Logging IFR in VMC

[jethro]

Silly question - you're flying at night between two overcast cloud layers and meet VFR minimums (1000 above/500 below/3 miles etc...); since its nighttime you have no outside visual reference though. Is this time loggable as actual instrument since you are flying "solely by reference to instruments?"

And just for kicks, lets assume a non-instrument rated pilot flew into those conditions, never actually entering a cloud. Is that pilot legally flying VFR?

 

[Vik]

Yes, you are legally flying VFR. You cannot log actual instrument time.

Even if you were in clear wx between layers and didn't meet the 1000ft abv, 500blo, 3mi, you'd still be flying VFR, not logging actual except it might be illegal depending on airspace.

There isn't a reg out there that says it is illegal.

 

[Vandal]

But the FAR's do not define instrument flight that way. They don't say "if you meet vfr could clearances", they say "if you are flying solely by reference to your instruments". One could argue that at night with no discernible horizon you are definetly flying solely with the instruments. Anyone have a definitive answer?

 

[Vik]

Part 1 defines "IFR conditions" as "weather conditions below the minimum for flight rules under visual flight rules"

He is in visual flight rules as he is in not in the clouds and is between layers with adequate separation in between.

So he is in VFR conditions.

Whether or not he uses his instruments or not doesn't matter.

He cannot log actual in VFR conditions. His situation does not meet the definition of "IFR conditions." I doubt an examiner, FSDO or even airline interviewer would accept, "I logged actual in VFR conditions because I was flying by instruments only"

 

[Buzo]

I was told to log it as actual by an airline captain who works on the interview board for his airline. IFR is flight rules, not logging. If your only source of a horizon is your instruments, you can log it as instrument time. There is no definition saying you can only log actual if you are below mins because the mins change between airspace and altitude.

 

[V-1]

I was told to log it as actual by an airline captain who works on the interview board for his airline. IFR is flight rules, not logging. If your only source of a horizon is your instruments, you can log it as instrument time. There is no definition saying you can only log actual if you are below mins because the mins change between airspace and altitude.

I'd suggest your friend brush up on the basic FAR's. FAR 61.51 (g)(1) reads:

A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under simulated or actual conditions.

This also means flying over water extending to the horizon, under an overcast layer at night with visibility unlimited is not instrument flight time, even though it would be wise to have some instrument skills before putting yourself in this scenario.

No matter how grey you want to make it, actual conditions does not mean you have to use your instruments to fly. Actual conditions, as was pointed out earlier, means below VFR minimums for the airspace being flown in. Yes the minimums change between airspace. So then does the definition of actual conditions based on the airspace you're currently flying in.

I used to chuckle when I'd hang around the local FBO sometimes. Pilots who I'd heard use every excuse in the book for why they were still legally flying VFR when the weather was legally IMC suddenly had a different definition of IMC while they worked on their instrument rating. I used to tell them that just because there's a cloud somewhere in the sky doesn't mean they're IMC.

Hope this helps.

 

[Vik]

I envy those of you, like V-1, that actually quote regs. I wish I had a time, patience and motivation to look them up instead of just stating my opinion blindly. =)

 

[V-1]

Yeah, I really need to find some new hobbies.

Anyone need a guitar player for a blues, rock, alternative, or speed metal band in the Cincinnati area?

 

[avbug]

A great deal of misunderstanding exists about this subject. One cannot log instrument time simply because one is operating under instrument flight rules. One can be operating under VFR, in instrument conditions. Therefore, one may or may not be able to log instrument flight when operating IFR, and one may or may not be able to log instrument flight time when oeprating under VFR. Let's explore why.

We'll also look at the regulation, and a legal interpretation by the FAA Chief Counsel which covers this.

The logging of instrument time is covered by 14 CFR 61.51(g). One may log instrument time only when operating the aircraft by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. Also, a flight instructor may log instrument time when instructing under instrument conditions. One need not be flying under instrument flight rules, to be in instrument conditions. One may be flying under VFR, and be in instrument conditions, such as flight betwen layers, flight at night over the desert or the ocean on a moonless night, etc. Any conditions which require flight by reference to instruments are instrument conditions, and flight time spent in these conditions, or any conditions which require flight by reference to instruments, is loggable as instrument flight time.

This has nothing to do with being below VFR minimums. One may have adequate cloud clearance and unlimited visibility, but without the ability to see, one may still be required to fly by reference to instruments, and the FAA has clearly set forth in a legal interpretation by the Chief Counsel (Cassady, Nov., 1984) that this constitutes instrument flight time, and may be logged as such.

Vik correctly pointed out that Part 1.1 defines "IFR Conditions" as conditions less than VFR. However, with respect to the logging of instrument flight time, 61.51(g)(1) does not say "IFR conditions," but rather "instrument conditions." There is a big difference.

"IFR conditions" refers to instrument flight rules, while "instrument conditions" applies to the actual conditions of flight. IFR conditions are indeed conditions less than VFR, while instrument conditions occur any time that the aircraft must be flown by reference to instruments.

The following Legal Interpretation clearly defines the position of the Administrator on the subject, and clarifies the regulation. It is legally defensible, and represents the offical stance of the Administration.

