VFR flight plan, do you ever?

[Hank]

Dan--

This time you went a little too far. Reread FAR 61.55 (a):

§ 61.55 Second-in-command qualifications.

(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for

more than one required pilot flight crewmember . . .

Our Mooneys are not "type certificated for more than one required pilot." Your safety pilot needs only category and class, which for our Mooneys is ASEL. If you are in IMC or on an IFR flight plan and are not current, there needs to be someone current up front acting as PIC, because a non-current pilot cannot file nor act as PIC "under Instrument Flight Rules" regardless of whether it is "Instrument Flight Conditions" or not.

IFR Currency is easy to maintain shooting practice approaches in VMC with any rated pilot riding shotgun. This is what I do when I don't have enough approaches in actual, and unfortunately my wife is not rated for anything . . . Becca and Byron have an easy out for this, but at least we don't have to "discuss" who gets to fly each leg.

Back on topic: I visited my brother in south Georgia for the holiday. We flew down IFR, and spent a whopping 4 minutes inside of one of the very few clouds we saw, and the haze on descent at sunset was pretty bad--flying south, I could see out the left window, but ahead and to the right I may as well have been inside the cloud still. We came home yesterday, VFR with Flight Following. Some poor soul headed to Cleveland was about to get rerouted while still south of Atlanta and he offered to cancel and go VFR but ATL Center convinced him to stay IFR and accept a reroute about 15º to the right.

My longest trip VFR was three days' sightseeing from here to western Wyoming, then three more days' sightseeing coming back. No flight plans, only FF, with one weather diversion each way. An early and long stop for lunch somewhere in Illinois ["Home of the Friendly People"] headed out, and Lincoln, IL on the way home because it was visibly nasty at our planned stop in Springfield. I went IFR to drop off and pick up the plane at Wet Wingologists in south Florida, but it was VMC going down; I could not have departed coming home without IFR clearance, and was in the clouds until past Orlando.

Study hard, McStealth, and enjoy that there F! They are faster and slicker than my C. Learn to control speed in the pattern, and good luck slowing down. My first flight in an F, I descended like I am used to in my C by trimming down for 500 fpm, then I glanced at the ASI and saw 190 mph instead of the 165 or so I'm used to . . .

[danb35]

This time you went a little too far. Reread FAR 61.55 (a):

Certainly. I recommend you do likewise:

(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds:

(emphasis added). Per 91.109, flying under the hood requires a SIC pilot flight crewmember. Further, 61.55(f)(4) makes it clear that 61.55 in general applies to safety pilots, excluding only subsection (.

[M016576]

IFR Currency is easy to maintain shooting practice approaches in VMC with any rated pilot riding shotgun. This is what I do when I don't have enough approaches in actual, and unfortunately my wife is not rated for anything . . . Becca and Byron have an easy out for this, but at least we don't have to "discuss" who gets to fly each leg.

Pretty sure Byron doesn't need to worry about IFR currency in the mooney... the rating is good for category (as listed on your liscence: instrument airplane). Those of us that fly multi engine, jets, single engine prop etc, only need to make the total number required (ie, I don't have to maintain multiple IFR currencies because I fly multiple classes of aircraft). I'm sure Byron gets more than enough approaches in the jet to satisfy the requirements as well!

Prudence dictates practicing an approach or two in the mooney before taking her into hard IFR conditions out of the 6 month window, but by the letter of the law, so long as a pilot is IFR current in an airplane, it's not illegal.

[M016576]

Certainly. I recommend you do likewise:

(emphasis added). Per 91.109, flying under the hood requires a SIC pilot flight crewmember. Further, 61.55(f)(4) makes it clear that 61.55 in general applies to safety pilots, excluding only subsection (.

http://m.aopa.org/members/files/topics/sftyplt.html

Best answer ever: it all depends! That article from AOPA has a decent (ie caveman pilot) description of what's required and when for a safety pilot.

To back up what DanB is saying- if you're filing IFR and you are not current, you must have a safety pilot that is IFR current to be legal. That just makes sense. If you are regaining IFR currency by shooting approaches VFR under the hood, you need a safety pilot rated in category and class and should have the appropriate endorsements (but not IFR rated necessarily, as you are on a VFR flight... But it wouldn't hurt to have a current IFR pilot with you for a little real time feedback). ...

[danb35]

If you are regaining IFR currency by shooting approaches VFR under the hood, you need a safety pilot rated in category and class and should have the appropriate endorsements

There's no requirement for your safety pilot to have any endorsements in order to serve as a safety pilot. The endorsements (HP, complex, tailwheel, etc.) are necessary only if the safety pilot will be acting as PIC (which is the only way the safety pilot can legally log PIC time). I see that AOPA says they have a letter of interpretation that agrees with this, but cautions that "some FAA divisions may interpret the regulations differently." I'd be interested to hear if any FAA divisions have actually done so, given that the only case where one of these endorsements is required is when the person is acting as PIC.

