Buzo said:
He isn't number 15 on the seniority list at his major because he doesn't know the regs.
Seniority numbers are assigned soley on the date a person was hired, how long a person has been with the company, and how much attrition occured ahead of the holder of the particular seniority number. One does not advance on the seniority list by learning loopholes to allow them to log b.s. instrument time, or because they fly better than those below them on the seniority list. The only thing a seniority number, such as the one you quoted, says is that that person hasn't screwed up so badly that the union hasn't been able to prevent them from being fired, they haven't become medically disqualified, and they've not been forced to change employers multiple times.
Just because someone told you something does not make it so. Back it up with a reference, as I and avbug did.
Thanks avbug for your post. As we all know, interpretations generally supercede written regulations. It'd be nice if the regulations were re-written to reflect the interpretations that become precedent for future cases. Does the NTSB, or FAA publish a book of interpretations? How are we to know that an opinion written 18 years ago hasn't been superceded by one written 5 years ago?
From the interpretation:
"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.
So this means every second I spend checking my altimeter during cruise flight to ensure I'm within +/- 50 feet while operating IFR on a CAVU day should be logged as "actual" instrument flight? That's the tolerance for an ATP (sounds like a definition of "adequate control" if I ever heard one), and not something I can discern just by looking out the window. After all "outside conditions", i.e. the fact that my "outside conditions" are 3000 to 35,000 feet above the nearest reference point I could judge my altitude from, make it necessary for me to use the aircraft instruments to maintain adequate control over the aircraft.
I always wondered how flying freight for 1200 hours in Michigan's winter weather only netted me around 300 hours of actual instrument time. I see now that I was applying the wrong definition of "actual" instrument.
I think I'm going to get my logbook out and make a one-line entry to correct my oversight. Let's see, I think I deserve another 400 hours of "actual" instrument time now. In the remarks section, I'm writing "Based on John H. Cassidy's 1994 opinion, which was pointed out to me by avbug, and further supported because Buzo's uncle, who by the way is number 15 on a seniority list at a major, said I could." I feel more qualified already!
Seriously though, thanks for your contribution avbug.