Brisbane-based IFR pilots sought for instrument flight time building

[PlankBlender]

Now that PB has got his CIR/PIFR ticket :}, he's looking to build instrument flight time and experience! :ok:

The great weather in these parts (and a distinct lack of desire/need to fly into really sh!tty conditions at first) means that flying with a safety pilot sounds like a winning proposition :hmm: ..has the advantage that PIC time can be logged as instrument flight time, and of course having another instrument rated pilot in the RHS means added safety and most likely a better learning experience.. did I mention it should be fun too? :p

I'm thinking of a reciprocal arrangement where we share time and expenses, so I would be your safety pilot in exchange for your looking out of the window while I'm wearing foggles.

This exercise would be as economical as it can get; I'm running my Archer at around 150 bucks all up wet per hour (plus landing/ASA charges), and am looking to equally share expenses only; I hold a PPL at this time, so I can not (and anyway don't want to) make money on this.

Any takers, please PM or post. :ok: The Archer is technically in top form and probably one of the best equipped in the country, recently upgraded to a Garmin 530 with Stormscope/terrain, digital ADF, two VHF plus (connected) handheld as backup, double VOR/GS/markers, Garmin audio panel, new coaxes & other wiring, backup tablet PC (dual) GPS with moving map & internet (for ppruning on long IMC stretches:E), etc.. love my toys ;)

[Beeroclock]

Goodluck trying, but i would never pay a cent to build IF time..IF time and experience is one of those things that come with time in the aeroplane normally whilst working and being paid to go from A to B..You have the rating why do you still need somebody to go with you and share the cost of running your aeroplane??

[ER_ZZZ]

You can only log IF time when you are in IF conditions, ie you can't see the horizon.

Normally this would only be about 10% of the IFR flight as most of the other time you are clear of cloud.

[Beeroclock]

No Sh*t Sherlock Owen..

I got the PPL part but having somebody pay half the cost of running his aircraft is similiar to making money..

And my question again if you have the rating why do you need somebody to hold your hand and subsidise the running cost of your aircraft for IF experience...Some people have to much money to throw away thinking they are getting a good deal in aviation..

[PlankBlender]

based out of where? YBAF :ok:

Another FTDK? We seem to share an affliction or two :}:cool::}:ok:

Beeroclock, have a proper think about my original post before you allow your hands to touch the keyboard next :ugh: I'm looking to log instrument flight time, that's the primary reason and only possible in VMC with a safety pilot (CAR 153 refers ER_ZZZ), and because undoubtedly flying under the IFR in VMC isn't quite the same now is it? I'm not looking for someone to subsidise my flying, I know what my costs are and am prepared to cough up for the experience, I am simply offering someone the opportunity to take advantage of cost-only flying in exchange for being my safety pilot.

I will gladly take a safety pilot at no cost if that's what it takes, but of course I'll be logging all the PIC time in that case..

[The Green Goblin]

You can only log IF time when you are in IF conditions, ie you can't see the horizon.

Normally this would only be about 10% of the IFR flight as most of the other time you are clear of cloud.

Pretty hard in Australia during summer to keep current in IMC, In multi crew ops to keep current we fly PF eyes in, PNF eyes out and that fulfills the requirements :)

Sounds like a good idea that you are offering for a PPL in a similar situation or a CPL who has a CIR and is not required to fly IF with his employer but wants to remain current for renewal time.

Have Fun!

[Beeroclock]

Pb dont sugar coat it..You wanted somebody to pay half of the cost of hopping in your aircraft to sit next to you while you fly round under the hood..simple as that!! Maybe Owen will pay to hold your hand..

[hole.digger]

beeroclock,
are you a top gun hour building super instructor, annoyed at missing flight time cause someone else more qualified, more interested and more suitable can do better for free?
just a guess, but i gets that vibe from ya.
in any case, get lost!

no real need to go for a run in the archer as PIC, but am free for the next week or so and would happily give some time to be safety pilot.

