Actual Time in Sacramento

[three-eight-hotel]

If this weather holds, it might be time for some of us newer IA pilots
to get some actual time in! I realize in most locations the visibility
is a little too low, but the season is definitely upon us...

Anybody at SAC planning on getting some actual in???

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/15/2005 10:13, three-eight-hotel wrote:

> If this weather holds, it might be time for some of us newer IA pilots
> to get some actual time in! I realize in most locations the visibility
> is a little too low, but the season is definitely upon us...
>
> Anybody at SAC planning on getting some actual in???
>

What I'm seeing around KSAC and KSMF is low-level fog. Once that burns-off,
the sky is clear. Have look at the METARs for KSMF and KAUN (Auburn):

Sacramento CA [KSMF] hourly observation on the 15th at 9:53am PST (1753Z)
wind calm, visibility 1/8 mile, runway 16R visual range 600 feet, fog,
indefinite ceiling 100 feet, temperature 3°C (37°F), dewpoint 3°C (37°F),
altimeter 30.11

Auburn CA [KAUN] automated hourly observation on the 15th at 10:10am PST (1810Z)
wind calm, visibility 10 miles, sky clear below 12,000 feet, temperature
10°C (50°F), dewpoint 4°C (39°F), altimeter 30.06

As you can see, once the fog goes, it's clear blue.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Robert M. Gary]

Lots of it. I"m based in Cameron Park where the wx is clear. I shoot
approachs all morning into Mather and Exec when its low. Even though
they are reporting 1/4SM and 000VV I can usually get in about 70% of
the time (with about 15 minutes between attempts). The lesson here is
that if you shoot the approach and see nothing, just try it again. By
the time you get down to 100 AGL you can almost always see the runway.
If you pick up the rabbit at 200 you're pretty much good to go as long
as you have 1/2 vis. Usually you do. Tower's visibility is MUCH
different than your actual visibility.

Fog can be strange. I took off out of Exec last winter with 1/8SM
000VV. I could only see 1 center line strip down. However, after I took
off, I never lost sight of the runway, even at 1000 feet. It was very
easy to see down through the fog, just hard to see through it
horizontally.

-Robert

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/15/2005 10:51, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Lots of it. I"m based in Cameron Park where the wx is clear. I shoot
> approachs all morning into Mather and Exec when its low. Even though
> they are reporting 1/4SM and 000VV I can usually get in about 70% of
> the time (with about 15 minutes between attempts). The lesson here is
> that if you shoot the approach and see nothing, just try it again. By
> the time you get down to 100 AGL you can almost always see the runway.

But at 100 AGL, aren't you below minimums? I know you can go to 100AGL
once you see the Red Bars, but neither of those airports have them (they
both have MALSR, right? - which doesn't have Red Bars).

> If you pick up the rabbit at 200 you're pretty much good to go as long
> as you have 1/2 vis. Usually you do. Tower's visibility is MUCH
> different than your actual visibility.

Are you sure about that? According to my understanding, the rabbit is
not part of the runway environment, and is not enough to allow you to
proceed below minimums. You need to have one of the various runway
environment pieces called-out in the regs. What am I missing?

(Note: I'm flexing my 'I just passed the test' muscle without much
real IFR experience, so be gentle with me ;-) )

Of course, 0-0 doesn't stop you from shooting the approach by any
means - it just makes an engine failure a lot more serious ;-\

I really don't know how I feel about that, to be honest with you,
so I've avoided it.


>
> Fog can be strange. I took off out of Exec last winter with 1/8SM
> 000VV. I could only see 1 center line strip down. However, after I took
> off, I never lost sight of the runway, even at 1000 feet. It was very
> easy to see down through the fog, just hard to see through it
> horizontally.
>
> -Robert
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Bob Moore]

Mark Hansen > wrote
> Are you sure about that? According to my understanding, the rabbit is
> not part of the runway environment, and is not enough to allow you to
> proceed below minimums. You need to have one of the various runway
> environment pieces called-out in the regs. What am I missing?

You're good to 100' above touchdown on the approach lights only, no need
to see the red bars.


(c) Operation below DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this
section, where a DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft,
except a military aircraft of the United States, at any airport below the
authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DH unless—
(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below
100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a
reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also
distinctly visible and identifiable.

Bob Moore
CFII

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/15/2005 11:48, Bob Moore wrote:

> Mark Hansen > wrote
>> Are you sure about that? According to my understanding, the rabbit is
>> not part of the runway environment, and is not enough to allow you to
>> proceed below minimums. You need to have one of the various runway
>> environment pieces called-out in the regs. What am I missing?
>
> You're good to 100' above touchdown on the approach lights only, no need
> to see the red bars.
>
>
> (c) Operation below DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this
> section, where a DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft,
> except a military aircraft of the United States, at any airport below the
> authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DH unless—
> (i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below
> 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a
> reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also
> distinctly visible and identifiable.

Oh, rats. Thanks, Bob. I got that backwards during my training as well.
I don't know why I can't keep that straight. I guess I'm going to have
to write myself a big note and stick it on my mirror ;-\

Thanks for straightening me out!

