Notices
Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics

logging actual

Old 12-03-2006, 05:37 PM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: FO dhc-6
Posts: 523
Default logging actual

criteria for loggin actual instrument? as i get closer to another interview and decide to tidy up my logbook this thought once again crossed my mine as to what you define as actual, ive heard EVERY ANSWER possible ranging from log it "only solid IMC in clouds" to "we can log this as actual right here."

some examples that ive heard arguments on

-Im in the desert at night it is 100 % BLACK cause theres no neearby cities so your not using any visual reference and cant see ground or no moon out.

- im in between 2 solid cloud layers for an hour, there 5000 feet apart and visibility is 50+ miles in between, but i cant see ground and cant see horizon. (your using sole reference to instruments, cause half the time the bottom layer is at an angle so youll be crooked if you try to fly visual)

whats your take on these?

if i decided to include some of those examples i could basically double my actual column, but dont wanna get screwed in a interview because of it
hatetobreakit2u is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 05:40 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Sitting down and facing front. Why would you want to know that?
Posts: 536
Default

I would say yes to the first and no to the second. I would wait for someone else to give the correct answer before you listen to me, though.
WhiteH2O is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 05:47 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: DHC-6 / PC-12
Posts: 213
Default

I believe that the definition of "Actual Instrument" is: "No discernible horizon reference." I agree with the above post. Yes to the first and no to the second. Just because you are in between layers, you are still VMC.
AVIVIII is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 07:22 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Default

Found this on AOPA:

Logging actual instrument flight time depends on the weather, not what you can or cannot see. FAR 61.51(g), ?Logging instrument flight time,? says ?(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.?

The regulations define actual instrument conditions in Part 170, which regulates ?Navigational Facilities,? and gives the definitions for a number of terms used throughout the regulations.

FAR 170.3 says ?Instrument flight rules (IFR) means rules governing the procedures for conducting flight under instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) instrument flight.?

A bit further down the list, FAR 170.3 says ?Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) means weather conditions below the minimums prescribed for flight under Visual Flight Rules (VFR).?

FAR 91.155 gives the minimum VFR weather conditions, which are the dividing line between VFR and IFR flight. When the weather conditions are below the weather minimums for the airspace you?re flying in, you can log actual instrument time (and you must comply with all the other regulations governing IFR flight, naturally).

So the only time you can log your night flights as actual IFR time is when the weather is below VFR minimums because darkness isn?t a meteorological condition. You can, however, log your night flights, where you?re flying in VFR conditions but can?t see a thing, as simulated instrument time, because the darkness ?simulates? flight in IMC. If effect, darkness and the lack of ground lights is nothing more than a view limiting device you don?t have to wear.
NE_Pilot is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 07:32 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: DHC-6 / PC-12
Posts: 213
Default

I guess I am confused about that. The way it was explained to me is closer to the first couple posts.

If we use what you found on AOPA, that would mean that we could log Actual in VMC as long as we were less than 1000 feet above the clouds and on an IFR flight plan, even if it was blue skys above. If that is the case, I have about tripple the actual time that I thought I did... And if we were IFR over the desert at night, wouldn't we need a safety pilot to log that as simulated instrument?
AVIVIII is offline  
Old 12-03-2006, 07:33 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Default

Originally Posted by AVIVIII View Post
I guess I am confused about that. The way it was explained to me is closer to the first couple posts.

If we use what you found on AOPA, that would mean that we could log Actual in VMC as long as we were less than 1000 feet above the clouds and on an IFR flight plan, even if it was blue skys above. If that is the case, I have about tripple the actual time that I thought I did... And if we were IFR over the desert at night, wouldn't we need a safety pilot to log that as simulated instrument?
I was confused by it too. I was pretty sure if you log simulated you need a safety pilot. It was the only "authoritive" source on the matter I found.
NE_Pilot is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 03:49 AM
  #7  
Chief Jeppesen Updater
 
FlyerJosh's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Executive Transport Driver
Posts: 3,080
Default

You can log actual time when you are conducting flight SOLELY BY REFERENCE TO THE INSTRUMENTS. Regardless of if you are on an IFR or VFR flight plan or are conducting flight in IMC or VMC conditions.

Here's an interpretation from the FAA Chief Council:

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.

Second, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.57(e)(2) of the FAR, noting that Advisory Circular 61-65A, Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors, seems to contain advice contrary to your understanding of the rule.

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.

<letter edited for brevity>

Sincerely,
/s/
John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
My take is that if you determine that you are unable to continue flight visually due to poor horizion references (uneven cloud layers/haze) or no horizion at all (dark night over featureless terrain), and must fly based on sole reference to instruments, then you can log actual.
FlyerJosh is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 04:41 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
iflyjets4food's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: EMB 170/175 F.O.
Posts: 549
Default

Don't try to overinflate your instrument time. Use the most conservative number that adequately represents your experience. It looks funny if you have 1200TT and 500 Actual. Nobody is going to buy it, and it will really show when you go to do the sim ride and subsequent simulator training if you get hired. If you meet the requirements that they have for the instrument time you need to be called for the interview, then you have enough. Everything else is excess. You can't go wrong here using a conservative number.
iflyjets4food is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 08:56 AM
  #9  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,098
Default

Originally Posted by iflyjets4food View Post
Don't try to overinflate your instrument time. Use the most conservative number that adequately represents your experience. It looks funny if you have 1200TT and 500 Actual. Nobody is going to buy it, and it will really show when you go to do the sim ride and subsequent simulator training if you get hired. If you meet the requirements that they have for the instrument time you need to be called for the interview, then you have enough. Everything else is excess. You can't go wrong here using a conservative number.
What he said.

The FAA opinion about night flight with no horizon is known by only a few folks in the industry, although the JFK Jr. thing was a good case study. I agree with the FAA in theory, but most potential employers would consider logging night flight as IMC as fraudulent...and you will probably not be given an opportunity to prove your case.

Stick with Wx less than VMC and flight by reference to instruments. Special VFR does not count as IMC!

Note: As far as logging actual approaches, the FAA once issued an opinion that in order to be logged, the entire approach (from FAF I think) down to minimums must be IMC! This opinion is widely disregarded, most folks log approaches that are predominately IMC even if it doesn't go all the way to mins. But I wouldn't admit that to a Fed (even though they all know the reality).
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 08:56 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JSchraub's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Student
Posts: 252
Default

I log .1 for every cloud I fly in...
JSchraub is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pilot41
Hangar Talk
13
12-01-2017 01:21 PM
NE_Pilot
Flight Schools and Training
35
10-18-2016 06:41 AM
KiloAlpha
Hangar Talk
2
10-02-2006 10:07 AM
TravisUK
Flight Schools and Training
20
08-26-2006 08:05 AM
Element94
Flight Schools and Training
23
08-20-2006 06:43 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices