What's "actual"?

azure said:
I'd say you are "technically" in IMC. You are in conditions where you need to be IFR in order to be legal, you can't be VFR.

In common parlance though, IMC == in the soup. If ATC calls out traffic to me that I can't see because I'm in the clag, I will reply "8JT is IMC". Yes, technically I haven't given him enough information, but I'm pretty sure he will know that I don't mean less than 500 feet below the cloud base.
Click to expand...
I agree, it's the difference between regulatory definition and common parlance. Like "certificate" vs "rating" vs "endorsement." Or "CFI" meaning "CFI-A." Or, "BFR" for that matter. They can, however, lead to confusion of various degrees.

BFR, not so much. "certificate" vs "rating" vs "endorsement," only for a few decades now :D. IMC vs "actual?" Yes, I also use IMC (as well as "in the clouds," wasting time with the extra "the") to advise ATC I can't see the traffic. But I've seen a few issues here and there in ground discussions, including folks arguing they can log instrument time in the 300' below scenario. The FAA uses "actual," so we might as well go with its definition - which doesn't require IMC at all) rather than one which, however well it may be understood in the air, can change from person to person. That's why I answered the "Actual - IMC for logging purposes" the way I did.
 
EdFred said:
Except there is no IFR in Class G,
Click to expand...
I don't understand. IFR rules in Part 91 are of two types. There are regs which say "under IFR" and others which say "under IFR in controlled airspace." Every time we takeoff or, or that matter, do an instrument approach into an airport where the clouds are below the floor of Class E, we are IFR in Class G.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I agree, it's the difference between regulatory definition and common parlance. Like "certificate" vs "rating" vs "endorsement." Or "CFI" meaning "CFI-A." Or, "BFR" for that matter. They can, however, lead to confusion of various degrees.

BFR, not so much. "certificate" vs "rating" vs "endorsement," only for a few decades now :D. IMC vs "actual?" Yes, I also use IMC (as well as "in the clouds," wasting time with the extra "the") to advise ATC I can't see the traffic. But I've seen a few issues here and there in ground discussions, including folks arguing they can log instrument time in the 300' below scenario. The FAA uses "actual," so we might as well go with its definition - which doesn't require IMC at all) rather than one which, however well it may be understood in the air, can change from person to person. That's why I answered the "Actual - IMC for logging purposes" the way I did.
Click to expand...
I distinguish actual from IMC too, I think pretty much the same way you do. I use "actual" as shorthand for "actual instrument conditions", meaning any conditions where you need to be on the gauges to keep the dirty side down, even if IMC isn't involved at all. I consider that loggable as actual instrument time, in agreement with the Chief Counsel letter you quoted, and I have a few minutes of that kind of time here and there in my logbook from many years before I was instrument rated.

But I wish the FAA had defined IMC and VMC more in line with common parlance. I think everyone understands that you can't be legally VFR 300 feet below a cloud deck in Class E, but it comes as a surprise to a lot of people that that is considered IMC. Personally if I can see traffic called out to me at my altitude I consider it VMC, just maybe not legal for VFR. And according to my definition, it's not enough to be VMC to legally cancel IFR.

But yeah, the FAA has a slightly different, and IMO somewhat confusion-prone, definition.
 
azure said:
I distinguish actual from IMC too, I think pretty much the same way you do. I use "actual" as shorthand for "actual instrument conditions", meaning any conditions where you need to be on the gauges to keep the dirty side down, even if IMC isn't involved at all. I consider that loggable as actual instrument time, in agreement with the Chief Counsel letter you quoted, and I have a few minutes of that kind of time here and there in my logbook from many years before I was instrument rated.

But I wish the FAA had defined IMC and VMC more in line with common parlance. I think everyone understands that you can't be legally VFR 300 feet below a cloud deck in Class E, but it comes as a surprise to a lot of people that that is considered IMC. Personally if I can see traffic called out to me at my altitude I consider it VMC, just maybe not legal for VFR. And according to my definition, it's not enough to be VMC to legally cancel IFR.

But yeah, the FAA has a slightly different, and IMO somewhat confusion-prone, definition.
Click to expand...
That's largely because the FARs don't define any of the commonly used terms: VMC (conditions immediately surrounding the aircraft that meet or exceed VFR minimums for the airspace and time of day), IMC (conditions that aren't VMC), VFR (a set of rules that include not entering IMC except by Special VFR clearance), and IFR (another set of rules that include not flying in controlled airspace without a clearance). (IFR and VFR are listed as abbreviations.)

The only term that is explicitly defined is "IFR conditions," which is arguably a stupid term that I'm not sure is actually used anywhere in the rest of the code.

