Logging actual instrument time over water at night

Status
Not open for further replies.
tgrayson said:
You are simply substituting your own judgement for the FAA's General Counsel's about what constitutes actual instrument conditions.

I understand that you don't agree with this interpretation, but the interpretation exists. I'm puzzled why you don't simply accept it and move on with greater enlightenment.:pirate:

Now, if you think I'm making it up, then I can understand, but I don't know what I can really do about that. Older internet discussion forums have been aware of these interpertations for ages and whenever the subject arises, many people jump in to attest to the truthfulness.

If you really want to know the FAA's opinion on stuff like this, there are really only about two sources available to you. The Part 61 FAQ's and the legal interpretations, available on the Summit Aviation CD (also published by ASA). I believe that some of these interps are also contained in the book "The FARs Explained."

I've read the entire Part 61 FAQ (300+ pages) and I've had my CFI students read them, too. It gives you great insight into how the FAA interprets various Part 61 regulations. I don't agree with all the interpretations, but they constitute the environment in which we work. I've also spent many years digging through legal interpretations researching issues and collecting evidence to persuade others. The Summit aviation disk also contains the preambles to regulations, providing the reasoning and intent behind the laws.

So the only way you can truly verify what I've posted is to purchase the Summit Aviation CD ($99, I think) or the ASA version ($50?) and look through the Legal Interpretations. I also recommend reading the FAQ's. They're no longer published, but I have the most recent copy that I can send you.

Without the resources I described above, it just isn't possible to have an informed opinion about most of this stuff, because you haven't surveyed the information available.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the letter you provided. Actually, it doesn't say anywhere in that letter that "solely by reference to instruments" can include anytime you can see and avoid an aircraft. Again, we're talking about "solely by reference to instruments" and only that. I didn't make anything up. This is based on the definitions included in the 14 CFR.

The letter does not say what the question was. That letter does not back up your theory that the FAA thinks it's ok to fly over water at night, and log actual without being on an IFR flight plan while in controlled airspace, and do that advertantly.
 
mtsu_av8er said:
This is silly!

Why is everyone trying to create their own set of rules, when people that know what they're talking about have already explained the rules that already exist?
Click to expand...

Because it seems as if people have to prove how big their ....


At the end of the day there is nothing stopping anyone from logging any thing, any way they want.

Just don't be surprised when some interviewer or some FAA guy (for whatever reason) starts to question your NIGHT/MULTI-ENGINE/2nm XC/CHARTER entry when you hold a Sport Pilot Certificate.
 
So, I must ask that someone provide me with a reference that can be traced back to the FAA, that says "solely by reference to instruments" can include flight over water, without a horizon, yet still have enough visibility to see and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.

14 CFR 61.51 (g)

"(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions."

Here's the link:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#14:2.0.1.1.2.1.1.30

I'm not saying you can't log what happened. I'm questioning how solely by reference to instruments in actual instrument flight conditions is defined. It says it right there in the reg. When can you fly in instrument flight conditions? You can't legally and purposefully do that without having an instrument rating, or having an appropriately rated airman onboard.

I'm not making that up. Can you operate an aircraft, solely by reference to instruments and still see and avoid other aircraft and obstacles?
 
falconvalley said:
So, I must ask that someone provide me with a reference that can be traced back to the FAA, that says "solely by reference to instruments" can include flight over water, without a horizon, yet still have enough visibility to see and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.
Click to expand...
Say it's night, you're flying over mountain or desert or water or just BFE, it's CAVU at your level and below, but there's a high overcast. You have no lights on the ground, no stars or moon in the sky -- it's completely pitch dark. Tell me how you are going to keep the shiny side of the plane in its proper place. Unless you have a sun at night spotlight on your aircraft, your sole reference is going to be -- the instruments, thus meeting the definition supplied by 61.51(g)(1).

(Incidentially, you'll be able to see and avoid other aircraft because its CAVU and the other planes will have lights on as required by 91.209.)
 
How can you see and avoid another aircraft if you're busy operating the aircraft solely by references to instruments? Doesn't solely mean "exclusively"

14 CFR 1.1 (my last references in this thread, I swear)

"Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise)."

Is there a time, when I can be operating an aircraft, exclusively by reference to instruments and still see and avoid? Again, when anyone included in the operation is looking out the window and can see and avoid, it's not actual. It's not, then "actual" IFR:

14 CFR 61.51 (g)

"(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions."

If you think that the operation of the aircraft cannot include looking out the window and solely does not mean only by reference to the instruments, then I can't help you define it.
 
falconvalley said:
Actually, it doesn't say anywhere in that letter that "solely by reference to instruments" can include anytime you can see and avoid an aircraft. Again, we're talking about "solely by reference to instruments" and only that. I didn't make anything up. This is based on the definitions included in the 14 CFR.

