If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I believe the requirement for logging the time is conditional upon the
following phrase. "...maneuvering the aircraft solely by reference to instruments..." If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as actual. "Peter R." wrote in message ... Gary Drescher ) wrote: Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the aircraft by reference to the ground at all. You could fly an approach with visibility of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in IMC), and still see be able to the ground the whole time. But you wouldn't necessarily be using that view to aviate or navigate. I agree. Last week I was practicing approaches in moderate lake effect snow where the RVR fluctuated between 1800 and 5000, yet I could see the ground directly below the aircraft. Not sure how seeing the ground below is relevant to logging an approach, unless, of course, I am flying in that direction. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"sn" wrote in message ... I believe the requirement for logging the time is conditional upon the following phrase. "...maneuvering the aircraft solely by reference to instruments..." If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as actual. Fine, but the complete phrase 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." If you're not in actual instrument flight conditions or using a vision restricting device, how can you log any instrument time? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as actual. Even if you are on a VFR flight plan and are not instrument rated? Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Teacherjh wrote:
If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as actual. Even if you are on a VFR flight plan and are not instrument rated? The FARs do not specify 'must be on an IFR flight plan', nor do they specify that you need to be instrument rated to log actual. Hilton |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I am quite familiar with the situation you are describing. I used to
encounter it all the time in New Mexico. But I do not believe that such flights were loggable instrument flights. If you are flying solely by reference to instruments who is keeping you separated from other aircraft? I agree that those flights require greater use of instruments than a normal VFR flight, but I don't see how it qualifies as sole reference to instruments. Sole implies 100% use of instruments without any outside visuals. "sn" wrote in message ... I believe the requirement for logging the time is conditional upon the following phrase. "...maneuvering the aircraft solely by reference to instruments..." If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as actual. "Peter R." wrote in message ... Gary Drescher ) wrote: Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the aircraft by reference to the ground at all. You could fly an approach with visibility of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in IMC), and still see be able to the ground the whole time. But you wouldn't necessarily be using that view to aviate or navigate. I agree. Last week I was practicing approaches in moderate lake effect snow where the RVR fluctuated between 1800 and 5000, yet I could see the ground directly below the aircraft. Not sure how seeing the ground below is relevant to logging an approach, unless, of course, I am flying in that direction. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message om... I am quite familiar with the situation you are describing. I used to encounter it all the time in New Mexico. But I do not believe that such flights were loggable instrument flights. If you are flying solely by reference to instruments who is keeping you separated from other aircraft? You are. See and avoid. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Hilton" wrote...
Even if you are on a VFR flight plan and are not instrument rated? The FARs do not specify 'must be on an IFR flight plan', nor do they specify that you need to be instrument rated to log actual. Indeed, you can legally fly under VFR (even without any flight plan at all) as long as the weather is as prescribed in 91.155. There is no mention of a visible horizon... OTOH, you may find yourself at odds with 91.13(a) or 91.113(b) if you have not sufficiently prepared for the flight or don't have enough experience to safely fly in the conditions... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Similarly if you are in uncontrolled airspace.
There's less of that than there used to be, though. ---JRC--- "John R Weiss" wrote in message = news:OxbTb.72923$U%5.402002@attbi_s03... =20 =20 Indeed, you can legally fly under VFR (even without any flight plan at = all) as long as the weather is as prescribed in 91.155. =20 =20 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Indeed, you can legally fly under VFR (even without any flight plan at all)
as long as the weather is as prescribed in 91.155. Similarly if you are in uncontrolled airspace. There's less of that than there used to be, though. Even in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace, VFR is permitted only if the weather meets the requirements of 91.155. If the weather is below VFR minimums, you can fly IFR without a clearance, but this is still IFR and must be in accordance with the appropriate rules of Part 91, including fuel reserve, cruising altitude, etc. Barry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What approaches are in a database? | Ross | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | January 4th 04 07:57 PM |
GPS approaches with Center | Dan Luke | Instrument Flight Rules | 104 | October 22nd 03 09:42 PM |
Logging instrument approaches | Slav Inger | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | July 27th 03 11:00 PM |
Suppose We Really Do Have Only GPS Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | July 20th 03 05:10 PM |
Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 18th 03 01:43 PM |