The logging rules refer to "actual or simulated instrument flight conditions," a term that is not, as far as I can tell, defined anywhere in the code. So you have to dig deeper into chief counsel letters of interpretation and/or guess and/or reach a consensus on POA to figure out what the term that is actually used in the code actually means about "actual instrument flight conditions."
 
azure said:
I distinguish actual from IMC too, I think pretty much the same way you do. I use "actual" as shorthand for "actual instrument conditions", meaning any conditions where you need to be on the gauges to keep the dirty side down, even if IMC isn't involved at all. I consider that loggable as actual instrument time, in agreement with the Chief Counsel letter you quoted, and I have a few minutes of that kind of time here and there in my logbook from many years before I was instrument rated.

But I wish the FAA had defined IMC and VMC more in line with common parlance. I think everyone understands that you can't be legally VFR 300 feet below a cloud deck in Class E, but it comes as a surprise to a lot of people that that is considered IMC. Personally if I can see traffic called out to me at my altitude I consider it VMC, just maybe not legal for VFR. And according to my definition, it's not enough to be VMC to legally cancel IFR.

But yeah, the FAA has a slightly different, and IMO somewhat confusion-prone, definition.
Click to expand...
More likely, it would be good if pilots used terms as defined by the FAA rather than making up their own definitions...I'd bet the FAA defined the term before pilots started using it in common parlance.
 
MauleSkinner said:
More likely, it would be good if pilots used terms as defined by the FAA rather than making up their own definitions...I'd bet the FAA defined the term before pilots started using it in common parlance.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's true, but you can bet that common parlance is what is going to prevail in the culture, especially since it is more intuitive.

And no, I don't push my definitions on anyone, I'm just saying that's how I think of the terms. I know the standard FAA meanings and if anyone is confused, I give them the official definitions not the common ones.
 
Don't tell me that IMC is the new PIC.
 
iamtheari said:
That's largely because the FARs don't define any of the commonly used terms: VMC (conditions immediately surrounding the aircraft that meet or exceed VFR minimums for the airspace and time of day), IMC (conditions that aren't VMC), VFR (a set of rules that include not entering IMC except by Special VFR clearance), and IFR (another set of rules that include not flying in controlled airspace without a clearance). (IFR and VFR are listed as abbreviations.)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether the FARs define VMC and IMC or not, but I was under the impression that they were defined either in the AIM, or in a chief counsel letter somewhere. I will have to check later as I don't have time to search right now.

The logging rules refer to "actual or simulated instrument flight conditions," a term that is not, as far as I can tell, defined anywhere in the code. So you have to dig deeper into chief counsel letters of interpretation and/or guess and/or reach a consensus on POA to figure out what the term that is actually used in the code actually means about "actual instrument flight conditions."
Click to expand...
That one, I'm pretty sure is defined in a chief counsel letter (the one that Mark quoted, or maybe others as well). I don't see any reason to change it since the distinction is meaningful. Also I don't think there's any established colloquial meaning that conflicts with the official definition - "actual" is usually IMC, but I think most people understand that that is not always the case (especially since JFK Jr.).
 
EdFred said:
Where does "IFR Conditions" exist in the PCG?
Click to expand...

Between "IFR AIRCRAFT" and "IFR DEPARTURE PROCEDURE."

"IFR CONDITIONS− Weather conditions below the
minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
(See INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL
CONDITIONS.)"
​
 

Attachments

  • IFR Conditions.pdf
    47.2 KB · Views: 0
azure said:
I'm not sure whether the FARs define VMC and IMC or not, but I was under the impression that they were defined either in the AIM, or in a chief counsel letter somewhere. I will have to check later as I don't have time to search right now.
Click to expand...

The FAR and P/CG definitions for IMC are quoted above and earlier in the thread. The one for VMC is in the P/CG, but not in the FARs that I can find.

"VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS−
Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of
visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling equal to or
better than specified minima.
(See INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES.)
(See INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL
CONDITIONS.)
(See VISUAL FLIGHT RULES.)"
​
 
azure said:
I'm sure that's true, but you can bet that common parlance is what is going to prevail in the culture, especially since it is more intuitive.

