Imc

[Danos]

Can blackout conditions like in Arizona at night with no horzon, which and only be flown on instruments, be logged as actual?

 

[Ken Ibold]

Can blackout conditions like in Arizona at night with no horzon, which and only be flown on instruments, be logged as actual?

Yes. And night over open water as well.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes. Here are the words from the FAA's interpretation dated November 7, 1984 (the so-called "Carr" letter):

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.

And note the word "should," not "shall," in the last sentence, making it optional to log the reason you logged it as "actual instrument" time.

 

[Dean]

So then can a VFR only pilot legally fly under those conditions?

 

[Ken Ibold]

So then can a VFR only pilot legally fly under those conditions?

Sure can. Just as it was legal for JFK Jr. to head out over the water that fateful night. VMC is defined by clouds and ceilings, not the visibility of a horizon.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Yes. Here are the words from the FAA's interpretation dated November 7, 1984 (the so-called "Carr" letter):

And note the word "should," not "shall," in the last sentence, making it optional to log the reason you logged it as "actual instrument" time.

I have no reference and I don't remember where I saw it but didn't that get revisited recently?

 

[poadeleted20]

I have no reference and I don't remember where I saw it but didn't that get revisited recently?

Not that I can find.

 

[ScottM]

I have no reference and I don't remember where I saw it but didn't that get revisited recently?

It was on the red board. I uploaded a picture where I was between layers with a sloping undercast and and claimed that it could be logged as actual conditions. There were a few people adamant that you can only log actual in IMC conditions of reduced vis and/or ceiling not just when you need to use the instruments to maintain "adequate control of the flight" as stated in the 1984 letter.

 

[gprellwitz]

It was on the red board. I uploaded a picture where I was between layers with a sloping undercast and and claimed that it could be logged as actual conditions. There were a few people adamant that you can only log actual in IMC conditions of reduced vis and/or ceiling not just when you need to use the instruments to maintain "adequate control of the flight" as stated in the 1984 letter.

I was actually wondering about this myself.

Between layers, depending on how defined they are and how much they slope, the statement "use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft" may very well be true. Certainly if adequate control includes holding ones altitude, but, if that were the case, everythingwould be IMC, at least in hilly terrain!

If you are visually flying between clearly defined sloping layers without reference to your instruments you will certainly change altitude and maybe even heading, but I doubt that you'd be in danger of doing a Kennedy. So what is considered "adequate control." I'd submit that holding your heading and altitude are required, and that cannot be done consistently without the use of the instruments.

Since the rule regarding requiring an instrument ticket is:

61.3 (e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;

it appears that it is legal and plausible for a pilot without an instrument rating to legally fly in what is loggable as actual instrument conditions. As for being smart

 

[MauleSkinner]

I used to fly with a guy who claimed any time in a jet was technically loggable as IMC, because there's no way you can hold your altitude within 100 feet at FL350 without benefit of instruments.

I think that's just a bit of a stretch myself, as I have that problem at anything over 1000 agl

Fly safe!

David

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I was actually wondering about this myself.

Between layers, depending on how defined they are and how much they slope, the statement "use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft" may very well be true.

If you're between layers, how would you KNOW for sure that the layers WEREN'T sloped or WERE sloped... unless you looked at your instruments?

If you had a layer below and a layer above, both sloped 10 degrees to the right, and you try to fly that visually, you're not gonna be flying a straight line...

 

[SkyHog]

I have to find this, but IIRC, this was changed recently, and specifically addressed as requiring a view limiting device (I want to say in the most recent rewrite of the IFR fars).

Lemme see what I can dig up.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I wonder how many VFR only pilots never get to the 'may' log it part because they got to the be dead first? Therefore I always expose them to that kind of IMC environment in flight training at night, giving them some added respect for the environment and increasing total survival rate.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have to find this, but IIRC, this was changed recently, and specifically addressed as requiring a view limiting device (I want to say in the most recent rewrite of the IFR fars).

Lemme see what I can dig up.

Good luck. AFAIK, the only issue about view limiting devices was the logging of simulated instrument time, which I think was being addressed in the new rewrite of Part 61 (which is at least a year away from effectivity), not the IFR regulations in Part 91.

 

[poadeleted20]

I wonder how many VFR only pilots never get to the 'may' log it part because they got to the be dead first? Therefore I always expose them to that kind of IMC environment in flight training at night, giving them some added respect for the environment and increasing total survival rate.

This isn't talking about IMC, it's talking about being in actual instrument conditions in VMC. It is easy to be in IMC without being in actual instrument conditions, say, by flying within 2000 feet horizontally of a cloud on an otherwise clear day. Likewise, one can be in actual instrument conditions in VMC, say, by flying between layers at night when the layers are thousands of feet apart.

 

[Dean]

I wonder how many VFR only pilots never get to the 'may' log it part because they got to the be dead first? Therefore I always expose them to that kind of IMC environment in flight training at night, giving them some added respect for the environment and increasing total survival rate.

