Logging Approach Question

[Gerald Sylvester]

Tonight I was flying back to SQL GPS 30. There was a dense, 100' thick
ceiling covering half the airport at 800' AGL/MSL. I was
in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been illegal
to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds (see note
below about this). So even though visibility was 10nm below
the clouds, only have the airport had the ceiling and I never
passed through any clouds, I presume I can still log this
as an approach in "actual."

So can you actually log an approach in actual and never go through
IMC? Sounds strange but I guess you are able to do this. Same
goes passing through a broken layer.


Note: my passenger picked out a plane probably at about 600' flying
from PAO to SQL while I was on final. I called out on CTAF (tower
was closed) and didn't hear anything. I wouldn't be surprised
they kept hush knowing they were breaking the regulations. I
had not cancelled IFR and was on the approach and ended up doing
a 360 and climbing. I contacted approach immediately telling him
what I was doing but it could have caused a go around for a heavy
if there was an inbound a/c going into SFO. Fortunately
no one was around. Fortunately my passenger saw the traffic
as they were below me, I was in a low wing, night, with clouds
around and I wasn't expecting him.

Gerald

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:05:48 GMT, Gerald Sylvester
> wrote:

>So can you actually log an approach in actual and never go through
>IMC?

Huh?

What definitions are you using for "actual" and "IMC"?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Mike Rapoport]

I wojuld say no. You made a vistual approach in VMC.

Mike
MU-2


"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Tonight I was flying back to SQL GPS 30. There was a dense, 100' thick
> ceiling covering half the airport at 800' AGL/MSL. I was
> in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been illegal
> to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds (see note
> below about this). So even though visibility was 10nm below
> the clouds, only have the airport had the ceiling and I never
> passed through any clouds, I presume I can still log this
> as an approach in "actual."
>
> So can you actually log an approach in actual and never go through
> IMC? Sounds strange but I guess you are able to do this. Same
> goes passing through a broken layer.
>
>
> Note: my passenger picked out a plane probably at about 600' flying
> from PAO to SQL while I was on final. I called out on CTAF (tower
> was closed) and didn't hear anything. I wouldn't be surprised
> they kept hush knowing they were breaking the regulations. I
> had not cancelled IFR and was on the approach and ended up doing
> a 360 and climbing. I contacted approach immediately telling him
> what I was doing but it could have caused a go around for a heavy
> if there was an inbound a/c going into SFO. Fortunately
> no one was around. Fortunately my passenger saw the traffic
> as they were below me, I was in a low wing, night, with clouds
> around and I wasn't expecting him.
>
> Gerald
>

[Bob Gardner]

Of course not. Surprised that you would ask the question.

Bob Gardner

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Tonight I was flying back to SQL GPS 30. There was a dense, 100' thick
> ceiling covering half the airport at 800' AGL/MSL. I was
> in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been illegal
> to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds (see note
> below about this). So even though visibility was 10nm below
> the clouds, only have the airport had the ceiling and I never
> passed through any clouds, I presume I can still log this
> as an approach in "actual."
>
> So can you actually log an approach in actual and never go through
> IMC? Sounds strange but I guess you are able to do this. Same
> goes passing through a broken layer.
>
>
> Note: my passenger picked out a plane probably at about 600' flying
> from PAO to SQL while I was on final. I called out on CTAF (tower
> was closed) and didn't hear anything. I wouldn't be surprised
> they kept hush knowing they were breaking the regulations. I
> had not cancelled IFR and was on the approach and ended up doing
> a 360 and climbing. I contacted approach immediately telling him
> what I was doing but it could have caused a go around for a heavy
> if there was an inbound a/c going into SFO. Fortunately
> no one was around. Fortunately my passenger saw the traffic
> as they were below me, I was in a low wing, night, with clouds
> around and I wasn't expecting him.
>
> Gerald
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:16:15 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>: >So can you actually log an approach in actual and never go through
>: >IMC?
>
>: Huh?
>
>: What definitions are you using for "actual" and "IMC"?
>
>
> I had to read the a few times. I think the distinction is "below VFR
>minimums" vs. "controlling the aircraft soley by reference to instruments." There
>*is* a difference... one can be flying by outside references in 1 mile, clear of
>clouds. In controlled airspace this is not legal VFR conditions (SVFR, perhaps). Is
>it "actual" IMC? Not really... if you're still able to control the aircraft based on
>visual references.
>
> I've never heard of logging an approach actual or simulated... just
>actual/simulated *time*.
>
> Bottom line is the distinction between operating under VFR/IFR (i.e. "flight
>rules"), vs which are applicable given the flight conditions you've got. You can fly
>under IFR under any conditions, but only VFR if the conditions are good enough. Also
>nowhere logged (that I've seen) is IFR time... only IMC and simulated IMC time.
>
>-Cory

Well, just to conf^H^H^H^Hclarify things more, in order to log "instrument
time", the requirement is "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."

