IMC definition for approach logging

R

Rheo

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Messages
12
Display Name
Display name:
Rheo
I know for logging approaches in actual, you have to cross the FAF in IMC. And I've seen IMC defined as both "weather conditions that require pilots to fly by reference to instruments" but also as "weather conditions less than that prescribed for VFR". Here's why I'm asking: I was out flying approaches in MVFR conditions. Unfortunately, I broke out about 100-200 feet above FAF altitude, so I'm thinking these are not loggable. But -- the conditions were actually less than VFR minimums, given the distance to clouds, so the flight required being IFR. So does that mean it's legally IMC? I'm still presuming not, but thought I'd get people's opinions...
 
If I had to use instruments to get to the runway, I flew an approach. Similarly, if I need lights to find the airport, it’s night.
 
MVFR, doesn’t mean IMC. If you’re still in the soup at the FAF, it’s loggable. If you’re VMC, it isn’t.
 
Rheo said:
I know for logging approaches in actual, you have to cross the FAF in IMC. And I've seen IMC defined as both "weather conditions that require pilots to fly by reference to instruments" but also as "weather conditions less than that prescribed for VFR". Here's why I'm asking: I was out flying approaches in MVFR conditions. Unfortunately, I broke out about 100-200 feet above FAF altitude, so I'm thinking these are not loggable. But -- the conditions were actually less than VFR minimums, given the distance to clouds, so the flight required being IFR. So does that mean it's legally IMC? I'm still presuming not, but thought I'd get people's opinions...
Click to expand...
The criterion for logging instrument time is not whether you are in IMC, which the FAA defines as conditions less than those required for VFR. If the FAA used that as the criterion, then for example you could log it as instrument time when you were above a cloud but less than 1000 feet above it, which wouldn't make any sense. FAA guidance has stated that if you are not using a view-limiting device (which requires a safety pilot), then you must be in conditions that make it impossible to control the aircraft without the use of instruments.
 
Palmpilot said:
If the FAA used that as the criterion, then for example you could log it as instrument time when you were above a cloud but less than 1000 feet above it, which wouldn't make any sense
Click to expand...
i alway like flying IMC at 6000 msl, 400’ below the ceiling, with 100 miles visibility :D
 
“‘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 exist “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.”
-1984 Chief Counsel Carr Letter (famous for the ”moonless night” scenario)

Basically, you can log actual when outside conditions require you to use the instrument to keep the airplane right side up.
 
midlifeflyer said:
i alway like flying IMC at 6000 msl, 400’ below the ceiling, with 100 miles visibility :D
Click to expand...
I don’t want to be nit picky, but flight visibility is average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

At 5,600 feet MSL., the most flight visibility you could have is 95.66 miles due to the curvature of the earth. That is assuming you vision is good enough to see and identify objects at 95.66 miles.
 
Clip4 said:
I don’t want to be nit picky, but flight visibility is average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

At 5,600 feet MSL., the most flight visibility you could have is 95.66 miles due to the curvature of the earth. That is assuming you vision is good enough to see and identify objects at 95.66 miles.
Click to expand...
What if Pikes Peak is on the horizon?
 
Rheo said:
I know for logging approaches in actual, you have to cross the FAF in IMC. And I've seen IMC defined as both "weather conditions that require pilots to fly by reference to instruments" but also as "weather conditions less than that prescribed for VFR". Here's why I'm asking: I was out flying approaches in MVFR conditions. Unfortunately, I broke out about 100-200 feet above FAF altitude, so I'm thinking these are not loggable. But -- the conditions were actually less than VFR minimums, given the distance to clouds, so the flight required being IFR. So does that mean it's legally IMC? I'm still presuming not, but thought I'd get people's opinions...
Click to expand...
If you're flying, and not flying VFR in VMC, then what's left? Really like the answers above in posts 2 and 7. If you need instruments to keep the top of the airplane facing away from the earth, yes log it as IMC.
 
WDD said:
If you're flying, and not flying VFR in VMC, then what's left? Really like the answers above in posts 2 and 7. If you need instruments to keep the top of the airplane facing away from the earth, yes log it as IMC.
Click to expand...
The issue isn't logging instrument time (IMC or hood) but rather whether an approach can be logged for your 6 HITs. FAA says to log an approach in IMC you must be IMC when passing the FAF.
 
Rheo said:
The issue isn't logging instrument time (IMC or hood) but rather whether an approach can be logged for your 6 HITs. FAA says to log an approach in IMC you must be IMC when passing the FAF.
Click to expand...
“it” being “approach” Log “it”. Log it as instrument approach. In book. In log book. For big metal bird you fly in………

Geezzzz.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yeah / a little Snarky here. No disrespect meant -
 
Last edited:
Rheo said:
I've seen IMC defined as both "weather conditions that require pilots to fly by reference to instruments" but also as "weather conditions less than that prescribed for VFR". Here's why I'm asking: I was out flying approaches in MVFR conditions. Unfortunately, I broke out about 100-200 feet above FAF altitude, so I'm thinking these are not loggable. But -- the conditions were actually less than VFR minimums, given the distance to clouds, so the flight required being IFR. So does that mean it's legally IMC?
Click to expand...
61.51(g)(1) "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."

