Under the hood while performing duties of PIC

D

D.B. Cole

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 30, 2022
Messages
25
Display Name
Display name:
D.B. Cole
Below is a question I posted to a local pilot's group via our Facebook chat. Would certainly be interested in opinions here as well.
‐‐‐-----------------------------‐--------------------------------------------
Question for any CFIs or DPEs in the group. Can a commercial student conducting their ten hours of "solo" as performing the duties of pilot in command with an instructor fly under the hood and log simulated instrument time?

It's clear under normal circumstances that both the pilot and the passive instructor can log PIC. However, if the student is under the hood in VFR, the passive instructor is now a safety pilot and is required. Normally the safety pilot logs PIC by virtue of an agreement between the safety and the pilot flying and this benefits the safety pilot in their ability to log the time.

The passive instructor can already log PIC, but can they serve as the required second pilot while the pilot flying is under the hood? Does doing so make them active vs passive? Hope this makes sense.
 
D.B. Cole said:
Below is a question I posted to a local pilot's group via our Facebook chat. Would certainly be interested in opinions here as well.
‐‐‐-----------------------------‐--------------------------------------------
Question for any CFIs or DPEs in the group. Can a commercial student conducting their ten hours of "solo" as performing the duties of pilot in command with an instructor fly under the hood and log simulated instrument time?

It's clear under normal circumstances that both the pilot and the passive instructor can log PIC. However, if the student is under the hood in VFR, the passive instructor is now a safety pilot and is required. Normally the safety pilot logs PIC by virtue of an agreement between the safety and the pilot flying and this benefits the safety pilot in their ability to log the time.

The passive instructor can already log PIC, but can they serve as the required second pilot while the pilot flying is under the hood? Does doing so make them active vs passive? Hope this makes sense.
Click to expand...
Is the commercial student instrument rated?
 
It would be interesting to hear the FAA's answer. I can see both, but I'll go with "no."

The only Chief Counsel interpretations on the issue involve logging but your question isn't answered by how to,log. Logging is an afterthought - what you write down while having a beer after the flight is completed. Even the Kuhn interpretation answers the logging questions by looking at the operatiinal rule, not vice versa.
Because this flight time is a substitute for solo flight time, the pilot is not receiving instruction and therefore cannot log this time as dual instruction received.
Click to expand...

It "is a substitute for a solo flight time" - only person on board. The instructor role is limited. The rule was created to satisfy the realities of insurance and rental limitations (although arguably used to satisfy pilots too scared to do it themselves). The CFI is there for those purposes and not as a an actI've crewmember. I'm not sure how you get by with "passengers are verboten, instruction is not permitted, but participating crew is ok."

You would not be able to take a (non-CFI) safety pilot on a (real) solo cross country. So you can't turn your ride-along CFI into one either.
 
How does having another person onboard the aircraft satisfy the solo requirement?
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
How does having another person onboard the aircraft satisfy the solo requirement?
Click to expand...
An exception to solo is having an instructor on board as a passive observer. It was initially implemented to cover commercial-multi students that couldn't fly solo due to insurance restrictions. It was later applied to commercial-single.
 
Huh, didn't know that was a thing.
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
Huh, didn't know that was a thing.
Click to expand...
It's been a thing for 15 years. The FAA added it to 61.129 during an extensive FAR Part 61 revision in 2009. It was originally added because insurers had minimum time requirements for covering pilots in twins that many rated pilots didn't meet, let alone a non-rated pilot with a solo endorsement.
 
Ahh, I completed my commercial in 2007 and haven't instructed commercial students yet.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It would be interesting to hear the FAA's answer. I can see both, but I'll go with "no."

The only Chief Counsel interpretations on the issue involve logging but your question isn't answered by how to,log. Logging is an afterthought - what you write down while having a beer after the flight is completed. Even the Kuhn interpretation answers the logging questions by looking at the operatiinal rule, not vice versa.


It "is a substitute for a solo flight time" - only person on board. The instructor role is limited. The rule was created to satisfy the realities of insurance and rental limitations (although arguably used to satisfy pilots too scared to do it themselves). The CFI is there for those purposes and not as a an actI've crewmember. I'm not sure how you get by with "passengers are verboten, instruction is not permitted, but participating crew is ok."