[Beeroclock]

Holedigger, negative never been an instructor!!

And have better things to do on weekends then pay to baby sit somebody!! You on the other hand sound like you lack a life why dont you pay for the privilige to watch him fly under the hood..

PB just fly your plane and in time your IF experience will come,simple as that..

[kingRB]

And have better things to do on weekends then pay to baby sit somebody!! You on the other hand sound like you lack a life why dont you pay for the privilige to watch him fly under the hood..

instead it seems you have nothing better to do than fill this poor blokes thread with b*ll**** posts.

If you arnt interested, dont post here. We dont care why you dont like it.

[Jabawocky]

See the trouble that starts when you offer to do something nice for others and fair and equitable. :rolleyes:

Plankie is not a cheepskate trying to have others fund his flying, in fact he seems to be able to afford plenty on his own!

But we may do some reciprocal stuff some time soon plankie....take the Mrs's out for lunch somewhere as well. :ok:

We should take you machine and split the costs........will log about 50% more time per trip :E:E:E:}:}:}, or if we wish to save money and get there quicker.....we'll take mine :p.

Ok I am a cheeky bugger, will message you!

J:ok:

[framer]

Who would have thought that with such a good handle beeroclock would be so uptight! Oh well, I feel sorry for him.
Sounds like a good plan PB. Nothing wrong with learning from someone more experienced than yourself either, there's always stacks to learn.....unless you're like Beeroclock and had learnt all there was to learn about IFR flying by the end of your initial endorsement. Wicked.

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Sounds like a smart move plankbender, the only thing that worries me is that the Archer is so well equipped it might not meet the IFR climb gradients!

Never forget with a new IFR rating there is no such thing as a stupid question!

[Jabawocky]

CLX........ thats a bit harsh.......but probably true!:eek:

Jaba's new machine would almost ;) hit VNE at the min climb rate!! :E and VNE is 200knots or so!

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Well show us a picture of the weapon!

[j3pipercub]

My GOD!!!

Beeroclock, chill!!

j3

[hole.digger]

Beeroclock,
for starters, its hole.digger, not holedigger. thanks. i enjoy the 'dot'.
also "negative" is bit of a wank. it'd be a mega typo to get yes and no mixed up. i'd really like to meet you, so i can p**ch and ki*k and f***ing k**l you. hilarious!

more seriously...

slightly off the original post, but, if youre not in VMC, you must be in IMC and operating under the IFR. so, if you dont have the 1000ft/ 1000m/ 5km then you must be logging instrument time. dosent seem to be the general opinion. where does it say otherwise?

please correct me.

[Counter-rotation]

hole[DOT!!]digger :} g'day mate.

To reply to your question in previous post, and yeah, this is a favourite of mine :confused:

When I read the CARs, there I find the definition of "Instrument Flight Time" :D

It says:
"instrument flight time means flight time during which a person is flying an aircraft solely by reference to instruments and without external reference points."

(http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/0/F31FADE542963390CA25759B001BF5EC/$file/CivilAviation1988Vol1.pdf)

Now anybody, answer me this please... On a dark, but NOT stormy, night :) how exactly am I flying my aircraft of choice? What "external reference point" am I using? My favourite star, or something else? Instruments, perhaps?

Yet on a clear night I can also quite happily tick all the boxes for VMC, and thus may in fact conduct flight under NGT VFR - yes?

In short, if there is something to see, I will see it (supposedly - that becomes a discussion about "see and avoid", a vigourous debate in itself) but with the lack of an external horizon I AM FLYING:

"solely by reference to instruments" - straight from the very definition of Instrument Flight!!

Can you thus log IMC time during the conduct of IFR flight in VMC? Or better still, can you thus log IMC time during the conduct of VFR flight? :oh:

Sorry all, could not resist the chance to beat one of my favourite drums one more time! :p

CR.

