Safety Pilot - Logging Instrument Time - Who is PIC?

[FlaplessDork]

FD says all instrument time for IFR must be dual from "qualified person".

You are misquoting me. I have said from the beginning that you can credit instrument experience towards the IFR. The argument has never been about whether the time can be credited.

You can do it, you just can't do it towards the instrument rating.

The argument is whether you can conduct solo training for the specifically for IFR. My argument is that if you are self training on with specific intent for the instrument rating it falls under CAR 425.21 which states that a person conducting training must be qualified. Flight training is not necessarily only a dual activity.

By your own admission you said you were self taught IFR, aka conducting your own flight training. Now you can argue can that your time was not towards the instrument rating and that could be the workaround. Who's to say what you actually did, but you can't ignore CAR 425.21.

[Hedley]

The argument is whether you can conduct solo training for the specifically for IFR

No, it is not. CAR 421.46 clearly says that 40 hours of instrument EXPERIENCE is required for an initial instrument rating.

You have decided to deliberately mis-interpret that as your own definition of "solo training" and thus suck in CAR 425.21, which is where your argument goes off the rails.

There is a simple difference between EXPERIENCE and TRAINING which you are having difficulty comprehending.

If CAR 421.46 didn't explicitly require 15 hours from a "qualified person", I can perhaps see some confusion. But there is no confusion - it explicitly requires 15 hours, not the 40 hours that you are deliberately and incorrectly asserting, perhaps for your own purposes of generating revenue hours.

Don't mis-understand me - at your FTU, as CFI you are God. What you say, goes. However, just because you have different (possibly higher) standards, DOES NOT make them the CARs, and the rest of us, outside your FTU, do not have to respect your policy decisions.

[FlaplessDork]

The argument is whether you can conduct solo training for the specifically for IFR

No, it is not. CAR 421.46 clearly says that 40 hours of instrument EXPERIENCE is required for an initial instrument rating.

You have decided to deliberately mis-interpret that as your own definition of "solo training" and thus suck in CAR 425.21, which is where your argument goes off the rails.

There is a simple difference between EXPERIENCE and TRAINING which you are having difficulty comprehending.

If CAR 421.46 didn't explicitly require 15 hours from a "qualified person", I can perhaps see some confusion. But there is no confusion - it explicitly requires 15 hours, not the 40 hours that you are deliberately and incorrectly asserting, perhaps for your own purposes of generating revenue hours.

Don't mis-understand me - at your FTU, as CFI you are God. What you say, goes. However, just because you have different (possibly higher) standards, DOES NOT make them the CARs, and the rest of us, outside your FTU, do not have to respect your policy decisions.

Define experience and training.

Again you misquote me. My argument has never been about crediting hours but the definition of when you are training and when you are not. I say its training if the intent is to practice skills for the IFR and therefore it falls under CAR 425.21. If its structured into a syllabus its classified as training. If you are practicing skills on your own with the intent of obtaining a rating you are in essence creating your own training syllabus. I've agreed from the beginning it can be argued either way. The truth is until something goes wrong and somebody sues, or there is enforcement action relating to this particular issue this debate will not be settled. The CARs are open to interpretation.

[Hedley]

I say its training if the intent is to practice skills for the IFR and therefore it falls under CAR 425.21

I say it's EXPERIENCE as per CAR 421.46. If you don't believe me, call whomever your want at Transport and ask them.

CAR 421.46 does NOT say 40 hrs from a "qualified person". It says 15, despite what you might think.

I find the motive suspicious, when an instructor tells you that the regulations require more instruction than they actually do. I have seen many students "milked" by instructors before, and it offends me.

[FlaplessDork]

I say its training if the intent is to practice skills for the IFR and therefore it falls under CAR 425.21

I say it's EXPERIENCE as per CAR 421.46. If you don't believe me, call whomever your want at Transport and ask them.

CAR 421.46 does NOT say 40 hrs from a "qualified person". It says 15, despite what you might think.

I've agreed with this from the start. Define when it is considered training and when it is not. When does CAR 425.21 apply in your opinion?

[Hedley]

When does CAR 425.21 apply in your opinion?

CAR 425.21 applies for the 15 hours as explicitly required by CAR 421.46(2)(b)(ii)(C).

This is really very simple. I don't see any wiggle room here. Again, call whomever you wish at Transport, and go with their answer.

[FlaplessDork]

CAR 425.21 applies for the 15 hours as explicitly required by CAR 421.46(2)(b)(ii)(C).

This is really very simple. I don't see any wiggle room here. Again, call whomever you wish at Transport, and go with their answer.

In my opinion it applies anytime there is training conducted specifically for the instrument rating. I don't see where is holds a 15 hour condition to it.

