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

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Skid, Feb 1, 2019.

  1. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    9,161
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    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.
     
  2. dmspilot

    dmspilot En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dmspilot
    VMC and IMC are stupid acronyms that don't need to exist.
     
  3. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    9,161
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    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."
     
  4. dmspilot

    dmspilot En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dmspilot
    Like "VFR conditions" and "IFR conditions", which already exist?
     
  5. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    9,161
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    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.
     
  6. dmspilot

    dmspilot En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dmspilot
    Part 61 pairs "actual" and "simulated" with "instrument conditions" not "(VFR/IFR) conditions".

    Really? What would "actual IFR conditions" require if not IMC?
     
  7. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    9,161
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    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.
     
  8. dmspilot

    dmspilot En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,012
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dmspilot
    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."
     
  9. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    9,161
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    Gotcha.