Definition of simulated instrument conditions

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:40:00 GMT, bsalai wrote:

Does anyone know if Simulated Instrument Conditions is defined anywhere?

The reason for the question is whether one can log instrument time, say
at night, when you don't look outside, but don't wear foggles or a hood?

I can't find anything in the rules that defines simulated instrument
conditions, but since the rule for logging instrument time says both
that flight has to be solely by referenct to instruments in actual or
simulated instrument conditions, that would suggest that more is
required than "solely by reference to instruments" and therefore that
some sort of view limiting device is required.

It would certainly be easier if they defined simulated insturment
conditions though.

Brad

It is not defined in the regulations. But it was "defined" in a published
FAA Chief Counsel legal interpretation some twenty or so years ago:

==============================================
--quoted text--
First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument
flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on
a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as
actual instrument flight time.
***
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 (imc)) 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.
To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may
occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with
no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to
maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to
whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat
subjective and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot. Note
that, under Section 61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of
the flight. The log should include the reasons for determining that
the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot
later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight
time logged was legitimate.
========================================
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:09:13 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:40:00 GMT, bsalai wrote:

Does anyone know if Simulated Instrument Conditions is defined anywhere?

The reason for the question is whether one can log instrument time, say
at night, when you don't look outside, but don't wear foggles or a hood?

I can't find anything in the rules that defines simulated instrument
conditions, but since the rule for logging instrument time says both
that flight has to be solely by referenct to instruments in actual or
simulated instrument conditions, that would suggest that more is
required than "solely by reference to instruments" and therefore that
some sort of view limiting device is required.

It would certainly be easier if they defined simulated insturment
conditions though.

Brad

It is not defined in the regulations. But it was "defined" in a published
FAA Chief Counsel legal interpretation some twenty or so years ago:

==============================================
--quoted text--
First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument
flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on
a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as
actual instrument flight time.
***
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 (imc)) 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.
To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may
occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with
no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to
maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to
whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat
subjective and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot. Note
that, under Section 61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of
the flight. The log should include the reasons for determining that
the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot
later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight
time logged was legitimate.
========================================
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Way for the FAQ from 7/05 and the Chief Council to say different
things on the exact same question!

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:20:29 -0500, Peter Clark
wrote:

Way for the FAQ from 7/05 and the Chief Council to say different
things on the exact same question!

Chief Counsel trumps FAQ's.

But the Chief Counsel opinion seems to advise a complete description as to
the nature of the conditions, rather than just logging "actual"


"The log should include the reasons for determining that
the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot
later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight
time logged was legitimate."


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron:

I wrote the chief counsel's office about fifteen years ago on this
issue of logging "black hole time" after a long dispute about it on
AVSIG.
They sent me a copy of the above - supporting my position that the
criterion was "solely by reference to instruments" as opposed to "IMC"
for the logging of instrument time.

Reminds me of a time flying VFR over the top at night and the
controller asking my flight visibility. I said about 250,000 miles.
After the silence, I said that all I could see was the moon.

On 29 Jan 2006 11:17:44 -0800, wrote:

Ron:

I wrote the chief counsel's office about fifteen years ago on this
issue of logging "black hole time" after a long dispute about it on
AVSIG.
They sent me a copy of the above - supporting my position that the
criterion was "solely by reference to instruments" as opposed to "IMC"
for the logging of instrument time.

Reminds me of a time flying VFR over the top at night and the
controller asking my flight visibility. I said about 250,000 miles.
After the silence, I said that all I could see was the moon.


I've certainly experienced black hole time. I recall departing KPVC (on
Cape Cod) one overcast night in the winter. It was clearly VMC, but until
I got close to the shoreline N of BOS, I would not have been able to
control the airplane without reference to instruments.

I'll have to remember your celestial visibility comment, though. But if I
can see the stars, do I report in miles or light years? :-))


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

wrote in message
oups.com...
Ron:

I wrote the chief counsel's office about fifteen years ago on this
issue of logging "black hole time" after a long dispute about it on
AVSIG.
They sent me a copy of the above - supporting my position that the
criterion was "solely by reference to instruments" as opposed to "IMC"
for the logging of instrument time.

Reminds me of a time flying VFR over the top at night and the
controller asking my flight visibility. I said about 250,000 miles.
After the silence, I said that all I could see was the moon.

Moonless night over a cloud deck.

One that got my screwed up was fying along on top of a cloud deck that was
pitched at about a 30 degree angle -- pretty hard to override the
inclination to assume a flat deck below you.

Matt Barrow

About 40-50 years ago two airliners had a mid-air collision
over NYC, flying VFR between sloping cloud layers. They saw
each other and took evasive action visually, and had the
collision because they saw each other.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
|
| wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| Ron:
|
| I wrote the chief counsel's office about fifteen years
ago on this
| issue of logging "black hole time" after a long dispute
about it on
| AVSIG.
| They sent me a copy of the above - supporting my
position that the
| criterion was "solely by reference to instruments" as
opposed to "IMC"
| for the logging of instrument time.
|
| Reminds me of a time flying VFR over the top at night
and the
| controller asking my flight visibility. I said about
250,000 miles.
| After the silence, I said that all I could see was the
moon.
|
| Moonless night over a cloud deck.
|
| One that got my screwed up was fying along on top of a
cloud deck that was
| pitched at about a 30 degree angle -- pretty hard to
override the
| inclination to assume a flat deck below you.
|
| Matt Barrow
|
|