Note there is no reference to IFR/VFR/IMC/VMC. Written legal opinion from
the FAA Chief Counsel has held that "actual instrument flight conditions"
exists when there something exterior to the a/c which requires that one
control the a/c solely by reference to the instruments. Hence, one can
legally log instrument flight time while operating VFR, VMC and without a
hood (the classic is a cloudy moonless night over water; although I
understand the desert can be equally disorienting).

That's why before responding to the OP, I wanted to ensure an agreement on
terminology.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Gerald Sylvester]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> I wojuld say no. You made a vistual approach in VMC.

It was not a 'visual approach.' I required a GPS approach
but the approach kept me in VMC that was below VFR....
(500 below, 1000 feet above, etc. for each airspace).

Gerald

[Gerald Sylvester]

> : What definitions are you using for "actual" and "IMC"?

I think Cory understood me better than I did. <grin>
sorry everyone that my flying is more precise than
my english. :)

> I think the distinction is "below VFR
> minimums" vs. "controlling the aircraft soley by reference to instruments." There
> *is* a difference... one can be flying by outside references in 1 mile, clear of
> clouds. In controlled airspace this is not legal VFR conditions (SVFR, perhaps).

Correct.

>Is it "actual" IMC? Not really... if you're still able to control the aircraft based on
> visual references.

ok. But I guess it is somewhat of a judgement call. Kind of like
flying at night with no lights on the ground and no horizon. Almost
like last night flying out of PRB.

> I've never heard of logging an approach actual or simulated... just
> actual/simulated *time*.

I knew that.


I remember a number of months ago there was a discussion as to what
qualifies as an approach you can log for currency. What I took from
there was that if you required the approach to get through any non-VFR
weather during the approach, then people were logging it. So
like last night, I needed that approach to get into SQL. SQL was not
VFR (despite the moron flying at tree top levels with no radio).
Nonetheless I had visual cues.

So I required the approach but I had visual cues (but was flying 90% on
my instruments expecting to have to pop through a marine layer). Can
I log this?

[John Clonts]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Tonight I was flying back to SQL GPS 30. There was a dense, 100' thick
> ceiling covering half the airport at 800' AGL/MSL. I was
> in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been illegal
> to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds (see note
> below about this). So even though visibility was 10nm below
> the clouds, only have the airport had the ceiling and I never
> passed through any clouds, I presume I can still log this
> as an approach in "actual."
>
> So can you actually log an approach in actual and never go through
> IMC? Sounds strange but I guess you are able to do this. Same
> goes passing through a broken layer.
>
>
> Note: my passenger picked out a plane probably at about 600' flying
> from PAO to SQL while I was on final. I called out on CTAF (tower
> was closed) and didn't hear anything. I wouldn't be surprised
> they kept hush knowing they were breaking the regulations. I
> had not cancelled IFR and was on the approach and ended up doing
> a 360 and climbing. I contacted approach immediately telling him
> what I was doing but it could have caused a go around for a heavy
> if there was an inbound a/c going into SFO. Fortunately
> no one was around. Fortunately my passenger saw the traffic
> as they were below me, I was in a low wing, night, with clouds
> around and I wasn't expecting him.
>
> Gerald


The way I do it is based on whether I feel it really contributed to my currency or not. E.g. if I was using
"flight by sole reference to instruments" for "most" of the time from the time I began the approach, until
after the FAF (or GS intercept), I will probably log it. There are some (including at the FAA) that believe
that you must be on "sole reference" down to the DH/MDA, but in practice I am not that conservative.

For the situation you describe I would not log the approach, mainly because there was little or no "sole
reference to instruments".

Also BTW, terminology wise I subscribe to the school of thought that what you referred to as "VMC but too close
to the clouds to fly legally VFR", is actually IMC-- even though you are flying visually!

