meritflyer
Well-Known Member
I heard that you are able to log "actual" instrument time if you were flying at night with no visual references or horizon (example, over a non-populated area with no lights like the desert?).
True?
True?
Logging "Actual" Instrument Time
- Thread starter meritflyer
- Start date
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
meritflyer said:
What do the regs say? It is spelled out in very clear English.
I personally can't seem to find the definition of "actual instrument conditions." FAR 61.51 tells you all about logging it, but I remember something defining it as flight without refrence to a visible horizon. That could have been an Army manual... I'm not sure. I've had discussions before about logging actual instruments at night and the question came up what about when you are in the clouds AT night. Do you log both or one or the other? So... anyone got a reference on the definition of "actual instrument conditions?"
Well, here's what the Instrument Flying Handbook tells us:
IMC: Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minimums prescribed for VMC, requiring operations to be conducted under IFR.
So there ya go.
IMC: Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minimums prescribed for VMC, requiring operations to be conducted under IFR.
So there ya go.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
The simple english is "anytime you are operating the aircraft soley (sp?) by referance to instruments".
Does this mean over unlight terrain at night? Sure. Should you be logging it? It's up to you, but remember, you need to be able to justify it to the FAA. I think most people you will talk to will tell you "actual" is when you are inside a cloud and that is it.
Does this mean over unlight terrain at night? Sure. Should you be logging it? It's up to you, but remember, you need to be able to justify it to the FAA. I think most people you will talk to will tell you "actual" is when you are inside a cloud and that is it.
ColMustard
New Member
The reg says to log instrument time when operating the aircraft solely by reference to the instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. The question is this considered actual conditions?
Probably not, but if I had no reference to the horizon, and had to use my instruments as the sole reference to maintain control, I might feel inclined to log it. Probably won't find this scenario too often, but when I think of this situation it reminds me of the JFK jr. crash.
-ColM
Probably not, but if I had no reference to the horizon, and had to use my instruments as the sole reference to maintain control, I might feel inclined to log it. Probably won't find this scenario too often, but when I think of this situation it reminds me of the JFK jr. crash.
-ColM
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
But "IMC" does not mean "actual." If you are flying at 10,500 msl 900' below a overcast cloud deck with CAVU below, you are in IMC, but you are definitely =not= in "actual." "Actual" exists when conditions outside the airplane make it necessary to use the instruments to keep the shiny side up.ChinookDriver said:
The definition of "actual" appears in a 1984 FAA Legal opinion, which, BTW, deals specifically with the moonless night scenario.
==============================
November 7, 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.
[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
==============================
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
ColMustard said:
Everytime I fly at night I hit this scenario. There ain't nothin' out in the high desert at night except just a few scattered lights on the gorund to make it look like one continuous starfield.
Why does everyone make this so hard?
You log both. Does being inside a cloud somwhow make the sun come up? Does flying at night somehow make the clouds dissapear? Your logbook is a record of the conditions and events of a particular flight. If it was night you log night. If you had some actual you log actual. Why on earth would one "cancel" the other out? 
Windchill
Well-Known Member
Curiosity on the impact of legal aspects ... if one is over the moon-less desert at night, finding themselves needing to fly "soley by reference to instruments," would that be illegal if they don't have a safety pilot and do not have the IR to fly solely by reference to instruments? Or does it fall under a wierd "VFR-but-actual" sort of condition? :insane:
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
VFR but actual. As Chinook pointed out "IFR" and "VFR" is a matter of specifically-defined cloud clearances and abstract visibility, and change significantly with the airspace you are flying in (for example, by definition, it's never VFR in Class A airspace even if it clear and visibility >100 miles; on the other hand, in Class B 3 miles of visibility with the top of your vertical tail in the cloud deck above is VFR). "Actual" is more practically defined as the ability to keep the airplane upright. The two sets of terms have very little to do with each other.Windchill said:
AlexF
Well-Known Member
Does this count as "simulated instrument time?"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6300500589870594385&q=cockpit :rawk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6300500589870594385&q=cockpit :rawk:
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
According to a DE it is (who is also a B767 Capt) its legit. He said that when you are controlling the airplane by instruments whether its simulated, night, or acutal, it is logged as instrument time. As for VFR over a desert at night, if you can not see 10 feet in front of you because its so pitch black, its NOT VFR. You do not have the required visibility therefore are on instruments. VFR at night over the desert or other pitch black areas will take a VFR pilot and spin them upside down - its a very dangerous situation.
greaper007
Well-Known Member
It's totally legal. Any time you have to fly by sole reference to flight instruments you can log actual time. I don't have my far/aim in front of me so I can't quote it. However, I'm positive this is legal. I had one flight from Key West over a big stretch of water on a moonless night that probably would have resulted in a graveyard spiral if I didn't have flight instruments. So this rule makes total sense to me.
mastermags
Well-Known Member *giggity*
MidlifeFlyer said:
So technically, a non-instrument rated pilot can log actual here without a safety pilot in VFR conditions? This seems to violate the "see-and-avoid" concept of VFR flying.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Why? A safety pilot is required for simulated IFR conditions. Going back to the FAA Legal opinion I quoted earlier, that meansmastermags said:
==============================
"Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles.
==============================
The pilot flying in CAVU weather but on a moonless night over terrain that doesn't provide ground references isn't intentionally restricting anything by artificial means. In fact the pilot may have just flown over a city or town with plenty of ground lights. Can you show us where in the FAR it defines IMC based upon whether someone built a city somewhere?
The aircraft themselves have lights (required) so you can certainly see an avoid them, and if you fly above the MEF for the quadrant you won't hit anything sticking up from the ground.
Besides, see and avoid is =not= a VFR concept. It's a =universal= concept that says if you can see to avoid, you must see and avoid. Being on an IFR flight plan or being in IMC does not remove that obligation. In fact, with all the concentration on hood work for IFR training, we sometimes forget that including what is outside the airplane is part of the proper instrument scan.
Who says you are in IMC?
The key to all this is simple. All you really have to do is read the definitions and understand them. "Actual" is =not= equal to "IMC." You can be in "actual" without being in "IMC" and you can be in "IMC" without being in actual.
Terribly smart? Probaly not. Legal? For better or worse, the official interpreter of the FAR says yes.
