"Counting" approaches in visual conditions with no foggles for currency - where does this idea come from?

Saw a lot of guys in the Army logging actual just for lack of a horizon. That’s not the intent of logging “weather” per Army definition. Basically padding their logbooks for their civilian transition. No integrity.
 
Velocity173 said:
Saw a lot of guys in the Army logging actual just for lack of a horizon. That’s not the intent of logging “weather” per Army definition. Basically padding their logbooks for their civilian transition. No integrity.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t lack of horizon be the same as the moonless dark night legal opinion ?
 
WDD said:
Wouldn’t lack of horizon be the same as the moonless dark night legal opinion ?
Click to expand...
If you can see the ground below, are you really flying the aircraft “solely by reference to instruments?” Doubtful.

Example, one time I flew in the back of a Black Hawk down to PNS for lunch (Mcgiure’s). It was a typical summer day in the southeast. Visibility 5 HZ and SCT055. We filed IFR but we didn’t fly through a single cloud. The Army DAC up front stated they were logging actual for the whole flight. That’s ridiculous. They could easily see the ground below and didn’t need instruments to keep the dirty side down. It’s nothing more than taking advantage if a poorly worded definition. The scary thing is, pilots can build up useless actual time but they’re no where proficient at actually flying in the clouds.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yabut, "meteoroligical" means weather and is modifying the word Conditions, which to me means (V/I)MC is referring only to "weather conditions"... But we're defining it relative to Rules.
Click to expand...
Defining terms in whatever way we wish rather than by what they actually mean is the root of a lot of confusion.
 
Velocity173 said:
If you can see the ground below, are you really flying the aircraft “solely by reference to instruments?” Doubtful.

Example, one time I flew in the back of a Black Hawk down to PNS for lunch (Mcgiure’s). It was a typical summer day in the southeast. Visibility 5 HZ and SCT055. We filed IFR but we didn’t fly through a single cloud. The Army DAC up front stated they were logging actual for the whole flight. That’s ridiculous. They could easily see the ground below and didn’t need instruments to keep the dirty side down. It’s nothing more than taking advantage if a poorly worded definition. The scary thing is, pilots can build up useless actual time but they’re no where proficient at actually flying in the clouds.
Click to expand...
One day flying over the Chesapeake Bay, vis was about 3 sm. So, VMC, but the sky just blended in with the water. No idea which way was up without using the instruments. I don't think I logged it as IMC, because it didn't matter, but I certainly would have been well justified in doing so, even without actually touching a cloud.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Defining terms in whatever way we wish rather than by what they actually mean is the root of a lot of confusion.
Click to expand...
And thus, the tug-of-war between the definitions of the words and normal English language construction and the FAA's definition is leading to confusion.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
And thus, the tug-of-war between the definitions of the words and normal English language construction and the FAA's definition is leading to confusion.
Click to expand...
And the FAA’s itself might use the terms “incorrectly.” But being confused about how the terms are contextually applied is a choice.
 
RussR said:
One day flying over the Chesapeake Bay, vis was about 3 sm. So, VMC, but the sky just blended in with the water. No idea which way was up without using the instruments. I don't think I logged it as IMC, because it didn't matter, but I certainly would have been well justified in doing so, even without actually touching a cloud.
Click to expand...
To me it’s clear cut. Is one staring at instruments in order to determine up from down?

One day coming back into Bagram it was 1.5 miles BLDU. I couldnt see the horizon but could easily see the ground and the aircraft in front of me. I didn’t have to use instruments. In fact, if I did try and fly on instruments at that altitude (300-500 ft) it would be suicide. Fast forward a few months and I’m giving an annual instrument checkride. It was definitely VMC (CAVU), but flying at night in Afghanistan is a black hole. Guy next to me got disoriented on downwind and relinquished the controls. He was legitimately logging actual weather for that flight.

Like I said, it’s really about integrity. That flight to PNS, the CW4 in the other seat couldn’t believe we were logging wx time on a typical hazy summer day. I couldn’t believe it either.
 
Last edited:
The FAA decision isn't based solely on horizon. It says that if you HAVE to fly on instruments to stay in control, then you are in instrument conditions. They proceeded to give a few examples of things that MIGHT fit the definition.

