Jump to content

Goggle or hood training for Sport Pilots


Al Downs

Recommended Posts

A Sport Pilot is a required crew member and he doesn't need a medical. The FAR's have not been rewritten to incorporate the Sport Pilot rule. I may have referenced the wrong FAR, but it's the same point.

 

Your logic is backward. Start with safety pilot. We know the Regs are out of date, but that doesn't mean they don't apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This thread was started about student pilot training and the requirements in 61.93(e)(12).

 

FFF, My post that you quoted was directly pointed to the question ask in this thread, and specifically the requirements of 61.93(e)(12).

 

"The question is who is operating the airplane when a student is flying with an instructor?

When a student is flying with an instructor I think the instructor is operating the airplane."

 

I would think since we had been talking about student pilots from the start of the thread that my use of the word student would be taken to mean student pilot, and not a private pilot receiving additional training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the reg at hand, but the connection of safety pilot to medical is because a required crewmember needs a medical and a safety pilot is a required crew member. I'll look it up later today if someone has not found it before.

 

Jim, the reg is 61.3

© Medical certificate. (1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph ©(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate.

The bold is how a private pilot can act as safety pilot in a LSA without a medical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evening All: I note that Jim Meade has introduced another really good subject--instrument training for Sport Pilots. Okay, before I transitioned to the CTLS I had a Piper Cherokee 140 and I was instrument rated. I logged over 300 actual instrument hours in an airplane with no autopilot; all steam gages, and no XM weather in the cockpit. I managed survive and not scare my wife too often, so when we got the CTLS I opted for the Garmin SL-30 com/nav with an ILS. To date, almost 600 CT hours, I have made only two ILS approaches; both as precaution in misty conditions, lowered visibility conditions. I have have probably done many other practice approaches to maintain proficiency. However, I am fully on board with some training for Sport Pilots as a LIFE SAVING Measure. Everyone who flies knows that there are occasional "blown" forecasts and it is possible that lower visibility conditions can sneak up rapidly and setup the unwary pilot for an emergency situation. I DO NOT ADVOCATE INSTRUMENT FLYING FOR LSA PILOTS. Nonetheless I do support some ability to cope with unexpected weather conditions. Dr. Ken Nolde, 840KN,

 

As a follow on to Dr. Nolde's post, IMHO, Light Sport instrument training should have a specific emphasis on "recovery from inadvertent IMC encounters." Foremost, the object is to avoid entering IMC, but if it is inadvertently encountered, training (for light sport only pilots) should be specifically aimed to safely exit the IMC condition and return to VMC, if possible.

 

There is a mindset, among inexperienced pilots, that when inadvertent IMC is encountered, they are "on their own." When inadvertent IMC is encountered, the pilot has plenty of resources available to him/her to safely recover.

 

The block of instruction, "Recovery from Inadvertent IMC" should include a ground review of all of those resources as well as hooded flight in the airplane.

 

It's all about safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was CLEARLY giving an example of an exception where a CFI could be giving instruction but not acting as PIC (no medical). You're just arguing semantics. Every post does not have to go back to the original post to make sure they don't say something that may add a different perspective.

 

Also, who is operating the plane has NOTHING to do with anything. A CFI is always the PIC when instructing a non-licensed student pilot regardless of who is operating (flying) the plane.

 

Who is operating the plane has everything to do with what is being talked about. If the person operating the airplane is flying simulated instruments then 91.109 applies, if the person operating the airplane is not then it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My logic is not backward. It is just different than the logic you are using. I could argue you should use the lastest FAR, not the oldest. The Sport PIlot rule could (and probably would) supersede the older FAR's. That's what needs to be fixed.

 

I just looked at the latest CFR's on the FAA website, and they say you must be a private pilot to act as a safety pilot. Until the FAA changes the requirements for a safety pilot and publishes the new rule that is the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, if the person operating the plane is under a hood, then a safety pilot or flight instructor is required. However, the CFI is the PIC regardless. In this case, the safety pilot would be the PIC while the pilot is under the hood.

 

Which goes back to my question, when an instructor is flying with a student pilot who is considered to be operating the airplane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall seeing that term used. The instructor is the PIC whether he is "operating" the plane or the student is "operating" the plane.

 

That is what we need to know to get to the bottom of the question of whether a sport pilot who holds a sport pilot CFI can do the required training of 61.93(e)(12). If the student pilot is considered to be operating the airplane while doing simulated instrument, 91.109 would apply. If this is the case the the instructor would at least have to be a private pilot. On the other hand if the instructor is operating the airplane then he can do the instruction, and 91.109 does not apply.

For anyone who holds a rating grater than student pilot and flying simulated instrument 91.109 applies and the safety pilot must be at least a private pilot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't recall ever seeing the term "operating the plane" used in any FAR. When a student is under the hood, he would normally be the "sole manipulator of the controls" and he could log instrument dual received. The instructor is PIC and logs PIC. The instructor in not a safety pilot, he is an instructor giving dual instruction. It is not clear if a Sport Pilot instructor can do this or not because of the conflicting FAR's. The FAA told me he could, but you might have problems in a civil suit due to the conflicting FAR's. There is no correct answer at this point. We cannot get to the bottom of this.

 

From 91.109

© No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—

That is why who is operating the plane is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My logic is not backward. It is just different than the logic you are using. I could argue you should use the lastest FAR, not the oldest. The Sport PIlot rule could (and probably would) supersede the older FAR's. That's what needs to be fixed.

A person acting as a safety pilot should comply with safety pilot regs. There is only one set of current FARs, the one's we are all referring to. Jay Tevis opinion is not in the regs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't recall ever seeing the term "operating the plane" used in any FAR.

You are looking for FAR 1.1, which includes,

"Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

 

Operational control, with respect to a flight, means the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "legal" PIC is responsible for the flight. The CFI is the "legal" PIC in most cases. There are a few exceptions that I have already discussed. There are also situations where 2 people can log PIC at the same time, but only 1 can be the "legal" PIC.

 

"Operate" a civil aircraft is a verb, not a noun.

 

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."

 

61.51,

"(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-

 

(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;

 

(ii) When the pilot is the sole occupant in the aircraft;

 

(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted; or

 

(iv) When the pilot performs the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a qualified pilot in command provided—"

(considerable more text follows)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't give an opinion on the safety pilot issue. He just said there is disagreement about it even within the FAA. His opinion was that a Sport Pilot instructor can give all the instruction required for a Sport Pilot certificate including the instrument instruction and would not need a Private or medical.

I made two separate points and should have more clearly delineated them.

1. a comment on safety pilot requirements

2. a comment on Jay Tevis' authority in regard to the current, literal fARs.

I did not intend to cause any confusion on those two separate questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a student is SOLO they can log PIC. Doubt anyone said a student could log PIC when flying with a CFI onboard. That makes no sense, and can never be true.

 

What do you mean by "onboard?"

Is the CFI logging "instructor" time or riding along as a spectator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's two interpretations worth reading. Basically, the FAA states there is a distinction between ACTING as PIC, and LOGGING PIC.

 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/herman%20-%20%282009%29%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/murphy%20-%20%282009%29%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

 

Apparently, a student pilot can log PIC all the time when being trained, and when properly endorsed, and includes an exemption for when they are flying with an examiner so they can log PIC for that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.

 

Liberating, isn't it!

 

Another case of, in spite of numerous years and hours doing this stuff, we can all still learn things.

 

Which is good.

 

Doubt I'm going to bother to update my logbook, but I can see how the additional PIC time could help some in their quest for either employment or lower insurance rates.

 

Thanks again to whoever pointed this out initially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...