Actual Time in Sacramento

On 12/15/2005 13:49, Robert M. Gary wrote:

BTW: I'll mention its a kick when you see the approach lights under you
but nothing else. Its like a mystical light just floating in the fog.
The light does do a good job of cutting through the fog. Its
interesting that you can sometimes get into airports at night that you
cannot get into during the day.

It's this aspect that I'm really excited to see. With 99% of my training
done in simulated conditions, the CFII decides when (if) I get to suddenly
see the airport. As a result, I've never had the chance of seeing the
lights, but not the runway.

Of course I realize it will be harder to do in actual conditions, but
it sure would go a long way toward showing why were doing all that in
the first place ;-)

Its strange but its easier to see
lights in the dark through fog than the runway in the day in fog. I
think the sun actually makes the fog visibility worse (I guess that's
kinda like you turning your brights off when driving in fog). Its also
not unusual at night for the tower to report vis. less than 1/4 but you
can see the airport from 10 miles out. I've had this happen in
Sacramento and in Monterey. I'm not 100% sure why.

Interesting.


-Robert




--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

Of course I realize it will be harder to do in actual conditions, but
it sure would go a long way toward showing why were doing all that in
the first place ;-)

It's easier in actual. The hood artificially limits one's attention,
and while that's good for training, in real life it's much more open
without it. (plus you can check the compass).

Coming up from Florida in a Dakota, reaching Cleveland at night after
flying on top and dodging CBs, getting a popup approach clearance (I was
on FF the whole time), going into the overcast at 4 and popping out at
ILS minimums with the lights leading the rest of the way.... that's why
we do it.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2005-12-15, Robert M. Gary wrote:
they are reporting 1/4SM and 000VV I can usually get in about 70% of
the time (with about 15 minutes between attempts). The lesson here is
that if you shoot the approach and see nothing, just try it again.

That's a bad lesson. A *lot* of IMC accidents are on the third approach
to an airport that's below minimums.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:36:39 -0600, Ben Jackson wrote:

On 2005-12-15, Robert M. Gary wrote:
they are reporting 1/4SM and 000VV I can usually get in about 70% of
the time (with about 15 minutes between attempts). The lesson here is
that if you shoot the approach and see nothing, just try it again.

That's a bad lesson. A *lot* of IMC accidents are on the third approach
to an airport that's below minimums.

Just curious, do you have any type of proof of this?

Allen

I bet the accident rate is much higher on the *FIRST* approach to an
airport below mins. Having the mind set of being able to try again is
much better than feeling you have to get it the first time.

So... having no actual time, under my belt, how would you typically go
out and practice your approaches? Would you file an IFR flight plan to
SAC or MHR and request multiple approaches in the air, or would you
popup out of O61 and contact NORCAL requesting "practice?" approaches
into MHR/SAC?

Stupid question, but I've never been completely clear on this... In
the case where you are flying from clear to "over" a fog layer, with
intentions of shooting "practice" approaches at the airports under IMC,
when would you actually be considered in "actual" conditions, and when
would you actually be considered cleared under IFR? I'm thrown off by
the word "practice", and probably because that's all I've ever done?
I've been on a filed IFR flight plan, but have never requested a pop-up
clearance or flown into actual IMC. If you request "practice"
approaches in the described conditions, you will actually be in IMC at
some point, so does your "practice" clearance now grant you the
privileges to fly into IMC?

I'm curious about this, not only for legal reasons, but I'm also
curious as to how you would log your time... At what point can you
start logging "actual"?

Thanks and best regards,
Todd

three-eight-hotel wrote:

when would you actually be considered in "actual" conditions,

When your flight conditions do not meet the ceiling, visibility and cloud
clearance requirements for visual flight rules.

and when
would you actually be considered cleared under IFR?

When you hear 'cleared to...' from ATC

I'm thrown off by
the word "practice", and probably because that's all I've ever done?
I've been on a filed IFR flight plan, but have never requested a pop-up
clearance or flown into actual IMC. If you request "practice"
approaches in the described conditions, you will actually be in IMC at
some point, so does your "practice" clearance now grant you the
privileges to fly into IMC?

The word practice is usually used in conjuntion with executing instrument
approaches under VFR. To fly under VFR, your flight conditions have to meet the
minimum ceiling, visibility, and cloud clearance requirements of VFR.

I'd sugggest not using the word "practice" when you're not VFR. AFAIK there is
no legal reason not to, but it might trick ATC into mistakenly thinking you are VFR.

You are granted the privelege of flying into IMC when you hear the words
"cleared to...".

Dave

So, let's go with 3-1-5-2... I take off in severe clear from O61,
contact approach and request vectors to the ILS at MHR (for multiple
approaches). I'm given a freq to squawk and a heading and altitude,
followed by "radar contact"... Am I now in the system as an IFR
flight?

Continuing on, I approach a layer of fog over top of MHR that is topped
out at 2000 feet... I'm at 4000 feet, there are no clouds within 2000
feet of me vertically, so I am still VFR...

