logging actual while not instrument rated

[dmccormack]

Wait - you previously quoted AOPA saying IMC (as defined in 170.3) was required to log actual instrument time. Then you provided the final word on the subject, from the FAA, which clearly states that that you CAN log actual without being in IMC as defined by FAR 170.3 (which was my point, wasn't it)? I'll grant that the conditions that allow that are rare, and in the subjective judgment of the pilot, but they do exist.

A pilot CAN log Actual Instrument Time without being in a cloud, without being in less than VFR weather. That's all I've ever said. Not that it was smart, not that I encouraged it, but that it could be done in compliance with regulations.

Dan, I am attacking your logic here, not your underlying opinion that flying on instruments without being rated is risky and should be discouraged... So please don't take this at all personally - next time I'm up around AGC on an Angel flight I'd like to buy you lunch and show you I'm not a rabid ****head, just an engineer.

Best wishes,

No problem -- hopefully I'm coming across cordially. AGC is nearby, though FWQ is mostly the home port (and has a restaurant!)

I just adamant about the whole VFR into IMC thing...

I found the FAA Chief Counsel ruling after I posted the AOPA quote -- but I think the two are not so far apart.

The key element is that the pilot would need to substantiate his/her claim of "actual."

The rub is that a non IR pilot with more than a tiny bit (I used the term minuscule earlier) of IMC in his/her logbook is going to be under some serious scrutiny -- either you shouldn't have logged that flight over some misty mountains as actual or you were guilty of recklessness in flying IMC those times you claimed.

So -- back to my initial point -- I think the logging of solo IMC flight time -- though perhaps legal (and again, the FAA says it is "subjective" -- so guess who decides?) -- should be done very carefully, and in very limited amounts by non instrument rated pilots.

 

[dmccormack]

Nope, never, night flying should REQUIRE an IR!

"Tell that to AOPA. I'm sure they'll get right on restricting a perfectly legal and safe activity to make a pilot who is unsure of his own abilities feel better about himself. If you'll excuse me, I need to go prepare my plane for departure. Have fun waiting 30 minutes for your instrument clearance."

There's no need to add a requirement because you're not a good enough pilot to handle something.

I never said an IR should be required for night flight, but rather approached as an Instrument Flight.

That said, my retort may have been, "If you're that comfortable on the gauges, why not get the rating?"

 

[gprellwitz]

That said, my retort may have been, "If you're that comfortable on the gauges, why not get the rating?"

I think I understand where you're coming from, but there's a LOT more to getting an instrument rating than just being comfortable on the gauges. As others have mentioned, it involves flying in two systems: weather and ATC, and a good deal of the effort is given to mastering each of these. There are cases, as has also been mentioned, where you can be in "actual conditions" yet not be more involved in either of these two systems than a typical VFR pilot.

 

[dmccormack]

I think I understand where you're coming from, but there's a LOT more to getting an instrument rating than just being comfortable on the gauges. As others have mentioned, it involves flying in two systems: weather and ATC, and a good deal of the effort is given to mastering each of these. There are cases, as has also been mentioned, where you can be in "actual conditions" yet not be more involved in either of these two systems than a typical VFR pilot.

Oh absolutely!!!!

I was making the point that if a limited-to-VFR pilot feels he can control the a/c solely by instruments, he/she should finish the rating...

(Serendipitously, that also reveals some chinks in the supposed armor)

 

[TMetzinger]

Dan, you are coming across cordially. Obsessive , but cordial!

For me anyway, learning to control the airplane on the gauges wasn't too difficult. Learning the SYSTEM, and all the rules and procedures that deal with getting up to cruise and down from cruise (you know, the tough parts!) was the part that required the work.

But I was fortunate - my primary CFI was a former RAF'er and we spent a LOT of time at night and doing hood work, and I think I had 4 hours of hood time when I went for my PPL. He believed that if someone was going to fly at night VFR they needed to be more familiar with the instruments than the FAA required. Now that I think back, I was allowed to do solo work at night (even at other airports) while training for my PPL, something that is not done often if at all now. My original logbook has the endorsement - "Solo operations at night at FDK, W54 (now DMW), and HGR are permitted when ceilings are above 5000 feet, and winds are less than 15 knots at the surface".

When I'm a CFI I'm going to offer the same optional "extra" training in night and hoodwork to my students.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan, you are coming across cordially. Obsessive , but cordial!

Whew!

For me anyway, learning to control the airplane on the gauges wasn't too difficult. Learning the SYSTEM, and all the rules and procedures that deal with getting up to cruise and down from cruise (you know, the tough parts!) was the part that required the work.

Radio and Nav weren't too tough for me (21 years in the Amry and the last 3 as an Infantry Company Commander -- you'd better know maps and radios!).

