What's "actual"?

[Challenged]

When it comes to currency, when you aren't flying with a safety pilot, is the field required to be IFR? Or, more generally, how much actual is actually required when practicing (edit, should probably use the word "logging" instead of practicing here) approaches?

 

[tsts4]

This document spells it out: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avi...afety/info/all_infos/media/2015/InFO15012.pdf

 

[gsengle]

Actual for time purposes = IMC. For an approach, breaking out past the FAF is an easy standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iamtheari]

General rule I use: If you can see the runway environment before you cross the FAF, you can’t log the approach. If you can’t see it at that point (under the hood with a safety pilot or in IMC with an IFR clearance), then you can log it.

More fun corner case to discuss: You are on an IFR clearance at night (assume there is no visible horizon), get cleared for the approach, fly the approach to the missed approach point, and go missed because you couldn’t see the runway on account of the airport lights being off. Do you log the approach? Do you log any actual instrument time?

 

[Hank S]

General rule I use: If you can see the runway environment before you cross the FAF, you can’t log the approach. If you can’t see it at that point (under the hood with a safety pilot or in IMC with an IFR clearance).

More fun corner case to discuss: You are on an IFR clearance at night (assume there is no visible horizon), get cleared for the approach, fly the approach to the missed approach point, and go missed because you couldn’t see the runway on account of the airport lights being off. Do you log the approach? Do you log any actual instrument time?

Does it matter why you can't see it, or that you can't see it? "It" being the runway environment, and your eyes understood to be open.

 

[BarryCooper]

Actual for time purposes = IMC. For an approach, breaking out past the FAF is an easy standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

THIS ^^^^

 

[EdFred]

If I need to use my instruments to keep plane straight and level and on course I will log as actual. If I need to use my instruments to navigate to the runway environmentat any point past the IAF I log it as an approach. Although that's not entirely cut-and-dried. If it's only a 200 to 500 foot thick layer I am climbing or descending through and I'm in it for a minute or less I won't log it.

 

[azure]

If I need to use my instruments to keep plane straight and level and on course I will log as actual. If I need to use my instruments to navigate to the runway environmentat any point past the IAF I log it as an approach. Although that's not entirely cut-and-dried. If it's only a 200 to 500 foot thick layer I am climbing or descending through and I'm in it for a minute or less I won't log it.

Yes. For me it does not need to be IMC, can be summer haze over open water, or at night over remote terrain with no lights on the ground. I have some time like that in my logbook from before I even started formal instrument training. I've never logged an approach in those conditions, because I've always kicked the airport lights on as I'm coming in, but theoretically I could shoot an approach alone on a moonless night into a darkened, remote airport and log the approach. Don't know of any airports where that would work though, most in this area are close enough to at least a small town to give visual reference.

Personally my rule for logging is that I need to be on instruments for a substantial part of the approach past the FAF. A lot of approaches around here, the IAF is 30 nm out and you're basically still in cruise on the IAS. (I would still log the time as actual, of course.)

 

[midlifeflyer]

Actual for time purposes = IMC. For an approach, breaking out past the FAF is an easy standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The FAA in an old Chief Counsel letter defines "actual" this way:

"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.​

"IMC" is not necessarily actual. Consider. You are cruising along at 5,000 msl, 300' below an overcast. No clouds below you and visibility is 50 miles in all directions. You are definitely in IMC. You are just as definitely not in "actual."

IMO, @EdFred nailed the answer.

 

[azure]

"IMC" is not necessarily actual. Consider. You are cruising along at 5,000 msl, 300' below an overcast. No clouds below you and visibility is 50 miles in all directions. You are definitely in IMC.

I'd say you are "technically" in IMC. You are in conditions where you need to be IFR in order to be legal, you can't be VFR.

In common parlance though, IMC == in the soup. If ATC calls out traffic to me that I can't see because I'm in the clag, I will reply "8JT is IMC". Yes, technically I haven't given him enough information, but I'm pretty sure he will know that I don't mean less than 500 feet below the cloud base.

 

[RussR]

If I need to use my instruments to navigate to the runway environmentat any point past the IAF I log it as an approach.

That's never been quite stringent enough of a standard for me. Some IAFs are practically at cruise altitude, course widths are wider (whether GPS or VOR/ILS), and the "hard work" has yet to begin.

What I've always done also happens to be what is in the InFO letter linked above:

"5. When conducted in an aircraft maneuvering in IMC, and the aircraft transitions from IMC to visual flight conditions on the final approach segment of the IAP prior to or upon reaching MDA or DA/DH."

 

[dmspilot]

I'd say you are "technically" in IMC. You are in conditions where you need to be IFR in order to be legal, you can't be VFR.

