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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote...
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"! Unfortunately, the NPRM process is so political when it comes to major changes in the FARs that it takes WAY too long to effect any change -- of course, unless the TSA decides it needs the authority to force the FAA to revoke Pilot Certificates, with little or no reason or recourse available to the affected Pilot... |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
In this case, it seems to me that there are already two clearly separate
terms used, and all they need to add to the FARs is a definition of "Instrument Conditions". "Gary Drescher" wrote in news:h%pVb.205324$nt4.976461@attbi_s51: "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 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
I do appreciate that. And yes, you are right. Before I go logging time
for IFR currency that seems to conflict with the Regs and the FAQ, I want a copy of the document that supports me when the FAA comes-a-knockin' at my door... I suspect a copy of your post on Google.Com will not hold up... But I am still trying to figure out how to identify the document in my request to the FAA, though. Is there a docket number or some other identifying code? I suspect there were many legal opinions written by the Chief Counsel in 1984. I am not a lawyer, so perhaps I am asking an obvious or stupid question. But I would love to have a copy of this document for my files... An on-line reference would be most convenient if available... I have done a search on faa.gov, but that has turned up empty because it seems they only go back to 1995... Thanks! Ron Rosenfeld wrote in : 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) |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"Judah" wrote in message
... In this case, it seems to me that there are already two clearly separate terms used, and all they need to add to the FARs is a definition of "Instrument Conditions". Defining two separate terms would be a good start. But for the choice of terminology to be competent, the words need to be chosen to reflect their meaning. It is nonsensical for the FAA to use the phrase "instrument conditions", in reference to meteorological conditions, to mean something different from the phrase "instrument meteorological conditions". There's nothing in that wording to suggest that there's even a difference, let alone suggesting what the difference *is*. In contrast, defining the terms "Instrument Separation Conditions" and "Instrument Aviation Conditions" would make the intended distinction immediately obvious. --Gary "Gary Drescher" wrote in news:h%pVb.205324$nt4.976461@attbi_s51: "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 |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
OK. I found what I was looking for...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...UTF-8&threadm= 32E55577.5B0B%40waid.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie% 3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26q%3D1984%2B61.51%2Bifr%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg Said post references "Legal Interpretation #84-29" written Nov 7, 1984, and quotes it in its entirety. Interestingly enough, it does indeed contradict the FAQ almost directly... "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "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. In my hunting, I also found the following thread: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 &threadm=a6mhrr%249pg%241%40slb3.atl.mindspring.ne t&rnum=28&prev=/groups% 3Fq%3D61.57%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20% 26sa%3DN Which references a more recent opinion from January 28, 1992 (and is not quoted in its entirety, nor does it reference a document number - so I will be hunting for that later...). While it does not contradict the above opinion, it reads as follows: For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height. The poster in that thread interprets that to mean that the entire approach down to minimums must be in IFR conditions. I'm not 100% sure I agree that it must be interpreted this way. But what is interesting is that the Assistant Chief Counsel who authored this document referred specifically to "actual or simulated IFR conditions" not "actual or simulated IMC conditions"... At the end of the day, I think I'm just gonna make sure to have some foggle time with a buddy or an instructor every 6 months and be done with it. I hate lawyers! Ron Rosenfeld wrote in : 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) |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:YKYUb.187404$Rc4.1460112@attbi_s54... "Ron Natalie" wrote... It comes from an FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretation (John Cassady, Nov. 7 1984). Is that readily available somewhere? I get it off the Summit Aviation disks. I've already posted it once in this thread. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:20:44 GMT, Judah wrote:
For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height. The poster in that thread interprets that to mean that the entire approach down to minimums must be in IFR conditions. I'm not 100% sure I agree that it must be interpreted this way. But what is interesting is that the Assistant Chief Counsel who authored this document referred specifically to "actual or simulated IFR conditions" not "actual or simulated IMC conditions"... There is frequently inconsistency in FAA documents. When these are important or questioned, they get ironed out in subsequent revisions. However, with regard to this particular opinion, there was quite a bit of discussion at the time it was issued. I don't have the documentation to prove the point, but I'm pretty certain that it is not considered binding by anyone. Most consider this to be a gray area. I generally log the approach if enough of it was conducted in instrument conditions that I felt I really got some benefit to my currency by conducting it. So a thin overcast at the FAF would not count for me. But a ceiling 100-200' above DA would count. Don't forget that the purpose of logging is for currency, and/or qualification for a rating. If you cheat on currency, you are cheating yourself and your passengers. And if you are going to be tested for a rating, the examiner WILL have you conduct the approach (perhaps in simulated conditions) down to the MDA or DA(H). Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug" wrote in message om... 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. Where does one find that in the FARs? |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"Eclipsme" wrote in message ... Is this true? It has been a bit since I have flown IFR, but it used to be under 700ft agl - some places 1200ft, and outside of other controlled airspace such as ATAs, the airspace was uncontrolled. There was quite a bit of uncontrolled airspace out in Nevada, as I recall. This was before the airspace revisions. Has this changed? No, it was the same way before airspace reclassification. An IFR clearance is required only in controlled airspace. You can fly IFR without a clearance where you have sufficient uncontrolled airspace to do so, but you don't have sufficient airspace where controlled airspace begins 700 or 1200 feet above the ground. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
I find it is worth it just to go out with an instructor every six months and
do an IPC. That way you can nip any bad habits you might be developing before they become ingrained, you get a no-questions-asked log book entry saying you are current, and it may help with your insurance. You can usually get your wings signoffs in the same flights, which also helps for insurance purposes. If you are worried about your performance in front of the instructor, you need the IPC anyway. -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
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 |