Logging actual instrument time

Maurus said:
IMC is not just being in the clouds but the definition given by the FAA is as follows for IMC.
Click to expand...
Using that definition, if I take off into a 2000' overcast, climb through the clouds to 15,000' I can't log it as instrument time? (Ceiling wasn't lower than a VFR ceiling)

I call shenanigans.

-mini
 
minitour said:
Using that definition, if I take off into a 2000' overcast, climb through the clouds to 15,000' I can't log it as instrument time? (Ceiling wasn't lower than a VFR ceiling)

I call shenanigans.

-mini
Click to expand...

That's because you misunderstood what it means by "distance from cloud". "Distance from cloud" would be your VFR cloud clearances and they would change depending on airspace and altitude.

Say you were in Class E airspace below 10,000 feet. In your example you would be IMC at 1501 feet, but you can't start logging instrument time till you are solely using your instruments to fly the aircraft.
 
Maurus said:
Thats because you misunderstood what it means by "distance from cloud". "Distance from cloud" would be your required VFR cloud clearances and they would change depending on airspace and altitude.
Click to expand...

It's not that I misunderstand distance from clouds...I'm just going by the definition you're sticking to. It's use of the word "and" (not "or"..."and" is pretty a crucial conjunction for a definition) in the definition. Either you have to satisfy the conditions or you don't. In this case, there are 3 conditions.
1) Visibility
2) Distance from cloud
3) Ceiling

Originally Posted by [B said:
Pilot/Controller Glossary[/B]]
INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS−
Meteorological conditions expressed in
terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling
less than the minima specified for visual meteorological
conditions.
Click to expand...


-mini
 
Ehh...All this hair-splitting is making me tired.

sal.jpg


Whats do I look like, a guy who's not lazy?
 
It does not say it has to be IFR conditions, it says it has to be "instrument conditions." They are not the same thing.


(edited)

"[A]ctual 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."

Chief Counsel legal opinion.
 
minitour said:
It's not that I misunderstand distance from clouds...I'm just going by the definition you're sticking to. It's use of the word "and" (not "or"..."and" is pretty a crucial conjunction for a definition) in the definition. Either you have to satisfy the conditions or you don't. In this case, there are 3 conditions.
1) Visibility
2) Distance from cloud
3) Ceiling



-mini
[/I]
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but that is an FAA definition. Proposterous yes, but chances are they would go with my interpretation of the definition as it would make no sense to require an IFR ceiling for IMC conditions. :crazy:


Pilot/Controller Glossary said:
VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS−
Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of
visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling equal to or
better than specified minima.
Click to expand...

Flying at night with no horizon is still considered VMC though and would not be logged as instrument time.
 
touchngo said:
It does not say it has to be IFR conditions, it says it has to be "instrument conditions." They are not the same thing.


(edited)

"[A]ctual 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."

Chief Counsel legal opinion.
Click to expand...

There are no legal interpretations in the FAA database that has a Mr. Carr as the recipient. I also reviewed all the interpretation that John H. Cassady has given and none pertain to logging instrument time. The letter posted seems to be fake.
 
Well now that a mod has removed the link to the cited source, we can't verify the information ourselves. Nice, guys. Nice.
 
Maurus said:
I understand what you are saying but that is an FAA definition. Proposterous yes, but chances are they would go with my interpretation of the definition as it would make no sense to require an IFR ceiling for IMC conditions. :crazy:
Click to expand...

Maurus said:
In order to legally log instrument time there are two conditions that must be met.

1. the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments
2. under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions

...

Both conditions must be met. Since only one condition is met, it is not instrument time.
Click to expand...
So, you have to be operating solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument conditions, but you don't have to meet the conditions of the definition of IMC?

I once again call shenanigans.

-mini
 
dasleben said:
Well now that a mod has removed the link to the cited source, we can't verify the information ourselves. Nice, guys. Nice.
Click to expand...
touchngo said:
http://forums.jetcareers.com/769547-post9.html

I'm sure a lawyer would post a fake letter :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The FAA database only goes to 1990 :crazy: I did find the letter after I posted that here on JC but you posted before I could get my post off.

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.

[unrelated portion snipped]

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 (imc)) 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 judgment 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.

[unrelated portion snipped]

Sincerely,
/s/
John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
Click to expand...

As you can tell. This legal opinion didn't help anything toward the argument as he seems to have contradicted himself.


minitour said:
So, you have to be operating solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument conditions, but you don't have to meet the conditions of the definition of IMC?

I once again call shenanigans.

-mini
Click to expand...

I didn't write the regs and definitions.
 
dasleben said:
Well now that a mod has removed the link to the cited source, we can't verify the information ourselves. Nice, guys. Nice.
Click to expand...

It's here on JC. Anyway, there's no way for you to find it otherwise? :)

Trust me, there are VERY VERY few aviation reg topics that haven't already been discussed here on JC ad naseum.......

.....so, don't be lazy, use the search function here, and I guarantee you'll have a 99% chance of already finding an answer.

Much like some other peeps here did.
 
Maurus said:
I didn't write the regs and definitions.
Click to expand...
No, you're just being selective about which parts of which definitions you want to observe. You said that you wouldn't need the ceiling below a VFR ceiling to log instrument, but you also said to log instrument time you had to be flying by reference to instruments and in IMC. The definition of IMC includes the ceiling.

Either you have to have it all or you don't.

-mini
 
When I said that I was conceding that the definition of IMC was bunk. The FAA wrote those and the way you read them is how they are presented. Either the definition of IMC is wrong or the reg for logging time is wrong.
 
Maurus said:
When I said that I was conceding that the definition of IMC was bunk. The FAA wrote those and the way you read them is how they are presented. Either the definition of IMC is wrong or the reg for logging time is wrong.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it's shenanigans.

shenanigans3.jpg


-mini
 
Maurus said:
When I said that I was conceding that the definition of IMC was bunk. The FAA wrote those and the way you read them is how they are presented. Either the definition of IMC is wrong or the reg for logging time is wrong.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter....the interpretation exists and is somewhat plausible, so it becomes the law.
 
If we were to go by the night over the desert idea than a pilot could have logged actual IFR time, while flying under VFR flight rules without an Instrument rating.

As opposed to splitting each individual hair, can we just... for one little minute... ready for this... wait for it... think Practically?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top