Haze

[robert7467]

Why isnt haze considered IFR? Yesterdays flight was basically IMC, absolutely no horizon, but yet the area was all VFR. I could have climed out of it or descended below it, but for my local flight, 2000-2500 was the perfect altitude. In a way, I kind of like it because I get to practice my instrument scan and if I start to fatigue there is a way out, so I feel real comfortable in haze. I can see traffic, out the sides, but just no horizon.

[Jerry 5TJ]

18 minutes ago, robert7467 said:

Why isnt haze considered IFR?

Haze with visibility less than required for the airspace is IMC. 
You are correct — having the minimum visibility for VMC doesn’t guarantee you have a horizon in view.  

[robert7467]

11 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Haze with visibility less than required for the airspace is IMC. 
You are correct — having the minimum visibility for VMC doesn’t guarantee you have a horizon in view.  

I still have the visibility too see other aircraft, but no horizon. Luckily I have dealt with so much haze, it's becoming second nature like flying in perfect visibility. I did a BFR in IFR and it was IMC the entire trip. This was my first experience in IMC and I managed to hand fly, stay within 50' and stay on heading without getting fatigued. I guess Haze does have its benefits.

[aviatoreb]

59 minutes ago, robert7467 said:

I still have the visibility too see other aircraft, but no horizon. Luckily I have dealt with so much haze, it's becoming second nature like flying in perfect visibility. I did a BFR in IFR and it was IMC the entire trip. This was my first experience in IMC and I managed to hand fly, stay within 50' and stay on heading without getting fatigued. I guess Haze does have its benefits.

Seeing the horizon isn't the standard for IFR.  Seeing the ground and seeing a certain number of miles in front of you - airspace dependent - to be able to separate from airplanes is the standard.  But IFR skills are helpful when in heavy haze.  I have never been in it, but if haze is strong enough that you do not have the required number of miles of visibility, then it is IFR.  

IFR is what you see out of the cockpit, not what the METAR at closest airport says.

[N201MKTurbo]

I was commuting back from Tucson (57AZ) back in the day. The weather was pretty crappy. I filed IFR and tried to get a clearance. Tucson approach kept telling me over the phone that Phoenix wasn't accepting any arrivals. After 1/2 hour of this I decided to take off and see how far I could get. I flew the exact same flight plan I have flown literally thousands of times. I knew I wouldn't hit anything. All I could see was the ground straight down. I was about to pass this mountain ridge called Newman's Peak. I looked at the GPS when I saw the first glimpse of it and then when I was abeam of it. The difference was 3.4 miles. So it was legal VFR, but there was no way to control the plane without instruments.

[jlunseth]

My understanding is that time can be logged as Actual Instrument when flight is possible solely by reference to instruments. Instrument Meteorological Conditions generally refers to bad weather that requires flight by reference to instruments, there are a number of scenarios where Actual Instrument can be logged even though it is plainly not IMC. Two I have encountered are flight over the ocean after dark, no moon, and therefore no visual references at all (it is a really eerie feeling), and complete fogging of all the aircraft windows because, at altitude and -54, the aircraft heater and defogger could not keep the windows clear.  It doesn’t matter if weather causes it or not, if you cannot fly except by reference to instruments it is Actual Instrument time.  

Speaking of, the FU out west the last couple of weeks has been a real issue in the teens. You can generally see the ground, so I suppose it is not Actual because flight would arguably not by solely by reference to instruments, but no horizon looking forward. Fires from CA have caused this issue as far east as the Dakotas. I haven’t logged it because I don’t need any Actual time and don’t want to get in a debate about whether it was or wasn’t, but it has been a different experience. Just hope ATC has you clear of those mosquitoes closing at 300-500 kts. because you sure can’t see them. I have seen pretty much the same thing over the prairies when the farmers burn in the fall, large areas where there is no visibility, whether it is “Meteorological” or not is not the test.

