VFR pilot, first real IMC experience

coloradobluesky said:
ATC does separate KNOWN VFR traffic from IFR traffic, right?
Click to expand...


It was class C..

And they separate IFR from VFR... NOT the other way around...

Edit : oops.. The other poster had it worded it correctly....... Maybe.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Originally Posted by docmirror
Was the OP in airspace which required positive control/vectors? (class B or C) Or was this a case of FF?






ATC can NOT give vectors to VFR aircraft.. They can ( suggest) a heading though..;)
Click to expand...

As I recall one of the cases from Levy, the administrator has ruled that a VFR pilot ignoring a vector from ATC in class C results in a bust. I'll need to look it up when I get back to civilization. In any case, I'm going to be one of those jackass people that thinks the OP screwed up.

By not performing the 180 immediately, and advising ATC of the reason(VFR into IMC), those are two glaring mistakes.
 
MarkZ said:
VFR/IFR, IFR/VFR...

It doesn't matter. We prevent metal from spot welding.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that these are all just blips on a screen to you, but VFR pilots are made of flesh and blood, and when they subordinate their navigation to you, then they lose the one and only method for maintaining VMC. Although most or all controllers have a decent idea of where cloud decks end, and tops start, there are far too many situations where the IMC is broken, or layered, and it's always changing.

One of the reasons I avoid B and C airspace when VFR flying is the somewhat cavalier attitude of many appr/dep controllers around large metro areas. There is a mind-set that you call someone and tell them what to do, and then it gets done. Like chess pieces. This comes across clearly in Chi airspace, and is very prevalent in many B and C environments. Which leads to a VFR pilot acquiescing to nav instructions that are detrimental to their pilotage and own navigation.

A few months ago, I was monitoring appr and a pilot was on FF around the east side of DFW. They gave him a squawk and almost immediately turned him 30 south, even though he was well under the class B shelf. This happens every day, in every sector, and I know it's for the convenience of United or Delta, or AA, and it bugs me.

The OP made mistakes no doubt, but the initial event was directly caused by ATC putting him in the soup. Maybe they knew it was over there somewhere, maybe it moved since the controller last knew where it was, maybe the ctlr had no idea where the clouds started and what altitude, I have no idea, but once ATC takes navigation of VFR traffic, I would like to see them be a bit more cognizant of the limitations involved vis-a-vis cloud clearance. A lot of new VFR pilots won't use 'unable' or even know they can.
 
Last edited:
mtuomi said:
Nighttime flying with no outside reference is legal for a VFR-only pilot. It can also be logged as instrument time. Someone will soon come and pull out that Chief Counsel ruling about it.
Click to expand...


...in which case I retract my finger wag :redface:

This is crazy though. If conditions are so poor that a VFR pilot has to use their instruments, how do they know they are complying with the required separation from clouds? I mean it's pitch black and there is no horizon? This ruling doesn't make sense but this Chief Counsel dude knows what he or she is talking about so I will just scratch my head and continue be confused and surprised. :)
 
sixpacker said:
...in which case I retract my finger wag :redface:

This is crazy though. If conditions are so poor that a VFR pilot has to use their instruments, how do they know they are complying with the required separation from clouds?
Click to expand...

Short version: fly over a desert or ocean on a clear new moon night. You'll understand the ruling very quickly.
 
warthog1984 said:
Short version: fly over a desert or ocean on a clear new moon night. You'll understand the ruling very quickly.
Click to expand...

Not quite understanding your point because if you're trying to say that these conditions require you to use your instruments then yes I agree but that is the basis of MY argument that this should be considered VFR flight.

Going further with your example, let's say you're flying over the ocean on a night with no moon. You have no horizon and cannot see the ocean because it is so dark and you're using your instruments even though you're a VFR pilot. Let's also suppose that as you flew along, a layer below you developed just 400 feet lower. You don't know about this layer, because it is dark. You're not VFR legal but you don't know it and you have no way of ever knowing it. According to this ruling you're legal even though there is no way you can ever really be sure that you are maintaining the proper VFR separation from clouds.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
You said in your first post that Miami Center issued the 060 vector, that sounds more like you were receiving flight following in class "E" airspace :confused:
Click to expand...

I am guessing he was just over the beach, east of FLL... Another mile out to sea and he would have not had to talk to anyone and been able to cruise along and 100MSL is he wanted.....