In common parlance though, IMC == in the soup. If ATC calls out traffic to me that I can't see because I'm in the clag, I will reply "8JT is IMC". Yes, technically I haven't given him enough information, but I'm pretty sure he will know that I don't mean less than 500 feet below the cloud base.

I used to think that's what IMC meant until I learned that it just means legal IFR conditions. So why don't we just call it IFR conditions? I don't understand what the point is of having a term for a concept that we already have one for.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I used to think that's what IMC meant until I learned that it just means legal IFR conditions. So why don't we just call it IFR conditions? I don't understand what the point is of having a term for a concept that we already have one for.

Because "meteorological" sounds way more impressive to women at bars than "flight".

 

[iamtheari]

Because "meteorological" sounds way more impressive to women at bars than "flight".

The "rules" in IFR is the part that turns the women off. They want a pilot like Maverick, one who doesn't follow the rules because they were written for lesser men.

 

[EdFred]

I used to think that's what IMC meant until I learned that it just means legal IFR conditions. So why don't we just call it IFR conditions? I don't understand what the point is of having a term for a concept that we already have one for.

Because it's not IFR conditions. I've had 5+ miles of visibility, but at night over lake Michigan with an overcast, I am on instruments, and logging it as actual. No horizon, no city lights, no moon, no reflection off the water. It's flying in an ink bottle with the exception of seeing the position lights of another other plane. Then about 8 miles from shore you can see the lights of Holland etc, and a horizon start to take shape, and I'm no longer on instruments.

 

[EdFred]

That's never been quite stringent enough of a standard for me. Some IAFs are practically at cruise altitude, course widths are wider (whether GPS or VOR/ILS), and the "hard work" has yet to begin.

What I've always done also happens to be what is in the InFO letter linked above:

"5. When conducted in an aircraft maneuvering in IMC, and the aircraft transitions from IMC to visual flight conditions on the final approach segment of the IAP prior to or upon reaching MDA or DA/DH."

What about those approaches don't have FAF/FAC. http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1807/05283V27.PDF
How do you log those?

 

[dmspilot]

Because it's not IFR conditions. I've had 5+ miles of visibility,

Wrong.

Pilot/Controller Glossary:
INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS− Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions.

 

[EdFred]

Wrong.

Pilot/Controller Glossary:
INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS− Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions.

Read what I wrote.
I had more than 5 visibililty - not IMC
I had more than 500/1000/2000 - not IMC

So how was I IMC? Oh yeah, I wasn't. Nor was I IFR. I was VMC, but had no outside visual reference except for the occasional position lights of another plane.

Actual != IMC

 

[dmspilot]

Read what I wrote.
I had more than 5 visibililty - not IMC
I had more than 500/1000/2000 - not IMC

So how was I IMC? Oh yeah, I wasn't. Nor was I IFR. I was VMC, but had no outside visual reference except for the occasional position lights of another plane.

How about you read what I wrote? I asked why we need the term IMC when IMC simply "means legal IFR conditions" and you contradicted me to say IMC is "not IFR conditions." Now you are saying it is, so it seems like you're agreeing with what I wrote the first time.

 

[EdFred]

Where does "IFR Conditions" exist in the PCG?

IFR is a set of rules upon which a flight is conducted, and may have nothing to do with visibility or cloud clearances. I flew under IFR this weekend and was never IMC.

 

[labbadabba]

So, if I'm IFR and in, out, around of summertime puffies, I'm on and off instruments to avoid losing my SA and be ready the moment I enter a cloud and avoid false horizons do I log that as IMC? Do I log the time physically spent in a cloud or do I log the time between clouds when I am looking outside for build-ups but still on instruments?

 

[EdFred]

So, if I'm IFR and in, out, around of summertime puffies, I'm on and off instruments to avoid losing my SA and be ready the moment I enter a cloud and avoid false horizons do I log that as IMC? Do I log the time physically spent in a cloud or do I log the time between clouds when I am looking outside for build-ups but still on instruments?

Do you need to use instruments to keep plane straight and level and on course?

 

[labbadabba]

Do you need to use instruments to keep plane straight and level and on course?

Mostly. I mean, I can still see the ground and the sun so I know what direction is up but I'm on instruments to make sure I'm not caught by a false horizon and to ensure I'm where I'm supposed to be in the event I have to fly thru a puffy or deviate around it. On a recent 2 hour flight I was in this exact scenario, I put .5 IMC in my logbook but I don't think a once fully flew thru a cloud as center was letting me deviate as needed. But there was a large storm system ahead of my route which was doing all sorts of wacky things with my horizon.

 

[mscard88]

Where does "IFR Conditions" exist in the PCG?

