Logging approaches

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:22:43 GMT, Judah wrote:

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.

Not really. It uses the term "instrument flight conditions". It does not
use the term or abbreviation "IFR" or Instrument Flight Rules". These are
two entirely different concepts.

According to published FAA legal counsel opinion, "'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.

" ... actual instrument conditions may occur in the case (of 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)

"Ron Natalie" wrote...

It comes from an FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretation (John Cassady,
Nov. 7 1984).

Is that readily available somewhere?

Please advise the source of this published FAA legal counsel opinion that
you are quoting from.

Thanks.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:22:43 GMT, Judah wrote:

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.

Not really. It uses the term "instrument flight conditions". It does
not use the term or abbreviation "IFR" or Instrument Flight Rules".
These are two entirely different concepts.

According to published FAA legal counsel opinion, "'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.

" ... actual instrument conditions may occur in the case (of 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)

You are correct in that I erred by referring to IFR and not IMC.

Thank you for identifying the source of your interpretation. I could not
find the 1984 document, but I was able to locate the current Part 61 FAQ,
here...

http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61faq.doc

Some excerpts from section [Q&A 291],

'ANSWER: § 61.51(g)(1) and § 61.57(c)(1)(i); Again the only place where it
defines logging "instrument flight time" means ". . . a person may log
instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the
aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . . ." '

Implying that meteorological conditions are irrelevant...

But earlier in that section, he answers a question as follows...

'But for a "quick and easy" answer to your question, it was always my
understanding if I were flying in weather conditions that were less than
the VFR weather minimums defined in §91.155 and I was flying "solely by
reference to instruments" then that was the determining factor for being
able log instrument flight under "actual instrument conditions."
Otherwise, if I were flying solely by reference to instruments in VMC
conditions then I would log it as instrument flight in "simulated
instrument conditions."'

Mr. Lynch interprets a situation where one is flying solely by reference to
the instruments in VFR conditions as Instrument Flight in Simulated
Instrument Conditions.

However, he later adds to the exact same question the following points:

'So, now to answer your other question "What about the requirement for a
safety pilot under these conditions? Your question is answered by §91.109
(b)(1) and it states:

"(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight
unless-
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at
least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings
appropriate to the aircraft being flown."'

Basically outlining that in order to log it as Simulated Instrument
Conditions you must have a safety pilot, although you need not be wearing a
hood.

So it seems if you fly an approach with a Safety Pilot in the right seat,
only by reference to the instruments, even in VFR, you can log this as
Simulated Instrument Conditions.

But if you don't have a Safety Pilot in the right seat, you're SOL...

Add to all that the following quote which appears in Q&A-288...

'Before discussing this issue, please note that the Frequently Asked
Questions - Part 61 & 141 (FAQ's) are provided by the Flight Standards
Service (AFS) for standardization purposes. The Office of the Chief
Counsel does not review the FAQ's and accordingly, information provided on
his website is not legally binding.'

Which basically means the faq is irrelevant anyway...

At the end of the day, it all just makes me more cynical about lawyers! Mr.
Lynch's "quick & easy" answer does not seem so quick and easy, and
completely dodges the basic question: What are the official FAA definitions
for the terms "Actual Instrument Conditions" and "Simulated Instrument
Conditions" as used in FAR 61.51(g)?

I would be interested to see the original interpretation from 1984, but
have been unable to find it... Can you provide a link?


Thanks!

"Ron Natalie" wrote in
:


"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.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:08:00 GMT, Judah wrote:

Please advise the source of this published FAA legal counsel opinion that
you are quoting from.

The source is The FAA Office of the Chief Counsel.

The current holder of that position is Andrew B. Steinberg.

He can be reached at:

Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20591

The ruling came from the Regulations Division (AGC-200) which has been
headed up for quite some time by Donald P. Byrne. I do not know if he was
in charge of that division in 1984 when the ruling was published. He is at
the same address. Telephone: (202) 267-3073


------

In another post you quoted Mr. John Lynch's opinion regarding logging
matters. Mr. Lynch is not part of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and his
opinions in various areas, as originally published in his FAQ's, have been
'corrected' in the past.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote...

In another post you quoted Mr. John Lynch's opinion regarding logging
matters. Mr. Lynch is not part of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and his
opinions in various areas, as originally published in his FAQ's, have been
'corrected' in the past.

However, his quoted post concerning logging instrument time has persisted
unchanged for over 3 years...