>
> Bob Moore
> CFII
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Robert M. Gary]

Mark,
To be honest with you I wouldn't do this in any of the FBO planes I
teach in. I wouldn't do it in most of the CAP planes either. However, I
know the level of maintenance my Mooney gets. When I'm flying my family
over the Sierras or over open water in Mexico, I have to have a good
confidence level with my plane. My Mooney gets regular oil analysis,
baroscoping, as well as a continuous electronic engine monitor. I also
have a fairly young FNEW (not rebuilt, not factory reman) engine.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

BTW: I'll mention its a kick when you see the approach lights under you
but nothing else. Its like a mystical light just floating in the fog.
:)The light does do a good job of cutting through the fog. Its
interesting that you can sometimes get into airports at night that you
cannot get into during the day. Its strange but its easier to see
lights in the dark through fog than the runway in the day in fog. I
think the sun actually makes the fog visibility worse (I guess that's
kinda like you turning your brights off when driving in fog). Its also
not unusual at night for the tower to report vis. less than 1/4 but you
can see the airport from 10 miles out. I've had this happen in
Sacramento and in Monterey. I'm not 100% sure why.

-Robert

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/15/2005 13:43, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Mark,
> To be honest with you I wouldn't do this in any of the FBO planes I
> teach in. I wouldn't do it in most of the CAP planes either. However, I
> know the level of maintenance my Mooney gets. When I'm flying my family
> over the Sierras or over open water in Mexico, I have to have a good
> confidence level with my plane. My Mooney gets regular oil analysis,
> baroscoping, as well as a continuous electronic engine monitor. I also
> have a fairly young FNEW (not rebuilt, not factory reman) engine.
>
> -Robert
>

That's what I was thinking may just change my mind (this is why I said
I was still on the fence about the whole issue). I don't want to say I
would never do it, but I don't think I would under current conditions
(using a rental plane, limited experience, etc.).



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/15/2005 13:49, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> BTW: I'll mention its a kick when you see the approach lights under you
> but nothing else. Its like a mystical light just floating in the fog.
> :)The light does do a good job of cutting through the fog. Its
> interesting that you can sometimes get into airports at night that you
> cannot get into during the day.

It's this aspect that I'm really excited to see. With 99% of my training
done in simulated conditions, the CFII decides when (if) I get to suddenly
see the airport. As a result, I've never had the chance of seeing the
lights, but not the runway.

Of course I realize it will be harder to do in actual conditions, but
it sure would go a long way toward showing why were doing all that in
the first place ;-)

> Its strange but its easier to see
> lights in the dark through fog than the runway in the day in fog. I
> think the sun actually makes the fog visibility worse (I guess that's
> kinda like you turning your brights off when driving in fog). Its also
> not unusual at night for the tower to report vis. less than 1/4 but you
> can see the airport from 10 miles out. I've had this happen in
> Sacramento and in Monterey. I'm not 100% sure why.

Interesting.

>
> -Robert
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Jose]

> Of course I realize it will be harder to do in actual conditions, but
> it sure would go a long way toward showing why were doing all that in
> the first place ;-)

It's easier in actual. The hood artificially limits one's attention,
and while that's good for training, in real life it's much more open
without it. (plus you can check the compass).

Coming up from Florida in a Dakota, reaching Cleveland at night after
flying on top and dodging CBs, getting a popup approach clearance (I was
on FF the whole time), going into the overcast at 4 and popping out at
ILS minimums with the lights leading the rest of the way.... that's why
we do it. :)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/15/2005 14:18, Jose wrote:

>> Of course I realize it will be harder to do in actual conditions, but
>> it sure would go a long way toward showing why were doing all that in
>> the first place ;-)
>
> It's easier in actual. The hood artificially limits one's attention,
> and while that's good for training, in real life it's much more open
> without it. (plus you can check the compass).

Well, I checked the compass anyway (don't tell my CFII :-) )

>
> Coming up from Florida in a Dakota, reaching Cleveland at night after
> flying on top and dodging CBs, getting a popup approach clearance (I was
> on FF the whole time), going into the overcast at 4 and popping out at
> ILS minimums with the lights leading the rest of the way.... that's why
> we do it. :)
>
> Jose

It really sounds great. I can't wait to become a member of the 'actual'
club.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:38:07 -0800, Mark Hansen wrote:

> It really sounds great. I can't wait to become a member of the 'actual'
> club.

Come down my way, and you would get your share :-)

Starting to enter that time of the year, where it looks like rain every
morning from the morning stratus that burns off in the afternoon.

Can't wait to work out my Garmin 430. Still in the shop being
installed....

I was daydreaming yesterday.... ceilings 500 stratiform overcast and light
rain at 51 degrees. As benign as it gets this time of the year.

Only thing strange this year, is the low level southern stream jet has been
unusually strong for this area.

Allen

[Ben Jackson]

On 2005-12-15, Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> they are reporting 1/4SM and 000VV I can usually get in about 70% of
> the time (with about 15 minutes between attempts). The lesson here is
> that if you shoot the approach and see nothing, just try it again.

That's a bad lesson. A *lot* of IMC accidents are on the third approach
to an airport that's below minimums.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:36:39 -0600, Ben Jackson wrote:

> On 2005-12-15, Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>> they are reporting 1/4SM and 000VV I can usually get in about 70% of
>> the time (with about 15 minutes between attempts). The lesson here is
>> that if you shoot the approach and see nothing, just try it again.
>
> That's a bad lesson. A *lot* of IMC accidents are on the third approach
> to an airport that's below minimums.

Just curious, do you have any type of proof of this?

Allen

[Robert M. Gary]

Sometimes it can be distracting. My first IFR approach was into MRY
with ceilings at 800. I broke out, started looking for the airport and
flew right through the LOC looking for the airport. Lesson, learned.
Keep flying the ILS until you see the runway.

