Logging IMC time

[ArnoldPalmer]

Question -

As per 61.51 “A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.”

Do you log time above a solid overcast layer or being in between layers as IMC/Actual time?

 

[RussR]

Question -

As per 61.51 “A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.”

Do you log time above a solid overcast layer or being in between layers as IMC/Actual time?

Well, since you asked if I log it, no, I do not.

You will now get lots of discussion on whether it is legal to log it or not.

 

[dans2992]

Popcorn…

 

[midlifeflyer]

“Actual” Conditions, IFR Magazine (no paywall on this one).

Personal answer in this one: usually, no, but sometimes it’s necessary to use the instruments to keep the blue side up.

And, btw, it’s not “logging IMC time.” It’s logging “actual instrument flight conditions.” Two different things.

 

[Larry in TN]

[QUOTE="ArnoldPalmer, post: 3636601, member: 27130"Do you log time above a solid overcast layer or being in between layers as IMC/Actual time?[/QUOTE]
It depends on if you're operating the aircraft "solely by reference to instruments". It has nothing to do with if you can see the ground. It is about how you are flying the airplane.

In the situations you describe, you generally are not operating solely by reference to the instruments but there can be situations where you are. Such as when the layer(s) are not level. If there have some slop to them it might not be possible to fly based on the "false" horizon the layers are forming.

 

[Steamflyer]

Above an overcast, never.
Between layers, generally not, though when they converge, possibly.
Black night in the west - believe it's allowable, but don't.
Which brings us back to "when in the clouds." That's the main event.

If scrounging for actual hours, there's some possibilities in the list, but if you fly IFR regularly should be enough plain Jane IMC to log just that.

 

[Tokirbymd]

who cares if its logged or not- the only thing that matters to insurance or faa currency requirements is the approaches, hold, etc.

 

[midlifeflyer]

who cares if its logged or not- the only thing that matters to insurance or faa currency requirements is the approaches, hold, etc.

Once upon a time currency required 6 hours of logged actual or simulated instrument time, so people really cared. Today, those approaches and holds you mentioned still have to be in logged actual or simulated instrument conditions, so it's still important to understand what counts, what doesn't, and what requires a judgment call.

 

[RussR]

who cares if its logged or not- the only thing that matters to insurance or faa currency requirements is the approaches, hold, etc.

ATP applicants and Part 135 have "instrument time" requirements. Also, individual employers may have instrument time requirements as well. So it's not a useless thing to log.

 

[EdFred]

who cares if its logged or not- the only thing that matters to insurance or faa currency requirements is the approaches, hold, etc.

Some people are looking towards ratings that require a certain amount of instrument time. Those people care.

 

[robin ardoin]

[QUOTE="ArnoldPalmer, post: 3636601, member: 27130"Do you log time above a solid overcast layer or being in between layers as IMC/Actual time?

It depends on if you're operating the aircraft "solely by reference to instruments". It has nothing to do with if you can see the ground. It is about how you are flying the airplane.

In the situations you describe, you generally are not operating solely by reference to the instruments but there can be situations where you are. Such as when the layer(s) are not level. If there have some slop to them it might not be possible to fly based on the "false" horizon the layers are forming.
[/QUOTE]


^^^THIS^^^

I typically do not have to fly solely by instruments while between layers, and thus typically don't log it as instrument time. I have flown between layers at night, on a very dark night, and had to fly solely based on instruments....thus, I logged instrument time.

 

[MauleSkinner]

who cares if its logged or not- the only thing that matters to insurance or faa currency requirements is the approaches, hold, etc.

The people at POA analyzing your accident will definitely take it into account.

 

[iamtheari]

The people at POA analyzing your accident will definitely take it into account.

Others may, too. I recall an accident report (not sure which one or if it was NTSB or AOPA) that called out the pilot for having apparently logged actual instrument time for the full extent of every IFR flight he took. (And then evidently becoming disoriented the first time the autopilot disconnected in a cloud.)

 

[Initial Fix]

Others may, too. I recall an accident report (not sure which one or if it was NTSB or AOPA) that called out the pilot for having apparently logged actual instrument time for the full extent of every IFR flight he took. (And then evidently becoming disoriented the first time the autopilot disconnected in a cloud.)

