Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
PIC on IR Checkride
- Thread starter cookmg
- Start date
- Watchers 7
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
All the previous posters are correct if it is a part 61 checkride. However, if you are enrolled in a 141 school and are taking the "final lesson"/checkride part 141, then the flight can be conducted in IMC conditions. I've seen it happen many times where a 141 ride was taken in IMC when the student was not insturment rated yet.
Hope this clears it up for you a little.
Hope this clears it up for you a little.
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
The General Aviation Operations Inspectors Handbook allows for the inspector to act as PIC during a practical test by "prior arrangement with the applicant or other pilot in command."
I've only trained/instructed under Part 61 (& the military), and my observation is that--even though the examiner may act as PIC-- the overwhelming majority of examiners won't conduct an instrument practical test in IMC.
When I got my initial FAA CFII, the head of the school I was attending & I had to plead with the examiner to allow me to take the CFII ride in actual conditions. He finally agreed--though reluctantly--after learning that I had recently been a military flight instructor and questioning me at length about the syllabus the Navy, Marine Corps & Coast Guard use.
I've only trained/instructed under Part 61 (& the military), and my observation is that--even though the examiner may act as PIC-- the overwhelming majority of examiners won't conduct an instrument practical test in IMC.
When I got my initial FAA CFII, the head of the school I was attending & I had to plead with the examiner to allow me to take the CFII ride in actual conditions. He finally agreed--though reluctantly--after learning that I had recently been a military flight instructor and questioning me at length about the syllabus the Navy, Marine Corps & Coast Guard use.
thanks for the replies . . .
The examiners here are very clear that they won't fly in IMC. However, what makes me curious is how even in VMC they want the applicant to act a PIC and get an IFR clearence. Part 61.3 says no person can act as PIC of an aircraft under IFR unless they have an instrument rating. Since IFR means instrument flight rules and not neccesarily IMC, if I'm trying to earn my instrument rating, then I obviously don't meet this requirement.
What exception allows for an applicant to operate IFR (in VMC) as PIC without having an instrument rating. As a non-IR private pilot, I couldn't call for an instrument clearence if I were up alone. Is there some stipulation that allows this when the examiner is on board?
thanks.
The examiners here are very clear that they won't fly in IMC. However, what makes me curious is how even in VMC they want the applicant to act a PIC and get an IFR clearence. Part 61.3 says no person can act as PIC of an aircraft under IFR unless they have an instrument rating. Since IFR means instrument flight rules and not neccesarily IMC, if I'm trying to earn my instrument rating, then I obviously don't meet this requirement.
What exception allows for an applicant to operate IFR (in VMC) as PIC without having an instrument rating. As a non-IR private pilot, I couldn't call for an instrument clearence if I were up alone. Is there some stipulation that allows this when the examiner is on board?
thanks.
3
350DRIVER
Cook-
YOU are NOT flying "actual" IMC on the checkride, YOU are appropriately rated in the aircraft so you log it as PIC. On the checkride YOU have the DE who is instrument rated onboard.
Under part 61 it is not unusual for DE's to do the checkride in solid IMC up here.
c h e e r s
3 5 0
sorry for the "lack" of explanation per the FAR's ( tired today !) but you do log it as PIC.
YOU are NOT flying "actual" IMC on the checkride, YOU are appropriately rated in the aircraft so you log it as PIC. On the checkride YOU have the DE who is instrument rated onboard.
Under part 61 it is not unusual for DE's to do the checkride in solid IMC up here.
c h e e r s
3 5 0
sorry for the "lack" of explanation per the FAR's ( tired today !) but you do log it as PIC.
flyboy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Posts
- 277
350driver is right. You are rated in the airplane and are the sole manipulator of the controls. You are PIC. You couldn't go up by yourself under actual but b/c the examiner is instrument rated you can do it in IMC AND log PIC. I knew several guys when I was in Florida that took their initial instrument ride under IMC. This was done under part 61 and I don't know much about 141. As for whether or not it is the smartest thing to do, I say absolutely not. The checkride is not the place to try and gain IMC conditions and try to impress the examiner. Pass the checkride in VMC and then go fly in the clouds. But if it's what you want to do, It's not against the rules.