Besides, Mr. Lynch represents Flight Standards, which is the office that has
cognizance over logging matters for most pilots (i.e., screening of logbooks for
new ratings). Following their policy is not likely to get anyone into trouble
with their logbooks...

Hi Ron,
Is there some manner of identifying the ruling? Perhaps a case number or
article number?

In the other branch of this thread, I quoted Mr. Lynch's FAQ because the
poster to whom I was responding referred to that document directly, as
supporting his argument. I think I also made mention of the fact that the
document itself claims to not be binding, and as such is irrelevant.

The bottom line is that I am still looking for any specific, official
document that supports the case for being able to log instrument flight
time (either in Actual or Simulated instrument conditions) while solo in
VFR conditions under any circumstances. While you have provided me with
some great contact information, you still have not identified the actual
source of your quoted statements, and I just don't get that.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:08:00 GMT, Judah wrote:

Please advise the source of this published FAA legal counsel opinion
that you are quoting from.

The source is The FAA Office of the Chief Counsel.

The current holder of that position is Andrew B. Steinberg.

He can be reached at:

Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20591

The ruling came from the Regulations Division (AGC-200) which has been
headed up for quite some time by Donald P. Byrne. I do not know if he
was in charge of that division in 1984 when the ruling was published.
He is at the same address. Telephone: (202) 267-3073


------

In another post you quoted Mr. John Lynch's opinion regarding logging
matters. Mr. Lynch is not part of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and
his opinions in various areas, as originally published in his FAQ's,
have been 'corrected' in the past.


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

"Judah" wrote in message
...
The bottom line is that I am still looking for any specific, official
document that supports the case for being able to log instrument flight
time (either in Actual or Simulated instrument conditions) while solo in
VFR conditions under any circumstances. While you have provided me with
some great contact information, you still have not identified the actual
source of your quoted statements, and I just don't get that.

It's a continuing travesty that the FAA manufactures "interpretations" of
the FARs that supersede the FARs and cannot rationally be derived from the
FARs, yet are not readily accessible to pilots.

On the other hand, although the FAA's FAR FAQs are not officially binding, I
imagine it would be difficult for the FAA to penalize a pilot for conduct
consistent with the FAQs' interpretation (doing so would arguably constitute
entrapment: inducing someone to commit a violation and then prosecuting them
for it). Does anyone know if the imposition of such a penalty has ever been
documented?

The real solution here would be not to publicize the official
interpretation, but rather to rewrite the FARs to make them more sensible.
The problem is that here (as elsewhere), the FAA confusingly uses a key term
to designate two different things: the phrase "instrument conditions",
although it refers to meteorological conditions, means something different
from the phrase "instrument meteorological conditions"!

The two conflated concepts should be called Instrument Separation Conditions
and Instrument Aviation Conditions. Instrument Separation Conditions (which
the FAA calls "IFR conditions" or "IMC") are meteorological conditions that
don't meet the VFR requirements for visual separation. Instrument Aviation
Conditions (which the FARs refer to as "instrument conditions" or
"instrument flight conditions", but without ever defining those terms) are
meteorological conditions that require flight by reference to instruments.
You can be in ISC without being in IAC (for instance, flying in unlimited
visibility 400' below a layer) or vice versa (for instance, flying on a
clear, dark night over water).

--Gary

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:48:17 GMT, Judah wrote:

The bottom line is that I am still looking for any specific, official
document that supports the case for being able to log instrument flight
time (either in Actual or Simulated instrument conditions) while solo in
VFR conditions under any circumstances.

It seemed as if you wanted a copy of the original document. I gave you the
government source for that information. Under FOIA, you should be able to
contact them to obtain the document, knowing also that it was written in
1984.

If you wish to pay for the document, Summit Aviation publishes a fully
searchable database of vital aviation publications, updated bi-weekly,
which should include this legal interpretation. I believe you can purchase
a single CD, but you'd have to check their web site for more information.


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

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 03:55:56 GMT, "John R Weiss"
wrote:

However, his quoted post concerning logging instrument time has persisted
unchanged for over 3 years...

That only means that no one in the legal department as reviewed his
interpretations for accuracy.


Besides, Mr. Lynch represents Flight Standards, which is the office that has
cognizance over logging matters for most pilots (i.e., screening of logbooks for
new ratings). Following their policy is not likely to get anyone into trouble
with their logbooks...

Especially since Lynch's interpretation, as stated here by others, is
*more* restrictive than what is allowed by AGC-200, which is the
Regulations Section of the Chief Counsel office of the FAA.

Following the policy of the legal division which interprets the FAA
aviation regulations is even less likely to get anyone in trouble.


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