If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
" I never said any such thing. Prove your allegations. You posted your ignorance to the "FAA form 337" thread at rec.aviation.homebuilt. Did you cancel you post, so you could lie now, Ron? I didn't cancel any post. What I said, and it is still true, that 337's do not apply to homebuilts (or any other experimental). It is you who have a mistaken view of the rules. Part 43 does NOT apply to experimentals. It says this explicitly in 43.1 (b), but you seem to not be able to understand that. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
How many of you log specific minutes of a flight as instrument time when you
are flying in and out of clouds? (I count it all as instrument time) If you settle into severe clear on top, do you stop timing instrument time? (I sort of do. I guess as to how much of the flight was really instrument time) For those of you who log the whole flight as instrument time in the last question, what if you cancel IFR when on top and re-file when you get to your destination and need to descend through the clouds to get down? For approaches, I think the rules force us into a corner. If there was a minimum number of approach minutes that had to be logged in the previous 6 months. Then it would be easier to interpret that those 15 seconds descending through the cloud deck was loggable but not the rest of the approach. However, since it is simply a yes or no for each approach, then I tend to err in my favor. If I pass through a thin, thin, really thin layer and then get cleared for a visual, I find it hard to log that as an instrument approach. But, if I have to intercept, track, or maneuver while in the clouds during any part of the approach, I consider that loggable. Ron and Steven, this answers the question of what kind of approach is loggable, how? If you're going to have a cat fight, at least change the subject line. -------------------------------- Travis "Ron Natalie" wrote in message . .. " I never said any such thing. Prove your allegations. You posted your ignorance to the "FAA form 337" thread at rec.aviation.homebuilt. Did you cancel you post, so you could lie now, Ron? I didn't cancel any post. What I said, and it is still true, that 337's do not apply to homebuilts (or any other experimental). It is you who have a mistaken view of the rules. Part 43 does NOT apply to experimentals. It says this explicitly in 43.1 (b), but you seem to not be able to understand that. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message . .. As I said, there is no definition of instrument conditions in the rules. Hence the best we can come up with is the legal counsel. Your excessively pedantic nature can clearly see that they are different words. So you think 'instrument conditions' is something other than 'IFR conditions'? What? |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message . .. It doesn't say anything about VFR minimums. It says "instrument flight conditions", which are below VFR minimums. The FAA affirms that there are times when you can be technically above VFR minimums (not in the clouds and sufficient visibility), but the horizon and the ground is obscured and those qualify for actual instrument conditions, even though it's not bad enough to require IFR. Which is literally contrary to the FARs. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message . .. " I never said any such thing. Prove your allegations. You posted your ignorance to the "FAA form 337" thread at rec.aviation.homebuilt. Did you cancel you post, so you could lie now, Ron? I didn't cancel any post. What I said, and it is still true, that 337's do not apply to homebuilts (or any other experimental). No, Ron, that is what I posted. What you posted is that a homebuilt is not an experimental. Zero for three, Ron. You might want to stick to posting about something you know something about. CFR 14 is obviously not your area of expertice. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
How many of you log specific minutes of a flight as instrument time when you are flying in and out of clouds? (I count it all as instrument time) If you settle into severe clear on top, do you stop timing instrument time? If any part of my flight takes me into a cloud, I log at least .1 for that flight. If I'm in and out, I log only the part that's in, estimating as well as I can to the tenth of an hour. Above an undercast but in the clear, I do not log as instrument time. Between layers I'll sometimes log as instrument time, depending on conditions, but I tend not to. If I can stay right side up by looking out the window, I don't log it as instrument time. There really is a big difference between being solid, and being sort of in the clouds. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Ron Natalie" wrote in message . .. It doesn't say anything about VFR minimums. It says "instrument flight conditions", which are below VFR minimums. The FAA affirms that there are times when you can be technically above VFR minimums (not in the clouds and sufficient visibility), but the horizon and the ground is obscured and those qualify for actual instrument conditions, even though it's not bad enough to require IFR. Which is literally contrary to the FARs. I don't think so. Think about being in multiple solid, sloping layers. No horizon at all. More than VFR viz, but definitely IFR. Harvey |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Eclipsme" wrote in message
... Think about being in multiple solid, sloping layers. No horizon at all. More than VFR viz, but definitely IFR. That's self-contradictory, because the FAA explicitly defines "IFR conditions" as conditions that do NOT meet the VFR visibility requirements (AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary). --Gary Harvey |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...
If you can't maintain level flight without reference to instruments, because there is no discernible horizon for outside reference, you are in actual instrument flight conditions. How can that be? IFR conditions are weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules. You can easily have weather conditions well above the minimum for flight under visual flight rules above an undercast. ....OR you could just as easily have better than 3 miles visibility, 1,000' clearance from the clouds, and NO way to determine the horizon from outside reference: cumulus in the distance, towering cumulus in the area, sloped tops of stratus in a front... |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message news:1CZTb.9561 So you think 'instrument conditions' is something other than 'IFR conditions'? What? According to the FAA counsel, it just means conditions that require you to fly on instruments. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What approaches are in a database? | Ross | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | January 4th 04 07:57 PM |
GPS approaches with Center | Dan Luke | Instrument Flight Rules | 104 | October 22nd 03 09:42 PM |
Logging instrument approaches | Slav Inger | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | July 27th 03 11:00 PM |
Suppose We Really Do Have Only GPS Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | July 20th 03 05:10 PM |
Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 18th 03 01:43 PM |