Edited September 5, 2020 by jlunseth

[robert7467]

Luckily I am in the Memphis area, so mountains are a non issue and I feel very safe. I can see traffic I can climb or decend. Perfectly legal VFR and I can see traffic. This is a good way to practice IFR, while flying under VFR conditions to help train that sub conscience/ muscle memory. When we did my BFR in IMC conditions under an IFR flight plan, I was able to easily maintain wings level, heading and altitude, hand flying the airplane without having to think about it (as far as inputs like driving a car are concerned). I guess the FAA doesnt think its dangerous and it's a great way to build your senses (I mean not rely on your senses), but to learn to rely on your instruments. Me being VFR (am about to start IFR training), I think I am more prepared by flying into haze and trusting my instruments than someone with 3 hrs of Hood time in VFR. Every experience is a learning experience and I am excited about getting my IFR ticket.

[jlunseth]

Best of luck. My philosophy on instrument learning is that it is one area where thorough learning is really important for long term safety of flight, as opposed to the “cram down” programs that are available.  You need bulletproof skills and procedures that don’t rust fast. If you ever find yourself in IMC and moderate to heavy turbulence, and trying to get an IAP dialed in, you will understand why.

The rule on logging actual instrument time is 61.51(g):

(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.

Edited September 8, 2020 by jlunseth

[N201MKTurbo]

4 hours ago, jlunseth said:

Best of luck. My philosophy on instrument learning is that it is one area where thorough learning is really important for long term safety of flight, as opposed to the “cram down” programs that are available.  You need bulletproof skills and procedures that don’t rust fast. If you ever find yourself in IMC and moderate to heavy turbulence, and trying to get an IAP dialed in, you will understand why.

The rule on logging actual instrument time is 61.51(g):

(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.

Just to be a trouble maker, can it be both Visual Flight Conditions and Instrument Flight Conditions at the same time? If you are legal VFR, but flying by reference to instruments, is that Instrument flight conditions?

Can you be in the grey area (pun intended) where you are flying by Visual Flight Rules in Instrument Flight Conditions?

 

[jlunseth]

The information I provided in the earlier post was partly from the Reg. and partly from the "Joseph Carr letter," a/k/a the Moonless Night letter, in which the FAA's General Counsel discussed the flight over ocean scenario. I have copied the letter at the end of this post, so you can take issue with the Gen. Counsel if you like.

To answer your first question, yes, you are a trouble maker . Thank you for the bear trap question, you probably know as much about it as me. It is the GC's opinion letter, not mine.

I think what most people miss about the Carr letter when they want to get into the weeds about visual and instrument conditions at the same time, etc., is that it is a basic assumption of the letter the pilot wanting to log actual time is an IFR rated pilot (or student with instructor) and on a legal clearance. In that circumstance, the only reason it matters whether visual or instrument conditions prevailed at the time, is in determining how to log the time. The letter does not address a situation where a VFR only pilot, or an IFR pilot not on a clearance, might find themselves in a Moonless Night (or similar) scenario and whether that would be legal.

Your question about whether it can be Visual Flight Conditions and Instrument Flight Conditions at the same time raises an issue of semantics, which in this instance is very important.  In the Regs., VFR and IFR are not sets of conditions (although in common usage the terms are sometimes used that way), they are sets of Rules, that is to say, sets of procedures that pilots must follow. I will grant that conditions play in to what the Rules proscribe. But the Rules set procedures, for example, maintaining a mile from a cloud, or what to do when IFR and the radios go out. We can fly without a clearance if we comply with Visual Flight Rules ("VFR" - 14 CFR 1.2). We can also fly with a rating and under a clearance (and if current), and therefor subject to Instrument Flight Rules ("IFR"- also 14 CFR 1.2), even if the conditions are clear and visual (VFR Conditions).  In fact, we do this all the time.However, we cannot log actual instrument time unless we are in actual instrument flight conditions. To quote the General Counsel, "'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. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions."

