IFR: how to build time?

jonvcaples said:
...
The FAA says if you are at or above FL180 you must operate under IFR. No mention of whether conditions are VMC or IMC. The simple fact you are at or above FL180 they have decided you are operating solely by your instruments. Why? Beats me! Maybe they figure from that altitude you cannot see surface detail with sufficient clarity to navigate safely. Or weather phenomenon may completely obscure the surface preventing using our vision to properly orient and control the aircraft. Or who knows? Bottom line the definition of Class A airspace says you are IFR!...
Click to expand...

I am, undoubtedly, the least experienced pilot to participate in this thread, and I don't hold an IR, so what do I know...

It seems like there's confusion between IFR and IMC. The fact that class A requires IFR operations has nothing to do with IMC. IFR..Instrument Flight Rules..is just that..a set of stricter, more specific rules governing aircraft operations. Rules. IMC is a state or condition ... Instrument Meteorlogical Condition... in which weather has deteriorated to the point that navigating and maintaining separation visually is no longer possible. The weather conditions that trigger the change in RULES from VFR to IFR vary with altitude and airspace, but weather is not the ONLY thing that triggers the change in rules. 18,000 also triggers that change in rules, regardless of weather. The regs are pretty clear... if you are on IFR (rules) in VMC conditions (weather conditions), you are responsible for seeing and avoiding traffic and maintaining separation. By definition, this means that you are NOT operating solely by instruments, and therefore can't log the time as instrument time. Being above 18,000 has nothing to do with it.

To log instrument time, you need to be in actual IMC (weather below minimums), or operating with a view-limiting device and a safety pilot or instructor...or using an approved simulator. IMC is weather. IFR is rules.

Pardon me for stating what I thought was the obvious. Like I said, I'm pretty green around these here parts. If I do have anything wrong, please let me know.
 
Last edited:
MuseChaser said:
I am, undoubtedly, the least experienced pilot to participate in this thread, and I don't hold an IR, so what do I know...

It seems like there's confusion between IFR and IMC. The fact that class A requires IFR operations has nothing to do with IMC. IFR..Instrument Flight Rules..is just that..a set of stricter, more specific rules governing aircraft operations. Rules. IMC is a state or condition ... Instrument Meteorlogical Condition... in which weather has deteriorated to the point that navigating and maintaining separation visually is no longer possible. The weather conditions that trigger the change in RULES from VFR to IFR vary with altitude and airspace, but weather is not the ONLY thing that triggers the change in rules. 18,000 also triggers that change in rules, regardless of weather. The regs are pretty clear... if you are on IFR (rules) in VFR conditions (weather conditions), you are responsible for seeing and avoiding traffic and maintaining separation. By definition, this means that you are NOT operating solely by instruments, and therefore can't log the time as instrument time. Being above 18,000 has nothing to do with it.

To log instrument time, you need to be in actual IMC (weather below minimums), or operating with a view-limiting device and a safety pilot or instructor...or using an approved simulator. IMC is weather. IFR is rules.

Pardon me for stating what I thought was the obvious. Like I said, I'm pretty green around these here parts. If I do have anything wrong, please let me know.
Click to expand...

You're more or less correct. Some nit picks, but you are waaaaaaay closer than our new expert.
 
EdFred said:
You're more or less correct. Some nit picks, but you are waaaaaaay closer than our new expert.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Ed. Still always learning. Please feel free to pick at those nits; always appreciative of further insight.
 
MuseChaser said:
Thanks, Ed. Still always learning. Please feel free to pick at those nits; always appreciative of further insight.
Click to expand...

The only nits would be that if you are 100' below a cloud deck in class E with unlimited VIS, that could be argued that you are IMC, but as you don't need the instruments to fly the plane you couldn't log it. Some might argue you could log it, because you are technically IMC.

For me, I only log it if I need the instruments to keep the plane upright. I have logged instrument time over Lake Michigan at night even though it was VFR. It was overcast and maybe 7-10 miles of visibility, but for a stretch there was no horizon, or lights or stars or anything, just black above, below, and around. And I've also been flying "cumulus canyons" where I was less than 500/1000/2000 but didn't log any time at all.
 