That might have been a cirrus accident at Ksus a number of years ago. My quick search didn’t turn it up. The pilot apparently logged pretty much everything as IFR. If I remember, he took off onto a low layer and his autopilot failed, and, crunch.

Found it. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2013/08/spirit-of-st-louis-airport-ksus-missouri.html?m=1

 

[RyanB]

Question -

As per 61.51 “A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.”

Do you log time above a solid overcast layer or being in between layers as IMC/Actual time?

Are you in VMC conditions? Can you see these layers that you’re referring to? If so, then no.

 

[bonefishpete]

Can you log in the clouds instrument time with the AP engaged and flying the plane?

 

[Brad Z]

On top of everything else, a good test is if you were to cover all of your instruments and disconnect the autopilot, would you still be able to fly straight and level in the conditions you describe using external visual queues?

 

[RussR]

Can you log in the clouds instrument time with the AP engaged and flying the plane?

Yes, just like all the other (normal) categories of logging do not differentiate based on autopilot use or not.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Can you log in the clouds instrument time with the AP engaged and flying the plane?

You wouldn’t ask that if you’ve seen how many pilots manage to screw up a coupled approach.

Yes, “sole manipulator of the flight controls” includes “manipulating” the avionics which move them.

 

[KE5BM]

If one can log night time VFR flight over water as actual IFR, I don't understand why one would not be able to count being above an overcast layer as actual IFR. No reference to ground exists.

 

[MRC01]

Question -

As per 61.51 “A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.”

IMC is not the same as "actual instrument conditions". You can be in IMC without being in actual instrument conditions, and you can be in actual instrument conditions while VFR.

If one can log night time VFR flight over water as actual IFR, I don't understand why one would not be able to count being above an overcast layer as actual IFR. No reference to ground exists.

It depends on whether one requires reference to the instruments to maintain flight control. Usually, when flying VFR over the top the horizon is obvious even without a ground reference, so one would not log actual instrument time.

The FAA "moonless night" letter of interpretation has more on this topic.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If one can log night time VFR flight over water as actual IFR, I don't understand why one would not be able to count being above an overcast layer as actual IFR. No reference to ground exists.

It’s less about ground reference than horizon reference, and a solid undercast can provide a very good horizon reference.

 

[KE5BM]

That's making an assumption that the undercast is perfectly level to the ground, which doesn't always happen.

I'm a relative newbie here, but my understanding of VFR is the ability to reference the ground for navigation. If all you have below you is a cloud layer, you cannot use the ground as reference. Reference to level is only one piece of the pizza. Therefore one would need to rely on instruments, right?

 

[iamtheari]

That's making an assumption that the undercast is perfectly level to the ground, which doesn't always happen.

I'm a relative newbie here, but my understanding of VFR is the ability to reference the ground for navigation. If all you have below you is a cloud layer, you cannot use the ground as reference. Reference to level is only one piece of the pizza. Therefore one would need to rely on instruments, right?

Relying on some instruments is not the same as flying solely by reference to instruments.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That's making an assumption that the undercast is perfectly level to the ground, which doesn't always happen.

There’s no assumption there, any more than there would be an assumption of level ground.

I'm a relative newbie here, but my understanding of VFR is the ability to reference the ground for navigation. If all you have below you is a cloud layer, you cannot use the ground as reference. Reference to level is only one piece of the pizza. Therefore one would need to rely on instruments, right?

Where do you get your understanding of VFR and ground reference being tied together?

 

[MRC01]

I'm a relative newbie here, but my understanding of VFR is the ability to reference the ground for navigation.

Incorrect - when flying VFR a ground reference is not practically necessary, nor required by regulation.

If all you have below you is a cloud layer, you cannot use the ground as reference. Reference to level is only one piece of the pizza. Therefore one would need to rely on instruments, right?

Not necessarily. It is often the case that when flying VFR over the top, even if the ground is obscured by clouds the horizon is still obvious and one can maintain flight control by looking out the window without the need for instruments.

To summarize:
VMC means conditions that meet or exceed the regulatory minimums for VFR flight.
IMC means conditions that are less/worse than VMC.
"Actual instrument conditions" is independent of these and all 4 combinations are possible.