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Hilton]

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > I wojuld say no. You made a vistual approach in VMC.
>
> It was not a 'visual approach.' I required a GPS approach
> but the approach kept me in VMC that was below VFR....
> (500 below, 1000 feet above, etc. for each airspace).

Could you control the aircraft using outside references (only)?

Hilton

[Hilton]

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

> So I required the approach but I had visual cues (but was flying 90% on
> my instruments expecting to have to pop through a marine layer). Can
> I log this?

Since there is no definition on what constitutes a loggable approach, all
comments here are just opinions - here's mine. Expectation has nothing to
do with it. Could you have flown the approach visually (even if you were
just 1' from the clouds the whole way down)? I have flown numerous
instrument approaches that clearly were not in VMC, but not in the clouds
(i.e. didn't have VFR cloud clearances). I don't log those approaches. In
essence (correct me if I'm wrong), it could have been a perfectly VFR day
and you were simply head down flying the instruments - that does not
constitute a loggable instrument approach in my *opinion*.

My *opinion* is that you really must need to use the instruments to get to
the airport.

Hilton

[Gerald Sylvester]

Hilton wrote:
> Could you control the aircraft using outside references (only)?

I could see the cloud layer and I could see the lights through the haze
so for the most yes. could I see a defined horizon, definitely
not as there are many black hills, the San francisco bay that was
black and it was night time. And the airport was obscurred until
turning onto the FA Course as the initial approach course was
over the black clouds.

So overall, really this is a grey area. I'm definitely leaning
towards that I can't count it even though I highly depended on it.
Part of the issue was that I was not free to fly anywhere
due to the SFO Bravo pushing down onto the cloud layer.
It shouldn't matter all that
much as I did 5 partial panel with failed GPS approach a couple
of weeks earlier under the hood. Being new to the game, I don't
plan on letting my skills deteriorate from lack of use.

thanks everyone.

Gerald

[Hilton]

Gerald wrote:
> So overall, really this is a grey area.

Sure sounds like it.

BTW: Wasn't that SQL GPS marked N/A for a really long time, or am I thinking
of another approach?

Hilton

[Gerald Sylvester]

Hilton wrote:
> BTW: Wasn't that SQL GPS marked N/A for a really long time, or am I thinking
> of another approach?

correct it was but they opened it up about a year ago.

Gerald

[Hilton]

Gerald,
> Hilton wrote:
> > BTW: Wasn't that SQL GPS marked N/A for a really long time, or am I
thinking
> > of another approach?
>
> correct it was but they opened it up about a year ago.

Thanks, I never knew they opened it up. I seem to remember that the missed
went over SFO and they didn't want a 'missed' to hold up operations at SFO.
Now I see the missed is a left turn away from SFO - perhaps they changed the
missed and that allowed them to remove it from the NA list? Someone correct
me if my memory of the 'old' missed is incorrect.

Thanks,

Hilton

[Marty Shapiro]

"Hilton" > wrote in
. net:

> Gerald,
>> Hilton wrote:
>> > BTW: Wasn't that SQL GPS marked N/A for a really long time, or am I
> thinking
>> > of another approach?
>>
>> correct it was but they opened it up about a year ago.
>
> Thanks, I never knew they opened it up. I seem to remember that the
> missed went over SFO and they didn't want a 'missed' to hold up
> operations at SFO. Now I see the missed is a left turn away from SFO -
> perhaps they changed the missed and that allowed them to remove it
> from the NA list? Someone correct me if my memory of the 'old' missed
> is incorrect.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hilton
>
>
>

Your memory of the old missed is indeed correct! From the chart dated 15
JUL 1999, "MISSED APPROACH - Climb to 4000 via 302 course to SFO VOR/DME
and hold."

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Hilton]

Marty wrote:
> Your memory of the old missed is indeed correct! From the chart dated 15
> JUL 1999, "MISSED APPROACH - Climb to 4000 via 302 course to SFO VOR/DME
> and hold."

Marty, thanks for the post. I remember being amazed that given an infinite
number of points to choose from (since it is a GPS approach), they chose the
SFO VOR! :)

Hilton

[Mike Rapoport]

You did not have to fly soley by reference to instruments, so it was a
visual approach even though it was below VFR minimiums. If you didn't even
have to look at the instruments, I don't see how it could be considered an
actual instrument approach.

