What is ACTUAL?

[joe_pilot]

JP,

I was there last spring. Mid May 05 until the end of June 05. I did the CFI and II course there. Judging by your TT, I'm guessing you were there around 2000 or 2001. Just a guess though.

It's funny what you say about 75958, I never had any problems with her, but...

On my first flight from the right seat for the II, we take-off into IMC (OVC004), break out about 3000msl and begin basic maneuvers. Shoot the LOC Rwy 3 approach back in and land - all without event.

As we shut the engine down the CFI looks at me and says "that went well considering this isn't the best plane for IFR and I haven't flown actual for six or seven months."

I didn't give it a second thought when we departed, but I'm sure glad he didn't say anything until after the flight. Now I have an even better idea of what he was talking about.

All and all, Airman wasn't to bad. The people I met and still talk to today are great.

I don't know what happened to 75958, but hopefully she's treating someone well.:erm: (in the good way, of course!)




eP.

I was there from 3/00 - 11/02. Glad you got your stuff finished before the axe fell there. It was a great place for years, both for motivated students and motivated intructors. What happened to those students (and instructors!!) is a shame.

958 has quite a history. Check these out DEN83LA151 and FTW00LA107 . Despite all that, I'd take her anywhere, weird throttle and all! Here's a pic of her flying overhead at the Punkin' Chunkin' contest last fall. Its put on by Prof. John Fagan of the Electrical engineering department, my favorite professor of all time. He gave me an "A" in an intro to engineering course in the fall of '88 because I was the first man he had ever heard of who was awarded child support to be paid by his ex-wife. I did all the work, though. He just got a kick out of the tides being turned. Spent A LOT of time in Brother's during that time (88-93, 00-02). Bet you did too.

-JP

 

[midlifeflyer]

midlifeflyer,

What happened to the control tower and light gun signals? That was a cool avatar!.

I don't know!!! I'll have to put it back!

 

[ILuvKittyLitter]

Ya....don't pull that "moonless night crap" on you 135 or 121 interview. If you are not "in" IMC, you are flying VFR...period. Over the water at night with no decernable horizon but not a cloud in the sky is VFR. that is why you are required to have instrument training even for the private pilot rating. If you are a none IFR rated pilot flying over the water with nor decernable horizon without instrument proficiency you are a fool. the initials JFK come to mind..

 

[ILuvKittyLitter]

midlifeflyer,

What happened to the control tower and light gun signals? That was a cool avatar!

Ok, I get what you are saying about IMC, M being Meteorological, and the example of being in actual without having clouds.

How does this work then...

Can a non-instrument rated pilot fly at night in VFR with no visual reference (by reference to the instruments) and log actual?

The conclusion should be yes, since they are VMC and legally VFR.

Just food for thought...



eP.

You cannot be a non instrument rated pilot and log actual without an instructor on board. You are flying VFR with reference to instruments. Man if you all do this...and it gets caught at an interview....

 

[midlifeflyer]

You cannot be a non instrument rated pilot and log actual without an instructor on board. .

You say one thing; the FAA says something else; an airline at an interview may be looking for a third item.

Maybe every logging question should simply have two answers:

1. What the FAR permits.
2. What airlines want to see.

 

[midlifeflyer]

midlifeflyer,

What happened to the control tower and light gun signals? That was a cool avatar!

Apparently the powers-that-be don't allow animated avatars any more.

 

[ILuvKittyLitter]

You say one thing; the FAA says something else; an airline at an interview may be looking for a third item.

Maybe every logging question should simply have two answers:

1. What the FAR permits.
2. What airlines want to see.

Ok. then maybe I am missing something. If you are a non-instrument rated pilot flying in an IFR enviroment (what we are calling "actual") are you then in vilolation? You would not be rated for that enviroment and you would also have to be on an IFR flight plan unless in uncontrolled airspace. I believe the definition of "actual" is the question. If you cannot see the horizon due to obscurment of the outside references but are not in weather (clouds, precip fog etc) by definition you are still VFR. I would just be careful of the interpetation. I don't see how a non-instrument rated pilot can legally log actual when flying alone. I guess in that case all my night flying is actual then. At 410, at night, I have questionable visibility due to atmospheric conditions. I can see the stars just fine, but no horizon. I have a foward visibility of 100 miles but the horizon is unclear so I can log that "actual"? I don't think so. Our DO is an FAA examiner, I'll get his opinion when I do my type ride next week.

 

[ePilot22]

ILuvKittyLitter,

Read all my posts! I'm in total agreement with you. I wouldn't log it. I was just trying to ask a question that might contradict what the FAA and others on here had been saying is legal to log as actual.

I understand that a non-instrument rated pilot cannot log actual time, however, if one agrees with what the FAA and others on here have said, then if that non-instrument rated pilot is VFR over the water on the moonless night and flying with reference to the instruments, that pilot should be able to log it as actual.

See that's where their argument fails, and the was my point. Acutal is IMC, on an IFR flight plan in an IFR certified aircarft flown by an instrument rated pilot with reference to the instruments. Or it's Class G and not very wise.

Good luck with the ride!

midlifeflyer,

That stinks! T-gates still has an animated avatar. (I'm not saying that so they'll take his away, but the should allow yours!)



eP.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ok. then maybe I am missing something. If you are a non-instrument rated pilot flying in an IFR environment (what we are calling "actual") are you then in violation?

I'm using the FAA's definitions of "actual" and IMC. "Actual" and "IMC" are not synonymous.

