Hood Time - No IFR Training

[Joshrk22]

After burning 30 hours at $59 an hour in a 152, I finally decided to open the FARs and look up the requirements for the Instrument Rating.

As I read the FARs it sounds like I can go up and put the hood on and log Simulated IFR time without even having any formal instruction from a CFII. It appears, correct me if I'm wrong, that I only need 15 hours of dual instruction from a CFII and 3 hours 60 days prior to the exam.

Does this mean this whole time I could've had a safety pilot, split the time, and been logging time towards my instrument rating? I have yet to get a CFII and start any formal training, though.

Also, the way I understand it, a safety pilot and the pilot under the hood can both log PIC time if they agree on this before the beginning of the flight. I guess there's a loop hole in the FARs because the SP is the PIC and responsible, but the pilot under the hood is the sole manipulator of the controls, therefore able to log PIC time also.

 

[avbug]

Josh,

You can log simulated instrument time with or without an instructor. You can't get instruction if you're not flying with an instructor, obviously, but an instructor is not required to log instrument time.

I'd caution you about going overboard. You're best off getting instruction, then getting with a competent pilot as a safety pilot, and reviewing what you've been taught by repeating approaches, turns, attitude flying, partial panel, etc. You're only reinforcing bad habits if you don't get the proper training first, and I'd strongly caution you against trying to teach yourself to fly instruments.

You had a little experience toward your private pilot certificate, but this is NOT instrument training. It's training in flight by reference to instruments, and it's not the same thing at all.

Under 14 CFR 91.109(b), a safety pilot is required when conducting simulated instrument flight. The safety pilot's purpose is to look for traffic.

When you're operating the aircraft, you can log PIC time as sole manipulator of the controls, in accordance with 61.51(e)(1)(i).

If a safety pilot is on board, he or she may log PIC time as the pilot in command of a an aircraft requiring more than one crew member (by type certification, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted), in accordance with 61.51(e)(1)(iii).

The requirement for more than one crewmember is established by 91.109(b). You may hear some attempt to debate this issue if you're flying a Cessna 172, for example, on the grounds that the Cessna 172 only requires on crewmember per the type certification. While it's true that the 172 is a single pilot airplane, when operated under simulated instrument flight, it requires a safety pilot, and the safety pilot becomes a required crewmember...meaning that the aircraft now requires more than one pilot by the regulations under which it's operated. Those who may tell you that the safety pilot isn't a required crewmember are simply ignorant of the regulation.

Now comes the important issue: you have to understand the difference between logging flight time, and acting as pilot in command. One may log PIC while not actually being the PIC. One may actually be the PIC, but may be unable to log the time...depending on the circumstances of the flight.

In order for your safety pilot to log the time, he must be the pilot in command: he's in charge. It's his aircraft, and he has the final say regarding the safety of the flight. You are not the pilot in command. You can log PIC because you're sole manipulator of the controls, but you're not the pilot in command. The safety pilot is.

You also need to be aware that down the line if you intend to use your pilot certification for employment, some employers will discount "time building" spent playing safety pilot and working under the hood...as far as they're concerned it's still a single pilot airplane, and excessive amounts of time spent as safety pilot or under the hood may be viewed with suspicion or contempt. You'll find the same thing among many pilots, too. While technically it's perfectly legal and acceptable, most tend to believe (and this includes employers) that if you didn't sign for the airplane and aren't actually the pilot in command, then you've no business logging PIC.

The FAA feels differently, and wrote the regulation accordingly.

You may find that the 15 hours of instruction in instrument flight is insufficient. While the regulation only requires 15 hours, you're going to need whatever you're going to need...it's that simple. You'll have to undergo whatever amount of instruction that you personally require to become proficient. It's often over 15 hours.

You can make good use of those hours using secondary practice with a safety pilot, but don't get ahead of yourself. If you have several hours of attitude instrument flying, timed turns, and steep turns with an instructor, then I'd encourage you to go out and do the same thing with a safety pilot...reinforce the lessons you've just had. Don't attempt to expand on those lessons, however, as you're putting yourself in the position of trying to teach yourself...let the instructor do that, and then practice what the instructor has taught you. Be very careful about allowing bad habits to creep in, and be very critical of yourself. Be exact.

