Logging IFR during moonless Night VFR

airguy said:
The question then becomes, can a non-IFR pilot fly and log that time in legal VMC but effective IMC? Obviously he can fly it - it's legal conditions for VFR - but can it be logged? What about VFR-On-Top?

From the first OP question - the conditions specified are IFR rated but not current - which means he's not legal to exercise IFR - which means he's in the same boat as VFR, correct?

I'm honestly asking the question because I don't know - I'm VFR only but wanting to pursue the IFR very soon.
Click to expand...


jfk jr. was flying vfr in those conditions..... He couldn't logged it.
 
coloradobluesky said:
I log "Filed IFR" time, "IMC" time, and "hood" time because they make sense to me. I make no distinction between "IMC" and "actual instrument conditions" although there can be a difference. I don't see much actual without being in IMC, though it has happened.
Click to expand...
You can log it that way if that makes you happy, but if you do, you'll have no basis on which to claim any actual instrument time since none of those categories meet the requirement to claim that time, and neither the FAA nor any other agency or employer I know cares about "Filed IFR" or "IMC" time unless it's actual instrument time, and your log won't show whether it is or not. And as Mark noted, the fact that you logged it as "Filed IFR" or "IMC" will not allow you to claim any events flown (approaches, holding, interception, or tracking) for recent instrument experience required by 61.57(c) unless you note in the remarks block that it was also in fact in "actual instrument conditions". That would have similar implications if you need instrument time to meet the requirements for a higher certificate/rating or for something like 14 CFR 135.243 to be PIC in a Part 135 operation.
 
Last edited:
cirrusmx said:
jfk jr. was flying vfr in those conditions..... He couldn't logged it.
Click to expand...
Actually, he could have logged it as "actual instrument" time, since he was clearly in conditions in which reference to the flight instruments was necessary to maintain control of the aircraft even though he was legally flying under VFR in VMC.
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, he could have logged it as "actual instrument" time, since he was clearly in conditions in which reference to the flight instruments was necessary to maintain control of the aircraft even though he was legally flying under VFR in VMC.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm guessing his point was that JFK Jr couldn't log it because logging generally takes place after the flight.

Not particularly funny but accurate.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You might also be thinking of Angel Flight. Different AF Wings have different requirements. AF West may be the only one that doesn't have an IR requirement, I think mostly because there are a lot more severe clear VFR days in that region than elsewhere.
Click to expand...

As I discussed with the briefer when getting my Command Pilot status, many people don't understand why we don't fly more missions in actual IMC than we do. Something about ice in those clouds. Even in the PNW the majority of AFW flights are in VMC for that reason. I like having the IR, and I file for XC flights, but it's seldom that I actually log instrument time.
 
Ghery said:
As I discussed with the briefer when getting my Command Pilot status, many people don't understand why we don't fly more missions in actual IMC than we do.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between "actual IMC" and whatever sort of IMC is not "actual IMC"? :dunno: I was under the impression based on 14 CFR 91.155 that IMC is anything less than VMC as defined in that regulation, period, end of story.
 
Ron Levy said:
What's the difference between "actual IMC" and whatever sort of IMC is not "actual IMC"? :dunno: I was under the impression based on 14 CFR 91.155 that IMC is anything less than VMC as defined in that regulation, period, end of story.
Click to expand...

So strike the word "actual".
 
Ron Levy said:
What's the difference between "actual IMC" and whatever sort of IMC is not "actual IMC"? :dunno: I was under the impression based on 14 CFR 91.155 that IMC is anything less than VMC as defined in that regulation, period, end of story.
Click to expand...

That sounds a little too picky to me.

• The Chief Counsel used the phrase "actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc))" in the "moonless night opinion"
• The FAA once used the phrase "actual IFR conditions" in 61.57
• the FAA now uses the phrase "actual weather conditions" in 61.57

So I really don't see a problem with the phrase "actual IMC" to mean "actual instrument conditions" as opposed to merely "IMC" Good enough for the FAA Chief Counsel, good enough for me.

If you want to have some semantic fun, how about this from the "moonless night" opinion:

==============================
"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. (my emphasis)
==============================

It suggests the "moonless night" scenario is not "typical" and does not involve "adverse weather conditions." So, since the FAA now uses the phrase "actual weather conditions" perhaps the moonless night is no longer available for currency? :idea:
 
I think the FAA needs to hire some English majors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top