Loggable?

[Paul Tomblin]

Flying to an unfamiliar airport, in very hazy conditions, I was cleared
for the visual for 28 not too long before sunset. I could see the
ground below me at 6,000 feet, but I couldn't see a damn thing in front
of me because of the sun in my eyes and the haze, so I asked for and was
given the ILS 28. I intercepted and flew the glideslope down just like
I'd do in IMC, and I finally saw the runway when I was about 500 AGL. So,
is that a loggable approach or not?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I must go down to do C again, to the ANSI C and the vi
And all I ask is a shell script and a tar to store her by
"C Fever", Paul Martin

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> Flying to an unfamiliar airport, in very hazy conditions, I was cleared
> for the visual for 28 not too long before sunset. I could see the
> ground below me at 6,000 feet, but I couldn't see a damn thing in front
> of me because of the sun in my eyes and the haze, so I asked for and was
> given the ILS 28. I intercepted and flew the glideslope down just like
> I'd do in IMC, and I finally saw the runway when I was about 500 AGL. So,
> is that a loggable approach or not?

fwiw - I believe that it's a loggable approach. I believe that in-flight
visibilty/actual conditions trumps ground-reported/forecast conditions

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Flying to an unfamiliar airport, in very hazy conditions, I was cleared
> for the visual for 28 not too long before sunset. I could see the
> ground below me at 6,000 feet, but I couldn't see a damn thing in front
> of me because of the sun in my eyes and the haze, so I asked for and was
> given the ILS 28. I intercepted and flew the glideslope down just like
> I'd do in IMC, and I finally saw the runway when I was about 500 AGL. So,
> is that a loggable approach or not?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> I must go down to do C again, to the ANSI C and the vi
> And all I ask is a shell script and a tar to store her by
> "C Fever", Paul Martin

Why wouldn't it be? You were flying the approach solely by reference to
instruments and the view limiting device was not self-induced so as to
require a safety pilot.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 14:39:20 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>Flying to an unfamiliar airport, in very hazy conditions, I was cleared
>for the visual for 28 not too long before sunset. I could see the
>ground below me at 6,000 feet, but I couldn't see a damn thing in front
>of me because of the sun in my eyes and the haze, so I asked for and was
>given the ILS 28. I intercepted and flew the glideslope down just like
>I'd do in IMC, and I finally saw the runway when I was about 500 AGL. So,
>is that a loggable approach or not?

Yes.

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.

And various legal counsel opinions have held that IMC is NOT necessary.


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

[Jose]

> I could see the
> ground below me at 6,000 feet, but I couldn't see a damn thing in front
> of me because of the sun in my eyes and the haze, so I asked for and was
> given the ILS 28. I intercepted and flew the glideslope down just like
> I'd do in IMC, and I finally saw the runway when I was about 500 AGL. So,
> is that a loggable approach or not?

Did you =require= instruments to be able to keep the dirty side down?
If you could see the ground below you, you have an external visual
reference for up and down. This is a far cry from flying =solely= by
reference to instruments, as in when you are actually in the soup.

I would not log it as instrument time.

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

[Peter R.]

On 10/6/2007 12:01:17 PM, Jose wrote:

> Did you =require= instruments to be able to keep the dirty side down?
> If you could see the ground below you, you have an external visual
> reference for up and down.

Now that is a new one to me. Where is the official reference that states "if
you could see the ground straight down you can fly visually?"

I can recall several cases of flying in lake effect snow where I could see
the ground straight down but forward and even slant range visibility was
pretty close to zero. Any instrument-experienced pilot flying in those
conditions would not be flying visually.

--
Peter

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jose > said:
>Did you =require= instruments to be able to keep the dirty side down?

No, but I *required* instruments to find the runway. Yeah, I could have
flown straight and level forever, but descending visually was out of the
question.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"It should be understood by those skilled in the art that a Web browser, such
as Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer, ... is separate from the operating
system." - Microsoft patent lawyers shoot their anti-trust lawyers in the ass.

[Jose]

>> Did you =require= instruments to be able to keep the dirty side down?
>> If you could see the ground below you, you have an external visual
>> reference for up and down.
>
> Now that is a new one to me. Where is the official reference that states "if
> you could see the ground straight down you can fly visually?"

There is no official reference which states how well you can control the
aircraft depending on what you can see. Nonetheless, flying with =no=
reference for up and down is qualitatively different from flying with
one out the corner of your eye.

>>Did you =require= instruments to be able to keep the dirty side down?
>
> No...

Then you made my point.

> ... but I *required* instruments to find the runway.

The same could be said about VFR on top.

When I log instrument time, it means that I needed the instruments in
order to =control= the aircraft. Since I use such logged time to show
currency (and there are no clear rules about it), I only log the time
which demonstrates that I could control the aircraft with =no= external
visual references.

Or put another way, suppose that =all= my instrument time were in the
conditions described. Am I demonstrating the skills needed should I be
completely in the soup?

If so, I log the time. If not, I don't.

Obviously there are gradations, and I was not in the aircraft at the
time in question. But to me, despite the haze forward, being able to
see the ground below does not demonstrate that I could handle the
aircraft in an actual cloud that completely enveloped the plane, so I
personally wouldn't log it.

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

[Peter R.]

On 10/6/2007 5:30:28 PM, Jose wrote:

>>> Did you =require= instruments to be able to keep the dirty side down?
>>> If you could see the ground below you, you have an external visual
>>> reference for up and down.
>>
>> Now that is a new one to me. Where is the official reference that states "if
>> you could see the ground straight down you can fly visually?"
>
> There is no official reference which states how well you can control the
> aircraft depending on what you can see. Nonetheless, flying with =no=
> reference for up and down is qualitatively different from flying with
> one out the corner of your eye.
>
>>>Did you =require= instruments to be able to keep the dirty side down?
>>
>> No...
>
> Then you made my point.
>
>> ... but I required instruments to find the runway.
>
> The same could be said about VFR on top.

Hey, Jose, could you do me a favor when you respond to two different posts
within your single reply by labeling who typed what?

I didn't type two of the three quotes to which you responded within your
direct reply to my post.

Thank you.



--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

sure
"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
| Flying to an unfamiliar airport, in very hazy conditions,
I was cleared
| for the visual for 28 not too long before sunset. I could
see the
| ground below me at 6,000 feet, but I couldn't see a damn
thing in front
| of me because of the sun in my eyes and the haze, so I
asked for and was
| given the ILS 28. I intercepted and flew the glideslope
down just like
| I'd do in IMC, and I finally saw the runway when I was
about 500 AGL. So,
| is that a loggable approach or not?
|
| --
| Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
| I must go down to do C again, to the ANSI C and the vi
| And all I ask is a shell script and a tar to store her by
| "C Fever", Paul Martin