This one didn't get the chance, very sad, and shows you don't have to be out west or over water for it to happen.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DFW07FA019&rpt=fa

 

[flyingron]

I have to find this, but IIRC, this was changed recently, and specifically addressed as requiring a view limiting device (I want to say in the most recent rewrite of the IFR fars).

Lemme see what I can dig up.

Nothing has changed in 61.51 for a decade.

 

[flyingron]

Good luck. AFAIK, the only issue about view limiting devices was the logging of simulated instrument time, which I think was being addressed in the new rewrite of Part 61 (which is at least a year away from effectivity), not the IFR regulations in Part 91.

Actually, not simulated instrument time, instrument time on a simulator.
And as near as I can tell that NPRM seems dead in the water (rightfully so).

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

This isn't talking about IMC, it's talking about being in actual instrument conditions in VMC. It is easy to be in IMC without being in actual instrument conditions, say, by flying within 2000 feet horizontally of a cloud on an otherwise clear day. Likewise, one can be in actual instrument conditions in VMC, say, by flying between layers at night when the layers are thousands of feet apart.

Yeah, like the clear air/no horizon blackout at night in the first post.

So would MVFR be a more accurate term for those types of actual instrument conditions in "VFR" or is there a more succinct term?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Yeah, like the clear air/no horizon blackout at night in the first post.

So would MVFR be a more accurate term for those types of actual instrument conditions in "VFR" or is there a more succinct term?

MVFR has a specific definition, too...ceilings from 1000-3000 feet, and/or 3-5 miles visibility.

What we're really dealing with here are instrument flight conditions that may or may not be meteorologically-based...pretty much just "loggable" instrument time.

Fly safe!

David

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

MVFR has a specific definition, too...ceilings from 1000-3000 feet, and/or 3-5 miles visibility.

What we're really dealing with here are instrument flight conditions that may or may not be meteorologically-based...pretty much just "loggable" instrument time.

Fly safe!

David

Maybe IVFR (instrument VFR) or DVFR (dangerous VFR) would work.

 

[poadeleted20]

Actually, not simulated instrument time, instrument time on a simulator.

...which is simulated instrument time.

And as near as I can tell that NPRM seems dead in the water (rightfully so).

The Part 61 change NPRM is currently being reviewed against the comments (comment period long since closed), and finalization is in progress. It's a very long process -- expect a Final Rule to be issued in 2009.

 

[stingray]

Yeah, like the clear air/no horizon blackout at night in the first post.

So would MVFR be a more accurate term for those types of actual instrument conditions in "VFR" or is there a more succinct term?

Your getting the terms mixed up I think. IMC because you cannot see the other guy. VMC because you can. IFR rules apply to IMC. VFR rules and sometimes IFR logging apply to VMC.

Dan

 

[MauleSkinner]

Your getting the terms mixed up I think. IMC because you cannot see the other guy. VMC because you can. IFR rules apply to IMC. VFR rules and sometimes IFR logging apply to VMC.

Dan

IFR rules also apply to VMC, if you're on an IFR flight plan. Of course, one of the IF Rules is that you are still responsible for "see and avoid" if you are outside the clouds.

Of course, as one of the Wichita FSS briefers apparently thought, "It's IFR, you can't go" is a complete standard briefing.

Terms get mixed and matched on a whim sometimes.

Fly safe!

David

 

[stingray]

IFR rules also apply to VMC, if you're on an IFR flight plan. Of course, one of the IF Rules is that you are still responsible for "see and avoid" if you are outside the clouds.

Of course, as one of the Wichita FSS briefers apparently thought, "It's IFR, you can't go" is a complete standard briefing.

Terms get mixed and matched on a whim sometimes.

Fly safe!

David

Mix and matching is OK as long as it is understood that IFR/VFR is a rule and IMC/VMC is a condition. I think every pilot should be able to fly in VMC even when they can not see a horizon. Recurrent IMC training for VFR pilots. That is basic (controlling the plane on instruments) small part of what flying IFR is all about.

Dan

 

[ESbuilder]

So, right after I got my private a couple years ago I took a 5 hour x-country over the middle of nowhere... was instruments the whole time.

Clouds were at like 15,000... I was chillin at 12,5 no O2 during the middle of the night..... no lights on ground or anything

I have my comm/ifr now... can I go back and change that to around 4 actual?

 

[poadeleted20]

So, right after I got my private a couple years ago I took a 5 hour x-country over the middle of nowhere... was instruments the whole time.

Clouds were at like 15,000... I was chillin at 12,5 no O2 during the middle of the night..... no lights on ground or anything

I have my comm/ifr now... can I go back and change that to around 4 actual?

You could have logged it that way then, so of course it's legal to correct that entry now. That said, while it is completely legal to correct an erroneous entry, if you change it now, someone later reviewing your logbook may start asking why it took a couple of years to find the error -- be sure you can answer that question smoothly.