Here we go for the last time.

1-My OP about flying at or above FL180 to log instrument time and still have time to enjoy the scenery was INTENDED TO BE HUMOROUS and TONGUE-IN-CHEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET OVER IT!

2-I have not in the past, currently, or ever in the future advocate abandoning see and avoid. Although ATC provides traffic separation the PIC is always responsible for see and avoid!

I wanted to spark conversation, boy did that happen. Frankly, some of the questions and comments make me wonder about the poster even more than you may wonder about me. Example asking if I am instrument rated as a an ATP and CFII.

Hopefully we have all had an opportunity to vent, rage etc. I will be more careful and attentive in future posts to ensure attempts at humorous comments are appropriately identified. Can we all agree to keep things positive?

As you slide down the bannister of life may the splinters be few and always pointed im the correct direction;)
 
jonvcaples said:
Here we go for the last time.

1-My OP about flying at or above FL180 to log instrument time and still have time to enjoy the scenery was INTENDED TO BE HUMOROUS and TONGUE-IN-CHEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET OVER IT!
Click to expand...
THEN DONT ****ING DEFEND IT LIKE IT’S LEGAL!
 
jonvcaples said:
....
1-My OP about flying at or above FL180 to log instrument time and still have time to enjoy the scenery was INTENDED TO BE HUMOROUS and TONGUE-IN-CHEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET OVER IT!
Click to expand...
Jon, I'd be the first one to apologize for misunderstanding something, and certainly don't have the experience, training, or credentials to even begin to doubt yours. I responded because your first attempt to diffuse the assertions that you were confused did more to confirm that possible confusion. You wrote:

".. The simple fact you are at or above FL180 they have decided you are operating solely by your instruments. Why? Beats me! Maybe they figure from that altitude you cannot see surface detail with sufficient clarity to navigate safely. Or weather phenomenon may completely obscure the surface preventing using our vision to properly orient and control the aircraft."

Those statements led one to believe that you were asserting that IFR and operating solely by instruments were synonymous. If that's not what you meant, or you meant that in jest, you have to at least recognize that most people, myself included, could not possibly interpret it the way you meant it. Now that I've read, re-read, and re-re-re-read it after thinking long and hard about your assertions that it was meant in jest, I CAN indeed see it that way although it's a stretch. However, the wry "joke" is still based on equating IFR solely with the weather/visibility reasons for requiring IFR, and ignoring the separation and traffic control reasons for IFR. The FAA never required, intended, nor implied that flight about 18,000 be solely on instruments... just on those flight rules, so the humor was lost on most, if not all, of us. That's the entire heart of this mess.

As one with a very warped sense of humor that frequently draws very unintended responses myself, I sympathize. Just trying to help.

jonvcaples said:
Can we all agree to keep things positive?..
Click to expand...

Count me in. I like positive. I like creative, friendly, witty sarcasm and put-down humor, too, as long as it's good-natured. Best to you.
 
jonvcaples said:
...

I wanted to spark conversation, boy did that happen. Frankly, some of the questions and comments make me wonder about the poster even more than you may wonder about me. Example asking if I am instrument rated as a an ATP and CFII.

...
Click to expand...

I think that would be me :). Honestly, I have no idea who you are and what your qualifications are. So, forgive me(no sarcasm here) for not knowing that you are IR, ATP, or CFII....

If nobody understands a joke, it's either a bad joke or a good joke badly told. I can understand that things do not come through often as intended in written form in a forum, but this one sailed over the head of everyone it seems. And you do seem to defend the assertions later. Some obvious indications of sarcasm or jest are typically required in forums like this if you want it to come through. And even that is not foolproof.

However, I will accept your assertion that you do indeed mean it in jest and know what is actually correct.
 
MuseChase, thank you! Your comments are always welcome and in this situation much appreciated.

Sometimes even straight pur logic is funny but hard to follow. As Mr. Lunsford (high school algebra teacher and one of the best educators I've had) used to say, "If no salt salts like Morton Salt then Morton Salt can't be salt. However if you say no other salt salts like Morton Salt then Morton Salt is salt." I still laugh at this and the look of complete puzzlement and lack of understanding shown by most people in this class.