And no, I don't push my definitions on anyone, I'm just saying that's how I think of the terms. I know the standard FAA meanings and if anyone is confused, I give them the official definitions not the common ones.
Click to expand...
I'm sure common parlance would prevail in the culture...not because it's more intuitive, but because most people seem to be averse to actually reading FAA documentation. Yes, there are some valid reasons for that. ;) I spend a lot of time at my job teaching pilots things that are explicitly stated in their airplane documentation. They (or their company) spends thousands of dollars for me to point out things that they have nearly unlimited access to on their own. :eek:

Unfortunately, you're in the minority. Most people who use terms contrary to the official documentation don't seem to acknowledge that there IS an official definition, especially one that contradicts theirs. I think there's a thread around here somewhere that might illustrate my point...:rolleyes:
 
Palmpilot said:
The FAR and P/CG definitions for IMC are quoted above and earlier in the thread. The one for VMC is in the P/CG, but not in the FARs that I can find.

"VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS−
Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of
visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling equal to or
better than specified minima.
(See INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES.)
(See INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL
CONDITIONS.)
(See VISUAL FLIGHT RULES.)"
​
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's kind of what I was thinking. (I'd forgotten about the P/CG, strangely enough.)
 
dmspilot said:
I used to think that's what IMC meant until I learned that it just means legal IFR conditions. So why don't we just call it IFR conditions? I don't understand what the point is of having a term for a concept that we already have one for.
Click to expand...

dmspilot said:
The definition of "IFR conditions" is in 14 CFR 1.1:
"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

It is a synonym for IMC. Thus I asked, why two terms for the same thing?
Click to expand...

Simple math solves this.

You postulate:

IFR + Conditions = IMC

Or:

Instrument + Flight + Rules + Conditions = Instrument + Meteorological + Conditions

Subtract "Conditions" from both sides:

Instrument + Flight + Rules = Instrument + Meteorological

Subtract "Instrument" from both sides:

Flight + Rules = Meteorological

But wait! That is not true! The term "flight rules" does not equal the term "meteorological". One is a set of abstract concepts, and the other a realm of physical reality.
 
Rushie said:
You postulate:

IFR + Conditions = IMC
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I postulate.

IFR conditions is a term defined by FAR 1.1 and it does not mean "IFR + Conditions".

---

What I postulate is that

"weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules"

equals

"meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions".
 
Last edited:
You can be IFR without being IMC.
You can be IMC without being IFR.
You can can log actual without being IFR or being IMC.

Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
 
EdFred said:
You can be IFR without being IMC.
You can be IMC without being IFR.
You can can log actual without being IFR or being IMC.

Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
Click to expand...

Nobody has exhibited any difficulty grasping that concept at any point in this thread nor has anyone posted anything contrary to those statements.

Too bad you can't understand the difference between "IFR" and "IFR conditions". Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp?
 
dmspilot said:
Nobody has exhibited any difficulty grasping that concept at any point in this thread nor has anyone posted anything contrary to those statements.

Too bad you can't understand the difference between "IFR" and "IFR conditions". Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp?
Click to expand...

It's not. You're the one stating you have an issue differentiating between IFR Conditions and IMC - something which I have no trouble with.
 
EdFred said:
It's not. You're the one stating you have an issue differentiating between IFR Conditions and IMC - something which I have no trouble with.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between "weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules" and "meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions", other than wording?
 
I just log it when I think it’s appropriate by how the flight went and generally try to keep my logged actual time at approximately 10% of my total time. I read somewhere that’s what the pricks interviewing expect to see. So that’s roughly what I have on paper. Does it really matter that much?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I just log it when I think it’s appropriate by how the flight went and generally try to keep my logged actual time at approximately 10% of my total time. I read somewhere that’s what the pricks interviewing expect to see. So that’s roughly what I have on paper. Does it really matter that much?
Click to expand...


I just looked through my logbook numbers and I'm in that 10% range too.
 
EdFred said:
Your posts in this thread indicate otherwise.
Click to expand...

You should post something of substance, but you won't because every time you tried, you were wrong -- e.g. posts 42, 49, and 53.
 
Odd, I'm wrong in posts that I didn't even make.
Well, that explains a lot of where you are coming from.

But I did word it wrong initially. What I meant to say was you don't need to be IFR in class G and you can be in IMC. So you can be IMC, but since you don't need to be IFR, then IMC conditions exist where IFR conditions don't exist.

Also one can legally fly in controlled airspace in conditions less than VFR - which would make them by defintion IMC and also at the same time not IFR conditions.
 
EdFred said:
...I did word it wrong initially. What I meant to say was you don't need to be IFR in class G and you can be in IMC. So you can be IMC, but since you don't need to be IFR, then IMC conditions exist where IFR conditions don't exist.

Also one can legally fly in controlled airspace in conditions less than VFR - which would make them by defintion IMC and also at the same time not IFR conditions.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that you have to be IFR to fly in IMC in class G, but you don't have to be on an IFR clearance to do so.
 