[Robert M. Gary]

I bet the accident rate is much higher on the *FIRST* approach to an
airport below mins. Having the mind set of being able to try again is
much better than feeling you have to get it the first time.

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Sometimes it can be distracting. My first IFR approach was into MRY
> with ceilings at 800. I broke out, started looking for the airport and
> flew right through the LOC looking for the airport. Lesson, learned.
> Keep flying the ILS until you see the runway.

Heh, that's a lesson we all seem to need to learn for ourselves. Who among us
has never done this? :)

[three-eight-hotel]

Jeez... What was I thinking, starting a thread an hour before an
office Christmas party???

I was looking out the window or our office, in Eldorado Hills, when I
submitted my post, and the RVR seemed to be about 3/4 mile, with a
vertical visibility that seemed likely to allow for catching the runway
environment at 800 - 1000 feet (at least). It was probably a little
more soupy, down by Arco Arena, but that's what I was seeing. I
confirmed that on my way out, but checking the RVR on Latrobe road with
my odometer.

I was thinking that MHR, as Robert mentioned would be a good place to
practice. The opportunity of getting back to clear conditions in EDH
or Cameron Park is a nice out! An engine out, is always on your mind,
and we all have to determine if we are willing to take that risk with a
single engine plane... I'm still on the fence, but mostly due to a
lack of experience! Definitely wouldn't do it in a rental, as you guys
mentioned in a later thread!

Best Regards,
Todd

[three-eight-hotel]

So... having no actual time, under my belt, how would you typically go
out and practice your approaches? Would you file an IFR flight plan to
SAC or MHR and request multiple approaches in the air, or would you
popup out of O61 and contact NORCAL requesting "practice?" approaches
into MHR/SAC?

Stupid question, but I've never been completely clear on this... In
the case where you are flying from clear to "over" a fog layer, with
intentions of shooting "practice" approaches at the airports under IMC,
when would you actually be considered in "actual" conditions, and when
would you actually be considered cleared under IFR? I'm thrown off by
the word "practice", and probably because that's all I've ever done?
I've been on a filed IFR flight plan, but have never requested a pop-up
clearance or flown into actual IMC. If you request "practice"
approaches in the described conditions, you will actually be in IMC at
some point, so does your "practice" clearance now grant you the
privileges to fly into IMC?

I'm curious about this, not only for legal reasons, but I'm also
curious as to how you would log your time... At what point can you
start logging "actual"?

Thanks and best regards,
Todd

[Dave Butler]

three-eight-hotel wrote:

> when would you actually be considered in "actual" conditions,

When your flight conditions do not meet the ceiling, visibility and cloud
clearance requirements for visual flight rules.

and when
> would you actually be considered cleared under IFR?

When you hear 'cleared to...' from ATC

I'm thrown off by
> the word "practice", and probably because that's all I've ever done?
> I've been on a filed IFR flight plan, but have never requested a pop-up
> clearance or flown into actual IMC. If you request "practice"
> approaches in the described conditions, you will actually be in IMC at
> some point, so does your "practice" clearance now grant you the
> privileges to fly into IMC?

The word practice is usually used in conjuntion with executing instrument
approaches under VFR. To fly under VFR, your flight conditions have to meet the
minimum ceiling, visibility, and cloud clearance requirements of VFR.

I'd sugggest not using the word "practice" when you're not VFR. AFAIK there is
no legal reason not to, but it might trick ATC into mistakenly thinking you are VFR.

You are granted the privelege of flying into IMC when you hear the words
"cleared to...".

Dave

[John Clonts]

"three-eight-hotel" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> So... having no actual time, under my belt, how would you typically go
> out and practice your approaches? Would you file an IFR flight plan to
> SAC or MHR and request multiple approaches in the air, or would you
> popup out of O61 and contact NORCAL requesting "practice?" approaches
> into MHR/SAC?
>
> Stupid question, but I've never been completely clear on this... In
> the case where you are flying from clear to "over" a fog layer, with
> intentions of shooting "practice" approaches at the airports under IMC,
> when would you actually be considered in "actual" conditions, and when
> would you actually be considered cleared under IFR? I'm thrown off by
> the word "practice", and probably because that's all I've ever done?
> I've been on a filed IFR flight plan, but have never requested a pop-up
> clearance or flown into actual IMC. If you request "practice"
> approaches in the described conditions, you will actually be in IMC at
> some point, so does your "practice" clearance now grant you the
> privileges to fly into IMC?
>
> I'm curious about this, not only for legal reasons, but I'm also
> curious as to how you would log your time... At what point can you
> start logging "actual"?
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Todd
>

If you're going to want to fly through any actual IMC you need the IFR clearance. The way I would usually
request this is "Approach, N123, on the ramp at KXYZ, request IFR clearance for multiple approaches into KXYZ".
Note there is no "practise" in there-- but even if you said " request IFR clearance for practice approaches",
it's still clear that you want the IFR clearance. He'll ask which approach you want to start with, etc, and
then your clearance will begin "N123 is cleared to KXYZ via radar vectors, climb and maintain 3000, ...".

If I intend to stay VFR and wish "practice" handling by ATC it would be more like this: "Approach, N123, 3 S of
KXYZ, request practice approaches into KXYZ". In such a case you would not hear "cleared to" ( though you
prbably would hear "cleared approach"), but you would probably hear "maintain VFR" sprinkled in with the ATC
instructions...

