Logging actual instrument time over water at night

[Ian_J]

If I were looking in your logbook and saw actual instrument time logged when I knew you didn't have the rating, I wouldn't care where or when you logged it.

Not sure if this part of the issue has been resolved or not, but a private pilot flying with a CFII in IMC conditions may log instrument PIC.

In this case he would have actual intrument PIC logged without the rating.

 

[Hacker15e]

I can't even begin to count the number of times I've flown across the Chesapeake Bay or west of Richmond, VA at night. There's a reason the military uses those 2 places for training.

Yeah...there's a wicked MTR (VR 1758) that runs to the north and northwest of Richmond. Very cool, slightly mountainous terrain out there that is a lot of fun on NVGs!

 

[falconvalley]

Not sure if this part of the issue has been resolved or not, but a private pilot flying with a CFII in IMC conditions may log instrument PIC.

In this case he would have actual intrument PIC logged without the rating.

Right. But but a CFII was present and a required crewmember. I'm assuming (I know assuming is wrong) that tygrason is referring to flying single pilot PIC

 

[falconvalley]

Here's a portion of the Letter I googled on the newsgroups. I didn't pull it from my Summit CD, so I can vouch for the exact authenticity, but it does match in content the letter that I have duplicated many times:


November 07, 1984


Mr. Joseph P. Carr

Dear Mr. Carr:

This is in response to your letter asking questions about
instrument flight time.

First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of
instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight
over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon
could be logged as actual instrument flight time.

Second, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.57(e)(2) of
the FAR, noting that Advisory Circular 61-65A, Certification:
Pilots and Flight Instructors, seems to contain advice contrary
to your understanding of the rule. [answer not included in this post]

As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging
of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the
requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent
flight experience requirements of Part 61. 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.)) or simulated instrument
flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when
the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally
restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "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. Typically, these
conditions involve adverse weather conditions.
To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may
occur in the case you described, a moonless night over the ocean
with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is
necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft.



The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is
necessary is somewhat subjective, and based in part on the sound
judgement of the pilot.


Note that, under Section 61.51(b)(3),
the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should
include the reasons for determining that the flight was under
actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be
called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged
was legitimate.

You should add the link to that. And if it's not referencing an actual FAA source (source, meaning a way for the reader to verify it actually came from the FAA) nobody can verify it. Also, the letter doesn't say that you can do that without an instrument rating. That letter is actually helping clarify the definition of actual. It doesn't say anything about night over water automatically qualifying.

 

[tgrayson]

You should add the link to that. And if it's not referencing an actual FAA source (source, meaning a way for the reader to verify it actually came from the FAA) nobody can verify it. Also, that doesn't say that you can do that without an instrument rating.

The link wouldn't really provide you the assurance you seek, because it's just text that someone posted in a newsgroup article. However, you can find various references to the same interpretation scattered about the internet.

I can copy the article from my Summit CD, but again I can't provide you with the assurance that I didn't make it up. The FAA does not publish these letters of interpretation. The Part 61 FAQs had some of the same content, but they are no longer published by the FAA.

It's true that it doesn't say that you can log the time without an instrument rating, but that wasn't part of the question. Anyway, the regulations do not require a person to have an instrument rating to log instrument flight time, so there is no reason to impose such a requirement.

 

[tgrayson]

Right. But but a CFII was present and a required crewmember.

What you're constructing is a regulation that doesn't exist, unless you can quote it. You're saying that you can only log instrument flight time when you have an instrument rating or you have someone onboard who does have one.

 

[mikecweb]

...Does the time spent on climeout qualify as instrument actual? According the FARs, it would seem to count, but I've heard some say they wouldn't log it if they weren't instrument rated...

That wasn't part of the original question???

Trust me I've learned things from you on this forum mostly by me researching the topic to find out for myself. But if you believe that a non-instrument rated pilot can log Actual instrument time, not on an IFR flight plan because he took off during a new moon, you are in for a fun time in aviation by argueing your way through your career.
If you wanna log actual time because you have no outside references and your aren't in clouds, be my guest but for gods sake and the others around you flying for a living, please be on a IFR flight plan. Its not morals its regulations.

 

[Ian_J]

That wasn't part of the original question???