The letter does not say what the question was. That letter does not back up your theory that the FAA thinks it's ok to fly over water at night, and log actual without being on an IFR flight plan while in controlled airspace, and do that advertantly.
Click to expand...

I think you're setting an unreasonable standard of proof here. Being on an IFR flight plan in controlled airspace does not have anything at all to do with logging actual instrument time under any circumstances, so it's not necessary that the letter writer include these factors.

The letter clearly indicates that a dark, moonless night could equate to actual instrument conditions; whether the pilot used "solely" instruments to maintain control is up to the pilot's judgement.
 
falconvalley said:
How can you see and avoid another aircraft if you're busy operating the aircraft solely by references to instruments? Doesn't solely mean "exclusively"
Click to expand...

This is a whole separate question. On a dark, moonless night, you can see other aircraft for miles and miles, even if you don't have references to keep the aircraft upright. I do think you can fly on instruments and still look up every now and then. I certainly do in the clouds.

There might be some other conditions in which this might be unsafe, but being on an IFR flight plan does not alleviate you from the "see and avoid."
 
Since nobody has even bothered to ask me my opinion....I'm going to give it anyway.

tgrayson is correct.



There. That was easy.



:)
 
tgrayson said:
This is a whole separate question. On a dark, moonless night, you can see other aircraft for miles and miles, even if you don't have references to keep the aircraft upright. I do think you can fly on instruments and still look up every now and then. I certainly do in the clouds.

There might be some other conditions in which this might be unsafe, but being on an IFR flight plan does not alleviate you from the "see and avoid."
Click to expand...

Can you log that as actual? The letter doesn't say. I never stated that you aren't supposed to try to see and avoid even when IMC. You're assuming that I meant that. I'm not debating the typical hot issues. You can read the rules in plain english. They state that operation solely is what you log. The time you look out the window and can see and avoid cannot not be included in operating solely, because you're not just using the instruments. If it's just .6 seconds, are you gonna leave less than a hundredth out of the actual column? I wouldn't because nobody because nobody cares about that measurement.
 
Ok, I see where the letter says you could call it actual, now. That I see, but I still would like to reference it, because the FARs say otherwise.

Does that mean that a non-instrument rated private pilot can go out over lake michigan at 7000 msl to log some actual without another crewmember?
 
Wow, I can't believe that question spawned that much arguement.

IMC is different than actual instruments. You can easily fly by sole reference to instruments and still keep an eye out for other aircraft. At night other a/c are lit up like xmas trees.

To argue it to a DE or an interview panel should be easy unless they have their own FARs. In that case, you probably wouldn't want to continue that checkride or work for that company either... Who knows what other kind of odd rules they may come up with.

I never logged any of this time but if I ever fly north out of Denver and into Wyoming or Nebraska again I will.
 
falconvalley said:
Does that mean that a non-instrument rated private pilot can go out over lake michigan at 7000 msl to log some actual without another crewmember?
Click to expand...

I would say that even a student pilot could do this with the proper endorsements and a CFI that is really confident in their abilities.
 
tgrayson said:
My observation is that those with an extreme knowledge deficit have a real hard time believing that anyone else knows something they don't. That's why the knowledge deficit never goes away.
Click to expand...
That is classic. You should hang that one on the wall...
 
tgrayson said:
That section
provides, in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time
only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft
solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument
meteorological conditions (i.m.c.)) "Actual" instrument
flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it
necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order
to maintain adequate control over the aircraft.
.
Click to expand...




After reading this letter of interpretation...it seems to suggest to me that you can log IFR in 1) IMC conditions or 2) under the hood.

Obviously, IMC is less than VMC and would require an instrument rating to conduct the operation.

IMO, a flight plan has nothing to do with the matter...as you can fly legal IFR in IMC without a flight plan in certain airspace.

If the pilot determines that he can log instrument time due to restrictions to visibility that exist over featureless terrain...it seems to me that the operation is being conducted in less than VMC...so an instrument rating would be required. This letter of interpretation...IMO...seems to draw that conclusion as well...as it states you can log instrument time in, again...1) IMC or 2) simulated instrument conditions.

If it's a dark night over water....with enough visibility to see another airplane...even though I'm relying heavily on my instrumentation...I'm not convinced the operation is in actual IMC........a conditon stated as necessary to log the IFR time. It could, however, possibly be poor enough visibility to constitute IMC.

The letter does refer to "pilot judgment". The pilot has to make the decision whether or not he's in IMC. If yes...log the time...but have the rating.

Bottom line...the way I interpret the interpretation...you could not be a VFR pilot and log actual instrument flight time absent dual instruction.
 
all I have to say about this is tgrayson is not a troll. Standing your ground with your opinion does not mean your a troll. He contributes much knowledge to this site so please dont degrade him by labeling him a troll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top