Logging Instrument Hood Time

[MOAB]

But the second you have a person on board looking for traffic and or terrain, AME, junior pilot, your gold?

[photofly]

It's one of a few places where the CARs state the goal ("no person may fly so as to cause a risk of collision") without stating how you have to do it. So it doesn't say you need a safety person, or what that person's qualifications need to be. But it seems reasonable that if you don't have anyone looking out of the windows in VMC you're not taking steps to avoid the risk of a collision.

VFR is more about seeing someone coming the other way than about seeing the horizon or being able able to see the ground to navigate.

[MOAB]

So in a roundabout way, loophole found, more grey area amongst the CARs?

Doing a search on this has brought up a lot of other people asking this question. I'll call TC and see why they think.

[photofly]

I don't think it's a loophole, particularly. If I remember right in the US the FAA are more specific about the qualifications of a safety pilot. Personally I prefer the Canadian way - it's my job as PIC to take steps to avoid a collision, and up to me how to discharge that duty. I just don't think you can duck the issue completely and have *nobody* looking out.

[MOAB]

Agreed, I know I would feel a lot better having someone there to keep me in the clear

[sidestick stirrer]

If you mean that having a staff PE who has other positions or interests in the particular FTU that could possibly lead to training to this specific individual's predilections then-yes-I could see how it could become a "puppy mill" without sufficient oversight.
However, in this case and most-likely in others, I can personally relate that I have not witnessed any easing of the required standards on any tests and the variable parts of the tests( where to divert to, flight plan to, which radio aid to navigate with) varies so much with each test that it is impossible to predict those items specifically during the test-prep flights.
And-in case you might think they have other interests bearing upon their pass/fail assessments-I can again personally assure that he had no hesitation whatsoever in failing my CPL student even though it brought my pass percentage down enough that I couldn't renew my instructor's rating without either the refresher seminar or another TC flight test.
Have you never heard of a PE having their privileges revoked? I have. And while the average person might think that an FTU survives or disappears based solely on their location near a large population base, I think that it is the rep and cred of the schools that keeps the distant students coming. While it is human nature for most individuals to seek the easiest path to their goals, they cannot yet see the value of quality training that a dedicated school and PE would ensure they receive.
Although you may be acquainted with individuals that have shaped your opinion on this matter, so have I and mine are diametrically opposed to yours, go figure...

[checkremarks]

+1 sidestick stirrer, I couldn't agree with you more.

[trey kule]

Hope I'm not cutting in here.

What if you are currently flying for a living. Strictly VFR but in aircraft with suitable instruments, can you then log hood time on an empty leg while solo and as long as its safe to do so (WX and terrain) and you are commiting 100% to flying on instruments?

How would that work? You are solo. Going to put a hood on or pull down a ball cap or otherwise totally restrict your outside vision.....in VFR Wx, flying VfR! I never cease to be amazed at the total lack of common sense..regulations aside. How can it possibly be safe to fly VFR with your outside vision totally restricted.

As the PE examiner..I have seen a few instances where that was a problem, but I am not sure it is all that common. The idea of being independence has merit.....but I can see a problem there doing rides for competing schools as well. It is not a perfect system, but overall is it really that bad..?..no one off examples please. I would be more concerned with an owner requiring a partial reride to make certain the student's cc has been adequately depleted..

[mike123]

If I were to act as PIC on a flight with a hood on flying by reference of my instruments only, while another pilot friend were to spot for traffic, would I be allowed to log this time as instrument?

The problem with this arrangement is that these flights won't count towards CPL dual time requirement. In the end it would be cheaper to do instrument hours with an instructor.
Use PIC time for flying night cross-countries, you'll thank me in 5-7 years.

[ThatArmyGuy]

So in a roundabout way, loophole found, more grey area amongst the CARs?

Doing a search on this has brought up a lot of other people asking this question. I'll call TC and see why they think.

It'd be interesting to hear what TC says about the whole PIC w/safety pilot logging hood time stuff considering:

TC AIM LRA 1.5 (a) (iii)

Instrument flight time is any flight time in an aircraft while piloting the aircraft by sole refernce to the flight instruments.Sub para (A) This flight time can be accumulated while operating under IFR, in IMC, or in VMC during flight training and while under a hood or by other means which limit a pilot's visibility outside the cockpit environment.

So does this imply that in order to credit yourself with hood time in VMC (which is the debate here) you must be undergoing training by a qualified person as per the CARs or a flight instructor? aka not just have a "safety pilot" with a fresh PPL hanging out, theoretically speaking?

[Colonel Sanders]

in order to credit yourself with hood time in VMC (which is the debate here) you must be undergoing training by a qualified person as per the CARs

Nope.

I think you are referring to CAR 425.21

If someone is just logging hood time to stay current
(eg 6/6/6 on their instrument rating) and they have
a fresh PPL in the right seat as lookout, while they
are under the hood in VMC ...

How is CAR 425.21 contravened?

For that matter, what other CAR are you asserting
is contravened? CAR 602.01? Isn't that a bit of a
stretch?

PS AIM is not regulatory.

PPS You guys have some really strange ideas. How
on earth did TC get involved in signing off every entry
in your logbook? Hell, you can log pax time in the back
of a 747, for all I care. It may not count towards your
ATPL, but you can write it in your logbook if you want.