VFR On Top

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by minitour

Who said it's a regulation violation if you're logging actual without an IFR clearance?

I sure didn't. I am saying that there is areg violation if you're operating an airplane in "meteorological conditions less than those required for VFR flight" ("IMC") in controlled airspace when not on an IFR flight plan.

I used the word "context." The context of this discussion at least suggests that OP either entered the clouds or passed close enough in controlled airspace to have been less that 1000 above, 500 below, or 2000' away from them, in other words in IMC.

If that wasn't the case, then you are absolutely right - we don't have the clearance issue or a FAR violation for busing VFR minimums. Instead we would have the issue of whether the conditions, even though technically VFR, were such that the OP was able to keep the shiny side up without the instruments.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

True, but it's not usually the best idea to put evidence of an FAR violation in your logbook which is what the context of this discussion suggests.

. . . and that's the perspective I wish. Thanks for that input.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by WAFlyBoy

LOL. I love how I asked the question as directly as possible and you can't seem to answer is succinctly without clouding (pun fully intended) what happened.

My advise: don't log any actual for this flight. (It's only .2, what's the big deal anyway?) It sounds like either you were not in IMC or your flight into IMC was a violation of FARs. Secondly, please review FAR 91.155 (VFR cloud clearance and visibility requirements) prior to your next flight.

Are you instrument rated?

Instrumented rated? No, but I answered you question directly. It took me 12 minutes from the time I hit the fire haze to ask Beaumont to climb higher through both haze and clouds to subsequently clear the clouds. So, no, I wasn't clear of clouds until I went higher.

Also, thoroughly read 91.155. No violations were applicable to me at the time I initially got my weather briefing. Additionally, that low overcast/haze rolled in unexpectedly given the fires that were being initiated in the area.

So, you're saying if flight into IMC was accidental, I show make an erroneous input into logbook?

[TXaviator]

another side lesson to be learned here:

"UNABLE"

remember, ATC cannot force you to bust a reg, so put that word UNABLE to good use!

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

another side lesson to be learned here:

"UNABLE"

remember, ATC cannot force you to bust a reg, so put that word UNABLE to good use!

OK, I need more insight into your comment; elaborate please?

[WAFlyBoy]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

So, you're saying if flight into IMC was accidental, I show make an erroneous input into logbook?

Negative.

Like others above, I would suggest not logging the "actual" because it sounds like there's a good chance it was a FAR violation. The fact that it was "accidental" doesn't make it legal, nor does it influence my decision on logging it.

Let's ignore the legality of the scenario for a moment. As mentioned before, the question becomes: did the flight conditions at the time force you to control the airplane solely by reference to the flight instruments? If so, then it would probably be appropriate to log it as "actual" instrument time.

[WAFlyBoy]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

remember, ATC cannot force you to bust a reg, so put that word UNABLE to good use!

It doesn't sound like he was assigned a higher altitude, but rather requested it while receiving VFR advisories.

[TXaviator]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

OK, I need more insight into your comment; elaborate please?

in flying, you will encounter a time (or many times) when ATC will direct you to do something that is

a) unsafe
b) illegal
c) foolish
d) all of the above

such as directing a VFR pilot to make a climb into the clouds where he or she has no place going because it is (d) all of the above

in this case the proper reaction of the PIC would be "hey, i cant do that!... sorry atc, cessna 123 UNABLE"

another case that happened at my school recently, the tower asked a landing aircraft to turn off at a taxiway before the plane had slowed enough to do so safely... well... the pilot thought ATC was "the law" so he tried to make the turn, ended up taking out a runway entrance sign and going in the ditch.

you as the pilot IN COMMAND have to make the right judgement call, and for a variety of reasons, what ATC advises may not be the right thing to do!


hope that explains my post.

[TXaviator]

Originally Posted by WAFlyBoy

It doesn't sound like he was assigned a higher altitude, but rather requested it while receiving VFR advisories.

well.... that would be a poor request then.

my sidenote was not 100% relevant, but something that came to mind along the same lines :-D

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

in flying, you will encounter a time (or many times) when ATC will direct you to do something that is

a) unsafe
b) illegal
c) foolish
d) all of the above

such as directing a VFR pilot to make a climb into the clouds where he or she has no place going because it is (d) all of the above

in this case the proper reaction of the PIC would be "hey, i cant do that!... sorry atc, cessna 123 UNABLE"

another case that happened at my school recently, the tower asked a landing aircraft to turn off at a taxiway before the plane had slowed enough to do so safely... well... the pilot thought ATC was "the law" so he tried to make the turn, ended up taking out a runway entrance sign and going in the ditch.

you as the pilot IN COMMAND have to make the right judgement call, and for a variety of reasons, what ATC advises may not be the right thing to do!


hope that explains my post.

Understand completely. . .and concur. Thanks.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Also, thoroughly read 91.155. No violations were applicable to me at the time I initially got my weather briefing. Additionally, that low overcast/haze rolled in unexpectedly given the fires that were being initiated in the area.

Let's go with that thought. Remember that you may violate an FAR in case of emergency. But there are two "gotchas." One is that you may only violate to the extent required to meet the emergency. The second is that you cannot have contributed to the emergency. That's a heavier burden than you might think.

So, for example, were you flying along in good VFR when all of a sudden, without warning, you were engulfed in the haze and smoke with absolutely no opportunity to see it in advance and turn around and go somewhere else? And then, once in it, did you determine that an immediate 180 would not have gotten you out of it, or did you ask for higher higher so that your planned route of flight wasn't disturbed?

Never mind the legalities. This is serious stuff from a safety standpoint. For those who have never heard it, this audio of a real VFR flight into IMC is an eye-opener:

http://www.midlifeflight.com/images/...ightassist.mp3