Actual IMC hours experience

[JohnB]

61.51

(g) Logging instrument 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.

Generally true when there is no visible horizon, but not specifically stated in this paragraph.

Curious what everyone is logging as actual time based on the above definition. For example, if you file ifr, go through a dense marine layer for 0.1 hours, but can't see any ground reference for another 0.7 hours due to clouds below, how much time do you log as actual instrument flight conditions? 0.1 hours or 0.8 hours?

Also if you would count 0.8 hours as actual, are you tracking separately your hard IMC time where you can't see anything out of your windows?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jetdriven]

if you are flying above a cloud deck in clear air with a discernable horizon, I wouldnt log that as actual. At night, maybe

[chrisk]

Curious what everyone is logging as actual time based on the above definition. For example, if you file ifr, go through a dense marine layer for 0.1 hours, but can't see any ground reference for another 0.7 hours due to clouds below, how much time do you log as actual instrument flight conditions? 0.1 hours or 0.8 hours?

Also if you would count 0.8 hours as actual, are you tracking separately your hard IMC time where you can't see anything out of your windows?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

During the day I would log this as 0.1, unless I was between layers and had no real horizon (or it was too hazy to see the sky/horizon).  At night, I would log it if I could not clearly see stars in the sky or lights on the ground. 

 

As far as IMC/VMC/VFR times.  I flew from Austin to Denver for the MAPA event.  In total I had about 13 hours of flying.  8 to 9 hours of that was on an IFR flight plan.   Around 4 hours as VFR.  I had 0.1 of IMC, as I went through a broken (and bumpy) deck at about 6000 feet on my final decent on the way back home.  

[1964-M20E]

I've stated before it is your log book and you record what you are comfortable with in accordance with your interpretation of the regs.

 

Myself I judge the situation and if I feel I need the instruments to fly the plane then I log it as IMC.  I also look at where I am and if I'm in and out of the clouds and I could not legally be there VFR then I am more likely to log it as IMC.

 

As for approaches if I am flying an approach and any part of the approach is IMC then I log the approach.

[Andy95W]

I've stated before it is your log book and you record what you are comfortable with in accordance with your interpretation of the regs.

 

Myself I judge the situation and if I feel I need the instruments to fly the plane then I log it as IMC.  I also look at where I am and if I'm in and out of the clouds and I could not legally be there VFR then I am more likely to log it as IMC.

 

As for approaches if I am flying an approach and any part of the approach is IMC then I log the approach.

Yep. Once you get your instrument rating nobody cares about your instrument time but you.

[Hank]

My rule is simpler than John's. If I'm flying an approach because I need to to find the airport, I log it.

[1964-M20E]

My rule is simpler than John's. If I'm flying an approach because I need to to find the airport, I log it.

I like simple.

[WardHolbrook]

My rule is simpler than John's. If I'm flying an approach because I need to to find the airport, I log it.

Me too. I also log it if ATC clears me for the approach even in VMC. It's a common procedure at some airports for jet arrivals.

[mike_elliott]

Yep. Once you get your instrument rating nobody cares about your instrument time but you.

 

I get asked that by prospective Mooney students, (as they should) so I log it. I love flying on instruments only. It is precision flying at its' best!

[midlifeflyer]

Curious what everyone is logging as actual time based on the above definition. For example, if you file ifr, go through a dense marine layer for 0.1 hours, but can't see any ground reference for another 0.7 hours due to clouds below, how much time do you log as actual instrument flight conditions? 0.1 hours or 0.8 hours?

Also if you would count 0.8 hours as actual, are you tracking separately your hard IMC time where you can't see anything out of your windows?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lack of ground references isn't the test. If you look at the letter I quoted above, you'll see the FAA's working definition:

 

"'Actual' instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft."

 

IOW, if you need the flight instruments to keep the shiny side up, it can be considered actual. Most of us can keep the airplane right side up while flying above an overcast, which is why it's legal for VFR-only pilots to do.  I don't think the brief glances at the flight instruments we all do to confirm what out eyes are telling us, even in severe clear VFR, counts as "actual."

 

I'm not sure about why one would separately log "actual" and "hard actual," especially since there are no currency requirements associated with them other than counting holds and approaches.

[Bob - S50]

I only log instrument time when I'm in the soup.  However, I did also log instrument time when I was flying at night over open ocean and no discernible horizon.

 

As for approaches, I personally only log them if I have to pass through weather to find the runway and only if I'm the one flying the plane.  That is, if the pilot in the other seat is flying, I don't log the approach.

 

Bob

[phecksel]

I'm extremely unusual in the amount of actual time ratio.  If I had to guess, it's 20%+.  It really became obvious when I stopped using the plane for business and I watched an approach that was incredibly sloppy to my prior experience.