14 CFR 61.3
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;
_______________
I understand what everyone is trying to say about VMC vs. IMC. However, the regs say even if it is VMC, no person can act as PIC under instrument flight rules (which would presumably include operating on an IFR clearence) unless that person is instrument rated. If the examiner is not acting as PIC then his instrument rating has no bearing on the legality of the flight.
If a checkride is going to include flying on an IFR clearence, wheter it is IMC or VMC, then it is being conducted under instrument flight rules and therefore for the flight to be legal the examiner must be the PIC.
Is there an exception in the regs?
Thanks.
P.S. There is a dramatic difference between logging PIC and acting as PIC. If the examiner and I agree that I am to be acting as PIC (i.e. I am responsible for the safe and legal operation of the flght) I must be instrument rated. If we agree that he will act as PIC then the flight is legal due to his instrument rating, but I may continue to be the sole manipulator of the controls and log the flight as PIC despite not being the acting PIC.
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;
_______________
I understand what everyone is trying to say about VMC vs. IMC. However, the regs say even if it is VMC, no person can act as PIC under instrument flight rules (which would presumably include operating on an IFR clearence) unless that person is instrument rated. If the examiner is not acting as PIC then his instrument rating has no bearing on the legality of the flight.
If a checkride is going to include flying on an IFR clearence, wheter it is IMC or VMC, then it is being conducted under instrument flight rules and therefore for the flight to be legal the examiner must be the PIC.
Is there an exception in the regs?
Thanks.
P.S. There is a dramatic difference between logging PIC and acting as PIC. If the examiner and I agree that I am to be acting as PIC (i.e. I am responsible for the safe and legal operation of the flght) I must be instrument rated. If we agree that he will act as PIC then the flight is legal due to his instrument rating, but I may continue to be the sole manipulator of the controls and log the flight as PIC despite not being the acting PIC.
3
350DRIVER
on your private check ride then "how" can you log the flight as PIC since in reality you have a "passenger" onboard ex> DE who is not acting as PIC ( you are ).??!!
(one must remember that you cannot carry passengers as a "student pilot" )- "0"
I think you are looking into this deeper than you should, if you continue then many of the FAR's can be turned around and you will continue to question the legality of many issues.. Bottom line is you CAN LEGALLY LOG the flight as PIC, pretty much the bottom line.
cheers
3 5 0
IF you fly the ride in "actual" then it is filed under the DE's name.
(one must remember that you cannot carry passengers as a "student pilot" )- "0" I think you are looking into this deeper than you should, if you continue then many of the FAR's can be turned around and you will continue to question the legality of many issues.. Bottom line is you CAN LEGALLY LOG the flight as PIC, pretty much the bottom line.
cheers
3 5 0
IF you fly the ride in "actual" then it is filed under the DE's name.
flyboy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Posts
- 277
Once again, 350driver is right. When I completed my private checkride, the examiner logged my time as PIC. When I completed my Instrument rating (done under an IFR FP), the examiner signed it as PIC. When I took my COM multi checkride, the examiner logged it as PIC. 3 different exminers, same result. If you will dig a little deeper into the regs you will find 61.47 which states the examiner's status on a checkride. (b) states that the examiner is not PIC unless he agrees to act as such for the flight or for a portion of the flight by prior arrangement with the applicant. If the examiner is not PIC then guess who has to be? YOU, the applicant, regardless of IMC, VMC, multi, etc, etc, etc. Know what you are looking for when you read your regs.
cjh
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 132
Until you are instrument rated, you may NOT act as PIC on any flight being conducted under an IFR flight plan. You may not file an IFR flight plan until you are an instrument rated pilot. There are no exceptions to 61.3 for check rides. 350 is in error to suggest otherwise.
61.3(e) is quite specific that no one may act as PIC under IFR unless they hold an instrument rating. Since you are not yet rated at the point you are taking the practical you may not file the flight plan, nor may you act as PIC if the flight is being conductged under an IFR flight plan. The DE would have to do the filing and agree to act as PIC for that portion of the flight for it to be legal. If the IFR flight plan is cancelled, you may then act as PIC.
Now, as for the other responses indicating DEs logged PIC time in their logbooks when signing them, there are explanations backed by the FAR. Let's take a look.
