What is ACTUAL?

[BYUFlyr]

Is there a legal definition for "actual" or IMC? For purposes of logging flight time the reg reads: "... flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated flight conditions." Now what's the legal definition for IMC? Is it in the clouds? Is it whenever operating below VFR minimums? If it's the latter then a VFR private pilot operating under special VFR can legally log actual instrument time if operating in low visibility by reference to the instruments. Furthermore, any aircraft operating under SVFR violates a FAR if the aircraft certification does not permit flight in IMC.

I understood that there really wasn't a formal definition of IMC, but this morning an instructor said IMC was whenever you operate in conditions below VFR minimums, e.g. operating at 10,500 with 4 miles visibility in Class E. Is this another gray area?

 

[nosehair]

For purposes of logging flight time the reg reads: "... flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated flight conditions." Now what's the legal definition for IMC? Is it in the clouds?

I understood that there really wasn't a formal definition of IMC, but this morning an instructor said IMC was whenever you operate in conditions below VFR minimums, e.g. operating at 10,500 with 4 miles visibility in Class E. Is this another gray area?

The definition is in the regulation - when you operate solely by reference to instruments. Meaning flight instruments, not navigation instruments. If you cannot see enough horizon or level surface to keep the airplane level with the earth's surface, you are in "IMC" conditions. You are not IMC just because conditions are less than VFR.
1 mile vis is what is required for Class G, and Special VFR. Normally, with 1 mile vis, you should be able to see the ground at pattern altitudes, so that would not normally be having to control the aircraft by ref to instruments, but certain cases of low vis and into the sun or at night over water, you might be in "simulated IMC conditions" for a few moments, but not IFR, as in having to have pilot and airplane certified for IFR.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

technically, on a moonless night in VFR conditions over an unpopulated (unlighted) area can be logged as actual time.

 

[drinkduff77]

Furthermore, any aircraft operating under SVFR violates a FAR if the aircraft certification does not permit flight in IMC.

This is only required between sunset and sunrise.

Sec. 91.157

Special VFR weather minimums.

(a) Except as provided in appendix D, section 3, of this part, special VFR operations may be conducted under the weather minimums and requirements of this section, instead of those contained in Sec. 91.155, below 10,000 feet MSL within the airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an
airport.
(b) Special VFR operations may only be conducted--
(1) With an ATC clearance;
(2) Clear of clouds;
(3) Except for helicopters, when flight visibility is at least 1 statute mile; and
(4) Except for helicopters, between sunrise and sunset (or in Alaska, when the sun is 6 degrees or more below the horizon) unless--
(i) The person being granted the ATC clearance meets the applicable requirements for instrument flight under part 61 of this chapter; and
(ii) The aircraft is equipped as required in Sec. 91.205(d).
(c) No person may take off or land an aircraft (other than a helicopter) under special VFR--
(1) Unless ground visibility is at least 1 statute mile; or
(2) If ground visibility is not reported, unless flight visibility is at least 1 statute mile.

I understood that there really wasn't a formal definition of IMC, but this morning an instructor said IMC was whenever you operate in conditions below VFR minimums, e.g. operating at 10,500 with 4 miles visibility in Class E. Is this another gray area?

Don't believe everything you hear. Although it is easy to argue against logic when dealing with the FAR's, sometimes common sense can prevail. I would feel safe in saying that the majority of those in authority would agree that if you aren't using your instruments to fly but still below vfr mins (i.e. 900' feet above a cloud deck in class E vis unlimited), you shouldn't be logging it as actual IMC.

Just my $.02

-'duff

 

[midlifeflyer]

technically, on a moonless night in VFR conditions over an unpopulated (unlighted) area can be logged as actual time.

The famous "moonless night" interpretation goes back to a 1984 FAA Legal opinion. The opinion also contains the FAA's definition of "actual":


==============================
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.

[unrelated portion snipped]

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.

[unrelated portion snipped]

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

Surprisingly nice and simple. "Actual" is when outside conditions are such that you have to use the instruments to keep the shiny side up.