Have a great week!
 
jonvcaples said:
MuseChase, thank you! Your comments are always welcome and in this situation much appreciated.

Sometimes even straight pur logic is funny but hard to follow. As Mr. Lunsford (high school algebra teacher and one of the best educators I've had) used to say, "If no salt salts like Morton Salt then Morton Salt can't be salt. However if you say no other salt salts like Morton Salt then Morton Salt is salt." I still laugh at this and the look of complete puzzlement and lack of understanding shown by most people in this class.

Have a great week!
Click to expand...
I say again,
MauleSkinner said:
THEN DONT ****ING DEFEND IT LIKE IT’S LEGAL!
Click to expand...

You just keep digging your hole deeper.
 
genna said:
I think that would be me :). Honestly, I have no idea who you are and what your qualifications are. So, forgive me(no sarcasm here) for not knowing that you are IR, ATP, or CFII....

If nobody understands a joke, it's either a bad joke or a good joke badly told. I can understand that things do not come through often as intended in written form in a forum, but this one sailed over the head of everyone it seems. And you do seem to defend the assertions later. Some obvious indications of sarcasm or jest are typically required in forums like this if you want it to come through. And even that is not foolproof.

However, I will accept your assertion that you do indeed mean it in jest and know what is actually correct.
Click to expand...

Genna, thank you for your comments and participation. Sounds like I hit both nails firmly on the head, bad joke and badly told. No problemo on not knowing my background. It should be in my profile but then I frequently do not check other poster's background before responding. I have to get going but will go check yours before responding to future posts.

Have a marvelous week dahlink
 
EdFred said:
Also incorrect. See "moonless night" interpretation. Wow, you are really batting 1.000 aren't you?
Click to expand...

This caught my eye. Back when I was training and a low time VFR pilot, I would occasionally fly over the Everglades at night. Don't know the condition of the moon but let's assume moonless. I came to realize that you'd better be comfortable flying on instruments if you're going to do that and even as a VFR pilot, I was pretty comfortable. Now, had I been IFR rated, could that count as instrument time? Is that what you're going at there?

And Jon, this is a really really valuable forum for a pilot. I'm very glad I found it when I took up flying again in 2010. Just learn when to back away. Don't dig yourself a deeper hole than you're already in.
 
alfadog said:
This caught my eye. Back when I was training and a low time VFR pilot, I would occasionally fly over the Everglades at night. Don't know the condition of the moon but let's assume moonless. I came to realize that you'd better be comfortable flying on instruments if you're going to do that and even as a VFR pilot, I was pretty comfortable. Now, had I been IFR rated, could that count as instrument time? Is that what you're going at there?

And Jon, this is a really really valuable forum for a pilot. I'm very glad I found it when I took up flying again in 2010. Just learn when to back away. Don't dig yourself a deeper hole than you're already in.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't even have to be instrument rated to log it! You only need the rating to fly IFR. :)
 
Alfadog, Good question. This topic has been cussed/discussed enough. I am no longer willing to kick this tar baby. Read the prior comments and exercise your best judgement.

Maybe flying over the 'glades is best done on dark no illumination nights so you don't see the snakes, gators etc. waiting for a midnight snack!?o_O
 
jonvcaples said:
Alfadog, Good question. This topic has been cussed/discussed enough. I am no longer willing to kick this tar baby. Read the prior comments and exercise your best judgement.

Maybe flying over the 'glades is best done on dark no illumination nights so you don't see the snakes, gators etc. waiting for a midnight snack!?o_O
Click to expand...

Thanks to Ed Fred for the lead. I have the reference and will delve into it when I have more free time...

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_12/features/Actual-Conditions_1352-1.html

Legal Interpretation # 84-29

November 7, 1984
Mr. Joseph P. Carr

Dear Mr. Carr:

This is in response to your letter asking questions about instrument flight time.

First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as actual instrument flight time.

As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "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.

To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described 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.

