"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
...
Gary L. Drescher wrote:

It would be odd to require IMC to the MAP, since that would effectively
preclude almost all precision non-missed IMC approaches from being
loggable (since it's rare for the ceiling to be exactly at DH, rather
than
a little
higher or lower).

Assuming controlled airspace, isn't 499' below a ceiling still IMC?

Yes, I spoke imprecisely. The requirement set forth in 61.57c1 is for not
instrument meteorological conditions, but rather for instrument conditions.
You'd think the two terms would be synonymous, but in one of the more
spectacular examples of FAR incomprehensibility, they are not. The term
"instrument conditions" is not even defined in the FARs or the AIM, but
apparently it refers to conditions that require flight by reference to
instruments. Similarly for the undefined term "instrument flight
conditions" in 61.51g1. You can have IMC without IC/IFC (as in your
example), and you can have IC/IFC without IMC (e.g. flying over water on a
clear, moonless night).

IMC pertains to separation; IC/IFC pertains to control of the aircraft. So
if the terminology were rational, the FAA would refer to instrument
separation conditions (ISC) and instrument control conditions (ICC).
Instead, the FAA refers to instrument meteorological conditions vs.
instrument flight conditions (the latter without even giving a definition),
even though both are meteorological conditions and both are flight
conditions, so the names give no clue as to the difference in meaning.

--Gary


- Andrew