PIC name on DD-1801s

[FLGUY]

All,

Was just wondering what the consensus was on here about putting one’s real name on a flight plan. I don’t remember when we were taught this, but at some point in my career I was told that putting “Military Pilot” or “Navy Pilot” in lieu of the PICs actual last name on flight plan was considered kosher. Many a flight plan have been filed in this manner and I know people do it (myself included) but I cannot find a source document that specifies that this practice is technically allowed.

3710 and the FARs are both silent on the matter, and the GP states that you must put your name. Is this practice just a consequence of the general protections that military aviators have vs. a civilian pilot? Ie how we can’t get technically flight violated by the FAA, only reprimanded or disciplined by our CoC.

Trying to not pass bad gouge to fellow pilots and students, but also want to promote this practice as a means of limiting identifiable information when not required.

 

[ChuckMK23]

In AF land you sign your 1801 and the AC/pic name is entered. When filed through base ops or the Lockeed-Martin DOD filing service in Foreflight the name does not get transmitted to FAA.

Like you guys when I fly for work, I'm under orders and I'm not using my FAA Airman Certificate.

 

[Bad_Karma_1310]

I’ve never put my name on it and never had an issue, but honestly think it is more of a wise tale than anything. Never heard of the FAA coming after someone’s civilian certificates for a violation when flying a military aircraft and if they want to punish someone that badly there are other ways to find out who was flying.

 

[Swanee]

On training/CONUS flights for us the PIC is usually listed as either the squadron (172 ATKS) or "USAF Pilot".

OCONUS and on missions that we have to file an 1801 it's done as "On File" or left blank.


I've always wanted to file as Hugh Jorgan, but I've never... had the... balls... to do it. ??

 

[FLGUY]

On training/CONUS flights for us the PIC is usually listed as either the squadron (172 ATKS) or "USAF Pilot".

OCONUS and on missions that we have to file an 1801 it's done as "On File" or left blank.


I've always wanted to file as Hugh Jorgan, but I've never... had the... balls... to do it. ??

Ba dum tsss…

Yeah that’s an important distinction that I forgot. Just because the 1801 is signed, that info does not necessarily get passed to ATC/FAA. Foreflight is great for that since you can straight up tell it to not snitch on you and to hide your personal info.

 

[nittany03]

All,

Was just wondering what the consensus was on here about putting one’s real name on a flight plan. I don’t remember when we were taught this, but at some point in my career I was told that putting “Military Pilot” or “Navy Pilot” in lieu of the PICs actual last name on flight plan was considered kosher. Many a flight plan have been filed in this manner and I know people do it (myself included) but I cannot find a source document that specifies that this practice is technically allowed.

3710 and the FARs are both silent on the matter, and the GP states that you must put your name. Is this practice just a consequence of the general protections that military aviators have vs. a civilian pilot? Ie how we can’t get technically flight violated by the FAA, only reprimanded or disciplined by our CoC.

Trying to not pass bad gouge to fellow pilots and students, but also want to promote this practice as a means of limiting identifiable information when not required.

My info is now very, very dated. But I did get a brief on this at a safety standdown in flight school back in the Dark Ages from the civilian guy who was at the time the FAA's DOD LNO. His first words: "my callsign is Shitscreen."

As I recall, it wasn't an issue on a DD Form 1801/175, because that's a DD form. The issue was if for whatever reason, you were filing via 1-800-WX-BRIEF or whatever the equivalent is these days, as sometimes happened in the TRACOM on the road. Because DOD has procedures in place to protect the identity of aircrew if they get violated and handle it internally to DOD, because you're a "state aircraft." But if you cross the streams, so to speak, and use FAA resources to file AND you give your name AND you have civilian certs AND you get violated, then they can go after you in your personal capacity. So the 1-800-WX-BRIEF route (or whatever they use nowadays) was when you were supposed to report the PIC's identity as "on file with [insert unit here]."

 

[Gatordev]

The issue was if for whatever reason, you were filing via 1-800-WX-BRIEF or whatever the equivalent is these days, as sometimes happened in the TRACOM on the road. Because DOD has procedures in place to protect the identity of aircrew if they get violated and handle it internally to DOD, because you're a "state aircraft." But if you cross the streams, so to speak, and use FAA resources to file AND you give your name AND you have civilian certs AND you get violated, then they can go after you in your personal capacity. So the 1-800-WX-BRIEF route (or whatever they use nowadays) was when you were supposed to report the PIC's identity as "on file with [insert unit here]."

This is still all correct. The FSS knows this as well, so if you filed with them over the phone, they usually will interrupt you when you get to the name portion and just ask "...and On File, where?"