Mike
MU-2


"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> I wojuld say no. You made a vistual approach in VMC.
>
> It was not a 'visual approach.' I required a GPS approach
> but the approach kept me in VMC that was below VFR....
> (500 below, 1000 feet above, etc. for each airspace).
>
> Gerald

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Tonight I was flying back to SQL GPS 30. There was a dense, 100' thick
> ceiling covering half the airport at 800' AGL/MSL.
>

It's not a ceiling if it only covers half the airport.


>
> I was
> in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been illegal
> to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds (see note
> below about this). So even though visibility was 10nm below
> the clouds, only have the airport had the ceiling and I never
> passed through any clouds, I presume I can still log this
> as an approach in "actual."
>

How could it have been illegal to fly in VFR if you were able to remain VMC
the whole time?


>
> So can you actually log an approach in actual and never go through
> IMC? Sounds strange but I guess you are able to do this. Same
> goes passing through a broken layer.
>

I log an approach whenever it's necessary to fly an SIAP in order to get in
to the field. You say you could have gotten in VFR, thus an SIAP was not
necessary.


>
> Note: my passenger picked out a plane probably at about 600' flying
> from PAO to SQL while I was on final. I called out on CTAF (tower
> was closed) and didn't hear anything. I wouldn't be surprised
> they kept hush knowing they were breaking the regulations. I
> had not cancelled IFR and was on the approach and ended up doing
> a 360 and climbing. I contacted approach immediately telling him
> what I was doing but it could have caused a go around for a heavy
> if there was an inbound a/c going into SFO. Fortunately
> no one was around. Fortunately my passenger saw the traffic
> as they were below me, I was in a low wing, night, with clouds
> around and I wasn't expecting him.
>

What regulation do you think he was breaking?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
...
>
> SQL was not VFR (despite the moron flying at tree top levels with no
> radio).
>

Your observation made it 800' scattered and 10 miles visibility. Sounds
like VFR to me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> It was not a 'visual approach.' I required a GPS approach
> but the approach kept me in VMC that was below VFR....
> (500 below, 1000 feet above, etc. for each airspace).
>

You described VFR conditions. Why did you require the GPS approach?

[Newps]

> "Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Tonight I was flying back to SQL GPS 30. There was a dense, 100' thick
>>ceiling covering half the airport at 800' AGL/MSL.

What was the ASOS reporting? Even if only 1% of the airport is covered
by that cloud if it's over the sensor it becomes your official weather.

>
>
>>Note: my passenger picked out a plane probably at about 600' flying
>>from PAO to SQL while I was on final. I called out on CTAF (tower
>>was closed) and didn't hear anything. I wouldn't be surprised
>>they kept hush knowing they were breaking the regulations. I
>>had not cancelled IFR and was on the approach and ended up doing
>>a 360 and climbing. I contacted approach immediately telling him
>>what I was doing but it could have caused a go around for a heavy
>>if there was an inbound a/c going into SFO. Fortunately
>>no one was around. Fortunately my passenger saw the traffic
>>as they were below me, I was in a low wing, night, with clouds
>>around and I wasn't expecting him.

So why go around? Couldn't you follow him and land behind him?

[Gerald Sylvester]

>>SQL was not VFR (despite the moron flying at tree top levels with no
>>radio).
> Your observation made it 800' scattered and 10 miles visibility. Sounds
> like VFR to me.

it doesn't to me. You are over a congested area so you have to be at
least 1000' in the air. so where is it VFR other than above 2400+ feet
(SFO reported a ceiling at 1400)

Gerald

[Gerald Sylvester]

quoted text is from the previous 2 replies:

> What was the ASOS reporting? Even if only 1% of the airport is covered
> by that cloud if it's over the sensor it becomes your official weather.

No AWOS/ASOS. SFO became the official altimeter/weataher even though it
is always much cloudier 10 miles north of SQL.

SPECI KSFO 080635Z 22006KT 10SM FEW008 OVC014 14/11 A2997 RMK AO2

> So why go around? Couldn't you follow him and land behind him?

he was directly to the right with him 1-2 miles to my right and what
appeared to be converging into my flight path (1-2 miles could be 10
seconds or 2 minutes), below me and I'm in a low wing and I lost him
(and I had my passenger following him as well), he wasn't talking on the
radio, there are obstacles going up to 560' and I think at the
time I was at 710' (MDA 660). I didn't feel comfortable
so I went around.