Once I am over the top of this layer (and this is where I could use
some clarification), I am still encountering 3 miles visibility
(althought the airport is currently under IMC, and this may be where
I'm getting confused), 1000 feet above, 500 feet below and 2000 feet
vertical clearance. However, I can't see anything below me and am now
flying by reference to instruments alone. I can still maintain VFR
separation from traffic... Back to the previous question... Am now on
an IFR flight? Can this time "above the fog" be logged as "actual", or
not?

All of my practice approaches (except for those on a filed IFR flight
plan) have been done in VFR, with not a "cleared to....", but after
receiving vectors or via pilot nav, a "cleared for the approach". So
back to the previous question again, the response of "radar contact"...
Is that a statement of confirmation that indicates you are in the
system as an IFR flight (in this situation)?

I really do look at the IFR rating as a license to learn, and not a
right to go buzz around in the goo... I've got so much to learn!!! I
would be comfortable, though, planning and filing and flying a complete
IFR flight plan. It's just the impromptu stuff, like popups and
practice in actual that confuses me.

Thanks!
Todd

I take off in severe clear from O61,
contact approach and request vectors to the ILS at MHR (for multiple
approaches). I'm given a freq to squawk and a heading and altitude,
followed by "radar contact"... Am I now in the system as an IFR
flight?

You are not IFR until you hear "N4234J is cleared to MJB via..." or the
ilk. If you got that on the ground, you were IFR ("instrument flight
RULES") from the getgo, otherwise you are still VFR until you get an
actual clearance. "Radar contact" has little or nothing to do with IFR.

Once I am over the top of this layer (and this is where I could use
some clarification), I am still encountering 3 miles visibility
(althought the airport is currently under IMC, and this may be where
I'm getting confused), 1000 feet above, 500 feet below and 2000 feet
vertical clearance. However, I can't see anything below me and am now
flying by reference to instruments alone.

You are still VFR, and you are flying visually. You are =navigating= by
instruments. So long as you can maintain cloud clearances and
visibilities, you are legal to fly under VFR ("visual flight RULES").
It may be however that you are between layers, and have no horizon with
which to orient yourself. In this case you are IMC ("Instrument
meteorolgical CONDITIONS") while still legal to fly under VFR. If you
are not instrument rated, this is dumb. Even if you are instrument
rated, this could be dumb. However, it is legal. If you are just above
the fog and can control the aircraft visually, you do not log "actual".
However if you are between layers and =require= the flight instruments
to maintain control (not just navigate), then this is "actual" and
should go in the logbook as such. Similarly, over the water, at night,
with no moon and nothing to orient yourself, even though it could be
severe clear, is "actual". It's legal VFR, and loggable as actual.

All of my practice approaches (except for those on a filed IFR flight
plan) have been done in VFR, with not a "cleared to....", but after
receiving vectors or via pilot nav, a "cleared for the approach".

In that case you were operating VFR, and are required (via your safety
pilot) to maintain visibility and cloud clearances, and avoid aluminum
yourself). If you were practicing in actual conditions, you would hear
the magic words "cleared present position to WVS via ..."

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

three-eight-hotel wrote:
So, let's go with 3-1-5-2... I take off in severe clear from O61,
contact approach and request vectors to the ILS at MHR (for multiple
approaches). I'm given a freq to squawk and a heading and altitude,
followed by "radar contact"... Am I now in the system as an IFR
flight?

No, not unless you heard "cleared to...".


Continuing on, I approach a layer of fog over top of MHR that is topped
out at 2000 feet... I'm at 4000 feet, there are no clouds within 2000
feet of me vertically, so I am still VFR...

Once I am over the top of this layer (and this is where I could use
some clarification), I am still encountering 3 miles visibility
(althought the airport is currently under IMC, and this may be where
I'm getting confused), 1000 feet above, 500 feet below and 2000 feet
vertical clearance. However, I can't see anything below me and am now
flying by reference to instruments alone. I can still maintain VFR
separation from traffic... Back to the previous question... Am now on
an IFR flight? Can this time "above the fog" be logged as "actual", or
not?

You're not on an IFR flight until you hear "cleared to...". With all that
visibility, you're probably not flying only with reference to instruments. I
think you are confusing the fact that your *navigation* is by reference to
instruments. That fact doesn't affect the flight rules under which you are
flying (IFR/VFR) or the meteorological conditions (IMC/VMC).


All of my practice approaches (except for those on a filed IFR flight
plan) have been done in VFR, with not a "cleared to....", but after
receiving vectors or via pilot nav, a "cleared for the approach". So
back to the previous question again, the response of "radar contact"...
Is that a statement of confirmation that indicates you are in the
system as an IFR flight (in this situation)?

No, you need to hear "cleared to...". When you are cleared for a practice
approach under VFR, the terminology should be "cleared for practice approach,
maintain VFR" or something like that. Controllers in the group will correct me.