Go to Sky vector and bring up the sectional for Miami /Ft Liquordale.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
You said in your first post that Miami Center issued the 060 vector, that sounds more like you were receiving flight following in class "E" airspace :confused:
Click to expand...

I believe I was in West Palm Beach class C when this happened, I might have still been in departure frequency, or PBI approach. That departure has you talking to about 4-5 controllers in short order(KFLL tower->departure->KPBI approach->Miami center unless I'm badly mistaken), I'm not 100% sure which one actually gave me the 060 heading. When I wrote the story, I didn't think it was very relevant, I don't blame the ATC on getting me in the soup, although I do not agree with the way they turn a SEP VFR flight out to open ocean to avoid traffic that I had in sight and who I was going to clear by miles.

I do still maintain my opinion, that a knee-jerk 180 is not _always_ the correct reaction. First of all, there is no saying that will get you out unless you can visually confirm the location of the clouds (which at night you can not). Also, although not applicable to this scenario, you have things like obstacle clearances and so on to consider (case NYC East River comes to mind. Without the 180 they would be here to tell the story, even though weather didn't play much of a part there).
 
sixpacker said:
Not quite understanding your point because if you're trying to say that these conditions require you to use your instruments then yes I agree but that is the basis of MY argument that this should be considered VFR flight.

Going further with your example, let's say you're flying over the ocean on a night with no moon. You have no horizon and cannot see the ocean because it is so dark and you're using your instruments even though you're a VFR pilot. Let's also suppose that as you flew along, a layer below you developed just 400 feet lower. You don't know about this layer, because it is dark. You're not VFR legal but you don't know it and you have no way of ever knowing it. According to this ruling you're legal even though there is no way you can ever really be sure that you are maintaining the proper VFR separation from clouds.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I said to try it- typically you can see the clouds, but cannot maintain straight and level by sight.
 
mtuomi said:
I believe I was in West Palm Beach class C when this happened, I might have still been in departure frequency, or PBI approach. That departure has you talking to about 4-5 controllers in short order(KFLL tower->departure->KPBI approach->Miami center unless I'm badly mistaken), I'm not 100% sure which one actually gave me the 060 heading. When I wrote the story, I didn't think it was very relevant, I don't blame the ATC on getting me in the soup, although I do not agree with the way they turn a SEP VFR flight out to open ocean to avoid traffic that I had in sight and who I was going to clear by miles.
Click to expand...

What I'm not getting is why you can't just say "unable."
 
warthog1984 said:
Exactly why I said to try it- typically you can see the clouds, but cannot maintain straight and level by sight.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm...

Now you have me thinking.....

Look at any night time satellite pic of South Fla.. The place is LIT up... Unless he was 40 miles offshore, the clouds would have been illuminated like daytime.... :confused::confused::confused::confused::dunno:
 
MAKG1 said:
What I'm not getting is why you can't just say "unable."
Click to expand...
Because what happened is in the past. The OP did what he did and survived. He is even being generous enough to share his experience with others knowing that he will be second-guessed. I think that's valuable both to him and others in the future.
 
When the OP started this thread, it seemed clear to me that he was clearly responsible for violating VFR regulations, should be crucified and that some members would take care of that and they did. Therefore, no reason for me to add to his pain. I was surprised by the number of self-appointed arbitrators who seemed to say "he did bad but it came out ok so take my advice 179&$@'vbk,qu and carray on from here". However that's as it is. Tonight, the OP introduces a presumed ruling by the chief counsel which might... tend to justify his approach to solving the situation as it existed then. Two things about that. I would like to see the chief counsel letter posted along with the scenario for which it was generated. If anyone can do that, thank you. Obviously, I may...need to recalibrate my thinking about VFR/IFR and a pilots responsibilies under the FAR's. For the OP, I recommend that you not attempt to act as your own council in a legal proceeding. Your testimonial technique will certainly get you the maximum penalty result!

Also for the OP, I do thank you for posting this item because it exposes a type of flying situation , the proper and legal solution to which, is very inconsistent as seen by those who have responded. I guess it should be obvious that for the situation you first described, I am with the 180 & back to VFR group.


Dale
 
mtuomi said:
Nighttime flying with no outside reference is legal for a VFR-only pilot. It can also be logged as instrument time. Someone will soon come and pull out that Chief Counsel ruling about it.
Click to expand...
It's weird. You're scanning the instruments to maintain control but also required to maintain separation by see-and-avoid.
 
tiger said:
It's weird. You're scanning the instruments to maintain control but also required to maintain separation by see-and-avoid.
Click to expand...