>How could it have been illegal to fly in VFR if you were able to
>remain VMC the whole time?

see the above weather. Controlled airspace begins at 700',
and it is a congested area so you have to be at least 1000.
So unless you are 2400+ you are illegal unless you are in the
pattern and he wasn't in the pattern.

>I log an approach whenever it's necessary to fly an SIAP in
>order to get in to the field. You say you could have gotten
>in VFR, thus an SIAP was not necessary.

I did not say I was able to get in VFR but without going through
any clouds. it wasn't VFR from where I was coming from. I came from
the direction where all the cloud cover was at 1400. I could not
maintain VFR with busting something.

>What regulation do you think he was breaking?

definitely minimum altitude over a congested area and very
possibly minimum VFR weather but I didn't look that closely for
clouds in his area.

>I log an approach whenever it's necessary to fly an SIAP in
>order to get in to the field. You say you could have gotten
>in VFR, thus an SIAP was not necessary.

but I could NOT get in VFR. I could maintain visual contact with
some of the ground. I'd say 40% of the ground was covered by the
ceiling, 40% was pitch black as it was water (at night) and 20% was
visibile. See above about the VFR. I couldn't have gotten in VFR
from the direction I was coming (see above). I could get in in
very marginal VMC but not VFR.

Gerald Sylvester



Gerald

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Note: my passenger picked out a plane probably at about 600' flying
> from PAO to SQL while I was on final. I called out on CTAF (tower
> was closed) and didn't hear anything.

How do you know he had come from PAO?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
...
>
> it doesn't to me.
>

Why not? In your initial message you said, "I was in VMC the whole time yet
it probably would have been illegal to fly in VFR as I would have been close
to the clouds (see note
below about this)." That isn't possible. If you were in VMC the whole time
you were never too close to the clouds, if you were ever closer to the
clouds than allowed by VFR minimums you were not in VMC the whole time.


>
> You are over a congested area so you have to be at
> least 1000' in the air. so where is it VFR other than above 2400+ feet
>

On the half of the field that doesn't have clouds.


>
> (SFO reported a ceiling at 1400)
>

What does it matter what SFO was reporting? You said the conditions SQL
were "a dense, 100' thick ceiling covering half the airport at 800' AGL/MSL"
and 10 NM visibility. (Note that visibility is reported in statute miles.)
As I said in my previous response, if only half the sky was covered there
was no ceiling as a ceiling requires at least 5/8 sky cover (or an
obscuration).

[Gerald Sylvester]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Note: my passenger picked out a plane probably at about 600' flying
>>from PAO to SQL while I was on final. I called out on CTAF (tower
>>was closed) and didn't hear anything.
> How do you know he had come from PAO?

I didn't know he was *coming* from PAO but was in the direct
line from PAO to SQL. The airports are not that far apart so there
isn't that much room to maneuver between the two. So I simply said from
PAO to SQL.

Gerald

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
...
>
> No AWOS/ASOS. SFO became the official altimeter/weataher even though it
> is always much cloudier 10 miles north of SQL.
>
> SPECI KSFO 080635Z 22006KT 10SM FEW008 OVC014 14/11 A2997 RMK AO2
>

A field either has weather observing or it does not. The SFO weather never
becomes "official" for SQL, only the SFO altimeter setting is used when
observations are not made at SQL.


>
> see the above weather. Controlled airspace begins at 700',
> and it is a congested area so you have to be at least 1000.
> So unless you are 2400+ you are illegal unless you are in the
> pattern and he wasn't in the pattern.
>

The above weather applies only to SFO.


>
> I did not say I was able to get in VFR but without going through
> any clouds. it wasn't VFR from where I was coming from. I came from
> the direction where all the cloud cover was at 1400. I could not maintain
> VFR with busting something.
>

Make up your mind. In your initial message you said you were in VMC the
whole time. That means you never got closer to any cloud than allowed by
FAR 91.155 and had at least 3 miles visibility at all times.


>
> definitely minimum altitude over a congested area and very
> possibly minimum VFR weather but I didn't look that closely for
> clouds in his area.
>

Minimum altitudes do not apply for takeoff or landing.


>
> but I could NOT get in VFR.
>

Why not? You said you were in VMC the whole time. That means you were VFR
the whole time.