You would not be able to take a (non-CFI) safety pilot on a (real) solo cross country. So you can't turn your ride-along CFI into one either.
Click to expand...
As always, your insights are appreciated, midlife. Someone on our Facebook group was of the opinion that the CFI is still obligated to look for traffic even in their role as an observing instructor, so it doesn't matter whether they've been formally delegated acting PIC authority by the pilot flying or not. But I definitely see your point.
 
D.B. Cole said:
As always, your insights are appreciated, midlife. Someone on our Facebook group was of the opinion that the CFI is still obligated to look for traffic even in their role as an observing instructor, so it doesn't matter whether they've been formally delegated acting PIC authority by the pilot flying or not. But I definitely see your point.
Click to expand...
Well, in the purest case, the unrated pilot doing the substitute solo in the twin, the CFI is the pilot in command. Has to be. The flying pilot is only "performing the duties" under a specific type of supervision. That's the whole idea.

But it's a creation for a specific type of operation for policy reasons. We're pretending it's solo and pretending the CFI is not really there - "legal fiction" is closest term I can think of. I would hesitate analogizing to anything else.

OTOH, I can just as easily see an argument on the other side. "Since we're pretending anyway..."
 
I call it the "flying with the CFI Dummy."
 
MauleSkinner said:
That argument would need to be supported by a reg authorizing the pretending, IMO.
Click to expand...
Maybe. This is more about policy than regulation. It wouldnt be the first time policy went beyond regulation. Common one we are all familiar with is logging PIC as a safety pilot. If you really analyze it, it's not what the regs say, but it's been with us for 40 years. Neither CFI nor an unrated student pilot needs to be landing current. Is a student pilot really not a passenger? The non-flying SIC can't log an approach because they are not at the controls, but a CFI can?

Does performing the duties include performing them under IFR? You can do it solo. Why not with a CFI on board? Would It be ok in actual? If so, any good reason to preclude under the hood?
 
Last edited:
So I came across this paragraph near the end of the Kuhn interpretation letter from the FAA. Seems to allow the CFI to act as PIC while the pilot performing the duties of PIC is under the hood.

Your final question is whether the CFI must act as PIC for this type of flight. If either the
instructor or the pilot performing the duties of PIC has the appropriate category, class, and
type (if applicable) ratings for the aircraft and is otherwise authorized to act as PIC, either
can act as PIC. Otherwise, the CFI must have the appropriate ratings for the aircraft, be
authorized to act as PIC, and act as PIC. See Legal Interpretation to Jason E. Herman (May
21, 2009).
 
D.B. Cole said:
So I came across this paragraph near the end of the Kuhn interpretation letter from the FAA. Seems to allow the CFI to act as PIC while the pilot performing the duties of PIC is under the hood.

Your final question is whether the CFI must act as PIC for this type of flight. If either the
instructor or the pilot performing the duties of PIC has the appropriate category, class, and
type (if applicable) ratings for the aircraft and is otherwise authorized to act as PIC, either
can act as PIC. Otherwise, the CFI must have the appropriate ratings for the aircraft, be
authorized to act as PIC, and act as PIC. See Legal Interpretation to Jason E. Herman (May
21, 2009).
Click to expand...
I don't think it says that...it says "...either can act as PIC." Which means to me, one or the other but not both.

I don't know about what you're trying to argue. A lot of potholes.

1) You're supposed to be performing the duties of PIC. Yet you'll be under the hood. Can you really be acting PIC when you have no visibility outside of the aircraft on a VFR flight?

2) The spirit of the reg allows an instructor aboard your "solo" flight to satisfy the insurance companies. But you make him or her a required crew member. I think that taints the spirit of the reg and pushes the situation to less of a "solo" flight if not totally destroys it.

3) You will have to log the name of the safety pilot (your instructor in this case) when logging this flight. How will you explain how this flight can satisfy a supposedly "solo" flight?

I don't think your reasoning holds up here....my 2 cents.
 
noahfong said:
I don't think it says that...it says "...either can act as PIC." Which means to me, one or the other but not both.

I don't know about what you're trying to argue. A lot of potholes.

1) You're supposed to be performing the duties of PIC. Yet you'll be under the hood. Can you really be acting PIC when you have no visibility outside of the aircraft on a VFR flight?

2) The spirit of the reg allows an instructor aboard your "solo" flight to satisfy the insurance companies. But you make him or her a required crew member. I think that taints the spirit of the reg and pushes the situation to less of a "solo" flight if not totally destroys it.

3) You will have to log the name of the safety pilot (your instructor in this case) when logging this flight. How will you explain how this flight can satisfy a supposedly "solo" flight?