A pilot obtained 35 hours of instrument experience during there PPL/CPL from a person that wasn't instrument rated. Under the CAR's they would require an additional 15 hours from a qualified individual who held the instrument rating. This is why the regulation is what it is. It allows you to take credit from instrument experience obtained from previous sources when applying for the license to which a minimum of 15 must be provided by the qualified person. It is silent on training. CAR 425.21 mentions training for the instrument rating and the requirements. As soon as I tell someone to go "learn IFR on your own" 425.21 is being broken. Now if I tell them to practice VOR tracking on your own to "be a better at flying at night" you can take credit. Thats how you can work around it and CYA at the same time.

Its the very reason why MFC according to Tim allows it only if its not towards the instrument rating.

you don't need an instrument rating to be a safety pilot for someone who is notworking towards a inst rating. moncton flight college routinely sends students to act as safety pilots with other students for solo instrument practice. in fact, it's part of the syllabus.

Soon as you designate a flight as part of an instrument rating syllabus, CAR 425.21 needs to be met. There's still lots of flexibility here, and you can still save people a lot of money, but you are now certain you are CYA.

Discussion is a good thing as it gets people thinking but the topic has been beaten to death. I'm also tired of having my character attacked because my opinion varies from yours. I'm done.

[Hedley]

I'm also tired of having my character attacked

I'm not attacking your character. What I'm smelling is an instructor milking students, and I'm afraid I don't tolerate that kind of unethical behaviour very well.

[FlaplessDork]

I'm not attacking your character. What I'm smelling is an instructor milking students, and I'm afraid I don't tolerate that kind of unethical behaviour very well.

You're making assumptions, and yes it is an attack on my character when you have never met me. I no longer instruct, but my students will attest that I would bent over backwards for them. Many still call me with their questions. You've resorted to throwing sticks and stones when I all have done is have a debate. Not once have I used mockery or made assumptions on your character during this debate.

I have seen many students "milked" by instructors before, and it offends me.

Don't mis-understand me - at your FTU, as CFI you are God

perhaps for your own purposes of generating revenue hours.

Feel free to do or say whatever you want at your school. You're CFI, you're God there, you can make all your instructors and students wear pink tu-tu's if you want. You can tell your students that they need 100 hours instrument time for an initial instrument rating. Why would I care? But don't pretend that's what the CARs say.

Please feel free to do whatever makes you happy. If you think wearing a purple hat keeps the elephants away, who am I to argue with your logic?

All assuptions and do nothing to further your position. Quite frankly its low, unprofessional and childish and have made me loose complete respect for you.

[Hedley]

made me loose complete respect for you

You're wrong again - that's "made me lose complete ..."

As you point out, though, the most important thing in aviation isn't facts, it's feelings.

[Dagwood]

I've noticed that if I don't agree with Hedley, it means he knows something I have yet to learn.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programing.

[KK7]

I'm surprised this is still an argument considering how I think the CARs are pretty well spelled out on this issue.

I'm with BPF that the 40 hours instrument experience should be more weighted towards dual with a qualified person rather than on your own, but that doesn't change what the CARs says. If someone with 40 hours experience wants to try out the flight test, and asks me to recommend them, and my flying with them proves to me that they are competent, I would have no choice but to recommend even if the 40 hours isn't all training as per the CARs, but 15 hours with a qualified person, 5 hours with an instructor, and a total of 40 hours instrument experience. But of someone came to me asking me to put together a training plan for them, I would suggest like BPF that they do 40 hours training. Not because of milking, but because I feel this will produce a better IFR pilots. I'm not speaking of qualified people (ie instructors with little IFR experience) who may or may not provide poorer quality instruction than someone practicing on their own.

Anyways, if anyone thinks, despite the CARs being pretty clear, that the 40 hours instrument experience must be completely training and not any experience outside of this, then I can only conclude that they consider the 45 hour PPL requirement to involve 45 hours of dual and no solo practice at all. If one can learn to fly with some solo practice, which I consider to be a very key component of ab initio training, then why not IFR?

[Hedley]

I'm surprised this is still an argument considering how I think the CARs are pretty well spelled out on this issue

Indeed. At this point, I am beginning to suspect that Flapless Dork is in fact a highly skilled troll, laughing his @ss off at me. If so, ya got me, buddy.

[FlaplessDork]

Anyways, if anyone thinks, despite the CARs being pretty clear, that the 40 hours instrument experience must be completely training and not any experience outside of this, then I can only conclude that they consider the 45 hour PPL requirement to involve 45 hours of dual and no solo practice at all. If one can learn to fly with some solo practice, which I consider to be a very key component of ab initio training, then why not IFR?

Read 425.21(2), which states that a permit holder can conduct self-training without being an instructor and 401.19 which places further limitations on the student pilot permit specifically.

The argument has never been about the hours being credited. Both opinions allow for equal flexibility on obtaining the hours.