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[three-eight-hotel]

So, let's go with 3-1-5-2... I take off in severe clear from O61,
contact approach and request vectors to the ILS at MHR (for multiple
approaches). I'm given a freq to squawk and a heading and altitude,
followed by "radar contact"... Am I now in the system as an IFR
flight?

Continuing on, I approach a layer of fog over top of MHR that is topped
out at 2000 feet... I'm at 4000 feet, there are no clouds within 2000
feet of me vertically, so I am still VFR...

Once I am over the top of this layer (and this is where I could use
some clarification), I am still encountering 3 miles visibility
(althought the airport is currently under IMC, and this may be where
I'm getting confused), 1000 feet above, 500 feet below and 2000 feet
vertical clearance. However, I can't see anything below me and am now
flying by reference to instruments alone. I can still maintain VFR
separation from traffic... Back to the previous question... Am now on
an IFR flight? Can this time "above the fog" be logged as "actual", or
not?

All of my practice approaches (except for those on a filed IFR flight
plan) have been done in VFR, with not a "cleared to....", but after
receiving vectors or via pilot nav, a "cleared for the approach". So
back to the previous question again, the response of "radar contact"...
Is that a statement of confirmation that indicates you are in the
system as an IFR flight (in this situation)?

I really do look at the IFR rating as a license to learn, and not a
right to go buzz around in the goo... I've got so much to learn!!! I
would be comfortable, though, planning and filing and flying a complete
IFR flight plan. It's just the impromptu stuff, like popups and
practice in actual that confuses me.

Thanks!
Todd

[Jose]

>> when would you actually be considered in "actual" conditions,
>
> When your flight conditions do not meet the ceiling, visibility and cloud clearance requirements for visual flight rules.

I don't consider it "actual" unless the conditions force me to rely on
the instruments to maintain aircraft control. The laws of physics trump
the laws of man.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I don't consider it "actual" unless the conditions force me to rely on the instruments to maintain aircraft control. The laws of physics trump the laws of man.

oops... spoke without context. "Actual" for logging is as above -
"actual" for requiring a clearance is as originally stated ("less than VFR")

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[three-eight-hotel]

>> If you're going to want to fly through any actual IMC you need the IFR clearance. The way I would usually
>> request this is "Approach, N123, on the ramp at KXYZ, request IFR clearance for multiple approaches into KXYZ".
>> Note there is no "practise" in there-- but even if you said " request IFR clearance for practice approaches",
>> it's still clear that you want the IFR clearance. He'll ask which approach you want to start with, etc, and
>> then your clearance will begin "N123 is cleared to KXYZ via radar vectors, climb and maintain 3000, ...".

That helps! At what point can you start logging actual (based on my
scenario)?

>> If I intend to stay VFR and wish "practice" handling by ATC it would be more like this: "Approach, N123, 3 S of
>> KXYZ, request practice approaches into KXYZ". In such a case you would not hear "cleared to" ( though you
>> prbably would hear "cleared approach"), but you would probably hear "maintain VFR" sprinkled in with the ATC
>> instructions...

That's what I am used to... I think if I want to get "actual" practice
time in, I would go with your first approach. I'm still unclear though
on the logging.

Thanks!
Todd

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/16/2005 06:51, three-eight-hotel wrote:

> So... having no actual time, under my belt, how would you typically go
> out and practice your approaches? Would you file an IFR flight plan to
> SAC or MHR and request multiple approaches in the air, or would you
> popup out of O61 and contact NORCAL requesting "practice?" approaches
> into MHR/SAC?

You can do it either way. The bottom line is that you cannot fly into
IMC (in controlled airspace) without an IFR flight plan and a ATC
clearance. Alternatively, you can depart your airport VFR, then
get the pop-up IFR before you hit IMC at the destination (where you
wish to fly the approach).

As Dave said, it's not "practice" when you're flying in actual IMC, so
don't think of it that way. If you want a pop-up, just call up NorCal
like this:

"NorCal, Cessna XXXX is a C-172/G, XX miles SW of SAC VOR,
heading XXX, and I would like to get an IFR clearance to fly
the ILS runway 2 at Executive, pilot nav, missed as published"

(note that local customs have you call "NorCal, Cessna XXX, Request"
first).

>
> Stupid question, but I've never been completely clear on this... In
> the case where you are flying from clear to "over" a fog layer, with
> intentions of shooting "practice" approaches at the airports under IMC,
> when would you actually be considered in "actual" conditions, and when
> would you actually be considered cleared under IFR? I'm thrown off by
> the word "practice", and probably because that's all I've ever done?

As Dave said, your confusion is over using the word "practice" when
in actual IMC. They don't go together well. When flying in actual IMC,
you're practicing about as much as the SWA airline pilot is ;-)

One thing I noticed around here, is that when you're practicing
approaches, NorCal will say "Approved for the approach" rather than
"Cleared for the approach". They don't do this every time, but I was
told this was their way of making it clear that they know you're not
on an IFR flight plan.


> I've been on a filed IFR flight plan, but have never requested a pop-up
> clearance or flown into actual IMC. If you request "practice"
> approaches in the described conditions, you will actually be in IMC at
> some point, so does your "practice" clearance now grant you the
> privileges to fly into IMC?

No. In fact, NorCal will generally remind you to maintain VFR at all
times. However, if the conditions at the field are clearly IMC, they
may "assume" what you want is an IFR clearance. I wouldn't think this
would just work without both sides being clear on what is happening,
so I would expect there to be some confusion.