If you weren't flying solely by reference to instruments then not loggable.

BTW, I believe this business about whether or not you are at or past the FAF comes from InFO15012.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What if Pikes Peak is on the horizon?
Click to expand...
Flight visibility is average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

Although they are often named, and sometimes even worshipped, individual mountains do not satisfy the criteria for being objects. Mountains do not have determinate, prominent, and complete boundaries.
 
I go by whether I can proceed visually to the the runway from the FAF. I've flown a number of approaches where I'm in the clear at the faf, but there's clouds between there and the runway. I've also flown a couple that were technically vmc, but the visibility was 3-4 miles so you couldn't see the runway until well inside the faf.
 
Clip4 said:
Flight visibility is average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

Although they are often named, and sometimes even worshipped, individual mountains do not satisfy the criteria for being objects. Mountains do not have determinate, prominent, and complete boundaries.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I can still see it.
 
Clip4 said:
Flight visibility is average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

Although they are often named, and sometimes even worshipped, individual mountains do not satisfy the criteria for being objects. Mountains do not have determinate, prominent, and complete boundaries.
Click to expand...
Mountains can be used to determine reported visibility by a weather observer, so why can’t they be used by a pilot?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Mountains can be used to determine reported visibility by a weather observer, so why can’t they be used by a pilot?
Click to expand...
Ground visibility means prevailing horizontal visibility near the earth's surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or an accredited observer.

You really think a credited weather observer would use a mountain several thousand feet above the airport elevation to determine ground visibilty? The reported ground visibility needed for the VFR pilot to comply with regulations for controlled airspace at the surface a 3 sm and 1 sm.

1717256444571.jpeg

Objects near the airports surface have measured predetermined distances and if the shape and color remain sharp, the distance is greater than the object’s predetermined distance.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Ground visibility means prevailing horizontal visibility near the earth's surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or an accredited observer.

You really think a credited weather observer would use a mountain several thousand feet above the airport elevation to determine ground visibilty?
Click to expand...
Having seen it, I have no reason not to think it would happen.
 
Last edited:
Jim K said:
I've flown a number of approaches where I'm in the clear at the faf, but there's clouds between there and the runway.
Click to expand...
I'd have zero hesitation logging that approach towards the 6 count. Part 91 guys get a bit of a bad deal when it comes to these allowances, especially the unjustified resistance on the part of the regulators to let people count flight simulation devices like DCS platforms. flight sim has come a long way since the days of DOS MSFS. The requirements of replicating a redbird setup at home could be done for cheaper than 10K, especially having seen what some of the VR DCS nerds have at home.

121 and mil guys shoot approaches in part-time VMC all the time (we have the benefit of qualifying FTDs on the ground though), and they count towards that recency (under the long standing legal precedent of "prove I wasn't in IMC when I shot it X months ago" :D). I think a lawnmower driver should be given the same professional courtesy when shooting these part-IMC approaches, given the squid game nature to the imprudence of recreational IMC in the first place.





TL;DR: fly what you want, log what you need.
 
hindsight2020 said:
under the long standing legal precedent of "prove I wasn't in IMC when I shot it X months ago
Click to expand...
And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? Pretty much all logging is on the honor system. I mean if an investigator really wanted to, I suppose weather records probably exist to the extent of "was it cloudy that day?", but in the end it's on the pilot to log what he/she feels is right, and above & beyond, decide if they are proficient. The only real guidance I've ever seen on this issue is "IMC at the FAF", and in my mind if I can't see the runway from the FAF, that's IMC. If I can, well maybe I've built some proficiency, but from a currency standpoint I might as well have stayed in the hangar.

I've actually never flown a loggable simulator, but to me the challenge of IFR is ignoring the sensations your body is giving you, and short of a full motion sim, which are generally inaccessible to us hobbyists, you get none of that. Yeah, sims can teach procedures, but that's about it. You can do that in VMC too.
 
Jim K said:
The only real guidance I've ever seen on this issue is "IMC at the FAF", and in my mind if I can't see the runway from the FAF, that's IMC.
Click to expand...
Not seeing the runway from the FAF doesn’t make it IMC, although it does increase the likelihood that you’ll be IMC before you get there.
 
Jim K said:
The only real guidance I've ever seen on this issue is "IMC at the FAF"
Click to expand...
Well that's missing the "operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments" part but as @MauleSkinner points out, you'll probably satisfy that on the way to the MAP anyway. That is, unless it's a dive-and-drive and you duck under the obscuration.
 
