Two instrument rated pilots, one under hood, in IMC, both log PIC?

Lindberg said:
Do you have an example of the FAA using it that way?
Click to expand...
I was referring to the basic rules of VFR cloud clearances and visibility, which change based on the airspace you are in. You know, like 91.155.

As already pointed out, the FAA defines "instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)" as "Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions."

So if you are in conditions less than 91.155 minima, you are in IMC and prohibited from flying in that airspace.
 
VMC and IMC are stupid acronyms that don't need to exist.
 
dmspilot said:
VMC and IMC are stupid acronyms that don't need to exist.
Click to expand...
They'd probably just replace it with some other shorthand for "weather conditions below the minimums prescribed for flight under Visual Flight Rules" (that's the FAR Part 170 definition). It's probably tempting to say that "instrument conditions" is enough, but we know we can have "instrument conditions" above the minimums prescribed for flight under Visual Flight Rules, so they are not really equivalent.

I'm no fan of acronyms but VMC and IMC are pretty benign if we actually stick with what they mean. But we don't. In the vernacular, we often refer to IMC as being in the clouds. ("Traffic 12 o'clock, 3 miles." "I'm in IMC.") But that's us, not the fault of the wording.

Edit: You may well be right. Even the FAR is inconsistent in the use of the term "Instrument meteorological conditions."
 
midlifeflyer said:
They'd probably just replace it with some other shorthand for "weather conditions below the minimums prescribed for flight under Visual Flight Rules"
Click to expand...

Like "VFR conditions" and "IFR conditions", which already exist?
 
dmspilot said:
Like "VFR conditions" and "IFR conditions", which already exist?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but those are typically paired with "actual" and "simulated," neither of which require "IMC." Problem is "actual" and "simulated" also get paired with IMC, which is why I ultimately said even the FAR is inconsistent with the use of the term.
 
dmspilot said:
Part 61 pairs "actual" and "simulated" with "instrument conditions" not "(VFR/IFR) conditions".


Really? What would "actual IFR conditions" require if not IMC?
Click to expand...
Conditions outside the aircraft where you need the instruments to keep the shiny side up. That could be, to use the FAA's example, a moonless night in under a high overcast and nothing below for good visual reference. Been discussed here a number of times.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Conditions outside the aircraft where you need the instruments to keep the shiny side up. That could be, to use the FAA's example, a moonless night in under a high overcast and nothing below for good visual reference. Been discussed here a number of times.
Click to expand...

Those are not actual IFR conditions. Those are "actual instrument conditions".

14 CFR 1.1
"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."
 
dmspilot said:
Those are not actual IFR conditions. Those are "actual instrument conditions".

14 CFR 1.1
"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."
Click to expand...
Gotcha.
 
TL;DR: Can the safety pilot log "actual" time then as well? I've always thought "no" but this whole discussion made me think otherwise

Full story:
-This past weekend I went up as safety for a friend. There were broken layers from around 3K pretty much up 5K.. so we were in and out of the clouds. The longest in any one stretch we were IMC was probably 15 minutes.. but when all was said and done we probably had at last .5 of actual cloud time (at least). He left the foggles on for most of the flight.. so 1.3 he logged on foggles per Hobbes as simulated.. Can the safety log the 0.5 as actual since the sole manipulator had foggles on the whole time? Yes, we are both IR and we were on a legit instrument clearance
 
Tantalum said:
TL;DR: Can the safety pilot log "actual" time then as well? I've always thought "no" but this whole discussion made me think otherwise

Full story:
-This past weekend I went up as safety for a friend. There were broken layers from around 3K pretty much up 5K.. so we were in and out of the clouds. The longest in any one stretch we were IMC was probably 15 minutes.. but when all was said and done we probably had at last .5 of actual cloud time (at least). He left the foggles on for most of the flight.. so 1.3 he logged on foggles per Hobbes as simulated.. Can the safety log the 0.5 as actual since the sole manipulator had foggles on the whole time? Yes, we are both IR and we were on a legit instrument clearance
Click to expand...

No, sp can't log actual since hes not a cfii nor flying the plane.

61.51(g)

How is a safety pilot operating the aircraft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top