>
> I'm curious about this, not only for legal reasons, but I'm also
> curious as to how you would log your time... At what point can you
> start logging "actual"?

Well, go nuts if you want. Generally, I just look back on the flight
and guestimate. If it was a 1.2 hour flight, and I was only in the
clouds during the final approach and initial missed of each approach,
then I might figure I was in IMC for .4 hours - then split my time
accordingly in my log.


>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Todd
>

By the way, I plan to make my first actual instrument approaches (in
IMC) with an instructor. Do you plan to do yours single pilot? Please
don't take this as criticism - I tend to be overly cautious, and I
expect there will be folks who will argue that if you have your rating,
you're qualified to exercise it.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Jose]

> I take off in severe clear from O61,
> contact approach and request vectors to the ILS at MHR (for multiple
> approaches). I'm given a freq to squawk and a heading and altitude,
> followed by "radar contact"... Am I now in the system as an IFR
> flight?

You are not IFR until you hear "N4234J is cleared to MJB via..." or the
ilk. If you got that on the ground, you were IFR ("instrument flight
RULES") from the getgo, otherwise you are still VFR until you get an
actual clearance. "Radar contact" has little or nothing to do with IFR.

> Once I am over the top of this layer (and this is where I could use
> some clarification), I am still encountering 3 miles visibility
> (althought the airport is currently under IMC, and this may be where
> I'm getting confused), 1000 feet above, 500 feet below and 2000 feet
> vertical clearance. However, I can't see anything below me and am now
> flying by reference to instruments alone.

You are still VFR, and you are flying visually. You are =navigating= by
instruments. So long as you can maintain cloud clearances and
visibilities, you are legal to fly under VFR ("visual flight RULES").
It may be however that you are between layers, and have no horizon with
which to orient yourself. In this case you are IMC ("Instrument
meteorolgical CONDITIONS") while still legal to fly under VFR. If you
are not instrument rated, this is dumb. Even if you are instrument
rated, this could be dumb. However, it is legal. If you are just above
the fog and can control the aircraft visually, you do not log "actual".
However if you are between layers and =require= the flight instruments
to maintain control (not just navigate), then this is "actual" and
should go in the logbook as such. Similarly, over the water, at night,
with no moon and nothing to orient yourself, even though it could be
severe clear, is "actual". It's legal VFR, and loggable as actual.

> All of my practice approaches (except for those on a filed IFR flight
> plan) have been done in VFR, with not a "cleared to....", but after
> receiving vectors or via pilot nav, a "cleared for the approach".

In that case you were operating VFR, and are required (via your safety
pilot) to maintain visibility and cloud clearances, and avoid aluminum
yourself). If you were practicing in actual conditions, you would hear
the magic words "cleared present position to WVS via ..."

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Butler]

three-eight-hotel wrote:
> So, let's go with 3-1-5-2... I take off in severe clear from O61,
> contact approach and request vectors to the ILS at MHR (for multiple
> approaches). I'm given a freq to squawk and a heading and altitude,
> followed by "radar contact"... Am I now in the system as an IFR
> flight?

No, not unless you heard "cleared to...".

>
> Continuing on, I approach a layer of fog over top of MHR that is topped
> out at 2000 feet... I'm at 4000 feet, there are no clouds within 2000
> feet of me vertically, so I am still VFR...
>
> Once I am over the top of this layer (and this is where I could use
> some clarification), I am still encountering 3 miles visibility
> (althought the airport is currently under IMC, and this may be where
> I'm getting confused), 1000 feet above, 500 feet below and 2000 feet
> vertical clearance. However, I can't see anything below me and am now
> flying by reference to instruments alone. I can still maintain VFR
> separation from traffic... Back to the previous question... Am now on
> an IFR flight? Can this time "above the fog" be logged as "actual", or
> not?

You're not on an IFR flight until you hear "cleared to...". With all that
visibility, you're probably not flying only with reference to instruments. I
think you are confusing the fact that your *navigation* is by reference to
instruments. That fact doesn't affect the flight rules under which you are
flying (IFR/VFR) or the meteorological conditions (IMC/VMC).

>
> All of my practice approaches (except for those on a filed IFR flight
> plan) have been done in VFR, with not a "cleared to....", but after
> receiving vectors or via pilot nav, a "cleared for the approach". So
> back to the previous question again, the response of "radar contact"...
> Is that a statement of confirmation that indicates you are in the
> system as an IFR flight (in this situation)?

No, you need to hear "cleared to...". When you are cleared for a practice
approach under VFR, the terminology should be "cleared for practice approach,
maintain VFR" or something like that. Controllers in the group will correct me.

[three-eight-hotel]

>> One thing I noticed around here, is that when you're practicing
>> approaches, NorCal will say "Approved for the approach" rather than
>> "Cleared for the approach". They don't do this every time, but I was
>> told this was their way of making it clear that they know you're not
>> on an IFR flight plan.

I've always received a "cleared for the approach"

>> No. In fact, NorCal will generally remind you to maintain VFR at all
>> times. However, if the conditions at the field are clearly IMC, they
>> may "assume" what you want is an IFR clearance. I wouldn't think this
>> would just work without both sides being clear on what is happening,
>> so I would expect there to be some confusion

This is where I need to be clear... I like John's comment on simply
requesting an IFR clearance to the airport for multiple approaches.