>
> I could maintain visual contact with
> some of the ground. I'd say 40% of the ground was covered by the
> ceiling, 40% was pitch black as it was water (at night) and 20% was
> visibile. See above about the VFR. I couldn't have gotten in VFR
> from the direction I was coming (see above). I could get in in
> very marginal VMC but not VFR.
>

It appears you do not understand the term VMC.

[Gerald Sylvester]

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
> No AWOS/ASOS. SFO became the official altimeter/weataher even though it
> is always much cloudier 10 miles north of SQL.

let me clarify that. I shouldn't say SFO is the "official" weather.
Norcal always asks for if you have SFO ATIS and when
the SQL Tower has gone home for the night, you use the SFO altimeter
setting per the Jepp charts.

Gerald

[pgbnh]

Not sure what the FAA lawyers would say, but I operate on the assumption
that only I can say if the approach is loggable.
I am the only one who knows if I am flying by instrument reference. If I do
that in IMC, it is clearly loggable. If I am on an IFR plan, but in marginal
conditions, such that I decide to fly the approach by instrument reference,
then I think it is loggable. If I am on an IFR plan but I land with CAVU,
then it sure does not feel like a loggable approach. If I am flying VMC,
other than simulated (with appropriate SP), then flying by instrument
reference is wrong (and stupid).

When in doubt, do the right thing


"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Tonight I was flying back to SQL GPS 30. There was a dense, 100' thick
> ceiling covering half the airport at 800' AGL/MSL. I was
> in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been illegal
> to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds (see note
> below about this). So even though visibility was 10nm below
> the clouds, only have the airport had the ceiling and I never
> passed through any clouds, I presume I can still log this
> as an approach in "actual."
>
> So can you actually log an approach in actual and never go through
> IMC? Sounds strange but I guess you are able to do this. Same
> goes passing through a broken layer.
>
>
> Note: my passenger picked out a plane probably at about 600' flying
> from PAO to SQL while I was on final. I called out on CTAF (tower
> was closed) and didn't hear anything. I wouldn't be surprised
> they kept hush knowing they were breaking the regulations. I
> had not cancelled IFR and was on the approach and ended up doing
> a 360 and climbing. I contacted approach immediately telling him
> what I was doing but it could have caused a go around for a heavy
> if there was an inbound a/c going into SFO. Fortunately
> no one was around. Fortunately my passenger saw the traffic
> as they were below me, I was in a low wing, night, with clouds
> around and I wasn't expecting him.
>
> Gerald
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:34:11 -0400, "pgbnh" > wrote:

>If I am flying VMC,
>other than simulated (with appropriate SP), then flying by instrument
>reference is wrong (and stupid).

Except for a moonless. cloudy night over water (or desert), where you may
be legal VFR, but with no outside references.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[pgbnh]

Agreed. My reference was to flying simulated (under the hood) in vmc without
a SP
"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:34:11 -0400, "pgbnh" >
> wrote:
>
>>If I am flying VMC,
>>other than simulated (with appropriate SP), then flying by instrument
>>reference is wrong (and stupid).
>
> Except for a moonless. cloudy night over water (or desert), where you may
> be legal VFR, but with no outside references.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Make up your mind. In your initial message you said you were in VMC the
> whole time. That means you never got closer to any cloud than allowed by
> FAR 91.155 and had at least 3 miles visibility at all times.

I don't see any need to harass him about that. It's quite clear to me
after reading his initial post only once that at some point during the
approach he was below the cloud clearance requirements for VMC.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I don't see any need to harass him about that. It's quite clear to me
> after reading his initial post only once that at some point during the
> approach he was below the cloud clearance requirements for VMC.
>

What in his initial post indicated that to you?

[Dane Spearing]

In article >,
Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:34:11 -0400, "pgbnh" > wrote:
>
>>If I am flying VMC,
>>other than simulated (with appropriate SP), then flying by instrument
>>reference is wrong (and stupid).
>
>Except for a moonless. cloudy night over water (or desert), where you may
>be legal VFR, but with no outside references.

Been there. Done that. I agree.

It is actually possible to have IMC with no clouds around at all. :)
Out here in the desert southwest (NM, AZ), on a moonless night away from
the cities and towns, the ground is, quite literally, invisible. No lights.
No roads. No nothin'. It's pitch black. And given the irregularity of the
horizon due to mountains and hills, it's almost impossible to tell if you're
level by looking outside and trying to judge the horizon by the stars.