For some reason holds messed me up for at least a couple of hours.

I asked my CFI to fly in actual anytime we could get it. I had as much hood time as cloud time and I found it was easier to fly through clouds with the hood on!

I got the IR at 40.1 hours and thought I was Sky King -- until my first encounter with Towering Cumulus.

My wife and son were along for the ride to Grandmas -- she's crying, he's yahoo-ing, and I'm trying to keep the blue over the black in the bobbing AI. NY Center informed me I was "300' above assigned altitude." I told them to give me 13,000 or give me a block because there was no way I was maintaining level in this stuff. they cleared me to 13k and we skirted around the rest.

It was a while before I punched clouds again, and at first it was stratus with a CFII on board.

I've since gotten over that initial experience, but I still am very interested in the type clouds and what lifting action is contributing to those clouds before joining them.

For me, the real challenge of IFR is intimate, working, in-the-sky familiarity with weather. Radios, Nav, the system, flying the gauges, the regs -- ok, all stuff to learn and know.

But knowing what's happening in the atmosphere, and judging what you and your airplane can handle and when to call it a day -- that's the real chunk of stuff to know.

But I was fortunate - my primary CFI was a former RAF'er and we spent a LOT of time at night and doing hood work, and I think I had 4 hours of hood time when I went for my PPL. He believed that if someone was going to fly at night VFR they needed to be more familiar with the instruments than the FAA required. Now that I think back, I was allowed to do solo work at night (even at other airports) while training for my PPL, something that is not done often if at all now. My original logbook has the endorsement - "Solo operations at night at FDK, W54 (now DMW), and HGR are permitted when ceilings are above 5000 feet, and winds are less than 15 knots at the surface".

When I'm a CFI I'm going to offer the same optional "extra" training in night and hoodwork to my students.

Absolutely the right thing to do. And file and take them up in actual..
You're also close enough that an XC to Ocean City, MD will get them exposure to the ADIZ, MOAs, restricted areas, and most of all -- the ocean! As Ron said, nothing like a hazy day or night over water to take away all references.

It's amazing how important that initial CFI is to setting you expectations and attitudes towards flying, isn't it?

 

[poadeleted20]

Logging actual instrument flight time depends on the weather, not what you can or cannot see.

Right off the bat -- WRONG! As noted in the later FAA legal interpretation, it's what you can/can't see, not the meteorological conditions. After that, AOPA's explanation goes right into the dumper. Stick with the Nov 84 letter and you'll be OK on the logging issue. Just make sure that you're operating under IFR whenever you're in IMC, even if you still have a good visual horizon and ground contact and thus can't log it as "actual instrument" time (like when below 10,000 MSL within 2000 feet horizontally of the only cloud in the sky).

 

[midlifeflyer]

There's no need to add a requirement because you're not a good enough pilot to handle something.

Thank you for saying that.

There's a saying that the regs were written in blood. That's probably true for some safety regs. But there are others that are based on people who come up with ideas to control =other= people's behavior to meet their own personal ideas.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That was not my intent, as I don't believe "logging will induce reckless behavior" but I do think that the implication of acceptability is dangerous (all parents with daughters who lived through the Britney Spears era will know exactly what I'm talking about...)

Ah. I understand our disagreement now. You come from a philosophical premise that pilots, like teenage daughters, are going to do anything that they think may be legal, however unsafe, and need to be restricted in anything that you view as indicating that such conduct is acceptable.

FWIW, I disagree on both premises. I do not equate rules that govern logging with a definition of acceptable behavior and I reject the idea that pilot behavior should be controlled by a standard set based on the decisions made by bad pilots.

 

[poadeleted20]

I do not equate rules that govern logging with a definition of acceptable behavior and I reject the idea that pilot behavior should be controlled by a standard set based on the decisions made by bad pilots.

While I agree with Mark, it is the sad truth that often the FAA does write regulations to control pilot behavior based on the bad decisions made by unwise pilots. It is fortunate that the JFK Jr. crash didn't lead to a knee-jerk reaction by the FAA to follow the lead of other countries by banning VFR night flying without an IR or "instrument lite" rating (like they have in the UK). It is left to the integrity of CFI's to train Student Pilots properly on the required PPL instrument tasks (4 Fundamentals, turns to headings, VOR tracking, and full panel UA recoveries) as well as checking those items on flight reviews for non-IFR pilots. I hope the CFI community can meet the challenge of those professional standards.

 

[dmccormack]

Ah. I understand our disagreement now. You come from a philosophical premise that pilots, like teenage daughters, are going to do anything that they think may be legal, however unsafe, and need to be restricted in anything that you view as indicating that such conduct is acceptable.