Note in the following interpretation that Assistant Chief Counsel Cassady comments that a pilot logging flight under actual instrument conditions should note in a log entry the reasons that the flight was conducted in this manner, and should include a reference as to the type of conditions.

For those referencing to the actual interpretation, please note that I have truncated this response, and edited out the unrelevant second reply to a question about lapsed instrument currency.

November 7, 1984
Mr. Joseph P. Carr

Dear Mr. Carr:

This is in response to your letter asking questions about instrument flight time.

First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as actual instrument flight time.

As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "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 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.

To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot. Note that, under Section 61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should include the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate.

Sincerely,
/s/
John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[Buzo]

I'd suggest your friend brush up on the basic FAR's. FAR 61.51 (g)(1) reads:

A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under simulated or actual conditions.

This also means flying over water extending to the horizon, under an overcast layer at night with visibility unlimited is not instrument flight time, even though it would be wise to have some instrument skills before putting yourself in this scenario.

No matter how grey you want to make it, actual conditions does not mean you have to use your instruments to fly. Actual conditions, as was pointed out earlier, means below VFR minimums for the airspace being flown in. Yes the minimums change between airspace. So then does the definition of actual conditions based on the airspace you're currently flying in.

I used to chuckle when I'd hang around the local FBO sometimes. Pilots who I'd heard use every excuse in the book for why they were still legally flying VFR when the weather was legally IMC suddenly had a different definition of IMC while they worked on their instrument rating. I used to tell them that just because there's a cloud somewhere in the sky doesn't mean they're IMC.

Hope this helps.

I could tell my friend, or I should say my Uncle that he needs to brush up on his regs, but as AvBug has so nicely given backing to say that he is right I probably don't need to do that. I know what the regs say, and so does my Uncle. He isn't number 15 on the seniority list at his major because he doesn't know the regs. IFR and VFR are rules, IMC and VMC are conditions of flight. they are vastly different.

 

[172driver]

I'm sorry avbug beat me to it but, as usual, he is absolutely correct and proves it.

Buzo,

Just because somebody is an airline captain does not mean they know the regs any better than anyone else. You must learn to ask for proof. Never believe anything you're told in this industry until you see it, especially grey areas of the regs. Yes, he happened to be correct but next time ask him to show you the money.

V-1,

Nice try. Just wait till the guys at the FBO get ahold of this one. They'll be logging actual when the sun goes behind a cloud.

 

[Buzo]

I know that just because he is a captain he doesn't know the regs. I was basically using it as an example of what I believe VIK said that it wouldn't hold up in an airline interview. My Uncle has been on the interview board many times and that is why I was using that example. I know there are regs I know better than him and he knows more than me. It all comes down to who uses them more.

 

[loNslo]

Avbug,

Thanks for your post. Very informative.

 

[MetroSheriff]

He isn't number 15 on the seniority list at his major because he doesn't know the regs.

You are correct. Knowledge of regs has nothing to do with it. Your uncle is "number 15 at his major" because only 14 pilots have been at the company longer than he has. Not because they are smarter.

In fact, I would hazard a guess that, most 400 hour CFIs are a little better brushed up on a lot of the regs than your average airline pilot.

I will say it again. By definaition, seniorty has nothing to do with knowledge. If I may be so bold, I would suggest putting a little more credence in the Administrator's legal interpetations than in your uncle's opinions. Unless the they happen to agree.

Perhaps I am just stupid, but if someone asked me about cloud clearance requirements, or light gun signals, I would have to go look them up (except maybe for steady green). That is why they publish them handy-dandy little FAR/AIMs.

Memorizing some stuff is necessary, but a short pencil beats a long memory any day.

 

[cjh]

Here's an excellent post from Doc's FAR Pages concerning "IMC vs Instrument Flight Conditions". It contains correspondence which Doc sent to Flying Magazine, and also includes the legal interpretation Avbug already referenced.

http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/messages//7201.html

cj

 

[V-1]

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.

 

[172driver]

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?

 

[avbug]

172,

The "FAR/AIM is a commercial creation made up by different publishing companies. The Aeronautical Information Manual (formerly Airmen's Information Manual) is a publication made available by the FAA. The various regulations commonly referred to as the "FAR" are pieces of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

What is seen in pilot shops as a "FAR/AIM" is usually a complete rendering of the AIM, with a few Parts of 14 CFR thrown in.

To get other items listed in the same commercial publication, you would need to contact the publisher directly and make your request.

You can obtain the Summit Publications CD-ROM that has every FAA publication on it, from ASA. Your best source is probably the Avaition Book Company, if this site doesn't carry it. ABC can be reached at www.aviationbook.com. The publication is called ASA ProFlight. It carries everything on one disc. It's the same disc that your local FSDO is using, and it's worth the cost (about eighty bucks, I believe).

 

[cjh]

You can also get it at Summit's web site:
http://www.summitaviation.com/

Options include everything from a one time purchase to monthly updates. Great resource.

 

[vja217]

my question

So now naturally my question is, do you need an instrument rating to fly over the dessert on a moonless, starless night, assuming there is no adverse weather? According the posts above, this does consistitute as "instrument flight".

Max