 

[ESbuilder]

You could have logged it that way then, so of course it's legal to correct that entry now. That said, while it is completely legal to correct an erroneous entry, if you change it now, someone later reviewing your logbook may start asking why it took a couple of years to find the error -- be sure you can answer that question smoothly.

thanks

 

[Engine]

Ron,

I was wondering if you or anyone else could point be to a physical copy of the letter. Signed and all. I have searched the web to include the FAA's database of Legal Interpretations & Chief Counsel's Opinions but not found anything. I assume that is because the letter is dated.

This is the best I have found as of the letter; http://www.offhand.org/amb/pic-time.txt

I can not find any other letter in the database to provide clear cut evidence/justification for logging actual instrument time in situations where there is no reference to the horizon. While I personally think it is legal and certainly logical, I would like some legal precedence to protect myself. Especially because the school I presently attend is in the habit of scrutinizing everything and they will definitely not accept anything but a signed letter of interpretation with some backing behind it.

 

[ChrisK]

Brains.... BRAINS.....

I read this entire thread and only got to the part about something upcoming in 2009 before I realized it was a necropost....

 

[poadeleted20]

I was wondering if you or anyone else could point be to a physical copy of the letter. Signed and all. I have searched the web to include the FAA's database of Legal Interpretations & Chief Counsel's Opinions but not found anything. I assume that is because the letter is dated.

The letter predates the beginning of the on-line database. Perhaps they plan to incorporate those earlier letters in the database at some future date -- I don't know. But I was told by a retired FAA attorney that this letter is real, and my friends at Flight Standards tell me they accept it as written. Note that this particular letter is incorporated in the AFS-810 Part 61 FAQ file available to Inspectors for policy guidance. Although that file is no longer in the public domain, you can verify it with your local FSDO.

 

[Engine]

Thanks Ron. I'll take a look at those options.

 

[jordane93]

yes. ive always been told, you don't have to be in the soup to log actual time. with blackout conditions in Arizona where you cannot see a horizon, and you rely solely on the instruments for pitch and altitude, that is definitely actual. it doesn't need to be a 1/4 mile vis with a 200 ft ceiling to be logged as actual. The haze in NY can get pretty bad in the summer and it can easily skew the horizon

 

[warthog1984]

So... question (and sorry for continuing the necro):

Leaving aside the risk of actually doing it, is it possible for a vfr-only PPL to legally fly and log actual instrument on a clear but dark night?

And would this count toward the IR requirements?

Thanks!

 

[poadeleted20]

Leaving aside the risk of actually doing it, is it possible for a vfr-only PPL to legally fly and log actual instrument on a clear but dark night?

And would this count toward the IR requirements?

Yes, and yes, but as the FAA letter said, it is highly advisable to log the circumstances so nobody later thinks you were operating outside the rules.

 

[bqmassey]

Thanks Ron, this is interesting to know.

I just got my instrument rating, passed the checkride a few days ago. Despite all of the ground school and studying I've done, it's unbelievable (and frustrating) how much more there is to learn.

 

[warthog1984]

Thanks Ron, this is interesting to know.

I just got my instrument rating, passed the checkride a few days ago. Despite all of the ground school and studying I've done, it's unbelievable (and frustrating) how much more there is to learn.

As one of my instructors says: "a plane is a device built to keep the pilot humble".

 

[airguy]

Huh... learn something new every day. I've had a couple of those takeoffs as a VFR pilot, never thought about logging IFR. My home strip is in very rural territory, nearest town is population ~500 and 10 miles to the north and prevailing winds are south, no towns of any decent size closer than 35 miles to the south. If you do a full-dark takeoff you will be hard on the gauges for a solid minute at a minimum, VFR or not.

Three takeoffs like that to my memory, I can log 1/2 of 1/10 of an hour...

The more interesting part to me is the transition from ground roll to airborne. The strip is not lit, but has good reflectors. Taxi and takeoff roll are a non-issue with a good functioning landing light, but as soon as the nose rotates upward it gets DARK-DARK just about immediately. Was a bit disconcerting the first time, you have to be ready for an immediate transition to the gauges and fly it by the numbers.

 

[warthog1984]

Yes, and yes, but as the FAA letter said, it is highly advisable to log the circumstances so nobody later thinks you were operating outside the rules.

Thanks Ron.

It's an interesting situation, especially here on the coast where the GA runways put you straight out over the ocean. While I wouldn't rely on this for much time, I can see logging bits and pieces of normal flights as instrument.

It all adds up.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's an interesting situation, especially here on the coast where the GA runways put you straight out over the ocean. While I wouldn't rely on this for much time, I can see logging bits and pieces of normal flights as instrument.

Just remember that JFK Jr. was legally operating VFR in actual instrument conditions when he augured in.