>> Well, go nuts if you want. Generally, I just look back on the flight
>> and guestimate. If it was a 1.2 hour flight, and I was only in the
>> clouds during the final approach and initial missed of each approach,
>> then I might figure I was in IMC for .4 hours - then split my time
>> accordingly in my log.

Makes sense...

>> By the way, I plan to make my first actual instrument approaches (in
>> IMC) with an instructor. Do you plan to do yours single pilot? Please
>> don't take this as criticism - I tend to be overly cautious, and I
>> expect there will be folks who will argue that if you have your rating,
>> you're qualified to exercise it

I absolutely intend to take an instrucotr along my first time... We've
talked about this before. I tend to lean toward the cautious side as
well.

I'm utilizing the incredible resources in this group to extend my
knowledge base! I'm amazed at how little I feel like I know, yet I was
able to achieve the rating. I tend to underestimate myself, but am
always driven to keep learning! I'm very comfortable with my aviation
skills at the point where I am, but I have no desire to go jump into an
overly-risky situation without some real world experience, with an
instructor (there was an entire thread on risk at one point!). I don't
see shooting approaches at MHR overly-risky, with clear to the East as
an out, but I would feel much better if my first attempt was with
someone that could watch my back and critique my experience when it was
all over.

Best Regards,
Todd

[three-eight-hotel]

That all helps too! Thanks!!!

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/16/2005 08:22, three-eight-hotel wrote:

>>> If you're going to want to fly through any actual IMC you need the IFR clearance. The way I would usually
>>> request this is "Approach, N123, on the ramp at KXYZ, request IFR clearance for multiple approaches into KXYZ".
>>> Note there is no "practise" in there-- but even if you said " request IFR clearance for practice approaches",
>>> it's still clear that you want the IFR clearance. He'll ask which approach you want to start with, etc, and
>>> then your clearance will begin "N123 is cleared to KXYZ via radar vectors, climb and maintain 3000, ...".
>
> That helps! At what point can you start logging actual (based on my
> scenario)?

Personally, I would log actual anytime I'm flying in conditions that require
me to control the aircraft by instruments only. The fact that it may be less
than VFR conditions doesn't really count - in my opinion.

>
>>> If I intend to stay VFR and wish "practice" handling by ATC it would be more like this: "Approach, N123, 3 S of
>>> KXYZ, request practice approaches into KXYZ". In such a case you would not hear "cleared to" ( though you
>>> prbably would hear "cleared approach"), but you would probably hear "maintain VFR" sprinkled in with the ATC
>>> instructions...
>
> That's what I am used to... I think if I want to get "actual" practice
> time in, I would go with your first approach. I'm still unclear though
> on the logging.

Well, not to throw a monkey wrench in there, but another question is when
do you consider your approach as one that counts toward your currency?
For example, if you're in VMC, and practice an approach (no hood, etc.)
which includes only a small layer of clouds to get through, do you count
that?

After all, if the ceiling is at 2000', and you're vectored to the FAC
at 1500', you're flying the entire IAP in VMC conditions, right? Would
you consider this an approach toward your 6-month currency?


>
> Thanks!
> Todd
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Mike Adams]

Mark Hansen > wrote:

> One thing I noticed around here, is that when you're practicing
> approaches, NorCal will say "Approved for the approach" rather than
> "Cleared for the approach". They don't do this every time, but I was
> told this was their way of making it clear that they know you're not
> on an IFR flight plan.

Here in the PHX tracon, they are specific about this phraseology distinction. It's always, "practice
approach approved, maintain VFR", as distinct from "cleared for the approach" .

Interesting thread. We get so little actual IMC that this opportunity doesn't present itself very often. And
when it does, the tracon is too busy with real traffic to deal with all us GA pilots looking for a little actual.
Maybe time for a trip to California.

Mike

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/16/2005 08:43, three-eight-hotel wrote:

>>> One thing I noticed around here, is that when you're practicing
>>> approaches, NorCal will say "Approved for the approach" rather than
>>> "Cleared for the approach". They don't do this every time, but I was
>>> told this was their way of making it clear that they know you're not
>>> on an IFR flight plan.
>
> I've always received a "cleared for the approach"

In my training, I only heard "Approved for the approach" a few times.
The first time, I was confused by it, and thought it meant I couldn't
fly the approach (because I didn't hear the magic words). My CFII said
that is how they say in during VMC practice of IAPs, and that it was
strange we didn't hear it more often.

Hmmmm, I guess it's just another one of those local policies?

>
>>> No. In fact, NorCal will generally remind you to maintain VFR at all
>>> times. However, if the conditions at the field are clearly IMC, they
>>> may "assume" what you want is an IFR clearance. I wouldn't think this
>>> would just work without both sides being clear on what is happening,
>>> so I would expect there to be some confusion
>
> This is where I need to be clear... I like John's comment on simply
> requesting an IFR clearance to the airport for multiple approaches.

Yes, but you can do that from the air using a pop-up as well. If you
would like to depart your home airport VFR, don't feel forced into
departing on an IFR flight plan just because you want to go IFR at
some point in the flight.

There were times when we wanted to practice air work, but there was
low-level stratus around the area. We would request an IFR clearance
to VFR on top, and once there, cancel IFR. Then, when we were ready to
come back to the airport, we would just request an IFR clearance for
the desired approach, and bang, we're back in the system.