And you're operating under VFR, but in IMC.

Don't get VFR, VMC, IFR, and IMC mixed up or too tightly correlated.

You can be in IMC under VFR (rare but possible) and in VMC under IFR (frequent).

For a pilot not instrument rated, flying in IMC can be dangerous, even when you remain within the legal boundaries of visual flight rules.

Flying IN A CLOUD when not instrument rated IS dangerous as well as being illegal. when those strobes start lighting up the cockpit and stopping the prop, it's enough to startle you even if you are rated and have been on the instruments already.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
And you're operating under VFR, but in IMC.

Don't get VFR, VMC, IFR, and IMC mixed up or too tightly correlated.

You can be in IMC under VFR (rare but possible) and in VMC under IFR (frequent).
Click to expand...
I agree with you too (I do understand the distinctions - I think... :)). My point is that while you're legally VFR in IMC, you're being required do two things that are at least somewhat incompatible, at the same time.
 
TMetzinger said:
And you're operating under VFR, but in IMC.

Don't get VFR, VMC, IFR, and IMC mixed up or too tightly correlated.

You can be in IMC under VFR (rare but possible) and in VMC under IFR (frequent).
Click to expand...

You are NOT in IMC just because it's a dark night!

You are operating VFR in VMC (cloud clearance and vis) but flying with reference to instruments.

Busting clouds (as the OP did) puts you VFR in IMC illegally.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
That's night VFR on a dark night.
Click to expand...

Yup... And over water, you just have to keep the wings level.. Out here in Wyoming, it is just as dark at night... BUT... We just have numerous 12,000 -14,000 mountains to hit.. I will take the ocean ANY time..:yes::yes:
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmm...

Now you have me thinking.....

Look at any night time satellite pic of South Fla.. The place is LIT up... Unless he was 40 miles offshore, the clouds would have been illuminated like daytime.... :confused::confused::confused::confused::dunno:
Click to expand...

Nope, turn away from the shore and it is pitch black. And when inside a cloud, turning back, it still is pitch black. Kinda lonely feeling.
 
warthog1984 said:
You are NOT in IMC just because it's a dark night!.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you are. Regardless of clouds, any time you HAVE to use the instruments to maintain aircraft control, you're in IMC, by definition.

Sometimes it's a dark moonless night. Sometimes it's a pattern of lights on the ground giving you a false horizon or vertigo.
 
FastEddieB said:
Not sure I should wade in, but...

With the "M" in IMC standing for "Meteorological", would not absence of any clouds preclude "Meteorological Conditions"?
Click to expand...


Nope.... You can still have haze, rain or snow falling from high clouds, etc etc..
 
Warthog,
I went to the earlier 2014 thread and the substance of the Chief counsel input on that matter and I come away with this: Although the Chief counsel did make the clarifying definition required for that situation and Ron did precisely analyze the parts of it with his usual precision, I feel it does not provide any rationale for the actions taken by the OP. I'm sticking with 180 & Out. since the OP first thought hat he was in Class C, he had to maintain radio comms. His appropriate action was to say he was taking some action to return to VMC and do it ! as far as that being to much workload on him--MAYDAY applies.

Dale
 
FastEddieB said:
OK, you got me.

But they're al meteorological, which was my main point.
Click to expand...
The Carr letter contains this:
FAA said:
As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides, in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (i.m.c.)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions.
Click to expand...
So now in addition to IFR and IMC we have 'instrument flight conditions', which I don't think is a term properly defined anywhere else...
 
TMetzinger said:
We're fortunate to live in a country that lets us make our own risk decisions on those conditions.
Click to expand...
I certainly wouldn't advocate prohibiting night VFR. Clear night, full moon, plenty of lights on the ground, throw in a little snow cover and it can be almost like daytime. OTOH no moon, overcast so you can't see the stars, flying over water or isolated country with few lights on the ground and you are essentially flying by reference to the instruments.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
I certainly wouldn't advocate prohibiting night VFR. Clear night, full moon, plenty of lights on the ground, throw in a little snow cover and it can be almost like daytime. OTOH no moon, overcast so you can't see the stars, flying over water or isolated country with few lights on the ground and you are essentially flying by reference to the instruments.
Click to expand...


Yuppers.....:yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top