Not something that I practice, but I was once told to refer to the alternate airport filing visibility requirements for the approach you're flying.. If those are the minimums than you can log it as an "actual approach.."
 
Jim K said:
I've actually never flown a loggable simulator, but to me the challenge of IFR is ignoring the sensations your body is giving you, and short of a full motion sim, which are generally inaccessible to us hobbyists, you get none of that. Yeah, sims can teach procedures, but that's about it. You can do that in VMC too.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree simulators only reasonably serve as part-task/procedure-trainers. As a career instructor, that experience has made me of the opinion any non-motion sim with sufficient peripheral view limiting and/or wrapping (>180 deg visuals would suffice) is an excellent and economical substitute to inflight IMC expenses and risk. You don't need level D sims to attain that. We have essentially the equivalent of what I call level B++ simulators in AETC (iow, better wraparounds than level C and even D, but no six deg of freedom to technically qualify for C or D), and the level of IMC and partial panel crosscheck training we can expose pilots to, even for experienced IPs, is fantastic for the money. Humbling as all get out.

We do have spartan level UTDs that resemble the non-enclosed redbird setups. Absent an enclosure yes I agree those are largely better suited as part-task trainers. But our OFTs and WSTs are the real deal, and I argue more legitimate means of logging approaches in the spirit of intent of 61 dot whatever, than what we do currently shooting and logging approaches in part-time IMC in the actual aircraft.
 
Jim K said:
I've actually never flown a loggable simulator, but to me the challenge of IFR is ignoring the sensations your body is giving you, and short of a full motion sim, which are generally inaccessible to us hobbyists, you get none of that. Yeah, sims can teach procedures, but that's about it. You can do that in VMC too.
Click to expand...
OTOH, the lack of motion and feedback, coupled with the squirrelness of some of the controls really helps with creating a good, reliable scan. It’s actually more difficult in some ways than the real thing.
 
midlifeflyer said:
OTOH, the lack of motion and feedback, coupled with the squirrelness of some of the controls really helps with creating a good, reliable scan. It’s actually more difficult in some ways than the real thing.
Click to expand...

I've had the same discussion with my students in a Redbird motion sim. They often point out that the motion doesn't feel realistic. I tell them that is actualy a good thing. Sometimes I wish the sim had instructor controls where I can make it reverse or randomize motion.
 
The saying we have about our Redbird, “If you can fly the sim, you can fly anything.”

The control feedback is terrible. The GPS almost, but not quite simulates a Garmin. There’s a Bad Elf used to generate a Bluetooth gps output for your tablet. The BadElf has a BadHabit of losing connection so, more often than not, approaches have to be done without a georeferenced plate using a “gps” that doesn’t always sequence as expected. The approach is normally much easier than the missed where a lot of things are happening at the same time and the poor control feedback and lack of a moving map signal really makes you work.

I did a few sim approaches to a local airport, then did the real thing. The real thing was surprisingly easy after that sim session.
 
Matthew said:
The saying we have about our Redbird, “If you can fly the sim, you can fly anything.”
Click to expand...
I divide my own sessions into two types. One is focused on procedure. Pick an approach or an unusual SID, STAR or ODP (even though not countable for currency except for intercepting and tracking). The other is to work on scan.

At this point in my life I don’t get that much time to fly in actual and a scan session the week before a significant cross country is SOP. I know how much easier the real thing is.
 
sarangan said:
I've had the same discussion with my students in a Redbird motion sim. They often point out that the motion doesn't feel realistic. I tell them that is actualy a good thing.
Click to expand...
I say the same thing about full motion sims. When I’m flying one, I have to completely ignore motion so I don’t do things like make turns with full rudder.

Any sim is merely an opportunity to work on scan, which is something that deteriorates fairly quickly in real flying because there ARE so many other sensory inputs that tell us what an airplane is doing.
 
That is a great attitude to have regarding IMC recency; we'd have more folks and their families alive today if they took a similar professional attitude towards the proposition of recreational IMC.
 
The only real downside to self-directed ATD sessions (or for that matter a more sophisticated home setup) is the lack of realistic ATC. And with some you can add on such things as PilotEdge. Other than that, legal currency aside, using an ATD as a proficiency trainer depends primarily on the pilot.
 
Palmpilot said:
for example you could log it as instrument time when you were above a cloud but less than 1000 feet above it, which wouldn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Since when does "making sense" have anything to do with FAA regs?
 
midlifeflyer said:
legal currency aside, using an ATD as a proficiency trainer depends primarily on the pilot.
Click to expand...
I wonder about the pilot that turns off wind/turbulence/failures, turns on the G1000 syn-vis and programs the GFC700 VPTH. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top