If you read through the Visual Flight Rules they are all about visibility and clearance to clouds that must be maintained.  See e.g. 91.155. They do not address such things as, for example, a moonless night over the ocean where flight solely by instruments is necessary because there are no references.  So if you want my opinion, it is possible to fly under VFR while in "actual instrument flight conditions" as that is defined in the Carr letter. The problem it raises is whether you are able to maintain VFR cloud clearance (no light, you can't see any clouds that might be there) or aircraft separation (the windows are frosted over, you can't see them coming). You may be just fine at a given moment, but you have no ability to control separation if it becomes an issue. Apart from the question of whether an IFR pilot on a clearance can log that time, I think the FAA might take the position that you are not VFR even though visual conditions prevail.

I don't like your question: "If you are legal VFR, but flying by reference to instruments, is that Instrument flight conditions?," because of the phrasing. No, simply because you are VFR but flying by reference to instruments does not make it actual instrument flight conditions nor can you log the time as actual. As the FAA letter says, there must be outside conditions that make the flight by instruments necessary.  Just because you put your head down while VFR and fly by instruments does not satisfy that requirement, the letter says "outside conditions make it necessary." 

Lastly, you ask: "Can you be in the grey area (pun intended) where you are flying by Visual Flight Rules in Instrument Flight Conditions?" Although the FAA's General Counsel seems to suggest that, one can't overlook the basic assumption of the letter that the pilot is IFR rated and on a clearance and wants to know how to log the time.   To me, if you are a VFR pilot or not on an instrument clearance, it is more like VFR into IMC. I am pretty sure the FAA would want you to remove yourself from that situation, either get out of it if you are VFR only, or get a clearance. I think their concern would be whether you are able to maintain separation from other aircraft, or VFR separation from clouds, and if you are not in a position to do that then you need to change the position you are in. If you happen to hit another aircraft because you can't see out the window because of frost, I don't think the fact that it was CAVU at the time is going to help you in the enforcement action.

Now, don't anyone go take my word for this.  I am not the FAA General Counsel nor even a CFI, just a pilot. Out of over 100 hours of actual instrument time I have logged maybe a total of two hours total that were not in the clouds, on just two occasions, meaning it requires a set of rare events where reference to instruments is necessary even though VFR visibility and cloud clearance are complied with, and in both instances I was instrument rated and on a flight plan and clearance.

 

Legal Interpretation # 84-29   

      November 07, 1984

      Mr. Joseph P. Carr

      Dear Mr. Carr:

      This is in response to your letter asking questions about
      instrument flight time.

      First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51(c)(4) of
      the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of
      instrument flight time.  You ask whether, for instance, a flight
      over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon
      could be logged as actual instrument flight time.

      Second, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.57(e)(2) of
      the FAR, noting that Advisory Circular 61-65A, Certification:
      Pilots and Flight Instructors, seems to contain advice contrary
      to your understanding of the rule.

      As you know, Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging
      of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the
      requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent
      flight experience requirements of Part 61.  That section
      provides, in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time
      only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft
      solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument
      meteorological conditions (i.m.c.)) or simulated instrument
      flight conditions.  "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when
      the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally
      restricted, such as by a hood or goggles.  "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.  Typically, these
      conditions involve adverse weather conditions.

      To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may
      occur in the case you described, a moonless night over the ocean
      with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is
      necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft.  The
      determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is
      necessary is somewhat subjective, and based in part on the sound
      judgement of the pilot.  Note that, under Section 61.51(b)(3),
      the pilot must log the conditions of the flight.  The log should
      include the reasons for determining that the flight was under
      actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be
      called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged
      was legitimate.

      To answer your second question, your understanding of Section
      61.57(e) is correct.  Section 61.57(e) provides currency
      requirements for acting as pilot in command (PIC) under
      instrument flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than
      the minimums for visual flight rules (VFR).  No pilot may act as
      PIC under those conditions unless she or he has, within the last
      six months, logged the number of hours of instrument flight time,
      including the number of approaches, indicated in Section
      61.57(e)(1)(i) or (ii).  When that six-month currency period
      lapses, that is, on the day the pilot no longer has the required
      instrument flight time within the last six months, the pilot may
      in the next six months regain her or his currency simply by
      logging the required instrument flight time.  Note that, during
      this second six-mont period, Section 61.57(e)(1) prohibits the
      pilot from acting as PIC under IFR or below VFR minimums
      (i.m.c.).  If that second six-month period runs without the pilot
      regaining currency, she or he may only again become qualified to
      act as PIC under IFR or in weather below VFR minimums (i.m.c.) by
      passing an instrument competency check as described in Section
      61.57(e)(2).