Trust me I've learned things from you on this forum mostly by me researching the topic to find out for myself. But if you believe that a non-instrument rated pilot can log Actual instrument time, not on an IFR flight plan because he took off during a new moon, you are in for a fun time in aviation by argueing your way through your career.
If you wanna log actual time because you have no outside references and your aren't in clouds, be my guest but for gods sake and the others around you flying for a living, please be on a IFR flight plan. Its not morals its regulations.

Question: What if the pilot has an instrument rating, is VFR, not on an IFR flight plan, but is in this "horizon-less scenario" as described above? Log it or no and why?

 

[mikecweb]

Question: What if the pilot has an instrument rating, is VFR, not on an IFR flight plan, but is in this "horizon-less scenario" as described above? Log it or no and why?

It is my opinion that the spirit of the regualtions state that if you are looking inside the whole time your flying because outside gives you no reference, then you should be on an IFR flight plan. In that case if you feel like you want actual IFR time then log it. If you aren't on a flight plan have a safety pilot and log it Sim IFR.

 

[Ian_J]

Can everyone agree that:

1) Logging Actual while not under an Instrument flight plan is not illegal?

and

2) Flying solely by reference to the instruments with no one else on board while VFR is an unwise thing to do.

 

[wheelsup]

If you wanna log actual time because you have no outside references and your aren't in clouds, be my guest but for gods sake and the others around you flying for a living, please be on a IFR flight plan. Its not morals its regulations.

When is it required to be on an IFR flight plan? To my knowledge it's flying while in less than VFR conditions, which are explictly spelled out. Nothing about a "lack of horizon" in there.

Just because you don't have a horizon doesn't mean you are in less then VFR conditions.

That being said, the only time I have logged "actual" while on a moonlit night was while on an IFR flight plan. Not that anyone would ever look up to see if I was an an IFR flight plan years after it happened; to me it's only legit to log it that way.

 

[ChrisH]

You certainly don't have to be instrument rated to log instrument time. Looking at the requirements for an instrument rating, tell you that. Just 15 hrs of instruction, but 40 hrs of actual, or simulated isntrument to receive an instrument rating. Your not going to get 40 hrs simulated, or actual isntrument time in 15 hrs of instruction.

BUT

If you are not instrument rated, the only time I would log actual isntrument conditions, is if I were in actual instrument conditions, with a CFII on board. Otherwise, the only instrument time I would be logging, is simulated istrument, under the hood, with a safety pilot, or CFI(I)

REMEMBER, if you just have your PPL, like myself, your training during your PPL, was how to basically fly on instruments, and GET YOURSELF OUT OF IT ASAP (remember the 180* turn), not continue to fly in it, to log some instrument time.

I think if I were an airline, or corporate flight department, interviewing someone, and reviewing their logbook, and noticed they had actual instrument time, before they were instrument rated, that was not received either while working on their instrument rating, with a CFII, or otherwise, at least had a CFII on board, period; I would have to assume the intentionally flew into IMC conditions, whether clouds/rain, or over a water on a moonless night, which raises questions of judgement, and safety. If you are PPL, and get into IMC conditions, you should be turning around immediately, whether it be you've ended up in a cloude, or over water on a moonless night, and getting away from the IMC conditions.

 

[tgrayson]

If you wanna log actual time because you have no outside references and your aren't in clouds, be my guest but for gods sake and the others around you flying for a living, please be on a IFR flight plan. Its not morals its regulations.

Reference?

 

[FlyEDouglas]

Now I'm not taking a side on this because I have not researched it myself just yet, but 3 things to consider here guys...

a) Unless you're seeking a job/career in aviation there's really no reason to be concerned about adding every .1 of actual time. And if you ARE seeking a job/career in aviation consider this as an interviewer is thumbing through your logbook: "Mr. Doe, I see that you've got some actual logged before you were instrument rated." (you proceed to defend yourself). "Well who was watching outside the airplane for other traffic if you were flying 'solely by reference to your instruments' while not on an IFR flight plan?" Just think about how you might answer that. Logging regs and all aside... Consider the safety aspect of it. NOBODY IS WATCHING WHERE YOU ARE GOING! How do you justify it?