In my experience, I've found Wing OpsOs will play ball with this, as well, and take the deviation from the LNO and handle it internally, with the LNO being a sort of "priest" in the manor.

I've never filed a 1801 officially because when it finally became a thing, the NASNI base ops couldn't figure out how to interface with SOCAL, so everyone just put in a canned route with ground and amended in the air. That said, you could put "On File" on the -175 as well if you wanted. You're already manifested on the flight schedule, and you can technically manifest pax on an A-sheet, as well. For Medevac/Rescue/HADR, manifesting went out the window in my experience.

 

[FLGUY]

Thanks for the replies, all. It’s definitely common practice, but I want to just back myself up if/when studs ask me “Sir, the GP says to do it this way”. I guess it’s not written anywhere specific, but I’m also falling prey to the USAF mentality of “things you’re allowed to do”, so I’ll promptly haze myself for that

 

[kmac]

Thanks for the replies, all. It’s definitely common practice, but I want to just back myself up if/when studs ask me “Sir, the GP says to do it this way”. I guess it’s not written anywhere specific, but I’m also falling prey to the USAF mentality of “things you’re allowed to do”, so I’ll promptly haze myself for that

If you want me to ask the guy who puts that in the GP, I can. I’m pretty sure most of that section just references the ICAO verbiage for how to file.

I’m also curious to hear if anyone, ever, had their FAA airman certificates suspended/revoked while flying a DoD aircraft. I don’t see how the FAA would have any authority over that since the flight was conducted under Title 10.

 

[FLGUY]

If you want me to ask the guy who puts that in the GP, I can. I’m pretty sure most of that section just references the ICAO verbiage for how to file.

Sure, that would be pretty cool to hear what he has to say.

 

[Gatordev]

It’s definitely common practice, but I want to just back myself up if/when studs ask me “Sir, the GP says to do it this way”.

I can understand that. And I'd argue there's pretty much zero risk of putting your name on it since it stays within DoD. FWIW, I always put my name on a -175 even though I wouldn't put it on a FAA flight plan.

I’m also curious to hear if anyone, ever, had their FAA airman certificates suspended/revoked while flying a DoD aircraft. I don’t see how the FAA would have any authority over that since the flight was conducted under Title 10.

HAL had more insight on this, but I believe it boils down to the fact that you're still operating in the NAS, even if you're doing it under PAO. Also, it has to be egregious for the FAA to even put in the effort.

Basically, assuming it's a really bad deviation, if you have a ticket, they might be motivated to go after that through the civilian process, but if you don't have a ticket, then they just let the DoD process work.

 

[MIDNJAC]

In my experience, I've found Wing OpsOs will play ball with this, as well, and take the deviation from the LNO and handle it internally, with the LNO being a sort of "priest" in the manor.

Having LARP'd for a few months as the FRS safety DH in the past, I find this to be an accurate description of the process. Normally a non-event, other than an ASAP, and perhaps a "true confession" moment in an AOM/AIM. The rare instances where there was actually a separation issue with the FAA carry a bit more weight, but I never saw them develop to anything outside Navy channels. With pretty much the same results. That being said, be a professional. If you make an oopsie, don't keep it a secret.

 

[TF7325]

Yeah we always just file "Navy Pilot Std" in order to avoid any potential trouble with the FAA/ ATC. Not sure if it's correct or not, but never had a problem doing it this way.

 

[kmac]

I can understand that. And I'd argue there's pretty much zero risk of putting your name on it since it stays within DoD. FWIW, I always put my name on a -175 even though I wouldn't put it on a FAA flight plan.



HAL had more insight on this, but I believe it boils down to the fact that you're still operating in the NAS, even if you're doing it under PAO. Also, it has to be egregious for the FAA to even put in the effort.

Basically, assuming it's a really bad deviation, if you have a ticket, they might be motivated to go after that through the civilian process, but if you don't have a ticket, then they just let the DoD process work.

My only counter to that logic is that you are not in the process of exercising your airman privileges when flying military. Assuming that you aren’t doing something criminal, it would be difficult for them to have the justification. I’m tempted to ask my FAA counterparts what they know about a situation like that.

 

[wink]

My only counter to that logic is that you are not in the process of exercising your airman privileges when flying military.

Exactly. You don't need a FAA certificate to fly in the military in the first place. It is also possible that your FAA cert does not reflect your military pilot quals. Helo guy has SEL Airplane SE Helicopter FAA cert by way of Navy flight school and military competancy process. Goes to reserves to fly the C-40 and screws the pooch one day. How can the FAA violate a guy with only a COM SEL cert? Cleary he isn't operating the C-40 under the privileges of his FAA cert.