IFR is a set of rules upon which a flight is conducted, and may have nothing to do with visibility or cloud clearances. I flew under IFR this weekend and was never IMC.

Yup. IFR means Instrument Flight RULES, not Instrument Flight Conditions. One files IFR but doesn't have to be IMC.

 

[RussR]

What about those approaches don't have FAF/FAC. http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1807/05283V27.PDF
How do you log those?

The InFO letter uses the term "final approach segment". Every approach has a final approach segment, including the one you linked - in that case, it's when you're inbound on the 284 course after your procedure turn.

 

[EdFred]

If you feel comfortable logging that, log it.

 

[EdFred]

The InFO letter uses the term "final approach segment". Every approach has a final approach segment, including the one you linked - in that case, it's when you're inbound on the 284 course.

Sorry, but if I am flying 30nm in the soup inside the IAF, only to break out 0.2 from the FAF, I'm still logging it. At the same time, if I am descending through a <500' layer and I'm in the goo for less than a minute inside the FAF, I'm not logging that.

 

[dmspilot]

Where does "IFR Conditions" exist in the PCG?

The definition of "IFR conditions" is in 14 CFR 1.1:
"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

It is a synonym for IMC. Thus I asked, why two terms for the same thing? You really can't understand the concept of a rhetorical question? Seems you are arguing for the same of argument.

 

[mscard88]

The definition of "IFR conditions" is in 14 CFR 1.1:
"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

It is a synonym for IMC. Thus I asked, why two terms for the same thing? You really can't understand the concept of a rhetorical question? Seems you are arguing for the same of argument.

Again...

Yup. IFR means Instrument Flight RULES, not Instrument Flight Conditions. One files IFR but doesn't have to be IMC.

 

[EdFred]

The definition of "IFR conditions" is in 14 CFR 1.1:
"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

It is a synonym for IMC. Thus I asked, why two terms for the same thing? You really can't understand the concept of a rhetorical question? Seems you are arguing for the same of argument.

Class G airspace.

 

[dmspilot]

Again...

What exactly are you trying to argue?

Make it seem like I am wrong by posting a true statement that no one would disagree with, does this logical fallacy have name?

 

[mscard88]

What exactly are you trying to argue?

Make it seem like I am wrong by posting a true statement that no one would disagree with, does this logical fallacy have name?

Not arguing. One term (IFR) is the rules a pilot follows for IFR flight. The other (IMC) is meteorological weather conditions.

If you can't grasp that....

 

[dmspilot]

Not arguing. One term (IFR) is the rules be follows for IFR flight. The other (IMC) is meteorological weather conditions.

If you can't grasp that....

You cannot grasp the argument I am making, you're not even close.

 

[dmspilot]

Class G airspace.

Doesn't matter.

14 CFR 1.1:
"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

Doesn't say anything about airspace.

Class G has minima for VFR. If it's less than that, it is "IFR conditions", regardless of airspace.

 

[mscard88]

You cannot grasp the argument I am trying to make, you're not even close.

They're two separate terms. You have no argument.

 

[dmspilot]

They're two separate terms. You have no argument.

You have no argument, and do not understand the argument you are attempting to involve yourself in. So your act of stating obvious facts that are not open for debate is not helpful and is pointless to the discussion. The only point is inflating your ego and post count.

 

[EdFred]

Doesn't matter.

14 CFR 1.1:
"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

Doesn't say anything about airspace.

Class G has minima for VFR. If it's less than that, it is "IFR conditions", regardless of airspace.

Except there is no IFR in Class G, so all we are left with is IMC vs VMC.

 

[mscard88]

You have no argument, and do not understand the argument you are attempting to involve yourself in. So your act of stating obvious facts that are not open for debate is not helpful and is pointless to the discussion. The only point is inflating your ego and post count.

Ego? Personal attack is not an argument btw.

You're asking why there are two terms for what YOU think are the same. Whatever. I'm out.

 

[dmspilot]

Except there is no IFR in Class G, so all we are left with is IMC vs VMC.

"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

Where does it say anything about airspace or whether the aircraft is operating IFR? It doesn't.

 

[labbadabba]

Ego?

You're asking why there are two terms for what YOU think are the same. Whatever. I'm out.

View attachment 64466

I'm not taking sides other than to say, I don't think @dmspilot is arguing about the difference between IFR and IMC. I think what he's saying is there is a CFR that explicitly defines what "IFR Conditions" are. Now, we could split hairs over what the Gospel writers actually meant when they wrote "IFR Conditions" but I think the inference is clear.

Which is to say, if you are below VFR minimums chances are you are in IMC or close enough to IMC where you need to operate under Instrument Flight Rules.

The argument between you is semantic but not mutually exclusive in every respect.