However, the AOPA page you cite doesn't address whether the safety pilot needs an instrument rating when operating under IFR. If the pilot flying is not IFR current, then it's obvious that the safety pilot would need to be instrument rated and current, as that would be the only way the flight could be made legally (and he would have to be acting as PIC as well). If the PF is current, the PNF must still hold the instrument rating (see 61.55(a), quoted above), but need not be current.

[Hank]

If the PF is current, on an IFR clearance and in IMC, he doesn't NEED a safety pilot . . . . Unless somehow single-pilot IFR has become illegal. I have flown very few approaches in IMC with a second pilot of any sort. But then, the Mooney TC doesn't require a few second pilot.

[M016576]

If the PF is current, on an IFR clearance and in IMC, he doesn't NEED a safety pilot . . . . Unless somehow single-pilot IFR has become illegal. I have flown very few approaches in IMC with a second pilot of any sort. But then, the Mooney TC doesn't require a few second pilot.

That's exactly right. If you're flying IFR legally (ie, you are in currency), then you don't need a safety pilot (as I prove at work daily... Would be difficult to fit a second pilot in a single seat jet!). The only reason you need a safety pilot is if you are regaining currency, either IFR with a current IFR pilot, or VFR with a pilot rated in cat and class. Notice how I said "should" above when I said "have the proper endorsements". That's not a requirement (that would be a "must"), its merely something I would want if I needed a safety pilot, and purely so that they could help me out and understand the engine and aircraft I was flying a bit more. Not a requirement per the letter of the law, but something to shoot for if you're going through the trouble of finding a safety pilot due to letting your IFR currency lapse. A CFII would probably be a better choice at that point, but it would be a more costly option- lets face it- if you're flying IFR so infrequently as to need to re-hack the qual, it probably wouldn't hurt to get some added instruction. JMHO!

[danb35]

If the PF is current, on an IFR clearance and in IMC, he doesn't NEED a safety pilot

Correct, unless he also has a hood on (unlikely, but maybe he's in scattered clouds or wants to make sure he goes down to minimums). The issue, though, is if he's on an IFR clearance but in VMC. In that case, if he wants the approaches to count for currency, he needs to be under the hood/foggles/whatever, he needs a safety pilot (91.109), and that safety pilot must be instrument rated (61.55(a)).

[danb35]

if you're flying IFR so infrequently as to need to re-hack the qual, it probably wouldn't hurt to get some added instruction. JMHO!

The two aren't very closely related, really. Over the last 6 months or so, I've flown a ~5-hour XC round trip every week IFR in the southeast (KY - SC). All but two or three of those flights included at least some cloud time, but only two included an approach. I'd already been planning on doing the MAPA PPP last month, so that covered an IPC. My experience may not be typical, but it indicates to me that instrument currency is something you need to actively work on.

[1964-M20E]

I think we are splitting hairs here. The idea and intent of the rules is that you maintain currency and proficiency (C&P). In real life you if your are instrument rated (IR) you will fly many approaches and routes on an IFR clearance in and out of the soup all of which IMHO count as towards your C&P. You should also regularly get with a safety pilot and fly approaches down to the minimums with misses as well. Even flying the approaches by yourself in VMC wather you can log them or not can help you maintain your organizational skills in the cockpit and let you stay proficient on manipulating your radios when the stress level is lower.

[N201MKTurbo]

I live in the Phoenix area and staying IFR current around here takes a real effort. KPHX is below VFR minimums about 30 minuets a year. It is rare to get IFR around here that doesn't involve severe storms or icing!

[gsengle]

Minor pet peeve alert: the correct term / official phraseology is "radar advisories" or just "advisories" as in, "N890XX, just off Northampton, VFR to Providence, requesting advisories". Flight following was historically something different, and still sounds slangy to me. And, although I can't verify it, we all know, when you are VFR, when your phraseology is good, ATC perceves you as competent, and therefore trustworthy, and is then more likely to let you do what you want, like clearing you through their class Bravo... This is super important in the Northeast...

re: VFR flight plan - I only use em when I know my route of flight will take me out of a radar environment, such as when I flew from Seattle to Rapid City SD this summer... I reserve IFR for when there is a chance of IMC, mostly because in the Northeast, IFR in VMC is often impractical routings wise.

Greg

[N201MKTurbo]

The only problem I see is if you are IFR current and on an IFR clearance and wearing a view limiting device, you would still need a safety pilot for when you enter VFR conditions. I believe that sense 2005 that safety pilot would need an instrument rating, before that a VFR pilot would do.

[danb35]

The only problem I see is if you are IFR current and on an IFR clearance and wearing a view limiting device, you would still need a safety pilot for when you enter VFR conditions. I believe that sense 2005 that safety pilot would need an instrument rating, before that a VFR pilot would do.

Exactly.

[Smiles201]

When requesting advisories, first contact just with call sign, do not state VFR or they may ignore you, after they acknowledge you state position and request, and you will be given transponder code and advisories even if they are busy. (they_center)