The argument is if a flight is designated as a training flight for the purpose of obtaining an instrument rating does it fall under CAR 425.21 and when is a flight considered a training flight for the purpose of obtaining an instrument rating.

I don't believe its as black and white as Hedley claims. I shared my opinion, and will admit to the possibility of being wrong, however nothing yet has changed my opinion.

I'm surprised this is still an argument considering how I think the CARs are pretty well spelled out on this issue

Indeed. At this point, I am beginning to suspect that Flapless Dork is in fact a highly skilled troll, laughing his @ss off at me. If so, ya got me, buddy.

You are just as guilty as I am.

[Les Habitants]

Wow...the disrespect here baffles me

Flapless is simply stating that, while it is not strictly against the CARs, if you were to go flying on your own under the hood with a safety pilot in the right seat of your 172 for the purpose of brushing up on your instrument skills for you're IR, it could easily be misinterpreted as "training." If there is ONE thing that I have learned about insurance companies, it's that they will go to great lengths to save a mighty dollar. I wouldn't put it past whoever it is covering your insurance to argue the point Flapless makes, that your flight was for the purpose of trainingfor your IR (whether YOU call it training or not), and therefore, because you did not have a properly qualified training pilot in the right seat, your insurance is void.
It's a grey area, and all Flapless is arguing here, is that it's his proposition to avoid "flirting" with that grey area, so that if there ever was an investigation, he is going to be able to put concrete evidence behind his arse that he was following the CARs by the book.
He's just covering his arse, and it's just his opinion. Frankly, I agree 100% with him, and there is no need to attack him for that.

Hedley, you're throwing low blows and showing a complete lack of class. You are COMPLETELY misinterpreting Flapless here, and being completely hypocritical. It's behaviors like that that too many pilots who "think they are all that" display that make me ashamed to be apart of the industry

[Hedley]

It's a grey area

There is no "grey area". Read CAR 421.46 which requires 40 hours of instrument experience and which clearly states that 15 hours of that must be from a "qualified person" - not all 40. No grey there - it doesn't require 40 hrs from a "qualified person", it explicity states 15 hrs. I don't know how it could be any clearer.

make me ashamed to be apart of the industry

Hey, if this gentle discussion makes you burst into tears and cry yourself to sleep at night, welcome to the internet. I've been on the receiving end of much, much worse attacks here - including nasty, repeated threats to report me to Enforcement for merely helping other pilots - which are considered fair game on this thing called "the internet".

If you're really as emotionally sensitive and delicate as you describe, I would honestly worry about how you will stand up to a pressured situation in the cockpit when the aircraft starts to break, or the wx starts to turn bad. Maybe a change in occupation would be a good idea for you.

[FlaplessDork]

There is no "grey area". Read CAR 421.46 which requires 40 hours of instrument experience and which clearly states that 15 hours of that must be from a "qualified person" - not all 40. No grey there - it doesn't require 40 hrs from a "qualified person", it explicity states 15 hrs. I don't know how it could be any clearer.

Give it a rest. You continue to make it about the hours. I've never claimed that all 40 had to be from a qualified person, but that all "training" had to be from a qualified person. The still opportunity exists to obtain the experience by yourself, but I think it can't be called training for the instrument rating. You still have failed to define when when someone is or is not training for the purposes of obtaining an instrument rating. The possibility exists that it might be viewed differently, and therefore is a grey area. My way you're certain of CYA, and still allow the individual to take credit for experience outside of the 15 hours from a qualified person.

You're wrong again - that's "made me lose complete ..."

As you point out, though, the most important thing in aviation isn't facts, it's feelings.

Thanks for pointing out a typo. All this proves is that I am capable of making an error. I could care less about the perfection of my spelling or grammar on an internet forum. I'm not writing a novel, nor is spelling on my list of risk factors while I am operating an aircraft. Would you like me to go back and correct your spelling and grammar? It does little to further our argument, and is a direct attack on me as individual. If you wanted an emotional response, congratulations, you've got it.

[Hedley]

is a direct attack on me as individual

No, it isn't. Calm down. I thought it was funny. I guess you didn't.

But Seriously, Folks, as Joe Walsh once entitled an album, which I purchased on vinyl when it was released in 1978. Sometimes I get the feeling that that vast majority of the people here are very young and very inexperienced. That may or may not be true.

However, what is true is that I have worked many years at several large multi-national corporations, and the very nasty people you will encounter there, climbing the corporate ladder and holdling positions such as Director and Vice-President, make me look like Mother Frikken Theresa, in comparison. It might behoove you to learn to deal with these very unpleasant people - with a smile - and to not let them make you cry. Or otherwise get under your skin.

