Logging actual instrument time over water at night

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Jeppesen publication FARs Explained also spells out that it has been the opinion of the FAA that instrument time can be logged when the horizon is not distinct. Also, if a private pilot (or student pilot) can not see 3 sm or 5 sm (depending on altitude) even if its at night, are they flying in instrument conditions? The requirements for VFR say you must have such visibility requirements. So, if you're crusing across the desert at night with no moon, no distinct horizon, no city lights, and you're flying on the instruments are you "technically" VFR? Another interesting point that has been made.

As for a PPL w/ no instrument rating? No. You must maintain VFR and their required visibilty requirements. If you are unable to, you shouldnt be flying VFR, IMO.
 
Persian_Pilot said:
Is it even legal to log actual IMC time if you're VFR?
Click to expand...


As stated, there are plenty of reasons why a IFR pilot would log instrument when not in the clouds. When you say "you're VFR" I am assuming you mean you're not on an IFR plan. What about Class G airspace? "Technically" according to the FARs you can fly Class G IFR without a clearance or flight plan, although its stupid and the FAA has brought careless and reckless charges against a few cases in this matter.
 
Guys the act of name calling is a bit ignorant. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions. A few books have been referred to in the preceding posts (namely "FARs explained"). This is a great book. I own a copy. HOWEVER... I've found some errors. Therefore I would not/do not hang on its every word.

An example: (and I don't have it on me at the moment so I won't reference this right this second) The book explains a certain FAR dealing with the 90 day landing currency rules. It even goes so far as to state a loop-hole (...a loop-hole that is wrong actually) about Tailwheel not being mentioned so therefore you can do your landings in a tricycle-gear and then take someone up in a tailwheel. There is another FAR that specifically states that if passengers are to be taken up in a tailwheel airplane the currency requirements must be met in a tailwheel airplane.

That book is a group of lawyers' interpretations of selected FARs. Remember that other than the fact that they must be pretty knowledgable about legal-language, they are still not the FAA. ASK YOUR LOCAL FSDO! AND GET IT IN WRITING! As I stated in a previous post, every FSDO is different and can have their own interpretations of certain FARs.

We can all argue this until we are blue in the face (or until the name-calling gets to be too much for the moderator/s) but that doesn't change the FARs.

And of course opinions are always appreciated.

Fly safe all.
 
FlyEDouglas said:
.That book is a group of lawyers' interpretations of selected FARs. Remember that other than the fact that they must be pretty knowledgable about legal-language, they are still not the FAA.
Click to expand...

Just a FYI, Kent Jackson and Lori Edwards arent just lawyers per say, they both actually assisted extensively in writing part 61, 91, 125, and 135 and are both active members of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee.

But I do agree that every FSDO, DE, or inspector has their own view on the FARs.

As for the name calling and ignorance, I think this site is full of it and wish there'd be a little more respect for eachother. Myself included.
 
meritflyer said:
Technically, no. Its not illegal. .
Click to expand...

I don't see how a VFR pilot can log actual IMC time. For that to happen, at some point in time he must fly in conditions less than VMC. That is not legal.

Flying IFR in Class G is still IFR....you just don't need a clearance.
 
Taylor, stop being a troll. :sarcasm:
icon10.gif
 
lol, I'm just saying...
,
When you're flying VFR and just using outside references for flight and are not looking at the instruments, does that mean you're not operating the airplane anymore? Because I still can't figure out how operating solely by reference to instruments can include being able to see well enough out the window and use what you can see for operation...you follow?

I believe you guys, I really do. I read the letter. I would just like to be able to show someone this and prove that the FAA endorses it. I also don't understand why there aren't about 15,000 private pilots out over Lake Michigan right now building their actual up for their instrument rating.
 
B767Driver said:
operation is being conducted in less than VMC...so an instrument rating would be required.
Click to expand...

I can see how you can draw that conclusion. However, the requirement is stated thusly:

61.3
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:

Now, VFR is defined by visibility and cloud clearance requirements, both of which the pilot in our scenario have. It's just that these are insufficient to maintain control of the aircraft. An oversight of our regulations.

The interpretation that the pilot needs an instrument rating when taking off into CAVU conditions seems unreasonable to me, unless we want to limit night flight to instrument-rated pilots only.
 
tgrayson said:
I can see how you can draw that conclusion. However, the requirement is stated thusly:

61.3
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:

Now, VFR is defined by visibility and cloud clearance requirements, both of which the pilot in our scenario have. It's just that these are insufficient to maintain control of the aircraft. An oversight of our regulations.

The interpretation that the pilot needs an instrument rating when taking off into CAVU conditions seems unreasonable to me, unless we want to limit night flight to instrument-rated pilots only.
Click to expand...

Man, I'm just saying if you can see and avoid, you're not operating solely by reference to instruments. When you're flying the plane, you're operating it. If you're operating solely by reference to instruments, you're not using anything else, unless you call looking through the window "referencing an instrument"...by FAA definition that is. I'm sure many of us wisecracks could consider the window an "instrument"...
 
This thread makes my eyes bleed.

Let's just keep it simple.

Would I log it as "actual"? Professionally? No.

Could I? Maybe.

Personally, if I was keeping a logbook, my PIC is going to reflect the times I signed for the airplane to keep it simple.

My instrument time would be time I was actually logging in actual IMC (read: 'clouds').

In my professional opinion, use the "KISS" rule when it comes to logbooks. "keep it simple, stupid!"

If you've got to pull out the FARS to explain to someone why you logged something it's probably not worth it.
 
jfleisher said:
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.
Click to expand...


Thank you, and Meritflyer. :) It is ironic that posting FAA Letters of Interpretation is enough to have some people throwing around the t-word.

Remiinds me of a flight review that I was giving a guy. I started teaching him about power curves during our ground session and he giggled throughout the entire presentation. He thought it was the silliest stuff he had ever heard.
 
And the thread needs to be put to bed.

Reasons?

a. Circular arguments.
b. Name calling.
c. Sodium Benzoate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top