      Advisory Circular 61-65A, paragraph 15a, explained in part that a
      pilot failing to meet the recency of instrument experience
      requirements for a period of 12 months must pass an instrument
      competency check.  This simply meant that, when a pilot becomes
      qualified to act as PIC under the instrument conditions
      described, he or she has at least a 12-month period in which
      currency may be maintained or regained by logging the required
      instrument flight time.  After that 12-month period, if currency
      has not been maintained or regained, the pilot must pass an
      instrument competency check.  Advisory Circular 61-65A was not
      intended to expand the second six-month "grace" period to 12
      months.  As you note, the Advisory Circular has been changed, and
      paragraph 15 was rewritten to more accurately reflect the
      requirements of Section 61.57(e)(2).

                                    Sincerely,

                                    John H. Cassady
                                    Assistant Chief Counsel
                                    Regulations & Enforcement Division

[Hank]

As I've mentioned here somewhere once or twice, I hit haze-induced IMC on descent on a cloudless summer afternoon. Had you not seen the cloudless sky at 10,000 msl, you'd have sworn I descended into a solid layer around 6000-7000 before popping out a ragged bottom at 2500, then looking up at clear blue would have confused you. Watching the WV hilltops appear out of what looked like fog was weird, then when leveling off near the destination it was all gone in every direction.

Weird! But I logged some Actual on descent, looked just like the inside of a milkbottle to me, the whole world just disappeared--no cloud required.

[larryb]

One should make good decisions based on their experience, skill, and capabilities. I flew a week ago from Truckee to San Jose VFR. It was legal VFR but would have never done the trip without being rated and current.

[N201MKTurbo]

It reminds me of a trip back in the 80s. I was doing part time TV work (video for those in the know). We were working a Lobo’s game in ABQ and some of the crew traveled with me in the Mooney. We were returning after the game at about 11:30 at night back to PHX. My good friend Fred was in the right seat. He is a great HAP (Human Auto Pilot). For a non-pilot , he is a good stick and knew how to navigate. About an hour into the flight, I asked him if he had enough outside references to fly the plane. He said he wasn’t using any outside references he was only using the instruments. I told him that was unlikely because he wasn’t trained on instruments. He swore he was. He was doing a good job so I let him go.

I was shooting the breeze with the rest of the people in the plane and occasionally making sure that Fred was doing a good job, when all of a sudden Fred taps me on the shoulder and says “There's something wrong with the plane! It won’t fly straight!”

I grabbed the yoke and got the plane going the right way. I looked outside and saw nothing. I turned on the landing light and it lit up the sky. I said “You just flew into a cloud”. I told him we would fly out of it soon, (we did). I told him that he couldn’t control the plane by reference to instruments as he swore he was. 
 

BTW, THE HAP didn’t do all that bad, he was still on altitude and 20 deg off heading with the wings level.
 

And don’t rag on me, I know I flew into the cloud, and I was 20 degrees off heading.

[Hank]

6 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

BTW, THE HAP didn’t do all that bad, he was still on altitude and 20 deg off heading with the wings level.

Your HAP still sounds better than HAL . . . . .

[jlunseth]

I was a HAP once upon a time, back in the 60’s. Probably we all got some HAP time. ATC would be all over a move like that today, your ADSB would give you away.

I did VFR into IMC once, but it was a nonevent. Takeoff was O-dark-thirty. Weather report said the sky was clear, I looked up and could see there was cloud cover, but could not see how high it was because of the dark. It turned out not to be very high. I was instrument rated and current but not on a clearance. I just exited the situation, ducked below the cover, went back to the small rural airport, landed, got on the phone with Lockheed (it was before efiling was available) filed a flight plan and did it the right way. Turned out to be localized. One reason I generally always file now unless the Mark I eyeballs can verify VFR for sure. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by jlunseth