Logging approaches

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:G2bUb.216614$I06.2379975@attbi_s01...

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.


That's fine, but we're discussing what the regulation actually says.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:qcbUb.91084$U%5.469867@attbi_s03...

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.


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.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:6mbUb.221265$xy6.1135343@attbi_s02...

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"


Read the regulation.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

That's fine, but we're discussing what the regulation actually says.

IIRC, the original question was regarding the propriety or "legality" of logging
approaches and/or instrument time. FAA Flight Standards has weighed in as
saying it is up to the pilot to determine what to log in "questionable"
circumstances. Since the bare regulations are unclear, it would be wise to
follow the Flight Standards guidance.

You can nitpick individual regs -- which have already been cussed, discussed,
and re-interpreted ad nauseum -- all you want. However, that will not likely
give any more useful information to the average pilot. Ultimately, it will be
someone who represents Flight Standards who will accept or challenge the pilot's
logbooks, not an Air Traffic Controller.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:AFdUb.217912$I06.2383445@attbi_s01...

IIRC, the original question was regarding the propriety or "legality" of
logging
approaches and/or instrument time.


Ron Natalie wrote:

"It is what the regs literally say. All they say is you have to be in
instrument conditions. Doesn't say anything about flight rules. This was
affirmed in the following opinion by FAA counsel."

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

That's fine, but we're discussing what the regulation actually says.

IIRC, the original question was regarding the propriety or "legality" of
logging
approaches and/or instrument time.

Ron Natalie wrote:

"It is what the regs literally say. All they say is you have to be in
instrument conditions. Doesn't say anything about flight rules. This was
affirmed in the following opinion by FAA counsel."

Ummm... The original referred directly to the lack of visible horizon during an
instrument approach. The post was:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Garrison"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 4:11 PM
Subject: Logging approaches


I had a 'first' last week, and I am looking for other peoples thoughts on
this one. It was my first (I believe) loggable instrument approach in what
was legally VMC. I was flying from the San Francisco bay area down to
Burbank. The reported conditions were sky clear, visibility 4 miles in haze,
with the ILS 8 in use, no mention of visual approaches. The visibility part
was right, from about 4,000 feet down to the surface there was about 4 miles
visibility based on when the runway appeared. I could see the ground below
just fine the whole time, but looking forward there was no visible horizon.

I considered the approach loggable because:
1) navigation aids were required to find the airport
2) There was no visible horizon so the attitude indicator was required
to identify and maintain the desired aircraft attitude.

Any differing opinions on this one?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:36gUb.176434$sv6.932027@attbi_s52...

Ummm... The original referred directly to the lack of visible horizon
during an
instrument approach. The post was:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Garrison"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 4:11 PM
Subject: Logging approaches


I had a 'first' last week, and I am looking for other peoples thoughts
on
this one. It was my first (I believe) loggable instrument approach in
what
was legally VMC. I was flying from the San Francisco bay area down to
Burbank. The reported conditions were sky clear, visibility 4 miles in
haze,
with the ILS 8 in use, no mention of visual approaches. The visibility
part
was right, from about 4,000 feet down to the surface there was about 4
miles
visibility based on when the runway appeared. I could see the ground
below
just fine the whole time, but looking forward there was no visible
horizon.

I considered the approach loggable because:
1) navigation aids were required to find the airport
2) There was no visible horizon so the attitude indicator was
required
to identify and maintain the desired aircraft attitude.

Any differing opinions on this one?


Yeah, I read it. Threads evolve.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"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.

The FAA counsel is also at odds with the regulation WRT 100 hour inspections
acording to Natalie. I wonder if the FAA counsel understands the
implications of the terms "gross negligence" and "restraint of trade". Much
like the MIDO making a lubrication chnage for DC-9s for Kelly on "no basis".

"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 never said that FAA
counsel was at odds. What I said is that certain A&P schools and other non
FAA types were at odds with the regulation. The regs and the FAA counnsel are clear
that rental without flight instruction do not require 100 hour inspections.

What I disagree with the FAA interpretations on is whether experimentals should be
banned from flight instruction for hire. The 100 hour rules have very specific
wording on flight instruction, the similar prohibition on carrying passengers for
hire is missing from the experimental rules. It merely says you can't use experimentals
for carrying passengers for hire.

It's clear if you search back in google, that Tarver seems to be off in a world of his
own when it comes to responding to anybody else's post. Why he's decided to
pick on me today is unclear.

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.

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?