Heading out over Chesapeake Bay or Lake Michigan with nothing but gloom and featureless water would fit the bill for me. Dark nights over unpopulated areas does as well. This is a whole lot more "instrument" than bopping around in a terminal area close to layers.
 
flyingron said:
The FAA decision isn't based solely on horizon. It says that if you HAVE to fly on instruments to stay in control, then you are in instrument conditions. They proceeded to give a few examples of things that MIGHT fit the definition.

Heading out over Chesapeake Bay or Lake Michigan with nothing but gloom and featureless water would fit the bill for me. Dark nights over unpopulated areas does as well. This is a whole lot more "instrument" than bopping around in a terminal area close to layers.
Click to expand...
Yea….how ambiguous is ‘flying solely by reference to instruments’? Seems clear cut to me. I’ve logged actual at night in between two thick layers and no moonlight. I had no attitude reference except the instruments. When the top deck cleared, clear skies above, and I found myself looking outside with periodic reference to instruments, I marked the time and considered it VFR flight at that point.
 
I flew for several hours between two solid overcast layers, one about 1000 AGL and the other at 12,000. While I was IFR the whole time, I wouldn't exactly consider it instrument flying.
 
flyingron said:
I flew for several hours between two solid overcast layers, one about 1000 AGL and the other at 12,000. While I was IFR the whole time, I wouldn't exactly consider it instrument flying.
Click to expand...
Make one or both of those cloud decks sloping and see how quick you change your mind on if it's instrument flying or not. Was with the wife not to long ago, and there was a sloping deck.

"Why are we turning?"
"We aren't" (points to G5)
 
EdFred said:
Make one or both of those cloud decks sloping and see how quick you change your mind on if it's instrument flying or not. Was with the wife not to long ago, and there was a sloping deck.

"Why are we turning?"
"We aren't" (points to G5)
Click to expand...
...which is why "when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft" is situational rather than one-size-fits-all.
 
midlifeflyer said:
...which is why "when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft" is situational rather than one-size-fits-all.
Click to expand...
My favorite is on a hazy day, take a student I know is "cheating" with foggles/hood and take them out over Lake Michigan. As soon as the shoreline passes behind us the laughing from the right seat begins.

"I will never fly into a cloud!!!!" has been a response to that. I did have to take control of the plane on that one after he couldn't get it back from a 45 degree banked descent.
 
EdFred said:
My favorite is on a hazy day, take a student I know is "cheating" with foggles/hood and take them out over Lake Michigan. As soon as the shoreline passes behind us the laughing from the right seat begins.

"I will never fly into a cloud!!!!" has been a response to that. I did have to take control of the plane on that one after he couldn't get it back from a 45 degree banked descent.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider logging instrument time for it but early in my Colorado experience I flew with an instructor out of Aspen. He had me do steep turns near the Maroon Bells and I absolutely needed the attitude indicator to maintain control.
 
My very first experience with "actual" was back in 2003 or so. I was on a night round robin with my instructor and he took me out over the Chesapeake Bay after doing a stop and go at Norfolk Int'l. Heading north toward the CBBT (back then, big ships would be anchored both north and south of the bridge) on a full-dark, moonless night my instructor told me to only look out the window. I did, and in short order I was in a shallow descent and slight right turn. What was happening was my brain was thinking the ships were a good indicator of the horizon. But they're not. So, to throw yet another wrench in all this I would argue that one could legitimately log instrument time in that situation. Knowing what I know now, if I'm over water I'm going to be watching my instruments closely enough to consider it "only" instruments.
 
KE5BM said:
My very first experience with "actual" was back in 2003 or so. I was on a night round robin with my instructor and he took me out over the Chesapeake Bay after doing a stop and go at Norfolk Int'l. Heading north toward the CBBT (back then, big ships would be anchored both north and south of the bridge) on a full-dark, moonless night my instructor told me to only look out the window. I did, and in short order I was in a shallow descent and slight right turn. What was happening was my brain was thinking the ships were a good indicator of the horizon. But they're not. So, to throw yet another wrench in all this I would argue that one could legitimately log instrument time in that situation. Knowing what I know now, if I'm over water I'm going to be watching my instruments closely enough to consider it "only" instruments.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're throwing another wrench in it at all, I think you're providing a great example of when you can log actual instrument while you're in VMC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top