s/he's legally getting free loggable flying time. In fact, as a technical point, if your buddy isn't a CP/ATP, s/he can't "charge" you anything for providing this pilot service.

 

[Ted]

BTW, another wake-up call with respect to the questions asked on this thread:

It took me about 3 months and 42.6 hours to get my Private. It took me more like a year and a half to get my instrument, and took 106.2 total hours (flight time, not instrument time - I'm assuming you're trying to figure out how to do this "on the cheap" so there's no hiding the fact that you have to pay for the non-instrument time as well). Instrument time was around 83.9 hours simulated and 6.6 actual.

Could I have gotten the rating in less? Sure. Am I glad that I had a hard-ass instructor? You betcha. There's a big difference between being an instrument pilot and just being an instrument rated pilot.

While I agree with your points and agree that a hard-ass instructor has a lot of benefits for people intending on being hard instrument pilots, I also don't believe that that's a requirement prior to getting your rating. The instrument rating, like every other rating, is a license to learn. If you take your fresh instrument rating and hop into a couple hours of solid IMC the next day, I think you're asking for trouble. If you start off flying in IMC with easy outs to get used to it, etc., then you're fine. Recurrent training is important here, as well as continuous use to maintain proficiency.

For me, getting my instrument rating later wouldn't have been a good thing. I did it in a bit over 40 hours (almost all with my CFII) over 4 months. Was I as good an instrument pilot as I am now? Of course not. I've also got a bunch more total time and instrument time, plus time flying in the system. I don't think an extra 40-50 hours of time with my instructor would have helped that much in that regard. The first time you go do something without your instructor makes palms sweaty. I know that was the case for me for first solo, first solo instrument flight (post-checkride, of course), first solo flight in the Aztec.. you get the idea.

 

[Exocetid]

You may do this in IMC. Where does it say that your instrument time must be "simulated?" In fact, you should try to get as much actual IMC as possible, with a CFII.

You cannot do simulated IFR in IMC--that's absurd. On top of that, if you are not IFR rated and your buddy is also not IFR rated, then no, you can't do it at all.

If your buddy is IFR rated (not CFII), then he is a fool to try and safety pilot you through IMC from the right seat, and you are a bigger fool to allow him to do it with you. If you were flying with me in my Mooney, you would have to be Charles Lindbergh to be able to do hard IFR from the right seat--and even he would have trouble!

This is how I am interpreting your post, not implying that you are the fool.

 

[Exocetid]

In fact, as a technical point, if your buddy isn't a CP/ATP, s/he can't "charge" you anything for providing this pilot service.

You seem knowledgeable, but clearly are unfamiliar with FAR 91.BUD, which states:

"Any pilot, when associated with another pilot for not less than six months or a road trip, whichever comes first, is authorized to remunerate said pilot with one, six-container package of beverage, not to exceed 6.0% ethanol by volume at STP, for services rendered as safety pilot. Said beverages to be consumed in accordance with FR 14, FAR Part 121.458. This paragraph is not applicable to pilots working for Southwest Airlines or any of it's subsidiaries."

 

[gismo]

So, like, I'm up on a nice sunny CAVU day practicing under the hood with a reasonably qualified pilot sitting next to me (in either seat), and it's stupid? What am I missing?

My comment was purely in reference to the "do something REALLY stupid" quote from Tim.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You cannot do simulated IFR in IMC--that's absurd.

That's not what I said. I said you should get as much actual, not simulated, instrument time as possible. The regs don't say that the 40 hours must be simulated - you need 40 hours of instrument time.

On top of that, if you are not IFR rated and your buddy is also not IFR rated, then no, you can't do it at all.

I said "with a CFII." I wouldn't do it with any old "buddy" even if they were instrument rated, for the reasons you stated.

 

[ArrowFlyer]

I am currently in the process of my IFR training. My instructor has told me now that it's OK with him to use a Safety Pilot for some of my hours if I choose. I have used 2 different "Safety Pilots" in the past few weeks. One was a CFI and owner that I was using to get checked out in a Diamond DA40, and the other was one of the other CFII's in the club that I belong to. I paid both for their time and feel that every $$$ that I spend on the "Safety Pilot" will only help my overall training. Like my instructor and the others on the forum have said, you DON'T want to learn any bad habits from "Joe Blow Pilot" just to gain hours. I have learned a lot from the other pilots flying with me and will use them in the future if my instructor isn't available.

John

 

[jesse]

Like my instructor and the others on the forum have said, you DON'T want to learn any bad habits from "Joe Blow Pilot" just to gain hours.

That is true, except, you don't need an instrument rated super IMC current pilot to be your safety pilot. I am comfortable using any private pilot or above that I trust to actually look out the window.

When I fly with a safety pilot their responsibility is to solely be looking out the window and to not assist me with anything. I get to practice as if they aren't there which is the whole point for me.