What is ACTUAL?

[midlifeflyer]

Whoa. ePilot is right. You =can't= legally fly VFR in IMC.

Don't confuse phrases. "Actual" and "IMC" mean two different things. VsuPilot pointed this out.

"Actual instrument conditions" exist when you need the instruments to stay upright because of outside conditions, even if those conditions technically permit flight under VFR (the moonless night over water scenario).

But "instrument meteorological conditions" means something else else. All it means is "weather conditions below the minimums prescribed for flight under Visual Flight Rules (VFR)."

So, it can be "actual" without being IMC and it can be IMC without it being actual. The "moonless night" is an example of the former. Flying 900' below a cloud deck above 10,000 msl with 100 miles visibility is IMC, but obviously without being "actual"

 

[ePilot22]

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.

 

[Iceman21]

"Actual instrument conditions" exist when you need the instruments to stay upright because of outside conditions, even if those conditions technically permit flight under VFR (the moonless night over water scenario).

I suppose I wasn't exactly wording it correctly, but that is what I was attempting to get across.

 

[joe_pilot]

...The only way you can fly IMC (as described above) without being on an IFR flight plan is Class G airspace...

Good. You corrected yourself. Because if you were ever in one of my ground schools at Airman and got that wrong..... ...on the other hand if you were ever stupid enough to actually fly IMC in class G without being on an IFR flight plan...

When were you there, BTW? 75958 was my baby. Engine loss on take-off going into IMC, complete electrical failure in IMC, in-flight fire (all different flights). She always got me home, though.

Everyone else thought she was bad luck. can't imagine why.

-JP

 

[ePilot22]

Afs...

When were you there, BTW?

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.

 

[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.