You may find that the 152 isn't the best instrument platform. For now, it's okay, it's a start point, but many find that at a minimum stepping up to the 172 serves them better. Cost is always a driving factor, but make sure that whatever you use is adequately equipped to be able to do the things you need to do in training. You really should seek out equipment that can allow you to do ADF procedures, and you really do need exposure to RNAV and GPS approaches in today's environment.

Consider making good use of simulators and flight training devices, too. These don't perfectly represent the airplane, and many students complain that they can't "feel" the airplane...but this is irrelevant. On instruments you should be responding to the instruments, not the "feel" of the airplane, and the "feel" should be disregarded. In fact, learning to disregard what you're feelings are telling you is happening is one of the most important things you can do in instrument flying.

 

[AC560]

As addition you can no longer use this method for the building of cross country time

Faa Opinion

 

[Lynxman]

Wow looks like a need to take my last flight out of my logbook.

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

Wow looks like a need to take my last flight out of my logbook.

Don't do that. If it is a valid flight keep it in there. Even if you are not allowed to use it for the Instrument Cross Country requirements it's still a flight you performed and can be logged.

 

[avbug]

You can still log cross country time...just not for the purposes of meeting the requirements of 14 CFR 61.65(d), for the instrument rating.

Other definitions of cross country apply to other situations, such as the requirements to act as pilot in command under Part 135, or toward the ATP.

Cross country time may be a requirement of some insurance carriers, which may be a factor when looking for that first flight instruction job, or other entry level job where one needs all the qualification one can get. The FAA chief legal counsel may disalllow x-c toward the instrument rating in this case, but you may find it has applicability elsewhere.

 

[brokeflyer]

Go find a "real" instrument instructor. Not some 300 hour wonder. Get a real good instructor and go get some basics logged.

Then get yourself another "real" pilot...someone with many years of IFR experience to safety pilot with you while you practice what your instructor taught you.

Every few days go back and fly with the instructor.

 

[AC560]

You can still log cross country time...just not for the purposes of meeting the requirements of 14 CFR 61.65(d), for the instrument rating.

Whether he can log it for 14 CFR 61.65(d) depends on whether he was pilot A or B. Whereas before it was very common for two guys to split the cost and build their 50hrs of cross country time together that is no longer possible.

Counsel generally only replies to the specific question being asked. It is fairly clear from the writing though that the opinion would be applicable to the cross country requirements under 61.129(a)(ii) for the commercial certificate as well.

For 135 and ATP requirements the definition is a bit different to where it isn't entirely clear but it does specify the requirement for a departure. So unless the safety pilot is a required crew member for take off (i.e. the pilot flying is wearing the hood) I think the response if somebody were to write a letter is going to be similar in terms of what you can credit where. But I give you this is conjecture and the letter only specifically addresses the cross country time for an instrument rating.

The question we have all been asking since this came up is if somebody did this and recently obtained an instrument and is now going for their commerical rating do they meet requirements of 61.129(a)(ii)?

Also of interest is supposedly there is an opinion recently issued that states the 10hrs for the initial multi commercial 61.129(b)(4) is logged as PIC (as opposed to dual and a credit to the various sections of 61.129) and can be counted towards the 15hrs needed for the MEI specified under 61.183(j). Anyone seen this ruling?

 

[Lynxman]

I'm done with flight training I'm simply helping teach my boss instrument procedures. It helps him meet his IFR cross country minimum and helps me with my upcoming CFII ride.

 

[Lynxman]

Also of interest is supposedly there is an opinion recently issued that states the 10hrs for the initial multi commercial 61.129(b)(4) is logged as PIC (as opposed to dual and a credit to the various sections of 61.129) and can be counted towards the 15hrs needed for the MEI specified under 61.183(j). Anyone seen this ruling?

I'm curious on this matter too!