[Awqward]

For the purposes of the "6 in 6" FAA currency, I log actual as any IMC after the FAF....regardless of when I break out....luckily(?) here in Scotland that is quite often...and as Charlie indicates, for the purposes of getting my EASA instrument ticket I have started logging in a separate column brakes off to brakes on for any IFR flight...even if totally in VMC....

As a side note, here in Europe anyone flying a US registered airplane who lives in Europe will need both FAA and EASA certificates

[JohnB]

Lack of ground references isn't the test. If you look at the letter I quoted above, you'll see the FAA's working definition:

 

"'Actual' instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft."

 

IOW, if you need the flight instruments to keep the shiny side up, it can be considered actual. Most of us can keep the airplane right side up while flying above an overcast, which is why it's legal for VFR-only pilots to do.  I don't think the brief glances at the flight instruments we all do to confirm what out eyes are telling us, even in severe clear VFR, counts as "actual."

 

I'm not sure about why one would separately log "actual" and "hard actual," especially since there are no currency requirements associated with them other than counting holds and approaches.

Thanks everyone for clarifying one of those "Im gonna ask that one of these days" questions! That definition is much clearer. I recall an instructor that didn't have a good answer to that question many moons ago. To me, it's clear that if any portion of your approach is in IMC, or youre under the hood with a safety pilot, you can log that as an instrument approach, otherwise not, even if on an ifr flight plan is what I understand the interpretation is.

 

The grey would be at night above a cloud layer, or even at night with a cloud layer above you in an unpopulated area without surface lights, with no reference to maintain control, I  would consider logging that as IMC time even if not in a cloud. But as someone else mentioned, I don't think anyone other than us cares about what number of hours are actual vs non actual, as that number doesnt count toward currency.

[yvesg]

Many pilots in Canada log any flight under an IFR flight plan as actual... we have an additional requirement to have 6 hours of IFR time in the last 6 months to remain current. I wish they would allign with USA rules. This would actually resolve that debate. If they would enforce (this is also a debate here) this by checking logbooks and giving fines etc. to culprits, there would not be much IFR GA flights in Canada. How can private pilot flying an average of 50 hours a year fly 6 hours actual in clouds whenfor about 6 months in a year you cannot fly in clouds due to icing? (From October to March, the temperature here is too cold to fly in clouds without FIKI)

Yves

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks everyone for clarifying one of those "Im gonna ask that one of these days" questions! That definition is much clearer. I recall an instructor that didn't have a good answer to that question many moons ago. To me, it's clear that if any portion of your approach is in IMC, or youre under the hood with a safety pilot, you can log that as an instrument approach, otherwise not, even if on an ifr flight plan is what I understand the interpretation is.

 

Yes, you absolutely have to have actual or simulated instrument conditions to log an approach for currency. The currency reg specifically says so. Not even a matter of having to interpret that part.

 

The "how much actual" is needed to log an instrument approach is a different question than what actual is. I pretty much agree with your "any portion" analysis but regulatory geeks may want to take a look at my FAQ which goes into some of the background and history of the question:

http://midlifeflight.com/flying-faq/faq-instrument-procedures-currency/

[Awqward]

Interesting JohnB, it seems some would consider any actual IMC after being cleared for the approach as counting for currency....I use IMC after the FAF...so far I have had no problem in getting the 6 in 6 that way....and I agree that by "IMC" it needs to be more than a brief whisp of a cloud....

 

For the "after being cleared for the approach" school, how about the argument somewhere in this thread that actual IMC can be logged on a moonless night over an unpopulated area.... even in VMC when say outbound on a PT would it be still possible to log an approach in "actual"? My feeling is no....it should only be on the FAC when there is cloud between you and the approach lights

[flyboy0681]

There has been a lot of back and forth here about what constitutes actual conditions (some horizon, no horizon, between layers, moon and stars, no moon, no stars etc), but I think the real question is hand flying vs A/P. Seems to me that logging 100 instrument hours when the pilot hand flew it for only 2 of those hours doesn't keep him or her at the top of their game.

 

Teejayevans said it best when he asked "how many times are you hand flying it during IMC?"

[1964-M20E]

There has been a lot of back and forth here about what constitutes actual conditions (some horizon, no horizon, between layers, moon and stars, no moon, no stars etc), but I think the real question is hand flying vs A/P. Seems to me that logging 100 instrument hours when the pilot hand flew it for only 2 of those hours doesn't keep him or her at the top of their game.

 

Teejayevans said it best when he asked "how many times are you hand flying it during IMC?"

 

I agree 100% that being able to keep the shiny side up in IMC when hand flying is critical but it is only part of the total equation aviate, navigate, communicate.  The ability to do the second 2 can keep you out of danger and can be just important as the first.  If you do not know where you are and cannot tell someone what you want to do or need to do then you can be just as screwed if you fail to aviate first.  The second 2 are honed and practiced whenever you file IFR and in the system.