1. PPC - first of all, *someone* has to be acting as PIC on board every plane. 61.51 allows students to log PIC time and to act as PIC during solo flight. The prohibition for student pilots is that they can't carry passengers. However, 61.47(c) takes care of that by waiving this requirement for the check ride. Thus, 61.51(e) allows you to log PIC time. You are acting as PIC under the regulations governing the flight.
2. Commercial and Instrument - again, 61.51(e)(1)(i) allows you to log PIC time when you are sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you're rated. As a commercial pilot or a pilot seeking an IR, you are typically already at least a private pilot, so there's no great mystery here. The only potential problem arises on an instrument check ride when an IFR flight plan needs to be filed. The applicant can't legally do it until AFTER successful completion of the instrument check ride. Neither 61.51, 61.47, nor 61.3 (or any other reg) provides an exception.
Bottom line, 350 is in error, and you Cookmg are absolutely correct in questioning the upcoming situation. There is NO exception to the regulation requiring you to be instrument rated to file an instrument flight plan or to fly under IFR before you pass the practical.
-----------
61.47 Status of an examiner who is authorized by the Administrator to conduct practical tests.
(a) An examiner represents the Administrator for the purpose of conducting practical tests for certificates and ratings issued under this part and to observe an applicant's ability to perform the areas of operation on the practical test.
(b) The examiner is not the pilot in command of the aircraft during the practical test unless the examiner agrees to act in that capacity for the flight or for a portion of the flight by prior arrangement with:
(1) The applicant; or
(2) A person who would otherwise act as pilot in command of the flight or for a portion of the flight.
(c) Notwithstanding the type of aircraft used during the practical test, the applicant and the examiner (and any other occupants authorized to be on board by the examiner) are not subject to the requirements or limitations for the carriage of passengers that are specified in this chapter.
-------------------------
61.51 Pilot Logbooks
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in- command time only for that flight time during which that person --
(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated;
(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or
(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
61.3(e) is quite specific that no one may act as PIC under IFR unless they hold an instrument rating. Since you are not yet rated at the point you are taking the practical you may not file the flight plan, nor may you act as PIC if the flight is being conductged under an IFR flight plan. The DE would have to do the filing and agree to act as PIC for that portion of the flight for it to be legal. If the IFR flight plan is cancelled, you may then act as PIC.
Now, as for the other responses indicating DEs logged PIC time in their logbooks when signing them, there are explanations backed by the FAR. Let's take a look.
1. PPC - first of all, *someone* has to be acting as PIC on board every plane. 61.51 allows students to log PIC time and to act as PIC during solo flight. The prohibition for student pilots is that they can't carry passengers. However, 61.47(c) takes care of that by waiving this requirement for the check ride. Thus, 61.51(e) allows you to log PIC time. You are acting as PIC under the regulations governing the flight.
2. Commercial and Instrument - again, 61.51(e)(1)(i) allows you to log PIC time when you are sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you're rated. As a commercial pilot or a pilot seeking an IR, you are typically already at least a private pilot, so there's no great mystery here. The only potential problem arises on an instrument check ride when an IFR flight plan needs to be filed. The applicant can't legally do it until AFTER successful completion of the instrument check ride. Neither 61.51, 61.47, nor 61.3 (or any other reg) provides an exception.
Bottom line, 350 is in error, and you Cookmg are absolutely correct in questioning the upcoming situation. There is NO exception to the regulation requiring you to be instrument rated to file an instrument flight plan or to fly under IFR before you pass the practical.
-----------
61.47 Status of an examiner who is authorized by the Administrator to conduct practical tests.
(a) An examiner represents the Administrator for the purpose of conducting practical tests for certificates and ratings issued under this part and to observe an applicant's ability to perform the areas of operation on the practical test.
(b) The examiner is not the pilot in command of the aircraft during the practical test unless the examiner agrees to act in that capacity for the flight or for a portion of the flight by prior arrangement with:
(1) The applicant; or
(2) A person who would otherwise act as pilot in command of the flight or for a portion of the flight.
(c) Notwithstanding the type of aircraft used during the practical test, the applicant and the examiner (and any other occupants authorized to be on board by the examiner) are not subject to the requirements or limitations for the carriage of passengers that are specified in this chapter.