The above is an important lesson to learn. The other important lesson to learn, is that you can learn a great deal from these people, even if you don't like them very much. The vast majority of people seem to think that a good teacher is a good buddy, and the better a pal he is, the better a teacher he is. What utter nonsense.

Just because you don't like someone - you might actually detest them - doesn't mean they're stupid. Believe it or not, the measure of someone's IQ is not directly proportional to how much you like them. The most important lessons you learn in life may very well be from someone you really hate. It would be a tremendous pity to pass up an opportunity to learn something valuable.

Too deep, huh?

[Shiny Side Up]

From experience on how TC interprets this one, Hedley is indeed correct. The instrument "experience" portion required by the CARs doesn't mean training time. If I remember correctly, my own instrument rating was gained this way, and a multitude of others that I know. I frequently bother TC on what their interpretations are of the CARs whenever I'm feeling inquisitive or sometimes bored. Incidentally, there is no requirement to have a safety pilot when gaining said experience. This is one of those areas that treads into legal vs. safe though. A while back there was a guy hanging around here who was after instrument experience, for a while he continually petitioned myself and the instructors to go as his safety pilot, to which of course we said simply: "If you want their time you pay for it." HE was very angry with us and of course threw one of the "I guess you don't want hours" lines. [shrug] Later he came back to lord over us that he could do it on his own with no safety pilot, having spoke with TC. He was indeed right - he simply failed to recognize that I had only reccomended a safety pilot for such experience (and of course if he wanted one of us to be it he would pay the usual rate) not that he required one. I still reccomended to him that he at least find a friend to go with and keep a look out - curiously enough he found no takers.

With that all in mind, and the relevations of some of the recent topics on instrument training I feel we find ourselves at odds here with what needs to be accomplished. I personally feel there is enough stuff to do in an IFR training course that one could use an instructor/experienced person - for at least a majority of IFR neophytes - for a majority of the 40 hours required. A few pilots could get away with the minimum experienced help. Personally when I lay out what we are going to do when I do a rating, there is more than enough stuff for me to do with a student to fill 40 hours of time (keeping in mind using the sim to the maximum) especially given the skill/experience level that most pilots seeking instrument training are at. There is also the issue of getting that "in cloud" experience which seems so valued in this crowd and deemed essential to being a good IFR pilot. Only 15 hours with someone experienced seems like a short time to squeeze this in, and one could hardly reccommend getting that first shot of it by one's self. Whether you consider that how I feel about going about such training is "milking" the student is up to you and probably depends on how much value you feel you get from your instructor.

[Hedley]

there is no requirement to have a safety pilot when gaining said experience

Hold on a sec, SSU. Just so there is no mis-understanding: you are describing the situation where someone goes up solo (with no safety pilot), under the hood in VMC, and logs both PIC and instrument time.

If I am understanding you correctly, have no fear, Transport will charge the pilot with contravening CAR 602.01 (reckless and/or negligent), a regulation which I am quite familiar with, having argued it for four years, at the Tribunal, Tribunal Appeal, Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeals.

CAR 602.01 is sort of a prize for originality (and often outright lunacy) as a pilot. You did something that Transport doesn't think is a good idea, but is a unique enough activity that they never got around to creating a CAR to prohibit it. And that's exactly what would happen here.

[Shiny Side Up]

CAR 602.01 is sort of a prize for originality (and often outright lunacy) as a pilot. You did something that Transport doesn't think is a good idea, but is a unique enough activity that they never got around to creating a CAR to prohibit it. And that's exactly what would happen here.

Very well aware of that. The kicker is if someone in TC does think its a good idea, or even an acceptable practice, then you're free to fill your boots - especially if you can get them to put it in writing. Said activity happened with their blessing. Gets down to that safe vs. legal discussion that frequently happens around here (this forum).

The secret here if you want to go do something of a unique enough nature, no matter how crazy, you simply have to find the right person at transport who shares your POV, get them to give you the green light and you're golden, none of the others - no matter how far up the chain you go - will countermand them.

[Hedley]

Said activity happened with their blessing

Hold on a minute. Are you saying that someone at Transport actually took the position that solo hood time in VMC (no safety pilot) was acceptable? I must be mis-understanding you. That's completely insane, and keep in mind I have a very broad range of what I personally consider sane.

[Shiny Side Up]

Said activity happened with their blessing

Hold on a minute. Are you saying that someone at Transport actually took the position that solo hood time in VMC (no safety pilot) was acceptable? I must be mis-understanding you. That's completely insane.

You're not misunderstanding me and it is completely insane. Just to be clear that I didn't condone such an activty.

[Hedley]

I don't believe it. I've seen Transport do some pretty weird stuff, but this is unbelievable.

[Shiny Side Up]

I don't believe it. I've seen Transport do some pretty weird stuff, but this is unbelievable.

I thought it was just par for the course, though I admit this instance was right up there, maybe in my top ten.