Sincerely,
/s/
John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
Thanks to Ed Fred for the lead. I have the reference and will delve into it when I have more free time...

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_12/features/Actual-Conditions_1352-1.html

November 7, 1984
Mr. Joseph P. Carr

Dear Mr. Carr:

This is in response to your letter asking questions about instrument flight time.

First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as actual instrument flight time.

As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "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.

To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described 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.

Sincerely,
/s/
John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
Click to expand...

VERY interesting. So, based upon that, a pilot without an IR COULD log instrument time, however ill-advised, without a safety pilot or instructor given the night, invisible horizon-yet-VFR conditions described in that quote. Never occurred to me.
 
MuseChaser said:
VERY interesting. So, based upon that, a pilot without an IR COULD log instrument time, however ill-advised, without a safety pilot or instructor given the night, invisible horizon-yet-VFR conditions described in that quote. Never occurred to me.
Click to expand...

That is really pretty ideal for us in South Florida. Just head out over the Everglades, no need for a long over-water at night. At least not over water deeper than 4' or so, often less. That underlying muck is a female dog, though.
 
MuseChaser said:
VERY interesting. So, based upon that, a pilot without an IR COULD log instrument time, however ill-advised, without a safety pilot or instructor given the night, invisible horizon-yet-VFR conditions described in that quote. Never occurred to me.
Click to expand...

I take private students out over Lake Michigan on very hazy days. Can always tell which ones were cheating under the hood by looking out the corner of their eye at the ground. As soon we cross the shoreline and that reference is gone the plane always starts to bank and then climb and then descend and then I have to take over the controls as they start chasing it. "This is why you don't do VMC ==> IMC."
 
EdFred said:
I take private students out over Lake Michigan on very hazy days. Can always tell which ones were cheating under the hood by looking out the corner of their eye at the ground. As soon we cross the shoreline and that reference is gone the plane always starts to bank and then climb and then descend and then I have to take over the controls as they start chasing it. "This is why you don't do VMC ==> IMC."
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I've flown out over Lake Ontario in some haze and it was a real eye-opener the first time. Never went real far from the shoreline.. just enough to know exactly what you're talking about.
 
MuseChaser said:
VERY interesting. So, based upon that, a pilot without an IR COULD log instrument time, however ill-advised, without a safety pilot or instructor given the night, invisible horizon-yet-VFR conditions described in that quote. Never occurred to me.
Click to expand...

Like you said, it seems ill-advised. I'd be apprehensive logging this way in a single-pilot, non-IR scenario. It just feels like it sets up a potential regulatory "gotcha" if there is no safety pilot recorded in what is technically VMC. With an instructor or safety pilot, I'd still log it simulated instrument...it just happens to be very good simulated instrument.
 
James331 said:
Meh, who cares.

I’d be more concerned with IMC time and ideally night IMC time.

Flying straight and level doesn’t tell me too much, flying approaches to the missed, circles to a missed, holds, radials, STARS, SIDs in IMC, or without a REAL reference to a horizon, ideally without a moving map GPS, that’s what I’d be shooting for.

Also don’t discount simulators, especially for IFR work.
Click to expand...

Partial panel ILS back course from a DME arc!
 
32-E4-D91-D-D5-E0-44-A2-9-E03-1301-D8-BEB25-B.png


Lots of good ones, but going approach to approach without getting vectors and without a moving map is a good thing
, toss in a circle to a missed and a few other things like a last minute go around, AI failure, etc.
 
MuseChaser said:
VERY interesting. So, based upon that, a pilot without an IR COULD log instrument time, however ill-advised, without a safety pilot or instructor given the night, invisible horizon-yet-VFR conditions described in that quote. Never occurred to me.
Click to expand...
Yes. The conditions can even exist in broad daylight, if there is enough haze and one is over water. I have about 0.5 hour logged from about 10 years before getting instrument rated on a flight over Lake Michigan in summer haze. That was with an instrument rated pilot aboard, but I also logged 0.2 in similar conditions many years later on a solo flight, about a year before my IR checkride. That was after many hours of IR training, when I was much more comfortable flying on instruments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top