While it may be technically VMC, and "legal" VFR, it's not safe.
Filing IFR and "going on the gauges" is the right thing to do in that case.

-- Dane

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:52:09 +0000 (UTC), (Dane
Spearing) wrote:

>Filing IFR and "going on the gauges" is the right thing to do in that case.

I agree with "going on the gauges", but why do you need to file IFR?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Wizard of Draws]

On 9/15/05 8:56 PM, in article ,
"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:52:09 +0000 (UTC), (Dane
> Spearing) wrote:
>
>> Filing IFR and "going on the gauges" is the right thing to do in that case.
>
> I agree with "going on the gauges", but why do you need to file IFR?
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I would say that you don't need to, but if you're on the gauges, your
outside scan is minimal and it just might be prudent to have a second set of
eyeballs looking out for you with radar. FF is good too, but they may not be
able to handle you as VFR traffic.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:03:26 -0400, Wizard of Draws
> wrote:

>I would say that you don't need to, but if you're on the gauges, your
>outside scan is minimal and it just might be prudent to have a second set of
>eyeballs looking out for you with radar. FF is good too, but they may not be
>able to handle you as VFR traffic.

I sure don't object to someone filing IFR whenever they have to "go on the
gauges". However, when I'm on an IFR flight plan, I really don't have much
difficulty including the outside in my scan. When VMC on a moonless, dark
night, the ability to see other traffic is enhanced, in my experience.

Flying from, let us say, PVC (Provincetown) to Nashua (ASH), going VFR
gives one a lot of flexibility that IFR does not. I've never had a problem
with flight following in that area.

And I can imagine that other areas IFR flight would also be unneccessarily
restrictive in terms of routes or altitudes, especially if in a non-radar
environment.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[[email protected]]

Well, you're right it's not actually too clear. Although assuming he's
not lying, it seems likely that he's misusing the term VMC.

He says "I was in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been
illegal to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds". This
tells me he thinks he was too close to clouds at some point to be legal
for VFR. This further implies he is aware there exists a cloud
clearance requirement for legal VFR. So assuming he's not lying when he
estimates he was too close to them for VFR, then he must have
mistakenly used the term VMC to mean he remained clear of clouds.

At least that's the way I read it. The first time through.

[Roger]

On 17 Sep 2005 01:50:53 -0700, wrote:

>Well, you're right it's not actually too clear. Although assuming he's
>not lying, it seems likely that he's misusing the term VMC.
>
>He says "I was in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been
>illegal to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds". This
>tells me he thinks he was too close to clouds at some point to be legal
>for VFR. This further implies he is aware there exists a cloud
>clearance requirement for legal VFR. So assuming he's not lying when he
>estimates he was too close to them for VFR, then he must have
>mistakenly used the term VMC to mean he remained clear of clouds.

Special VFR? It's still VFR rules, but just clear the clouds in the
airport area.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>At least that's the way I read it. The first time through.

[[email protected]]

Would the approach controller be able to give him a special VFR
clearance? I've only ever gotten one from a tower.


Roger wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2005 01:50:53 -0700, wrote:
>
> >Well, you're right it's not actually too clear. Although assuming he's
> >not lying, it seems likely that he's misusing the term VMC.
> >
> >He says "I was in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been
> >illegal to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds". This
> >tells me he thinks he was too close to clouds at some point to be legal
> >for VFR. This further implies he is aware there exists a cloud
> >clearance requirement for legal VFR. So assuming he's not lying when he
> >estimates he was too close to them for VFR, then he must have
> >mistakenly used the term VMC to mean he remained clear of clouds.
>
> Special VFR? It's still VFR rules, but just clear the clouds in the
> airport area.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >
> >At least that's the way I read it. The first time through.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Special VFR? It's still VFR rules, but just clear the clouds in the
> airport area.
>

SQL has no surface area when the tower's closed and SVFR is not available
outside of a surface area. Even if there'd been a surface area he couldn't
be SVFR as he was on an IFR clearance.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Would the approach controller be able to give him a special VFR
> clearance? I've only ever gotten one from a tower.
>

The source of a SVFR clearance is the facility responsible for separation
within the surface area. That would probably be the overlying approach
control or center in the case of a VFR tower, but some VFR towers have been
delegated authority for SVFR. The tower is just relaying the SVFR clearance
as it would an IFR clearance.