Logging approaches

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

The rule does not say that. The rule says, ""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." So,
literally, it must be below VFR minimums or you must wear a hood.

Not quite... The FAA maintains a "Part 61 FAQ" at
http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAQ.doc, which addresses "Frequently
Asked Questions on 14 CFR Part 61 and represents FAA Flight Standards Service
policy as it relates to this regulation." In the Mar 30, 2000 version I found
the following, starting on p. 50 (page 98 in the latest, which I just
downloaded):

QUESTION 1: The question came up about logging "actual" instrument time when
over the desert at night with no visual references. When you are flying with
sole reference to instruments, is that actual time? If not, is it "simulated"
instrument time? Our take on the question is actual instrument time can only be
logged when the aircraft is in IMC. The weather determines actual instrument
time, not flying by sole reference to instruments. That settles the actual
instrument question, but what about "simulated" instrument time? Our feeling is
it can be logged as "simulated instrument time." It would be the same as having
a hood on while flying by sole reference to instruments. What about the
requirement for a safety pilot under these conditions? Our answer is "no"
because the pilot is still able to "see and avoid" conflicting traffic.

.. . .

I agree with your statement that just because a person is flying ". . . by sole
reference to instruments . . ." has nothing to do with whether the flight can be
logged as "actual instrument time" or "simulated instrument time." Only the
weather conditions establish whether the flight is in "actual instrument
conditions." And that is dependent on the weather conditions where the aircraft
is physically located and the pilot makes that determination as to whether the
flight is in "actual instrument conditions" or he is performing instrument
flight under "simulated instrument conditions." 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."
In your example, the flight is clear of clouds and in good visibility conditions
at night over the desert with an overcast above and no visible horizon. But
other examples could include flight between sloping cloud layers or flight
between layers of clouds at night. These could equally meet the requirement for
operations that can only be accomplished solely by reference to instruments.
But, the lack of sufficient visual reference to maintain aircraft control
without using instruments does not eliminate the possibility of collision hazard
with other aircraft or terrain.

.. . .

Normally, in order to log instrument flight time under "simulated instrument
conditions," the pilot needs to be utilizing a view limiting device. But, the
only place in the rules requiring a view limiting device will be found under
§61.45(d)(2) as part of the equipment for a practical test. Otherwise, no where
else in the rules, orders, bulletins, or advisory circulars does it specifically
state that pilots need to be utilizing a view limiting device. But, except for
meteorological conditions as in our examples above, how else, could a pilot
comply with §61.51(g) for logging instrument flight time [i.e., ". . . when the
person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . ."] unless
the pilot was utilizing a view limiting device when logging instrument flight
time in simulated instrument conditions?



QUESTION 3: I have not been able to find a definition of "actual" conditions in
the FARs or the AIM, but I believe that the definition of actual is somewhat
more restrictive than IMC. Please confirm that the following is correct:

Is IMC is simply visibility’s, clearances from clouds, and ceilings less than
the minima for VMC (AIM -pilot controller/glossary) "Actual" requires that the
pilot be flying the airplane solely by reference to instruments, which means he
must be either completely in the soup (i.e. zero-zero) or in conditions which
provide no horizon reference of any kind. Therefore, being in IMC conditions is
not always adequate for logging actual.

ANSWER 3: Ref. §61.51(g); As previously answered above in Answer 1 above, there
is no official FAA definition on "actual instrument time" or "simulated
instrument time" in the FARs, FAA Orders, advisory circulars, FAA bulletins,
etc. Part 61 merely refers to the instrument time in reference to aeronautical
experience to be ". . . instrument flight time, in actual or simulated
instrument conditions . . ." Otherwise the reference is merely instrument flight
time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions.

