What is ACTUAL?

[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.

 

[Thurman Merman]

rule of thumb

If you are flying IFR use the ten percent rule. Every hour of flight, log .1 actual time, unless your down in the trenches a lot then log .2. When you go to get a job and your actual time is above 10 to 20 percent of your total flight time red flags will go up.

 

[ILuvKittyLitter]

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.





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?

Well as I am sure you are aware of, there is published official and legal interpetations not opinions. I would not ask for his opinion but the official interpetation of that reg. You misinterpeted my posting, I was being sarcastic to a previous post stating that this person logged actual in VFR conditions because there was no visual reference.

 

[ILuvKittyLitter]

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.

The "intent" of the regulations is simple, if you are not IMC you are VFR per the definitions. Just because you can't see anything just means you have to rely more on your instrument skills. I fly busy as well as remote areas at night also. I'm not going to argue about it..you log it the way you want to, I will log it the way I want to which happens to be the way all 63 pilots at my company log it as well as the pilots I associate with at Ameristar, USA Jet, Airnet and the rotor pilots for the 4 or 5 medical outfits we fly with do.

 

[A Squared]

I would not ask for his opinion but the official interpetation of that reg.

Hmmmm, OK, let's look at what you actually posted:

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

Now, english may be a second language to you, I don't know, but where I cone from "I'll get his opinion" means exactly that; "I'll get his opinion", not "I'll ask him what the official FAA legal interpretation is. Add to that the fact that the officaial FAA legal interpretaiton has already been posted, you make even less sense.

The "intent" of the regulations is simple, if you are not IMC you are VFR per the definitions.

Absolutely not. clearly you are quite confused on the relationship of VFR, IFR, IMC and VMC. It is entirely possible to be flying under instrument flight rules while you are in Visual Meterological Conditions. I owuld venture to say that the majority of airline flight hours are IFR in VMC.

Now, I am extremely skeptical that you have polled all 63 pilots who work for your company, but even if you had, and even if every single one held an opinion contrary to the official interpretation, it would only mean that every single one of them was wrong.

Let me ask you, have you actually *read* the officlal FAA interpretation on the subject? (post #5) I ask because it seems that you have either not read it, or you have read it, but not understood it.

 

[avbug]

If you are flying IFR use the ten percent rule. Every hour of flight, log .1 actual time, unless your down in the trenches a lot then log .2. When you go to get a job and your actual time is above 10 to 20 percent of your total flight time red flags will go up.

Politics. What utter garbage.

The regulation and the interpretations thereof are clear enough.

If you need the instruments to fly...log it. I couldn't care less what percentage of my time is instrument and what isnt', and if an employer cares, I don't care to work for them. Most of my employers, including some recent offers, want me on their doorstep, and want to see how I fly. I had an offer recently that wanted me to fly to their location and get in the aircraft to see what I could do with it. Did they want to see my logbook? Not in the least...a lot of employers have, but these folks quite rightly would have known all they needed to know about me before I ever hit the starter...and flying their airplane would have just confirmed it.

My logged times? Meaningless.

What I can do with the airplane? Life and death critical.

Anything else is just fluff.

If you need instruments to fly, then you're probably in instrument conditions, which for logging purposes have no relationship to legal VFR vs. legal IFR, your level of certification, your parentage, or what you had for dinner last night. If you need instruments to fly the airplane, then it's instrument time. Regardless of the percentage of the flight in which that occurs.

If you have to chew on that, then you probably think too much.