[DeathStar-Alpha]

Counter-rotation,

Thats an interesting point you've found.

Seems I might have to go back cange some VFR flights into IFR and vice versa haha :}

Beeroclock, go away, your terrible attitude isn't wanted here. People aspiring to be pilots need all the help and encouragement they can get. You were there once, I was there, we were all there, or ARE there now. My suggestion for you Beeroclock would be to read this (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/363110-advice-anyone-who-cares.html) thread by JetX

Goodluck PB :ok: and I agree, show us a pic of your sleek machine!!

[Merlins Magic]

I know someone that would be able to help you out. Check your PMs.

[ReverseFlight]

When I am flying under the hood with a safety pilot, I log IF time 0.2 hrs less than the total flight time - that's 0.1 hr for the taxi/takeoff and another 0.1 hr for short finals/landing. I believe most flight schools operate on that basis ?

[PlankBlender]

Thanks everyone for their responses, I was pleasantly surprised how much positive feedback I received. :ok:

I'll respond to all mails in the next weeks, sorry if it'll take a while, but I'm sure there'll be many an interesting flight coming out of this one!

ReverseFlight, the 'rules' on logging hood time seem to vary massively, I find it's almost personal preference of the instructor; one guy I flew with was a bit of a stickler and added up the time I actually wore the hood, and that's what he gave me to log, others just told me to log air switch as IF time and VDO as the dual time (which is close enough if you're under the hood in simulated 'visual at minima or overshoot' training conditions), others still just tell you to deduct around 10-20%...

[Jabawocky]

You should have logged a few hours today in the Archer

Would have been 100% IF....including the TAXI time! :}

J:ok:

[Tee Emm]

In multi crew ops to keep current we fly PF eyes in, PNF eyes out and that fulfills the requirements

Of course the PF is strictly under the hood and no peripheral vision? Otherwise you are wasting your time and not loggable if you merely lower the seat and promise not to cheat. Or do what one Virgin Blue captain told his F/O at the end of a trip in CAVOK all the way "put me down for two hours I/F" on the flight deck documentation.

In your case it is better to spend the money flying a decent synthetic trainer where you can practice instrument and navaid failures rather than waste time droning along in CAVOK or the occasional cloud. Having a inoperative AH in the simulator is worth more than straight and level with a few rate one turns in your aircraft. Cheaper too.

[porch monkey]

And Virgin Blue captains would be the only ones to do that now, wouldn't they?:rolleyes:

[PlankBlender]

Or do what one Virgin Blue captain told his F/O at the end of a trip in CAVOK all the way "put me down for two hours I/F" on the flight deck documentation.

I find that practice a little dangerous given an entry in a personal logbook which this amounts to is in fact a statutory declaration, and of course making false statements in one of those carries rather hard penalties.. it's too easy for someone who is not sympathetic to the liar to take note and dob in the offending pilot. Proving such a lie could be comparatively easy if for example it was clear from weather reports and forecasts that it was clear along the flight path, and significant IF time was logged..

[Jabawocky]

Hows the leaks inthe Piper too?...YBAF would be a little damp today.:uhoh:

[PlankBlender]

Uh don't get me started :{

I sponged an inch or so of water from behind the seats yesterday, and expect at least the same probably more tomorrow.. I've ordered the cover because with this silly rain the carpet is going to be moldy very soon, and it's of course less than healthy for the avionics too :yuk:

[Jabawocky]

Hangar for sale at YCAB..........;)

Not sure who owns it but I can find out for you if you want me to.

[framer]

Chucking a dehumidifier in the ol Archer for a couple of hours next time you can get it into a hangar will save you a bit of grief I reckon PB.
About the Virgin Captain....I don't think it would be very easy to prove that he didn't fly for two hours soley by reference to instruments. Might be able to ask him some difficult questions about maintaining a lookout for traffic during that two hours though....even though looking out is a waste of time in the cruise in a 737. Heeeere fishy fishy fishy

[ReverseFlight]

PlankBender/framer, I believe in some countries like China, big jet crew habitually log full IF time for the entirety of their flights (it's kind of the industry practice there) but any recruiter/potential employer will immediately see through that ! I suppose it only works in China though.