Examples:
Actual in VMC: a clear but very dark moonless night over water, or a rural area without ground lighting
Actual in IMC: flying through a cloud
Non-actual in VMC: flying on a clear day
Non-actual in IMC: flying 500 feet above an overcast layer with clear skies above

 

[iamtheari]

Other users will probably correct the following to be more precise and accurate. But my basic glossary of terms is:

VFR - visual flight rules. These are rules of flight and can apply when in IMC, loggable instrument flight, both, or neither.

IFR - instrument flight rules. These are rules of flight and can also apply when in IMC, loggable instrument flight, both, or neither.

IMC - instrument meteorological conditions. These are conditions of visibility or cloud clearance that are not sufficient to comply with basic VFR (rules of flight). You must be flying under IFR (and on an IFR a clearance if in controlled airspace) to fly in IMC. It may or may not be loggable instrument flight time.

VMC - visual meteorological conditions. These are all conditions of clouds and visibility sufficient to comply with basic VFR. You can be under IFR or VFR when flying in VMC, and it may or may not be loggable instrument flight time.

Loggable instrument flight time. This is all about whether you can log the instrument hours, approaches, and holds. It can occur under VFR or IFR and it can occur in IMC or outside IMC.

There are six legal combinations:

VFR in VMC that is not loggable instrument flight time.

VFR in VMC that is loggable instrument flight time. (Dark moonless night.)

IFR in VMC that is not loggable instrument flight time. (Most IFR hours for most pilots, I would venture.)

IFR in VMC that is loggable instrument flight time. (Dark moonless night on an IFR flight plan.)

IFR in IMC that is not loggable instrument flight time. (The OP scenario, if the layers are flattish and spaced out enough.)

IFR in IMC that is loggable instrument flight time. (The OP scenario fits this if the layers are crooked, cumulus, and/or tightly spaced.)

The two combinations that are not legal are:

VFR in IMC that is not loggable instrument flight time. (Including canceling your IFR clearance within 500 feet of breaking out of the clouds as well as some forms of scud running.)

VFR in IMC that is loggable instrument flight time. (This is the main source of fatal VFR-into-IMC mishaps.)

 

[Hang 4]

That's making an assumption that the undercast is perfectly level to the ground, which doesn't always happen.

I'm a relative newbie here, but my understanding of VFR is the ability to reference the ground for navigation. If all you have below you is a cloud layer, you cannot use the ground as reference. Reference to level is only one piece of the pizza. Therefore one would need to rely on instruments, right?

It's perfectly legal for a non IR PP to fly over a cloud layer as long as you maintain VFR clear of clouds. Therefore, it would not be loggable Instrument time. Whether it would be smart is another question, depending on the extent of the layer etc.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's making an assumption that the undercast is perfectly level to the ground, which doesn't always happen.

I'm a relative newbie here, but my understanding of VFR is the ability to reference the ground for navigation. If all you have below you is a cloud layer, you cannot use the ground as reference. Reference to level is only one piece of the pizza. Therefore one would need to rely on instruments, right?

No. Nothing in the US regs about a private pilot being required to see the ground. You will see a “visual reference to the ground” requirement in the regulatory privileges and limitations for student, recreational, and sport pilots, but not for private and above. See if you can find them

Yes, reference to level is one piece of the puzzle, but the prevailing FAA view is that “actual instrument conditions” is an aircraft orientation issue - can you keep the sky above you and the ground below you without the instruments - not a navigation issue.

 

[KE5BM]

I guess my misunderstanding is centered around the idea that one needs to have visual reference to aid in navigation. (Not in the regs...making an assumption as to the "why" regarding the conditions which you can log instrument time) I felt it to be the same situation with an undercast as with the night time over water or rural area. Neglecting the option for VFR on top which I've never done.

@iamtheari's descriptions are helpful and my thinking was focused on his last legal example: "IFR in IMC that is loggable instrument flight time. (The OP scenario fits this if the layers are crooked, cumulus, and/or tightly spaced.)"

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm clearly getting wrapped around the axle about navigation vs. aircraft avoidance. My assumptions are leading me to create non-existent restrictions.

Back to the FARs I go...

 

[midlifeflyer]

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm clearly getting wrapped around the axle about navigation vs. aircraft avoidance.

In this case, it's really neither of those. Some of this stuff needs to be conceptually decoupled based on what the rules are intended to accomplish.