FWIW, I disagree on both premises. I do not equate rules that govern logging with a definition of acceptable behavior and I reject the idea that pilot behavior should be controlled by a standard set based on the decisions made by bad pilots.

OK, now you're being pedantic.

As far as "pilot behavior should be controlled by a standard set based on the decisions made by bad pilots," that's quite a mouthful that's incomprehensible and meaningless.

There are operating rules we all must abide by, no matter who "wrote" them. These include the rules of physics, the limitations of human ability, the rules of the road, federal regulations, aircraft performance, meteorological conditions, et cetera.

Many Federal regulations were written after some calamity. And yet -- as most regulations -- there is always a way around, or an undefined term, or a ruling to refer to.

If you scan through my posts, you will see that not once did I write, "The FAA should..."

I've said all along the pilot should...

I have no delusions that more or different regulations will "increase safety."

However -- we pilots can avoid additional regulation in some cases if we police our own ranks.

We haven't done a good job at that, either, since the VFR-into-IMC fatality rate remains steady.

We're also lousy at ADIZ and Prohibited area incursion, fuel management, and performance planning.

You can pretend it's a complete, laissez-faire system where each is responsible for his own destiny. If you build your own engines, carve your own props, are an A&P/IA, form your own aluminum, ad infinitum, then good for you.

I happen to take a different view, that we pilots are a small, ever shrinking minority community, who so far have escaped the close societal scrutiny afforded every other endeavor. We do ourselves no favors by being cavalier about safety, our responsibilities to each other and the continued existence of General Aviation in the United States.

You can pretend you're an island whose actions and attitudes affect no others.

 

[poadeleted20]

Folks, let's remember that this is professional, not personal, and we need to stay on topic and off personalities, lest the forum moderator become convinced that this thread's training course has run out and it requires closure.

Thanks,
Ron "PT Moderator" Levy

 

[KennyFlys]

It is left to the integrity of CFI's to train Student Pilots properly on the required PPL instrument tasks (4 Fundamentals, turns to headings, VOR tracking, and full panel UA recoveries) as well as checking those items on flight reviews for non-IFR pilots. I hope the CFI community can meet the challenge of those professional standards.

Thanks to my own experience in the clouds so many years (decades) ago, my own requirement for hood time goes well beyond Part 61 requirements. I've been pushing for night XC time under the hood and thus far, students have responded well to the experience. It also includes a good amount of VOR tracking as well as triangulation and intercepting a VOR radial.

They've learned to appreciate how much it really takes to acquire and remain proficient at instrument skills. I'm hoping that's enough to encourage not stopping with just acquiring the IR but remaining proficient once they have the rating.

 

[BartY]

I actually got into an argument with some dude some night at my home airport. He saw me ready to launch, and asked how long ago I got my IR.

"I don't have it."

How the hell can you take off into a dark sky, no reference to the ground, near mountains and not have your IR? How do you know when its safe to descend?

"I suggest you go back to private ground school. They taught that to you there."

Nope, never, night flying should REQUIRE an IR!

"Tell that to AOPA. I'm sure they'll get right on restricting a perfectly legal and safe activity to make a pilot who is unsure of his own abilities feel better about himself. If you'll excuse me, I need to go prepare my plane for departure. Have fun waiting 30 minutes for your instrument clearance."



He was pretty quiet, but I think he realized I was right. There's no need to add a requirement because you're not a good enough pilot to handle something.

I guess this guy needed to talk to my PP examiner then. He was quite surprised at the amount of night time that I had obtained while a student pilot, mainly because of my screwed up work schedule. On the flipside, he thought it was good that I had received so much instruction at night, because of the issues that many low hour pilots can get themselves into when flying at night. Maybe it was dangerous being complacent, but I was never uneasy about flying at nighttime, though I always took whatever precautions I could such as requesting flight following from ATC when flying cross-country, etc.

 

[waldo]

If the log-able time is more than 30 seconds (or however much time it takes to do a 180), there's some serious 'splainin to do.

Just nitpicken' but it takes exactly 1 minute to perform a 180 . . . most all turns should be 'standard rate turns' in IMC, nothing more.

 

[KennyFlys]

Just nitpicken' but it takes exactly 1 minute to perform a 180 . . . most all turns should be 'standard rate turns' in IMC, nothing more.

Easier said than done when not well trained to trust your instruments. Most primary students are not truly trained for what it takes during that time under the hood.

 

[dmccormack]

Easier said than done when not well trained to trust your instruments. Most primary students are not truly trained for what it takes during that time under the hood.

The early Bonanza manuals recommended the pilot release the yoke and turn 180 using rudder only if "caught" in IMC.

Given that airplane's spiral instability, it was an interesting technique.