Day VFR Dual XC for Commercial

aloft

New Member
'nuther logging question....

Yesterday I flew an XC that I believe should cover the requirement of 14 CFR § 61.129(a)(3)(iii), but I flew an instrument approach under the hood at the end and one CFI friend of mine suggested today that this might make the flight not count for the above requirement. The part says the flight needs to be flown under "day VFR conditions", it says nothing about whether all or part can be flown under the hood or not.

Who's right? Me or my friend? This flight hasn't gone into my logbook yet, I want to make sure I'm logging it correctly (i.e., to my advantage).
 
I'm pretty sure it still counts, as it was day VFR conditions. As long as it wasn't in IMC or at night, you're safe. I don't believe shooting an approach under the hood would negate the whole flight - it just doesn't make sense.
 
There's a part 61 FAQ that talks a bit about this one. According to it, being under the hood is being in simulated instrument conditions, not "day VFR conditions." But, the FAQ also specifically deals with a situation in which the pilot is under the hood for the whole flight.

My guess is that there is some point where if the pilot is under the hood for too much of the flight, it's not supposed to count. But one instrument approach should be fine. (Especially since, as you read it, you'll see between the lines that it's a revised version of an eralier FAQ that, as I reacll, made it seem that you couldn't do =any= hood time).

Here's the FAQ:
==============================
QUESTION: Could you meet the requirements of § 61.129(a)(3)(iii) and (iv) with a VFR trip in which your instructor placed you under the hood? The regulation specifically calls for day VFR conditions (let's assume for this question that the entire trip was under VFR conditions), so, does the fact that you may be under the hood negate the intent of the regulations?

I guess another way to put it would be to say, the FARs require you to log the conditions of flight. Under 61.51(b)(3), if you log hood time, are you excluded from logging day or night as a condition of the flight?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.129(a)(3)(iii) and (iv); No, you cannot meet the requirements of § 61.129(a)(3)(iii) and (iv) when the instructor places a hood on the student for the entire cross-country flight and the student never looks outside the aircraft. That kind of flight is instrument flight time under simulated IFR conditions. The intended conditions of these cross-country flights are ". . . VFR conditions . . ." The use of pilotage and/or dead reckoning navigation is the intended cross-country training in § 61.129(a)(3)(iii) and (iv).

You indicated in your question that the ". . . instructor placed you under the hood . . ." and I am assume what you are saying is the instructor placed the student under the hood for the entire cross-country flight. So the question you are asking and the question I am answering is a cross-country training flight where the instructor placed the student under the hood for the entire cross-country flight. Otherwise, the student never looked outside the aircraft during the entire cross-country flight except for the takeoff and landing phase of the cross-country flight. So, essentially, the flight was instrument flight time. The student did not perform pilotage or dead reckoning navigation. The student navigated by the use of radio aids. The student was wearing a hood/view limiting device for the entire cross-country flight.

Per § 61.129(a)(3)(iii), it states:

(iii) One cross-country flight of at least 2 hours in a single-engine airplane in day VFR conditions, consisting of a total straight-line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure;

VFR stands for visual flight rules.

Per § 61.129(a)(3)(iv), it states:
(iv) One cross-country flight of at least 2 hours in a single-engine airplane in night VFR conditions, consisting of a total straight-line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
And again, VFR stands for visual flight rules.
==============================
 
Similar to what midlife brought up, I know a number of examiners that get their panties in a wad when they come across the VFR x-c with an instrument approach or hood time logged.

The regs state this is a VFR flight, not a VFR flight under the hood at any point. If the flight were to be donne with any hood time the reg would read "one cross country of at least 100 nm and a total of .2 simulated instrument..."

I would highly suggest you leave the hood time & approach out of it so that you never have to deal with the possibility of it not being acceptable. Really, what's, .2 simulated instrument and 1 approach in the big picture? IMHO not worth fllying a 52 for 3 more hours at $50 an hour.
 
Thanks for the responses so far, maybe a few more details will help clarify things a little. The flight consisted of three legs, each of which could have covered the requirement individually if I logged them separately, but each had a glitch of its own that could possibly trip me up. I'm hoping, however, that the FAA can be a little "big picture" about it and realize that when considered in totality, the flight more than met the intent of the reg.

The route was SLC-CNY-SGU-SLC, conducted in 3 legs and was 7.2 hrs total Hobbs time (and only $468...in a C-182! Thanx CAP! :nana2:)

SLC-CNY is 159 nm straight-leg (204 nm as flown), the flight was 2.1 on the Hobbs. Entire flight done visually, combination of pilotage and GPS for navigation. Potential gotcha: of the 2.1 hrs, .5 was spent waiting in line to take off. Thus, though the straight-leg distance was adequate, the flight itself wasn't the minimum 2 hrs.

CNY-SGU is 208 nm straight-leg (325nm as flown, over Lake Powell), 2.6 on the Hobbs. Potential gotcha: .5 simulated instrument (big DME arc on the VOR DME Rwy 34) approach into SGU.

SGU-SLC is 232 nm (253 nm as flown), 2.5 Hobbs. Gotcha: the last .7 of the leg was in night VFR conditions.
 
I'd say you're good to go with the first leg... doesn't matter if you are taxiing, flying or sitting in th runup area, as long as flight in intended your time is your time...
 
aloft said:
SLC-CNY is 159 nm straight-leg (204 nm as flown), the flight was 2.1 on the Hobbs. Entire flight done visually, combination of pilotage and GPS for navigation. Potential gotcha: of the 2.1 hrs, .5 was spent waiting in line to take off. Thus, though the straight-leg distance was adequate, the flight itself wasn't the minimum 2 hrs.

Log this as your 100 nm x-c. Like Grabo says, as long as the flight meets the required distance & time you're fine. It does not affect the outcome if you spent .2 or .8 on the ground waiting.

CNY-SGU is 208 nm straight-leg (325nm as flown, over Lake Powell), 2.6 on the Hobbs. Potential gotcha: .5 simulated instrument (big DME arc on the VOR DME Rwy 34) approach into SGU.

SGU-SLC is 232 nm (253 nm as flown), 2.5 Hobbs. Gotcha: the last .7 of the leg was in night VFR conditions.

log this seperately,
CNY - SGU 2.6 tt, .5 sim inst, 1 inst apch
SGU - SLC 2.5 tt, 1.8 day, .7 night
 
Grabo172 said:
I'd say you're good to go with the first leg... doesn't matter if you are taxiing, flying or sitting in th runup area, as long as flight in intended your time is your time...
Agreed.
 
Back
Top