The visibility and cloud clearance rules of VFR flight in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace are designed primarily to promote visual aircraft avoidance in a 3D environment. In theory, anyway, we are required to maintain 1,000' above and 500' below a cloud deck is to give an IFR aircraft climbing or descending through a cloud deck time to see us. We need less than that - only "clear of clouds" in Class B airspace, because ATC is actively separating all aircraft. They, perhaps obviously, also have the effect of keeping us out of the clouds.

The rules of what is loggable as instrument time for instrument currency and other purposes, OTOH, are designed to require us to maintain a certain base skill level by accomplishing certain tasks while unable to maintain adequate aircraft control by outside visual reference - when we need the flight instruments to keep upright. (Whether they do that or not is something people argue about, but it is what it is.)

Notice that neither have anything to do with how we navigate. Even in a pre-GPS world, VFR pilots flew above cloud decks. While dead reckoning and pilotage are often talked about as a combined skill, they are actually different. Can't do pilotage when you can't see the ground; you can do dead reckoning. There's even such a thing as dead reckoning in the IFR world, although it tends to be limited to specific situations.

Neglecting the option for VFR on top which I've never done.

BTW, before someone else mentions it, one of those semantic things. "VFR On Top" is an IFR clearance. VFR above a cloud layer is "VFR Over the Top."

 

[Pinecone]

That's making an assumption that the undercast is perfectly level to the ground, which doesn't always happen.

I'm a relative newbie here, but my understanding of VFR is the ability to reference the ground for navigation. If all you have below you is a cloud layer, you cannot use the ground as reference. Reference to level is only one piece of the pizza. Therefore one would need to rely on instruments, right?

The test is not seeing the ground. It is having a visible and usable horizon.

A tilted horizon due to clouds could make it not usable. But my personal test is can I see a horizon. No horizon = Actual.

 

[Palmpilot]

There was one time when I was in excellent VFR conditions over the desert at night, and I got into an unusual attitude while fiddling with the avionics. When I looked up, my mind wanted to interpret a line of cars on a highway as the horizon, instead of a high cloud deck in the distance, which was now at a pronounced angle. I had to get on the instruments right away to sort it out. I suppose I could have logged that as 0.001 hour of instrument time.

 

[Larry in TN]

Forgot what you think you know, and look at what the regulations say. Not just for this, but all kinds of topics in aviation. We all formed many incorrect assumptions as we progressed through training.

I don't understand why one would not be able to count being above an overcast layer as actual IFR. No reference to ground exists.

61.51(g) says, A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

The key for logging actual is solely by reference to instruments, not the visibility. You can have unlimited visibility but no visual references with which to maintain aircraft control.

As far as contact with the ground, VFR over the top is a concept that has existed since the beginning of aviation. When I learned to fly, there was no restriction on solo student pilots flying over the top, either.

my understanding of VFR is the ability to reference the ground for navigation

VFR is Visual Flight Rules. They are listed in 14 CFR 91.151 through 91.161. Look those up and see exactly what VFR means.

The Instrument Flight Rules are immediately after the VFR rules in 14 CFR 91.167 through 91.193.

 

[Pinecone]

There was one time when I was in excellent VFR conditions over the desert at night, and I got into an unusual attitude while fiddling with the avionics. When I looked up, my mind wanted to interpret a line of cars on a highway as the horizon, instead of a high cloud deck in the distance, which was now at a pronounced angle. I had to get on the instruments right away to sort it out. I suppose I could have logged that as 0.001 hour of instrument time.

My instructor told the story of delivering a Citabria out west. He decided to do one more leg at night. He took off and it took everything fiber of his pilot skills to NOT roll inverted. In the East, lots of lights on the ground, not too many stars visible. Out west, very few lights on the ground and can see lots of stars. His mind wanted to put the lights as DOWN.

 

[Pinecone]

61.51(g) says, A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

The key for logging actual is solely by reference to instruments, not the visibility. You can have unlimited visibility but no visual references with which to maintain aircraft control.

I had a situation like this in the A-10. We were coming back to home base in a 2 ship. I was on the wing. I could not see anything but the lead airplane and white in all directions.

We split up for single ship approaches. After the split, I looked around and I could see lead crystal clear, even though he was over 3 miles away at this point.

We were between layers, but there was no horizon or anything else to see, just a white sphere with me in the middle.