Logging IFR in VMC

[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