Outside reference in IMC

On May 20, 3:44*pm, Scott Skylane wrote:

IMC - Instrument Meteorological Conditions - Condition under which
flight instruments are used to maintain control of an aircraft. *How
used: *"Flight into IMC". *One would not say "an IMC rating". *If you
can use outside references to maintain flight you are not in IMC... as
in "flying in and out of IMC".

/snip/

Bob,
Where did you get that definition? *The Pilot Controller Glossary states:

"Instrument Meteorological Conditions - Meteorological conditions
expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud,and ceiling less
than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions."

Scott,

You are correct THE WAY I UNDERSTAND the above.

For purposes of logging IMC, I only log it when I am inside a cloud in
my log book, but anything less then VMC conditions is considered
IMC.

So in reality, I have spent many more hours in IMC by legal
definitions then what is in my log book. But I am not seeking anymore
ratings so I don't mind.

And in order to fly VMC, you must be VFR, which means keeping the
appropriate cloud clearances based VFR flight rules.

So, if you are 20 feet above a cloud deck seeing 200 miles ahead under
a glorious sunshine, it is considered IMC because you are not
maintaining VFR clearances from the clouds. And when one thinks about
it, one is flying by instruments since you have no ground references
anyway.

To be in and out of IMC conditions, I see that happening on a
scattered cloud day at the altitude you are flying.

You cannot maintain in and out of IMC on a cloud deck that is
considered broken (I.E horizontal cloud clearances wouldn't be met).at
that cloud altitude like on a day of scattered cumulus.

As far as the official rating, I believe it's IA (Instrument Air) that
allows you to fly IFR which of course allows you to fly IMC.

wrote:


As far as the official rating, I believe it's IA (Instrument Air)


Instrument Airplane

wrote:


So in reality, I have spent many more hours in IMC by legal
definitions then what is in my log book. But I am not seeking anymore
ratings so I don't mind.

You can only log the time if you are in IMC (not legally VFR) AND you
have to fly solely by instruments. Let's say you are 50 feet below a
cloud deck with 50 miles of forward visibility and nothing obscuring the
ground or horizon. This is legally IMC and IFR applies, but you don't
log it as such because you can fly it without having to fly solely by
reference to instruments.

On May 20, 5:36*pm, romeomike wrote:

You can only log the time if you are in IMC (not legally VFR) AND you
have to fly solely by instruments. Let's say you are 50 feet below a
cloud deck with 50 miles of forward visibility and nothing obscuring the
ground or horizon. This is legally IMC and IFR applies, but you don't
log it as such because you can fly it without having to fly solely by
reference to instruments.

What about the inverse as given in my example? 50 feet above an
overcast?

wrote:
On May 20, 5:36 pm, romeomike wrote:

You can only log the time if you are in IMC (not legally VFR) AND you
have to fly solely by instruments. Let's say you are 50 feet below a
cloud deck with 50 miles of forward visibility and nothing obscuring the
ground or horizon. This is legally IMC and IFR applies, but you don't
log it as such because you can fly it without having to fly solely by
reference to instruments.

What about the inverse as given in my example? 50 feet above an
overcast?


IMO, given that an overcast may obscure the horizon and not be "level"
or at the same altitude as you progress, I would think you would be
justified in logging it. I for one would want to be scanning instruments
to make sure I'm maintaining altitude, course, level wings, etc. It
wouldn't be quite as intense as if I were in the clouds, but justifiable
to the feds if they examined my log book. I'm sure there are scenarios
that would generate debate but maybe not this one?

On May 20, 9:45*pm, romeomike wrote:

IMO, given that an overcast may obscure the horizon and not be "level"
or at the same altitude as you progress, I would think you would be
justified in logging it. I for one would want to be scanning instruments
to make sure I'm maintaining altitude, course, level wings, etc. It
wouldn't be quite as intense as if I were in the clouds, but justifiable
to the feds if they examined my log book. I'm sure there are scenarios
that would generate debate but maybe not this one?

While I personally don't log it in my logbook as IMC time, I think
like you, it's IMC since like you said, sloping clouds give an
illusion of a false horizon. In my training, my instructor said no,
it's not, and we were between layers!

The second reason I personally think it's IMC, is that you have no
ground reference to fly by and have to use instruments to navigate.

wrote:


In my training, my instructor said no,
it's not, and we were between layers!


I'm not an ultimate authority on this, but I don't get your instructor's
point of view. If someone else can explain how in this scenario one can
safely fly without reference to instruments, you and I are sure to learn
something.

On May 20, 11:21*pm, romeomike wrote:

I'm not an ultimate authority on this, but I don't get your instructor's
point of view. If someone else can explain how in this scenario one can
safely fly without reference to instruments, you and I are sure to learn
something.

Yep, I didn't get it either but in the full scheme of things, I wasn't
complaining, as at least I had an instructor who wasn't afraid of
touching a cloud. He went on to the regionals, and my second
instructor wouldn't fly in ceilings less then 1000.and my airport
minimums was 1/2 that.

On the other hand, the second instructor had much better cockpit
management so I did have the best of both worlds.

romeomike wrote in news:1kkcg5-
:

wrote:


In my training, my instructor said no,
it's not, and we were between layers!


I'm not an ultimate authority on this, but I don't get your instructor's
point of view. If someone else can explain how in this scenario one can
safely fly without reference to instruments, you and I are sure to learn
something.

VFR over the top (not to be confused with the IFR clearance of VFR on top).

For example, fly from SJC or RHV to TVL. The central valley can be covered
in Tule fog but it could be CAVU above 1,000' AGL. You also have CAVU at
SJC, RHV, and TVL. Climb VFR and then cross the Tule fog.

Now put a ceiling of say FL 250 above you. Again SJC, RHV, and TVL are
CAVU. Clime to 9,500', and cross between the layers VFR.

In either cases, you can see the Sierra Nevada mountains or the coastal
hills on return while you are over the lower level ceiling. Even with 25
mile visibility, you'll have enough time to establish a heading prior to
crossing the central valley and just hold it until you see the hills.

Maybe one of our Canadian friends can tell us if Canada now allows VFR over
the top for private pilots. I know when I was a student it was pointed out
that Canada did not allow this while the U.S. did.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)