Logging approaches

"Doug" wrote in message
om...
It's in the FAR's. You can log actual IMC if you have to use the
instruments to fly the airplane. This can occur and you still meet VFR
visibility requirements. For instance, between layers at night.

You are in IFR conditions if you are flying and do not have the VFR
minimums, ie
500 below, 1000 above and 2000 horizontal and 3 miles visibility in
Class E below 10k etc. If you were less than 1000' above a cloud deck
in Class E airspace you would be in IFR conditions and be navigating
by looking outside, that is, NOT navigating by looking at the
instruments. Thus you could not log actual IMC for this time.

I was taught that you can not (should not?) use a cloud deck for atitude
reference, as it could be sloping and is not a reliable horizon. In this
example, it seems to me the time could be logged.


And yes, you can be legal IFR and not be on an IFR flight plan or have
an IFR clearance. Class G airspace allows you to fly in IFR conditions
without a clearance. You only need a clearance in CONTROLLED airspace
(A,B,C,D and E).

This is all USA of course other countries differ.

Is this true? It has been a bit since I have flown IFR, but it used to be
under 700ft agl - some places 1200ft, and outside of other controlled
airspace such as ATAs, the airspace was uncontrolled. There was quite a bit
of uncontrolled airspace out in Nevada, as I recall. This was before the
airspace revisions. Has this changed?

Harvey


Judah wrote in message
. ..
"Ron Natalie" wrote in
:

Yes, but immaterial. The weather can still be legal VFR, but bad
enough to cause yout to fly solely by instruments. The FAA has
affirmed this is legally logable as instrument time.


Where'd they do that?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
.

The FAA counsel is also at odds with the regulation WRT 100 hour
inspections
acording to Natalie.

I don't know where Tarver keep pulling this nonsense up.

I just reposted the 337 thread statement that you lied about making, Ron.
What more proof that it is you that has a problem do you believe is needed?

"Eclipsme" wrote in message ...

Is this true? It has been a bit since I have flown IFR, but it used to be
under 700ft agl - some places 1200ft, and outside of other controlled
airspace such as ATAs, the airspace was uncontrolled.

ATA's were never controlled airspace by themselves. The controlled
airspace was the control zone.

There was quite a bit
of uncontrolled airspace out in Nevada, as I recall. This was before the
airspace revisions.

Dunno. Don't forget even in uncontrolled airspace you have the rest of the
IFR rules to deal with. The minimum altitude rules pretty much keep you
from going very far under a 1200' floor.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
.

The FAA counsel is also at odds with the regulation WRT 100 hour
inspections
acording to Natalie.

I don't know where Tarver keep pulling this nonsense up.

I just reposted the 337 thread statement that you lied about making, Ron.
What more proof that it is you that has a problem do you believe is needed?

I didn't lie about anything. It is you who misinterpreted a statement that I never
denied making. You said "Homebuilts are type certificated as expermintals"
and I said "They don't have type certificates at all." It was your incorrect assumption
to think that I was saying they were not experimentals.

You're the one who appears to not understand what the difference between a
type certificate and an airworthiness certificate is.

From: "Ron Natalie"

don't know where Tarver keep pulling this nonsense up. I never said that
FAA.....

Why he's decided to
pick on me today is unclear

Because you keep answering him. Ignore him and he will go away. Seems like
everyone knows about him, but you.

Fidel

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
.

The FAA counsel is also at odds with the regulation WRT 100 hour
inspections
acording to Natalie.

I don't know where Tarver keep pulling this nonsense up.

I just reposted the 337 thread statement that you lied about making,
Ron.
What more proof that it is you that has a problem do you believe is
needed?

I didn't lie about anything.

Dude, grow up.

"FiPe" wrote in message
...
From: "Ron Natalie"

don't know where Tarver keep pulling this nonsense up. I never said
that
FAA.....

Why he's decided to
pick on me today is unclear

Because you keep answering him. Ignore him and he will go away. Seems like
everyone knows about him, but you.

Everyone replies to me.

Ron is just having a little problem with the truth and a larger problem
interpreting CFR 14 in a sane mannner.