-------------------------
61.51 Pilot Logbooks
(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in- command time only for that flight time during which that person --
(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated;
(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or
(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
3
350DRIVER
cjh-
Then I guess many many DE's are in "error" as well for doing this flight in actual IMC.. - I think not, look at the regulations once again more closely then go back and re-read what I wrote. The DE can (if he is willing) file IFR and act as PIC to do the ride in "actual"- perfectly legal and pretty common practice. As in most cases certain stipulations are applicable.
Suggest otherwise.?? Looks like you neglected to read what I wrote initially- Everything that I stated was not in error, ( I just neglected to go into a full explanation) and you are a CFII.?? I have yet to meet one pilot who did not log the checkride as PIC that was done under simulated conditions.
Pretty much common sense, now go back and read what I wrote.... Obviously the flight in "actual" must be filed by the DE and under his name BUT the applicant can and DOES log the ride as PIC "still" under certain situations. WHY?? Because the DE can state that the checkride was passed at a certain point during the flight and IF this happens before (prior to) entering IMC then guess what?? - HE is now "authorized" to fly into IMC. Many DE's will state that an applicant has passed the ride and for the "added" experience he will take the "applicant" into actual. This is a pretty common practice in the northeast due to the large amounts of "actual" that we get yearly.
Most of the DE's will still have want a flight plan filed regardless of if it is "actual" or severe vfr, in the remarks section some will want different remarks put in there. In simulated conditions (under the hood or foggles) the applicant is still PIC since he is appropriately rated in the aircraft.
3 5 0
Then I guess many many DE's are in "error" as well for doing this flight in actual IMC.. - I think not, look at the regulations once again more closely then go back and re-read what I wrote. The DE can (if he is willing) file IFR and act as PIC to do the ride in "actual"- perfectly legal and pretty common practice. As in most cases certain stipulations are applicable.
Suggest otherwise.?? Looks like you neglected to read what I wrote initially- Everything that I stated was not in error, ( I just neglected to go into a full explanation) and you are a CFII.?? I have yet to meet one pilot who did not log the checkride as PIC that was done under simulated conditions.
Pretty much common sense, now go back and read what I wrote.... Obviously the flight in "actual" must be filed by the DE and under his name BUT the applicant can and DOES log the ride as PIC "still" under certain situations. WHY?? Because the DE can state that the checkride was passed at a certain point during the flight and IF this happens before (prior to) entering IMC then guess what?? - HE is now "authorized" to fly into IMC. Many DE's will state that an applicant has passed the ride and for the "added" experience he will take the "applicant" into actual. This is a pretty common practice in the northeast due to the large amounts of "actual" that we get yearly.
Most of the DE's will still have want a flight plan filed regardless of if it is "actual" or severe vfr, in the remarks section some will want different remarks put in there. In simulated conditions (under the hood or foggles) the applicant is still PIC since he is appropriately rated in the aircraft.
3 5 0
cjh
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 132
350,
Why yes I am a CFII, thank you. And let me point you to Doc's (Doc of Doc's FAR Pages) take on the same question Cook posed here. Seems my opinion agrees with his. That's pretty much all the vindication I need.
http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/msgs//8666.html
It was never my intent to offend you. I merely wanted to get Cook some correct information because he was getting quite a bit of bad advice or at the very least advice that was irrelevant to what he asked. Cook has undoubtedly read Doc's opinion, so he's happy. I find no contradiction between what I believed to be the case and what Doc reported so I'm certainly happy. If your opinion agrees with Doc's then welcome to the party. If not, you can either research further to see where your understanding is off, or you can continue with your current beliefs. Either way, the best of luck to you.
Why yes I am a CFII, thank you. And let me point you to Doc's (Doc of Doc's FAR Pages) take on the same question Cook posed here. Seems my opinion agrees with his. That's pretty much all the vindication I need.
http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/msgs//8666.html
It was never my intent to offend you. I merely wanted to get Cook some correct information because he was getting quite a bit of bad advice or at the very least advice that was irrelevant to what he asked. Cook has undoubtedly read Doc's opinion, so he's happy. I find no contradiction between what I believed to be the case and what Doc reported so I'm certainly happy. If your opinion agrees with Doc's then welcome to the party. If not, you can either research further to see where your understanding is off, or you can continue with your current beliefs. Either way, the best of luck to you.
