Logging approaches

I believe the requirement for logging the time is conditional upon the
following phrase. "...maneuvering the aircraft solely by reference to
instruments..." If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in
the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a
reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering
soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as
actual.
"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher ) wrote:

Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the aircraft
by
reference to the ground at all. You could fly an approach with
visibility
of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in IMC), and still see be able
to
the ground the whole time. But you wouldn't necessarily be using that
view
to aviate or navigate.

I agree. Last week I was practicing approaches in moderate lake effect
snow where the RVR fluctuated between 1800 and 5000, yet I could see the
ground directly below the aircraft.

Not sure how seeing the ground below is relevant to logging an approach,
unless, of course, I am flying in that direction.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"sn" wrote in message ...

I believe the requirement for logging the time is conditional upon the
following phrase. "...maneuvering the aircraft solely by reference to
instruments..." If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in
the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a
reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering
soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as
actual.


Fine, but the complete phrase is "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." If
you're not in actual instrument flight conditions or using a vision
restricting device, how can you log any instrument time?

If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in
the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a
reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering
soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as
actual.


Even if you are on a VFR flight plan and are not instrument rated?

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:

If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in
the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a
reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering
soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as
actual.


Even if you are on a VFR flight plan and are not instrument rated?

The FARs do not specify 'must be on an IFR flight plan', nor do they specify
that you need to be instrument rated to log actual.

Hilton

I am quite familiar with the situation you are describing. I used to
encounter it all the time in New Mexico. But I do not believe that
such flights were loggable instrument flights. If you are flying
solely by reference to instruments who is keeping you separated from
other aircraft? I agree that those flights require greater use of
instruments than a normal VFR flight, but I don't see how it qualifies
as sole reference to instruments. Sole implies 100% use of instruments
without any outside visuals.


"sn" wrote in message ...
I believe the requirement for logging the time is conditional upon the
following phrase. "...maneuvering the aircraft solely by reference to
instruments..." If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in
the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a
reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering
soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as
actual.
"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher ) wrote:

Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the aircraft
by
reference to the ground at all. You could fly an approach with
visibility
of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in IMC), and still see be able
to
the ground the whole time. But you wouldn't necessarily be using that
view
to aviate or navigate.

I agree. Last week I was practicing approaches in moderate lake effect
snow where the RVR fluctuated between 1800 and 5000, yet I could see the
ground directly below the aircraft.

Not sure how seeing the ground below is relevant to logging an approach,
unless, of course, I am flying in that direction.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
om...

I am quite familiar with the situation you are describing. I used to
encounter it all the time in New Mexico. But I do not believe that
such flights were loggable instrument flights. If you are flying
solely by reference to instruments who is keeping you separated from
other aircraft?


You are. See and avoid.

In article ,
(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:
I am quite familiar with the situation you are describing. I used to
encounter it all the time in New Mexico. But I do not believe that
such flights were loggable instrument flights. If you are flying
solely by reference to instruments who is keeping you separated from
other aircraft?

Inability to see any horizon or other outside visual attitude reference
does not in any way affect your ability to separate yourself from other
aircraft visually.

I suppose the most extreme example would be military pilots who fly
formation in IMC. Although, one could make the argument that even if
you're in IMC, if you're formed up on your lead's position lights,
you're flying by visual reference and therefore cannot log the time as
instrument time. Oh what silly webs we weave when we try to
language-laywer the rules to death :-)

"Hilton" wrote...
Even if you are on a VFR flight plan and are not instrument rated?

The FARs do not specify 'must be on an IFR flight plan', nor do they specify
that you need to be instrument rated to log actual.

Indeed, you can legally fly under VFR (even without any flight plan at all) as
long as the weather is as prescribed in 91.155. There is no mention of a
visible horizon...

OTOH, you may find yourself at odds with 91.13(a) or 91.113(b) if you have not
sufficiently prepared for the flight or don't have enough experience to safely
fly in the conditions...

Similarly if you are in uncontrolled airspace.
There's less of that than there used to be, though.
---JRC---

"John R Weiss" wrote in message =
news:OxbTb.72923$U%5.402002@attbi_s03...
=20
=20
Indeed, you can legally fly under VFR (even without any flight plan at =
all) as
long as the weather is as prescribed in 91.155. =20
=20

Indeed, you can legally fly under VFR (even without any flight plan at all)
as long as the weather is as prescribed in 91.155.

Similarly if you are in uncontrolled airspace.
There's less of that than there used to be, though.

Even in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace, VFR is permitted only if the weather
meets the requirements of 91.155. If the weather is below VFR minimums, you
can fly IFR without a clearance, but this is still IFR and must be in
accordance with the appropriate rules of Part 91, including fuel reserve,
cruising altitude, etc.

Barry