>
>>> Well, go nuts if you want. Generally, I just look back on the flight
>>> and guestimate. If it was a 1.2 hour flight, and I was only in the
>>> clouds during the final approach and initial missed of each approach,
>>> then I might figure I was in IMC for .4 hours - then split my time
>>> accordingly in my log.
>
> Makes sense...
>
>>> By the way, I plan to make my first actual instrument approaches (in
>>> IMC) with an instructor. Do you plan to do yours single pilot? Please
>>> don't take this as criticism - I tend to be overly cautious, and I
>>> expect there will be folks who will argue that if you have your rating,
>>> you're qualified to exercise it
>
> I absolutely intend to take an instrucotr along my first time... We've
> talked about this before. I tend to lean toward the cautious side as
> well.
>
> I'm utilizing the incredible resources in this group to extend my
> knowledge base!

I especially enjoy discussions like these. With a green rating and little
practical experience, I've got a lot to learn as well.

> I'm amazed at how little I feel like I know, yet I was
> able to achieve the rating.

Well, if you saw my write-up on my instrument check ride, you'll know
that I almost felt cheated-out of any real testing. The examiner (who
is also the chief flight instructor and owner of the FBO) did a really
terrible job of evaluating my abilities. But, I got my rating, and I
figured that I can continue to learn.

> I tend to underestimate myself, but am
> always driven to keep learning! I'm very comfortable with my aviation
> skills at the point where I am, but I have no desire to go jump into an
> overly-risky situation without some real world experience, with an
> instructor (there was an entire thread on risk at one point!).

Yeah, that was what I was hinting at. On the other side of the coin,
when you flew your first solo, you did that without an instructor. At
the time, you may have thought less about your skills, but when you
took-off, that all dropped away, and you began to realize that you
were indeed adequately prepared for the task.

Still, I plan to take a CFII with me the first time ;-)

> I don't
> see shooting approaches at MHR overly-risky, with clear to the East as
> an out, but I would feel much better if my first attempt was with
> someone that could watch my back and critique my experience when it was
> all over.

Amen to that! The good thing about the approach at MHR (at least the
approaches to 22) is they are so bloody long. You have plenty of time
to keep things together.

By the way, today would be perfect for it. limited vis and 500' ceilings!

>
> Best Regards,
> Todd
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Robert M. Gary]

No. When I take off from O61 (in the clear) I ask for "multiple ILS's
into MHR". I don't usually state "IFR" when its foggy but I probably
should. The controller will then say "Cleared to the Mather Airport via
radar vectors blah blah blah". You **MUST** hear the words "Cleared to
Mather Airport" or you are NOT IFR.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

The FAA's FAQ says you can log actual anytime you can only fly the
aircraft by reference to the instruments. At one point someone smartly
ask, "What about a dark moonless night over the water when its CAVU".
The FAA came back with "That's good enough, you can log actual
instrument then too".

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

The other strange thing ATC does when you are doing "practice" (i.e.
VFR) approachs is say "maintain VFR". I laugh everytime. You are always
VFR unless ATC gives you a clearance otherwise. VFR is flight rules,
not flight conditions. They probably should say "Maintain VFR
conditions" (i.e. "I'm not letting you go in the clouds").

-Robert

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The other strange thing ATC does when you are doing "practice" (i.e.
> VFR) approachs is say "maintain VFR". I laugh everytime. You are always
> VFR unless ATC gives you a clearance otherwise. VFR is flight rules,
> not flight conditions. They probably should say "Maintain VFR
> conditions" (i.e. "I'm not letting you go in the clouds").

You could be right. I prefer to think they say that to provide a redundant
reminder that you're not on a clearance, just to avoid a possible misunderstanding.

"maintain VFR" seems to be used redundantly that way in other contexts, too. For
example:

VFR pilot: "N12345 is leaving 3000 for 2000.
ATC: "Maintain VFR"

I interpret that as ATC's way of saying "you're not on a clearance, so you don't
need my permission to descend, and just in case you thought you were on a
clearance, you're not."

[Jose]

> Well, not to throw a monkey wrench in there, but another question is when
> do you consider your approach as one that counts toward your currency?
> For example, if you're in VMC, and practice an approach (no hood, etc.)
> which includes only a small layer of clouds to get through, do you count
> that?

This is another "forever discussion" with no coherent guidance from the
FAA, despite letters back and forth. Each approach is different, one
can be solid for a part, in and out for the whole approach, just lowish
vis for the approach, many different variations. If I "felt like" I
flew an instrument approach, I log it. This usually means "most of the
time from the FAF to the MAP I was IMC", and if I break out a little
early, so be it. If I break out a lot early, especially on an ILS, I
didn't fly much of an approach and I don't log it (though I may note it
in my comments).

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > The other strange thing ATC does when you are doing "practice" (i.e.
> > VFR) approachs is say "maintain VFR". I laugh everytime. You are always
> > VFR unless ATC gives you a clearance otherwise. VFR is flight rules,
> > not flight conditions. They probably should say "Maintain VFR
> > conditions" (i.e. "I'm not letting you go in the clouds").
>
> You could be right. I prefer to think they say that to provide a
> redundant reminder that you're not on a clearance, just to avoid a
> possible misunderstanding.
>
> "maintain VFR" seems to be used redundantly that way in other contexts,
> too. For example:
>
> VFR pilot: "N12345 is leaving 3000 for 2000.
> ATC: "Maintain VFR"
>
> I interpret that as ATC's way of saying "you're not on a clearance, so
> you don't need my permission to descend, and just in case you thought
> you were on a clearance, you're not."