2) If there is one thing I have learned about aviation law, NEVER TRUST WORD OF MOUTH without a reference. We all know that pilots (or flyers if you will) are a cocky bunch. We all know the RIGHT answer... Until we are proved wrong with a reference. Aviation is FULL of he said/she said bs. There are so many wives tales floating around about regs that it could make your head spin. Everyone can interpret any regulation their own way but at the end of the day the only interpretation that really matters is that of your local FSDO. They are the friendly folks that will be setting your ticket ablaze when they figure that you're doing something wrong. So when in doubt, call your local FSDO and ask them! And even with them, GET A REFERENCE! Something in writing. Because when they do come after you and ask why you did _____, "frankie at the FSDO told me it was ok" is not going to fly. Unless you have it in writing of course. Also keep in mind that every FSDO is different as well. Yet another good reason to get it in writing. You can't go wrong there.

and c) Why do you think the FARs are written in such as way that billions of brain cells are lost each day in trying to figure out the correct interpretation of them? Consider the term "pilot error." Now take a look at NTSB records... Notice anything? If the FAA were to outright say "hey, guess what pilots and flyers... did you know that these are the ways you can log actual without having an instrument rating _, _, _, _," then someone were to go out and dart into another plane in the sky trying to do this, there would be a nice happy lawsuit brewing because "the faa told me it was ok." Yes there are many loop-holes in regulations but they are there for good reason. The regs are not cleancut for ease of pinning the blame on the pilot. Now how many times have you seen an NTSB report saying "Pilot was following rules exactly and died." It's all a big game with many many rules. We'll never know all the rules 100% because we were not meant to. Knowing how to get the correct answer to a specific question can save your butt. And remember... Knowledge is power, but only if it's correct.


CFI, CFII, MEI

 

[Murdoughnut]

Wow, thanks for the responses. The question sorta spawned from the fact that I some times to circuits at a field along the beach. For every hour of night T&G, I figure .1 - .2 is spent on the departure leg with no ground reference at all (completely reliant upon the instruments). I was curious if I should apply this time towards the 40 required for the IR, but I wouldn't want an examiner to give me • about it. For that little of time, seems not to be worth it.

 

[falconvalley]

I'm not talking about needing your primary flight instruments to maintain control of the aircraft. You can use whatever instrument necessary to help, but it doesn't necessarily fall in with the definition of solely by reference to instruments. For that to take place and to log it as actual or simulated, you need to have approapriately rated airman(en) onboard. The only other case would be if you inadvertantly entered IMC.

"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

"Flight visibility means the average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night."

~ 14 CFR 1.1

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...iv8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.1.1.0.1.1&idno=14

Could you identify an airplane, if you were operating solely by reference to instruments? No, you can't. Why? Because you're operating solely by reference to instruments.

I'm not talking about when you can and can't log instrument time. I'm talking about what solely by reference to instruments means.

 

[falconvalley]

Can everyone agree that:

1) Logging Actual while not under an Instrument flight plan is not illegal?

and

2) Flying solely by reference to the instruments with no one else on board while VFR is an unwise thing to do.

I don't think anyone said that logging actual instrument without filing IFR is illegal. I think it seemed implied by some of the responses, including mine. That's not what I'm talking about. I log what I do. Examples could include:

Inadvertantly entering IMC
Simulated with a hood and a safety pilot
Flying in IMC outside of controlled airspace

If you have a CFII onboard and you want to be in controlled airspace in IMC, you still need to file.

 

[FlyEDouglas]

I was curious if I should apply this time towards the 40 required for the IR, but I wouldn't want an examiner to give me • about it. For that little of time, seems not to be worth it.

Yeah if it's going towards a rating or certificate I certainly would not count it. Even if you ask someone at the FSDO and he/she tells you it's ok, you never know what your individual DE (designated examiner) is going to say on your checkride. I've seen (with my own eyes...not heard from somewhere) an examiner cancel a checkride because of a simliar technicality. For the extra .1 or .2, definitely not worth it.

happy flying,

CFI, CFII, MEI

 

[tgrayson]

Iit doesn't necessarily fall in with the definition of solely by reference to instruments. For that to take place and to log it as actual or simulated, you need to have approapriately rated airman(en) onboard. The only other case would be if you inadvertantly entered IMC.

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.irate:

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.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

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?