Actual Time in Sacramento

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

"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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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