Actually you are on a clearance, an approach clearance, and are given
standard IFR separation except for vertical where only 500 feet need be
provided. The maintain VFR part is a reminder that you are to remain
VMC for whatever airspace you happen to be in.

[A Lieberman]

On 15 Dec 2005 22:35:35 -0800, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Sometimes it can be distracting. My first IFR approach was into MRY
> with ceilings at 800. I broke out, started looking for the airport and
> flew right through the LOC looking for the airport. Lesson, learned.
> Keep flying the ILS until you see the runway.

What happened to me, was that I had to apply a 40 degree correction to the
right account for 40 knot winds quartering headwinds, and I broke out
looking for the airport and found it 40 degrees off my nose to the left,
Totally confused me at first as first instinct when breaking out is to see
it off the nose.

Luckily, I kept flying the ILS as you advised above til I got myself
visually oriented.

Strange sensation to put all our faith into the instruments, and break out
and no airport off the nose of the plane..... It was at my 10:00.

Allen

[Scott Moore]

three-eight-hotel wrote On 12/16/05 06:51,:
> So... having no actual time, under my belt, how would you typically go
> out and practice your approaches? Would you file an IFR flight plan to
> SAC or MHR and request multiple approaches in the air, or would you
> popup out of O61 and contact NORCAL requesting "practice?" approaches
> into MHR/SAC?

My 2 cents.

Although I flew actual with the instructor, I was wary of flying actual
on my own. So pretty much by default, I waited until I needed to do a
departure with a now closed in airport. It was fine, but I think now
unecessary. The valley is ideal for actual training. File from the bay area
in the clear, IFR all the way. Then, you will be on system, get a nice
letdown into the clouds over the valley, and some nice approaches, then
back into the clear and home. Hell, if you get nervous or tired,
you could even just ask to up and out of it for a while.

I've done most of my actual in the valley, usually into Stockton south
of there. I also discovered a nice trick from my instructor, to request
"delaying vector". If you find you are tired, falling behind or need
to get reorganized, you ask for that, and relax and get prepared again.
After an hour of actual approaches, you can get pretty tired.

[Scott Moore]

A Lieberman wrote On 12/16/05 12:02,:
> On 15 Dec 2005 22:35:35 -0800, Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>
>>Sometimes it can be distracting. My first IFR approach was into MRY
>>with ceilings at 800. I broke out, started looking for the airport and
>>flew right through the LOC looking for the airport. Lesson, learned.
>>Keep flying the ILS until you see the runway.
>
>
> What happened to me, was that I had to apply a 40 degree correction to the
> right account for 40 knot winds quartering headwinds, and I broke out
> looking for the airport and found it 40 degrees off my nose to the left,
> Totally confused me at first as first instinct when breaking out is to see
> it off the nose.
>
> Luckily, I kept flying the ILS as you advised above til I got myself
> visually oriented.
>
> Strange sensation to put all our faith into the instruments, and break out
> and no airport off the nose of the plane..... It was at my 10:00.
>
> Allen

And here I will **** everyone off:

That's why you need the GPS. Much better situational awareness.

[Mike Adams]

Scott Moore > wrote:

>> Strange sensation to put all our faith into the instruments, and
>> break out and no airport off the nose of the plane..... It was at my
>> 10:00.
>>
>> Allen
>
> And here I will **** everyone off:
>
> That's why you need the GPS. Much better situational awareness.

How would that help? Unless the GPS knows your heading (and most don't), the map display will be
ground track up, and will show the airport straight ahead. This could just confuse the situation even
further.

Mike

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/16/2005 4:20 PM, Mike Adams wrote:
> Scott Moore > wrote:
>
>>> Strange sensation to put all our faith into the instruments, and
>>> break out and no airport off the nose of the plane..... It was at my
>>> 10:00.
>>>
>>> Allen
>>
>> And here I will **** everyone off:
>>
>> That's why you need the GPS. Much better situational awareness.
>
> How would that help? Unless the GPS knows your heading (and most don't), the map display will be
> ground track up, and will show the airport straight ahead. This could just confuse the situation even
> further.
>
> Mike

Right. I was taught to be aware of my wind correction angle, and
the direction I will need to look for the airport when I finally
break out.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[three-eight-hotel]

>> No, you need to hear "cleared to...".

Got it!!!

[three-eight-hotel]

Got it!!! ;-)

[three-eight-hotel]

>> I also discovered a nice trick from my instructor, to request
>> "delaying vector". If you find you are tired, falling behind or need
>> to get reorganized, you ask for that, and relax and get prepared again.
>> After an hour of actual approaches, you can get pretty tired.

I haven't heard of doing that, but it sounds like a great thing to
remember! I recall being vectored waayyyyy out on occaision, for some
unknown reason. It was always a great chance to relax, reorganize and
prepare for the next approach. Thanks for the tip!

[Robert M. Gary]

Strangly in some cases they don't provide that service for VFR
instrument approaches. For some reason when you get practice approaches
into Lincoln, CA you are always told "no seperation services provided".
Not sure what is so special about that airport because I've never been
told that anywhere else.

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

Call the TRACON and ask them, it is probably in their
"letter of agreement" and VFR is always responsible for
separation, even if the radar says they are giving you
traffic.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Strangly in some cases they don't provide that service for
VFR
| instrument approaches. For some reason when you get
practice approaches
| into Lincoln, CA you are always told "no seperation
services provided".
| Not sure what is so special about that airport because
I've never been
| told that anywhere else.
|
| -Robert
|