172driver said:V-1,
Instead of making jest of Buzo's uncle and calling it b.s. instrument time, you could just admit that you're wrong. After all, you wouldn't need that one-line entry if you knew the reg to begin with. You make a good point about the interpretations though. Why aren't those published in the FAR/AIM?
If you'd read my earlier post, you'd see I quoted the reg., which seems quite black and white, word for word. I was not aware of the 18-year old interpretation that avbug referred to. I think I did admit I was unaware of that interpretation, and that an interpretation generally superceded written regulations. I remember thanking avbug for his information, but I might have just thought I did.
I'm waiting for someone to say now that they have an interpretation that allows them to log as multi-engine p.i.c. the time they spent working line service marshalling a twin into a parking spot.
My point was, if you have to question whether something is instrument experience, it probably isn't. If you log it as such you're just fooling yourself, which might get you killed someday. I'm probably a little overly-sensitive about the issue because I've seen a pilot get into weather beyond his capabilities and kill himself and an innocent passenger while I was holding, waiting my turn to follow him into that airport.
Anyhow, had I just come out and admitted I didn't know how to interpret a regulation that seemed to be black-and-white it wouldn't have been very entertaining, now would it? Poor Buzo's uncle got caught in the middle, for that I apologize.
Regards,
V-1