There are some fairly large Class G areas that go up to 14500' MSL in the west.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message ...
"Eclipsme" wrote in message ...

Is this true? It has been a bit since I have flown IFR, but it used to be
under 700ft agl - some places 1200ft, and outside of other controlled
airspace such as ATAs, the airspace was uncontrolled.

ATA's were never controlled airspace by themselves. The controlled
airspace was the control zone.

There was quite a bit
of uncontrolled airspace out in Nevada, as I recall. This was before the
airspace revisions.

Dunno. Don't forget even in uncontrolled airspace you have the rest of the
IFR rules to deal with. The minimum altitude rules pretty much keep you
from going very far under a 1200' floor.

(Doug) wrote in
om:

It's in the FAR's. You can log actual IMC if you have to use the
instruments to fly the airplane. This can occur and you still meet VFR
visibility requirements. For instance, between layers at night.


Let's look at the FARs...

FAR 61.51.(g) Logging instrument flight time. "(1) A person may log
instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the
aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated
instrument flight conditions." [Quoted from the AOPA site...
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/fars/far-61.html ]

It says you must be operating solely by reference to the instruments under
Actual or Simulated IFR.

ie: Operating solely by reference to the instruments in VFR conditions
wihtout IFR simulation (ie: foggles, hood, etc.) would seem NOT to be
loggable as Instrument Flight Time. Even if it's only marginal.


Now, in FAR 61.57
(c) Instrument experience. "Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or
flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for
the instrument privileges sought -- " [Quoted from the AOPA site...
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/fars/far-61.html ]

Performing and logging the specific things described (6 approaches, holding
procedures and intercepting and tracking courses) in actual or simulated
conditions also seems to be required.

I see nothing that affirms that you can legally log flying by reference to
the instruments in VFR conditions under any circumstances, unless
simulating IFR. So I was wondering what Ron's source for an affirmation
from the FAA otherwise might have been. Admittedly, I would love to be able
to log approaches by reference to the instruments in VFR. But I just don't
see that as being what's in the FARs. And as much as I like Ron, I just
don't want to bet my ticket on his hearsay...

You are in IFR conditions if you are flying and do not have the VFR
minimums, ie
500 below, 1000 above and 2000 horizontal and 3 miles visibility in
Class E below 10k etc. If you were less than 1000' above a cloud deck
in Class E airspace you would be in IFR conditions and be navigating
by looking outside, that is, NOT navigating by looking at the
instruments. Thus you could not log actual IMC for this time.

This statement I agree with. And in many respects, I think that is a pretty
clear definition of what IMC is.

And yes, you can be legal IFR and not be on an IFR flight plan or have
an IFR clearance. Class G airspace allows you to fly in IFR conditions
without a clearance. You only need a clearance in CONTROLLED airspace
(A,B,C,D and E).

This is all USA of course other countries differ.

Judah wrote in message
. ..
"Ron Natalie" wrote in
:

Yes, but immaterial. The weather can still be legal VFR, but bad
enough to cause yout to fly solely by instruments. The FAA has
affirmed this is legally logable as instrument time.


Where'd they do that?

"Judah" wrote in message ...


It says you must be operating solely by reference to the instruments under
Actual or Simulated IFR.

No, it does not say that. The letters IFR nor the term flight rules do
not appear in the regulation. It says "actual or simulated instrument
conditions."

ie: Operating solely by reference to the instruments in VFR conditions
wihtout IFR simulation (ie: foggles, hood, etc.) would seem NOT to be
loggable as Instrument Flight Time. Even if it's only marginal.

That's not what the reg says. That's not what the FAA says. The interpretation
is that "instrument conditions" are those that cause you to have to fly solely by
instruments. Hence, flying without foggles on a clear day isn't instrument time,
flying without foggles across Lake Michigan with 3 miles in haze, might be, even
though it is legal VFR.

So I was wondering what Ron's source for an affirmation
from the FAA otherwise might have been

It comes from an FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretation (John Cassady,
Nov. 7 1984). Others have pointed out the Lynch's Part 61 FAQ echoes
this interpretation.