I want everyone's opinion on this ok... *DELETED*

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

You are correct in that theres no VFR flight permitted above FL180. But there may be VFR conditions. In order to log actual instrument time, you must be in IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions).
 

bluelake

Well-Known Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

in Class A you must fly under Instrument Flight Rules. If you filed IFR on a severe clear day in a lower airspace from one city to another city, you would be "in the system" so to speak, but you could not log actual instrument in your loogbook.

This boils down to understanding the diff between flying under intstrument flight rules and flying in instrument meteorologic conditions....
 

CRJwannabe

New Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

I don't think you are a moron, but a little investigating of the regulation (which as a CFI, I am sure you are aware of), would have seemingly explained the idea before asking everyone their opinion:

61.51 (g) Logging instrument flight time. (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.

Yes, you do have to be on a flight plan to operate in Class A airspace but not all airspace above FL180 is Class A airspace (see FAR 71.33 (a)) which states "excluding the states of Alaska and Hawaii, Santa Barbara Island, Farallon Island, and the airspace south of latitude 25*04'00" North.

My point is that just because you are at FL250 doesn't mean you are in Class A nor does it mean that you are able to log actual instrument time.

One last thing: you said "I have not logged actual this way, it just made me think...". Have you even flown above FL180? Just curious.
 

Eagle

New Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

it is not uncommon for us to fly a 3 hour leg, take off in IMC, climb to 410 and land doing an ILS.

Block time. 3.3
Actual Inst. 0.5

takes a long time to build actual IFR hours up that way.
 

Derg

Cap, Roci
Staff member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

I think the confusion is betweeen "IMC" and "IFR". You can be operating under "IFR" while in "VMC" and not be able to log instrument time.

I mean, you can log it if you want, but when it comes down to meeting FAR experience requirements, the FAA would probably laugh loudly if you considered the experience as "actual" when you were simply flying under IFR rules above FL180.
 

CRJwannabe

New Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

Since we are on the topic of logging actual instrument time (operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments), what is everyone's opinion on navigation over water on a dark (no moon light) without actual clouds. In other words, you would be able to see if it were daytime, but the horizon and outside references such as ground lighting, ARE NOT visible. Would you log this as ACTUAL or would you keep your eyes on the instruments and not log acual knowing that you are not actually in IMC? Just curious, this is a standing debate I have had with a few friends.
 

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

Then you log it as night.


FAR 61.51(g)(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 conditions.

You'd be interpreting that waaaaay too loosely if you logged actual in that scenario...and you'd have a mighty hard time convincing the FAA to agree with you. I believe theres a question similar to this in the FAA's big FAQ list...check in there maybe. Gray area? Maybe. Doesn't take much more than common sense to realize what they mean though.

"So, Mr. Smith...I see you have 389 hours of night time flying freight over sparsely populated areas. And wow, that must be some crappy weather down there in sunny Arizona at night...because 375 of those hours were also logged as actual."

See what I mean?

The word "conditions" as used in "IMC" means weather conditions. Not light conditions.
 

CRJwannabe

New Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

Thanks, I realize you would log it as night. I feel the same way you do, the FAA would probably frown on it if you logged it as actual. I would simply log it as night. The debate started in one of my instrument stage check orals when I was asked the question. I told him I would NOT log actual and he was like "why, you are manuevering the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, weren't you?". I still think it would be a b/s way to log actual, just wanted to see what others thought.
 

WEAPON

Well-Known Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

Well, the main reason I posted the question was because alot of the regs I have read, some are black and white, others are rather grey. Some can go back and forth and are open to alot of interpretation. Just here me me out on this...if you are flying in a block of airspace, denoted as no VFR, how are you flying? IFR. You see what I am saying. You are flying on instruments. Some of you might understand where I am coming from. Like I said, I have not logged instr(actual) this way, it just sparked a thought. And yes, I have flown above FL 180.
 

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

[ QUOTE ]
Just here me me out on this...if you are flying in a block of airspace, denoted as no VFR, how are you flying? IFR. You see what I am saying. You are flying on instruments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you're flying on an Instrument Flight Rules flight plan, that is correct, but... You are NOT (necessarily) in Instrument Meteorological Conditions. There's a big difference between the two. Just because you're required to be on an IFR flight plan doesn't mean you can log actual...you MUST be in IMC for that.
 

WEAPON

Well-Known Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

whoa, let's set the record straight here, i know the difference in IMC and IFR. please i know this.
 

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

Then I guess I don't understand the point behind posting this question in the first place.
 

WEAPON

Well-Known Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

Ok here is the deal, i deleted my own post for this reason: to avoid more backlash about this
 

Eagle

New Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

[ QUOTE ]
Ok here is the deal, i deleted my own post for this reason: to avoid more backlash about this

[/ QUOTE ]


Wish you hadn't, it is a valid question, and as you can see by all the responses, the understanding of it is not as cut and dry as some would like.
 

CPilotUK

New Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

[ QUOTE ]
CRJwannebe said: 61.51 (g) Logging instrument flight time. (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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug said: I think the confusion is betweeen "IMC" and "IFR". You can be operating under "IFR" while in "VMC" and not be able to log instrument time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
EatSleepFly said: Yes, you're flying on an Instrument Flight Rules flight plan, that is correct, but... You are NOT (necessarily) in Instrument Meteorological Conditions. There's a big difference between the two. Just because you're required to be on an IFR flight plan doesn't mean you can log actual...you MUST be in IMC for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read the regs myself and I'm really struggling to find the confusion; It's as clear as crystal.
 

Eagle

New Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

[ QUOTE ]

I've read the regs myself and I'm really struggling to find the confusion; It's as clear as crystal.


[/ QUOTE ]

It sure is, but obviously not for everyone.

Everyone on here is at different levels in their aviation path, I would no more expect someone who is still drudging through the FARs, or has aquestion as to how they apply (in this example in high alt flying) to grasp the answers and understand the basis at the same level as somone who is flying for Delta for a living.

A pal of mine who is an inspector at the FSDO said the FARS are written in dirt, depending on how long it has been since it rained,, it may change the interpretation.

Look up 91.119a, seems logical, but if someone tosses a push rod at 12,000ft and lands off airport in a populated area and causes damage or injury, why is that different than the guy at 100ft who tosses a rod, and lands off airport in a populated area and causes damage or injury?

The answer is it depends on how is interpreting the rules. (FARS) I personally believe they are written in as vague terms as they could get away with…
 
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

[ QUOTE ]
Since we are on the topic of logging actual instrument time (operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments), what is everyone's opinion on navigation over water on a dark (no moon light) without actual clouds. In other words, you would be able to see if it were daytime, but the horizon and outside references such as ground lighting, ARE NOT visible. Would you log this as ACTUAL or would you keep your eyes on the instruments and not log acual knowing that you are not actually in IMC? Just curious, this is a standing debate I have had with a few friends.



[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding was that if you have no references such as ground lighting or horizon, then yes,..that's IMC. Am I incorrect?
 

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

[ QUOTE ]
Am I incorrect?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Unless the horizon is obscured by METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS, you cannot log actual. Didn't you read any of the posts on this thread?
 
Re: I want everyone\'s opinion on this ok...

Ahh...thanks. I must have assumed that was the case when he wrote: "but the horizon and outside references such as ground lighting, ARE NOT visible".

Hope that didn't sound patronizing
 
Top