[midlifeflyer]

Interesting JohnB, it seems some would consider any actual IMC after being cleared for the approach as counting for currency....I use IMC after the FAF...so far I have had no problem in getting the 6 in 6 that way....and I agree that by "IMC" it needs to be more than a brief whisp of a cloud....

 

 

A lot of people use "after the FAF." Not a bad way to do it since the real purpose is some semblance of proficiency rather than just making  marks in a logbook.

 

But why not solid clouds while keeping the correct DME distance during an arc? Or no view out the window while doing a procedure turn or HILO with a stiff crosswind (on an NDB approach no less)? Why do you feel the straight shot from FAF to MAP or DA is more deserving of being considered an "approach in actual" than some of the low altitude maneuvers involved once on a published segment?

[jlunseth]

I am similar to Don Muncy.  1075 hours and 80 actual.  I tend to default to not looging time as actual, unless it actuallly is actual.  Flying over a layer with no ground reference, but CAVU above the layer, is not actual. 

 

To log an approach that qualifies for currency, it either has to be in actual conditions, or simulated (under the hood), so there should always be some actual or simulated time logged with that approach.  An approach does not count if it is CAVU but you fly the approach to find the airport or align with the runway.  Obviously, it is not necessary that the entire approach must be in actual, that is, if the DH is 200 AGL and you fly through IMC down to 800 and see the runway, that is still an approach in actual.  I log approaches if any part of the published approach is in actual IMC.  If ATC puts me on an approach to get under a cloud layer, and I am under the cloud layer and in the clear before I get clearance for the approach, or before I am on a published segment, then the approach does not get logged.  I don't use an "after the FAF" rule.  Once at the FAF the rest of the approach is easy, just descent in a straight line.  More challenging, if you are actual, are the turns needed to get on the final approach course, those are the times when a mistake can turn into a graveyard spiral.  The other major challenge with actual is turbulence, moderate to severe makes approaches very challenging, and most of the time in my experience, if you are going to be saddled with those conditions, it is outside the FAF. 

 

I have experienced "night over the sea" conditions, and I logged it.  I am sure others have also.  I find it to be the most disorienting type of IMC there is.  In normal IMC there is at least the sense of movement through the clouds, as cloud material goes by.  In "night over sea" conditions there is nothing, absolutely nothing to relate to.  Nothing but inky, nonmoving black. 

[Hank]

I logged some brief actual during descent from 10,000; as I entered the haze layer, I may as well have been inside a cloud. Hilltops emerged from the murk just below 4000', and I didn't have good visibility until under 3000', when the world magically reappeared. No approach, though, just 0.2 actual. I was quite surprised, as the ground was very visible from above, then turned into a milk bottle without any clouds in sight.

I don't log an approach unless I can't see the airport due to weather phenomena. Losing it in ground clutter, or just not seeing it, don't count. Being vectored for an ILS doesn't count, either, although I may log some actual, if I break out before intercepting the localizer. Maybe I just don't do many ILSs, although I was once vectored through some interesting cumulus for an ILS Back course (which I had never, ever flown) before the controller accepted my request for a GPS to the same runway.

[Awqward]

A lot of people use "after the FAF." Not a bad way to do it since the real purpose is some semblance of proficiency rather than just making marks in a logbook.

But why not solid clouds while keeping the correct DME distance during an arc? Or no view out the window while doing a procedure turn or HILO with a stiff crosswind (on an NDB approach no less)? Why do you feel the straight shot from FAF to MAP or DA is more deserving of being considered an "approach in actual" than some of the low altitude maneuvers involved once on a published segment?

I don't necessarily think that the FAF to MAP is more deserving as such....it just seemed less subject to question in terms of meeting currency...and I definitely agree that the skill level required to make a PT or a DME arc in IMC is much more than going straight down the hill.... so in future I probably will count such IMC in the approach but before the FAF as counting towards recency! Thanks for making me think more about it...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BorealOne]

I'd put myself with the majority on this one. I've logged 'IFR time' and 'actual IMC' separately for years, with actual IMC time being only that portion of flight which is in IMC (which seems the most logical criterion for 'actual', lack of Transport Canada guidance notwithstanding).

 

1700h TT, 700h in the IFR system, and 140h actual IMC. Like others, I count 'an approach' as being any approach in which some portion of the procedure is flown in IMC.

[Hank]

Why do you track "time in the system"? Is that required in Canada? I only record Actual and Simulated IMC time, as well as flight time, night, landings and approaches. I have no idea how many hours I've flown on IFR flight plans, using VFR flight following, or just VFR on my own.