Now the term "actual" in reference to instrument conditions that require
operations to be performed solely by reference to the aircraft instruments are
sometimes subjective. No question that "actual" instrument conditions exist with
flight in clouds or other phenomena that restrict visibility to the extent that
maintaining level flight or other desired flight attitude, can only be
accomplished with reference to the aircraft instruments. This goes back to
earlier statement in Answer 1 where I said the weather conditions establish
whether the flight is in "actual instrument conditions." And that is dependent
on the weather conditions where the aircraft is physically located and the pilot
makes that determination as to whether the flight is in "actual instrument
conditions" or he is performing instrument flight under "simulated instrument
conditions."

Your realization that "IMC" and "VMC" and also, in fact, "IFR" and "VFR" are not
necessarily related to "actual" conditions is accurate. These terms are used
with respect to airspace operating requirements. Per §91.155, a flight may be in
IMC (requiring IFR operations) with four (4) miles visibility in Class E
airspace above 10,000'MSL (more than 1,200'AGL), but still be in VMC (allowing
VFR operations) with only one (1) mile visibility in Class G below 10,000'MSL
during day time, . That is why none of these terms were used in §61.51(g) to
describe when we may or may not log instrument flight time. IMC and VMC are used
in association when describing airspace weather conditions. VFR or IFR are used
to describe operating requirements [i.e., §91.173 requiring IFR flight plan for
operating in controlled airspace under IFR, §691.169 information required for
operating on an IFR flight plan; §91.155 basic VFR weather minimums, etc].


QUESTION 4: As far as logging an approach in actual, is there any requirement
(i.e. must it be in actual conditions beyond the final approach fix)? Assume
that the pilot was flying single-pilot IFR so he couldn't simply put on the hood
if he broke out?

ANSWER 4: §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 . . . ." As for logging an "actual" approach,
it would presume the approach to be to the conclusion of the approach which
would mean the pilot go down to the decision height or to the minimum decent
altitude, as appropriate. If what you’re asking is whether it is okay to fly to
the FAF and break it off and then log it as accomplishing an approach, the
answer is NO.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

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.

How is it contrary to the FARs (and which ones)? The weather is not subject to
FARs, and neither is an individual pilot's real-time ability to maintain level
flight -- he either CAN do so by means of outside references, or he CANNOT; and
that may change dynamically.

"Gary Drescher" wrote...

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).

.. . .which isn't regulatory in nature (i.e., not a part of the FARs).

"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:rcbUb.91085$U%5.470879@attbi_s03...
"Gary Drescher" wrote...

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).

. . .which isn't regulatory in nature (i.e., not a part of the FARs).

And it makes no difference because the rule says "instrument conditions"
not IFR conditions.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

'IFR conditions' and 'instrument conditions' are not necessarily the same
thing.

How do they differ?

According to "the FAA" (John D. Lynch, GENERAL AVIATION CERTIFICATION BRANCH,
AFS-840):

'This goes back to earlier statement in Answer 1 where I said the weather
conditions establish whether the flight is in "actual instrument conditions."
And that is dependent on the weather conditions where the aircraft is physically
located and the pilot makes that determination as to whether the flight is in
"actual instrument conditions" or he is performing instrument flight under
"simulated instrument conditions."' (Part 61 FAQ, 7/14/03, p. 99)


Note: "the pilot makes that determination"

"Eclipsme" wrote in message
...

I don't think so. Think about being in multiple solid, sloping layers. No
horizon at all. More than VFR viz, but definitely IFR.


Not according to the regulation.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:rcbUb.91085$U%5.470879@attbi_s03...

. . .which isn't regulatory in nature (i.e., not a part of the FARs).


This is:

Title 14--Aeronautics and Space

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

§ 1.1 General definitions.

IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under
visual flight rules.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

And it makes no difference because the rule says "instrument conditions"
not IFR conditions.


Same thing.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:wBaUb.220881$xy6.1133716@attbi_s02...

...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...


Yes, you can easily have that, but that is not IFR conditions.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

According to the FAA counsel, it just means conditions that require you
to fly on instruments.


The FAA counsel is at odds with the regulations.