3
350DRIVER
cjh-
I got a good laugh from you- wasn't offended at all. I am sorry you need to depend on that site for "knowledge".
Most of us are capable of reading the FAR's and understanding them.
hang in there-
3 5 0
ps>>> I guess all the inspectors/examiners are wrong as well, BUt you are the "right" one- lol
I got a good laugh from you- wasn't offended at all. I am sorry you need to depend on that site for "knowledge".
Most of us are capable of reading the FAR's and understanding them.hang in there-
3 5 0
ps>>> I guess all the inspectors/examiners are wrong as well, BUt you are the "right" one- lol
Thanks CJ for helping me out here . . . I thought I was the only one on this board who didn't think I could ACT as PIC. Now that 350 has clarified his position, it sounds like he agrees that the examiner must act as PIC. I am well aware that I can LOG PIC on the ride. That was never my question.
That being said, I appreciate all of these forums because as a young pilot there are many things I can learn from those more experienced. I am not ashamed that I look to Doc's site for guidance regarding the FARs. He backs his opinions with solid evidence and cares enough about his advice to do the grunt work of looking up the regs and legal opinions to back his position. I feel very fortunate to have such an invaluable resource. Still, I try to ask for others' ideas, but often find unsupportable opinions rather than backed fact. That is fine. No one on this site or any other has any responsibility to do that extra work for me. I'm only saying that it helps explain why I appreciate Doc's website. I am greatly in debted to him for helping understand things that many experienced pilots still do not.
I think that I have decided that I will ask the DE to allow us to conduct the approaches as practice VFR approaches. This way I can ACT as PIC and meet the club's insurance requirements and we can still be legal per part 61.
Thanks to EVERYONE for their input.
Mike
That being said, I appreciate all of these forums because as a young pilot there are many things I can learn from those more experienced. I am not ashamed that I look to Doc's site for guidance regarding the FARs. He backs his opinions with solid evidence and cares enough about his advice to do the grunt work of looking up the regs and legal opinions to back his position. I feel very fortunate to have such an invaluable resource. Still, I try to ask for others' ideas, but often find unsupportable opinions rather than backed fact. That is fine. No one on this site or any other has any responsibility to do that extra work for me. I'm only saying that it helps explain why I appreciate Doc's website. I am greatly in debted to him for helping understand things that many experienced pilots still do not.
I think that I have decided that I will ask the DE to allow us to conduct the approaches as practice VFR approaches. This way I can ACT as PIC and meet the club's insurance requirements and we can still be legal per part 61.
Thanks to EVERYONE for their input.
Mike
cjh
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 132
Cook,
Glad to have helped in some small way! This board is a popular one. The up side is when you ask a question you're apt to get lots of opinions from a lot of well meaning folks. The down side is that often it's just that - opinion. When dealing with the regs one should always be able to reference the reason for the opinion. You'll quickly learn to ignore those who can't. If you hang around here much you'll figure out pretty quickly who knows their stuff.
Doc's site is terrific. Any time you have a question concerning the FAR he is *THE* person to ask, and you're right, he does the research and leg work when needed. You can trust his answers, and you can trust that your question will be treated with respect. The regs are complicated, and as you can see from the varying opinions you got, an awful lot of pilots don't know as much about them as they think they do. Don't be embarrassed that you are interested in getting it right, be embarrassed for the pilots who aren't.
All through your involvement with aviation, keep asking questions, and best of luck on your check ride.
Glad to have helped in some small way! This board is a popular one. The up side is when you ask a question you're apt to get lots of opinions from a lot of well meaning folks. The down side is that often it's just that - opinion. When dealing with the regs one should always be able to reference the reason for the opinion. You'll quickly learn to ignore those who can't. If you hang around here much you'll figure out pretty quickly who knows their stuff.
Doc's site is terrific. Any time you have a question concerning the FAR he is *THE* person to ask, and you're right, he does the research and leg work when needed. You can trust his answers, and you can trust that your question will be treated with respect. The regs are complicated, and as you can see from the varying opinions you got, an awful lot of pilots don't know as much about them as they think they do. Don't be embarrassed that you are interested in getting it right, be embarrassed for the pilots who aren't.
All through your involvement with aviation, keep asking questions, and best of luck on your check ride.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