I don't think your reasoning holds up here....my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
In your third point, why do you think there is an issue explaining why the instructor is present? Isn't that the whole point of allowing one or the other? If you're PDPIC in lieu of "solo", the DPE or FAA knows you're not alone in the plane. So why would seeing the instructor's name raise any red flags?

I'm not an expert on the issue and hence the reason I posed it to the board. When the topic was brought up with some instructors, it seemed like an interesting quandary. It appeared that the interpretation that either the pilot PDPIC or the instructor can act as PIC indicates that performing the duties of PIC is seperate from acting as such. Does the instructor, by accepting the role as acting PIC, automatically become a required crewmember?

In my opinion I would save any required hood time for regular dual instruction to avoid any issue.
 
D.B. Cole said:
So I came across this paragraph near the end of the Kuhn interpretation letter from the FAA. Seems to allow the CFI to act as PIC while the pilot performing the duties of PIC is under the hood.
Click to expand...

The commercial multi-engine student isn't multi-rated and cannot act as pilot in command. Can't even log it as PIC unless truly solo. The whole idea of the special PDPIC reg is to have an insurable pilot in command on board while a person who is not and cannot be PIC "performs the duties" of one. The flying pilot can't, so the CFI must act as pilot in command.

I don't see that as automatically authorizing the CFI to take on the role of safety pilot any more than it authorizes treating the flight as dual.

The biggest problem with some of the arguments on both sides is trying to make broad generalizations from a reg designed for a very specialized purpose.
D.B. Cole said:
In my opinion I would save any required hood time for regular dual instruction to avoid any issue.
Click to expand...
What required hood time? i have been treating this as a purely academic discussion. If you are talking about the 10 hours instrument training for the commercial, that is clearly not authorized by the Kuhn letter.
 
I should have said hood time versus "required" hood time. As you point out, the 10 hours of commercial instrument time counts as training and wouldn't be covered under PDPIC. My scenario is one where the student is flying their 10 hours of PDPIC with an instructor and decide they would like to go under the hood for whatever reason. Maybe they just want to shoot a particular approach into an airport with no hopes of logging it out for the rating.

When a pilot is solo, there is no doubt who is PIC, even for student pilots. But does there exist specific guidance as to what responsibilities fall under PDPIC? Of course, acting as PIC means being ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight, and if you're truly solo, by definition every action contributes to or against the safety of the flight.

However, if you're acting as PDPIC, what are your specific responsibilities? If the instructor can act as PIC while you perform the duties of such, what are the duties you must perform and not delegate? I'm not clear why, if the intent is to mimic a solo flight as closely as possible, why the instructor has any option of acting as PIC, at least in the case where the pilot is rated in category and class. I guess, as you pointed out, applying the exception to non-multi students created a conundrum that doesn't exist for multi students.
 
Last edited:
D.B. Cole said:
In your third point, why do you think there is an issue explaining why the instructor is present? Isn't that the whole point of allowing one or the other? If you're PDPIC in lieu of "solo", the DPE or FAA knows you're not alone in the plane. So why would seeing the instructor's name raise any red flags?

I'm not an expert on the issue and hence the reason I posed it to the board. When the topic was brought up with some instructors, it seemed like an interesting quandary. It appeared that the interpretation that either the pilot PDPIC or the instructor can act as PIC indicates that performing the duties of PIC is seperate from acting as such. Does the instructor, by accepting the role as acting PIC, automatically become a required crewmember?

In my opinion I would save any required hood time for regular dual instruction to avoid any issue.
Click to expand...
You asked the question, "Does the instructor, by accepting the role as acting PIC, automatically become a required crewmember?"

I don't know about "required", but it will be clear that you will no longer be acting PIC and he definitely becomes a crewmember, required or not.

My point is that there are, in your argument, instances where you push the interpretation of 61.129.
1) It says you must be what you refer to as "PDPIC", yet you suggest a flight where you give PDPIC to an instructor.
2) You're OK logging that you were under the hood with a safety pilot which raises the argument that you can't be PDPIC.

Plus, why in the world would you ever conduct a flight where you are supposed to perform the duties of PIC and entertain the situation where the instructor will be PIC? This whole notion you seem to suggest that there is now a 3rd definition of PIC, "PDPIC" (in addition to "acting PIC", and "PIC as sole manipulator of the controls") seems unfounded to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top