 

[ePilot22]

Huh?

technically, on a moonless night in VFR conditions over an unpopulated (unlighted) area can be logged as actual time.

... .

Not that I care, because I would NEVER log this as actual, but shouldn't you be on a IFR flight plan?

If not, it can't be IMC.

Even if you are on an IFR flight plan, then I believe logging it as actual is still questionable.

But it's your logbook...




eP.

 

[BYUFlyr]

This is only required between sunset and sunrise.

Well, the DV20 (Katana) is approved for IFR operations; but flight into IMC is prohibited, per the POH and placard. So by the other instructor's definition (if IMC = less than VFR mins.) a SVFR clearance in that airplane, regardless of day or night, would violate a FAR by flying into "IMC".

I only used that scenario to prove my point to him that flying in conditions less than VFR did not necessarily constitute IMC or actual (are they the same thing? Can you be in IMC and not be in "actual"?).

 

[Amish RakeFight]

"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.


Surprisingly nice and simple. "Actual" is when outside conditions are such that you have to use the instruments to keep the shiny side up.

Precisely.

.

 

[BYUFlyr]

"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. .... 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.

Thanks for the clarification, that's what I was looking for. So it is somewhat subjective, though not "actual" if you're 100 feet below an overcast sky in Class E with 100 mi visibility.

 

[VSUPilot]

Remember, just because IMC is defined by conditions less than the visibility, cloud clearance, and ceiling prescribed by VFR minimums doesn't mean that you can or should log it as actual. If you have to question if it was actual (to log as such 61.51), it wasn't.

 

[Iceman21]

... .

Not that I care, because I would NEVER log this as actual, but shouldn't you be on a IFR flight plan?

If not, it can't be IMC.

Even if you are on an IFR flight plan, then I believe logging it as actual is still questionable.

But it's your logbook...




eP.

You miss the point eP. It can be CAVU per an ATIS, TAF, etc. and you may still need to fly via the panel. Does that mean, I am not illegal because I am flying on the panel in VFR. The visibility and clouds are what they are. The FARs do not say that in order to fly VFR you need a disernable horizon to reference. In this case you certainly do not need to be on a flight plan and you are not in IMC.

Do you log actual on an IFR flight plan when flying in VMC?

 

[ePilot22]

You miss the point eP. It can be CAVU per an ATIS, TAF, etc. and you may still need to fly via the panel. Does that mean, I am not illegal because I am flying on the panel in VFR. The visibility and clouds are what they are. The FARs do not say that in order to fly VFR you need a disernable horizon to reference. In this case you certainly do not need to be on a flight plan and you are not in IMC.

Do you log actual on an IFR flight plan when flying in VMC?

If I were in VMC I couldn't log actual.

If you have to fly with reference to the instruments and log it as such, you better be on an IFR flight plan. If not and you ARE IMC while VFR, that would mean you are violating the FARs.

VFR=Visual Flight Rule, flight with respect to visual reference.

IFR=Instrument Flight Rule, flight with respect to insturment reference.

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

Again, it's your log book, log what you want - when you want...


eP.

 

[Iceman21]

Sky: Clear below 10,000'
Visibilty: Greater than 10 miles

These conditions are VMC, therefore you do not have to file an IFR flight plan. The fact that there is no horizon does not change the fact that the visibility is over 10 miles.

The definition of VFR does not state any reference to a horizon.

Your arguement puts the rules before the situation. Meaning by the defintion of IMC is where you get the term "actual" when "actual" is the way in which you control the airplane not the rules under which you are flying.

 

[ePilot22]

So you're logging actual, which means you're claiming to be in IMC, but you're flying VFR?

How do you fly VFR in IMC? (legally)

I understand VMC while operating under IFR, but not IMC under VFR.

Please explain.



eP.

 

[Iceman21]

So you're logging actual, which means you're claiming to be in IMC, but you're flying VFR?

I am logging actual because that is how I am flying the plane.

How do you fly VFR in IMC? (legally)

Read the legal opinion posted by midlifeflyer. There you have one of the top lawyers from the FAA Enforcement Division interpreting the FAR for us.

 

[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.