Go back through the posts; it's all there.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

I understand that a non-instrument rated pilot cannot log actual time, however, if one agrees with what the FAA and others on here have said, then if that non-instrument rated pilot is VFR over the water on the moonless night and flying with reference to the instruments, that pilot should be able to log it as actual.

A non-instrument rated pilot earning his IFR rating can log actual with his CFII if in IMC conditions.

 

[A Squared]

I guess in that case all my night flying is actual then. At 410, at night, I have questionable visibility due to atmospheric conditions. I can see the stars just fine, but no horizon. I have a foward visibility of 100 miles but the horizon is unclear so I can log that "actual"?

No, if you see the stars, you are not controlling the airplane *solely* by reference to the instruments, the stars, while not a horizon, are an outside reference which help in controlling the airplane.

Our DO is an FAA examiner, I'll get his opinion when I do my type ride next week.

Don't bother. it would be a complete waste of time. His opinon has absolutey no official standing is is completely irelevant. CHances are good that it's wrong anyway.

You have been given the official legal opinon of the FAA already. It seemed pretty clear ot me. Which part of it didn't you understand?

 

[nosehair]

So you're logging actual, which means you're claiming to be in IMC

This is the flaw in the logic of your thinking. "Controlling the airplane by reference to instruments" does not automatically assume IMC conditions.
It means you don't have enough horizon to keep the airplane level without flight instrument reference.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is the flaw in the logic of your thinking. "Controlling the airplane by reference to instruments" does not automatically assume IMC conditions.
It means you don't have enough horizon to keep the airplane level without flight instrument reference.

And vice versa. IMC conditions doesn't automatically assume "actual." If you're above 10,000 msl, flying 800' below an overcast with no clouds between you and the ground and 100 miles visibility is flying in IMC.

 

[LearDriver04]

I sit on the interview board for a 135 operator and here's out test:

If you have to work to explain your "instrument" time (i.e. was it a dark night over a rural area...etc. etc.) then you most likely shouldn't have logged it.

As you can see by my total times, I DO UNDERSTAND how important logging every hour can be for our careers - so that we can meet some carrier's "minimums" - but trust me when I say that it's just as awful for us to watch some poor applicant that we really like struggle to explain something that they don't know how to justify.

It's SO AWKWARD when you ask some applicant that has 2,000 total time and 300 - 400 instrument to talk about their instrument flying. Legitimate question and it could be something like "I instructed in Seattle"...ha ha...enough said. But as soon as somebody pops out with "picture it...I was out over Lake Michigan and it was night...and..." Not to say that it's not "legal" or "IAW the FARs"...but sitting on the opposite side of the table, it's just a shame to put yourself in that position.

Happy flying and God Bless!

 

[A Squared]

I sit on the interview board for a 135 operator and here's out test:

If you have to work to explain your "instrument" time (i.e. was it a dark night over a rural area...etc. etc.) then you most likely shouldn't have logged it.

Ooooooohhhhhhhh, the interview "board" for a 135 operator....OOOooohhhhh!!!!!.

Well, my logbook contains a fair amount of flight time logged in this manner (how much I don't know). I fly in a place where it really is rural, really rural, as in many of our daily routes go over areas where you don't see a single light for up to an hour. It is *that* deserted. On an overcast night, when you can't see the stars or moon, you've got nothing but the instruments to keep the plane right side up. In those situations I don't have any problem logging it as actual, and I'd have no problem at all looking you in the eye and telling you what the deal was. If *you* have a problem with that, that only means that *you* don't understand the intent of the regulations and that the environment in which I fly is outside of your experience.

If you wish to look down your nose at pilot who flies daily in (not above) some fairly nasty weather with no autopilot, be my guest. It says a lot more about you than it does about me.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well, my logbook contains a fair amount of flight time logged in this manner (how much I don't know). I fly in a place where it really is rural, really rural, as in many of our daily routes go over areas where you don't see a single light for up to an hour. It is *that* deserted. On an overcast night, when you can't see the stars or moon, you've got nothing but the instruments to keep the plane right side up. In those situations I don't have any problem logging it as actual, and I'd have no problem at all looking you in the eye and telling you what the deal was. If *you* have a problem with that, that only means that *you* don't understand the intent of the regulations and that the environment in which I fly is outside of your experience.

Besides, how much "work" is there to "I log my flight time in my FAA-required logbook the way the FAA says to log flight time."

 

[VNugget]

IMHO if you're a non-instrument-rated pilot flying where only sole reference to the instruments is possible, you've got a bigger problem on your hands than how to log the flight.

 

[CrewDawg]

What about logging Actual, while on top of a solid cloud layer? Logic would tell me that you could, due to the fact that the cloud layer could be at an angle. But I have also been told that since you are not in the clouds that this time could not be logged as actual.

 

[A Squared]

What about logging Actual, while on top of a solid cloud layer? Logic would tell me that you could, due to the fact that the cloud layer could be at an angle. But I have also been told that since you are not in the clouds that this time could not be logged as actual.

No, in that case, you have plenty of outside references for controlling the airplane. if you can see things outside the plane, it greatly simplifies controlling altitude, attitude, heading, etc. A sloping cloud layer may complicate keeping the wings level, but that doesn't consitute being entirely dependent on the instruments to control the airplane.

 

[CrewDawg]

No, in that case, you have plenty of outside references for controlling the airplane. if you can see things outside the plane, it greatly simplifies controlling altitude, attitude, heading, etc. A sloping cloud layer may complicate keeping the wings level, but that doesn't consitute being entirely dependent on the instruments to control the airplane.

Hey, thanks for the quick reply. I have always got differing opinions on this question. But the consensus, seems to agree with what you have just told me.