EdFred said:
Odd, I'm wrong in posts that I didn't even make.
Well, that explains a lot of where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

Those posts are responses to arguments you made that illustrate your incorrect train of thought.

EdFred said:
But I did word it wrong initially. What I meant to say was you don't need to be IFR in class G and you can be in IMC. So you can be IMC, but since you don't need to be IFR, then IMC conditions exist where IFR conditions don't exist.
Click to expand...

"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

No requirement exists to be operating under IFR, with or without a flight plan, in order for weather conditions to be below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules. Claiming that you must be operating under IFR or on an IFR clearance in order to be in IFR conditions is a backwards, and silly, train of thought, and a similarly wrong train of thought to the one you accuse me of making (but which I didn't).

I will post it several more times since it's not sinking in for you:

IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.

EdFred said:
Also one can legally fly in controlled airspace in conditions less than VFR
Click to expand...

By definition "conditions less than VFR" are called IFR conditions.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

No requirement exists to be operating under IFR, with or without a flight plan, in order for weather conditions to be below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
Click to expand...

I guess that's literally true from the point of view that flight rules don't control the weather, but there is a requirement to be operating under IFR (which must be on an IFR flight plan if you're in controlled airspace) in order to FLY in weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules, is there not?
 
dmspilot said:
Those posts are responses to arguments you made that illustrate your incorrect train of thought.



"IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

No requirement exists to be operating under IFR, with or without a flight plan, in order for weather conditions to be below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules. Claiming that you must be operating under IFR or on an IFR clearance in order to be in IFR conditions is a backwards, and silly, train of thought, and a similarly wrong train of thought to the one you accuse me of making (but which I didn't).

I will post it several more times since it's not sinking in for you:

IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.



By definition "conditions less than VFR" are called IFR conditions.
Click to expand...

And in all of your yammering, I see you never once addressed IMC - which is not exactly the same as IFR conditions.
 
Palmpilot said:
I guess that's literally true from the point of view that flight rules don't control the weather, but there is a requirement to be operating under IFR (which must be on an IFR flight plan if you're in controlled airspace) in order to FLY in weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules, is there not?
Click to expand...

Not ALL cases. Which is why there's IMC - which isn't tied solely to IFR.
 
I won't get into the semantics argument, I'll just cast my vote...

If I'm 300 under the clouds and under IFR, I would *not* log this as actual. Because to me, the IFR-ness of the situation is not "meteorological" in nature and I can keep the plane upright without the instruments.

If it's nighttime and I'm over a big lake, I can see how this is kind of ambiguous. One need not be IFR to do it, but it requires "instrument flying" in a different sense. I would not take issue with those that would log this as actual, but I think I personally would *not* log this as actual. One reason is: I could perform this flight under VFR without being IFR-current, and someone could see such an entry in my logbook, and see that I wasn't IFR-current at the time, and say "hmmm?" And so why invite the questions, just to be able to claim more actual time?
 
kath said:
I won't get into the semantics argument, I'll just cast my vote...

If I'm 300 under the clouds and under IFR, I would *not* log this as actual. Because to me, the IFR-ness of the situation is not "meteorological" in nature and I can keep the plane upright without the instruments.
Click to expand...

I think we're all in agreement on that, since flight by reference to instruments would not be necessary to keep control of the aircraft.

If it's nighttime and I'm over a big lake, I can see how this is kind of ambiguous. One need not be IFR to do it, but it requires "instrument flying" in a different sense. I would not take issue with those that would log this as actual, but I think I personally would *not* log this as actual. One reason is: I could perform this flight under VFR without being IFR-current, and someone could see such an entry in my logbook, and see that I wasn't IFR-current at the time, and say "hmmm?" And so why invite the questions, just to be able to claim more actual time?
Click to expand...

When the FAA Chief Counsel's office blessed this practice, they said that the pilot should write in his/her logbook what the conditions were that made flight by reference to instruments necessary.
 
EdFred said:
Not ALL cases. Which is why there's IMC - which isn't tied solely to IFR.
Click to expand...
Ok - not sure if this is what you're thinking of but here is an example that comes to mind. A field with a surface area (not sure if this applies to fields where the Class E starts at 700 or 1200 and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) is legally IFR whenever the ceiling is less than 1000 feet or 3 miles visibility. So with a 900 ft ceiling and P6SM vis you can't legally take off VFR, but if you did you would still be VMC (FAA definition) until you reach 400 AGL. Nor could you legally scud run in VFR and land at that airport, even though theoretically you could be VMC the whole way as long as you stayed under 400 AGL.

I can't think of any examples of the converse, where VFR is legal in conditions less than the minimum for VFR flight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top