[Death Pencil]

Hopefully this clears up some of the issue regarding logging of IF;

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Pilot Log Books (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1187253005:pc=PC_90100)

('Logging of Flight Time'/'Instrument Flight Time')


Whether you agree with it or not might be a different issue :}

[Stationair8]

So do you guys log it as night-time when it's a full moon? Or do you put that down in the day column, because it not really dark is it?

[framer]

I log night if I have my sunglasses on. Anything else is in contravention of the man I'm cool regulations and therefore illegal. If there is a full moon I have a special column for moon time which is technically special vfr.

[Dog One]

But you can't operate VFR in Class A airspace.

[The Green Goblin]

But you can't operate VFR in Class A airspace.

But you can operate under the IFR in VMC conditions :ok:

[framer]

But you can't operate VFR in Class A airspace.

But you can operate under the IFR in VMC conditions

True....I once was operating under the IFR and requested a visual approach transitioning from IMC to VMC when we lost a PMC.....just logged it as moon time and nobody questioned it.

[overhere]

Planebender - drop me a PM if you're still looking for someone to help - I'm happy to take a ride in the Archer now & then.

[FGD135]

Counter-rotation,

You said:
... but with the lack of an external horizon I AM FLYING:

"solely by reference to instruments" - straight from the very definition of Instrument Flight!!
Not correct. If you are getting some cues from the stars - even just one star - then you are not flying solely by reference to instruments.

You may think that a little pedantic, but even without a visible horizon you can still be picking up substantial cues from the stars. Just one little star - provided you are aware of it - is enough to mean you are not flying solely by reference to instruments.

My thoughts on this issue:

The rules state that, if flying in VMC, even if flying solely by reference to instruments, we cannot log the time as IF.

But I reckon the rules are wrong. Under some night conditions, although you are in VMC conditions, you cannot tell that you are. You have no external references at all (no lights on the ground, no stars, no moon) - which means that you are flying solely by reference to instruments - so should be logging it as such.

I reckon that you're not in VMC unless you can see that you are.

[framer]

Just one little star - provided you are aware of it - is enough to mean you are not flying solely by reference to instruments.



Bollox. If you start orienting yourself based on one star in an otherwise featurless, horizonless sky , you might just find out it's a ship before you hit the deck....half the battle is to not use it to orient yourself

[FGD135]

framer,

Nobody is suggesting you can use one star for "orienting yourself". That is a silly suggestion and shows you have poor comprehension of others posts.

How about you read posts properly before responding to them? You have wasted our time.

[PlankBlender]

The rules state that, if flying in VMC, even if flying solely by reference to instruments, we cannot log the time as IF.

FGD135, wrong! I can log IF time if I am flying under the hood with a safety pilot. CAR 153 refers. Here's the applicable excerpt from the CASA site (link below):

All flight time during which the aircraft was controlled solely by reference to instruments may be recorded in the instrument 'Flight' column:
[...]
b) In actual or simulated instrument conditions, only the pilot manipulating the controls or providing input to the auto-pilot may log all flight time as instrument flight;

So in a multi crew environment (assuming the SOP's and the operation in general allow it), one pilot eyes inside will satisfy the simulated instrument conditions requirements and that pilot can log IF time!

[FGD135]

PlankBlender,

My apologies. I was not referring to simulated IF - perhaps I should have made that clear. I was referring to actual IF.

[The Green Goblin]

You may think that a little pedantic, but even without a visible horizon you can still be picking up substantial cues from the stars. Just one little star - provided you are aware of it - is enough to mean you are not flying solely by reference to instruments.

When you're inverted in a spin desperately seeking the said star for spacial orientation, I hope you finally realize that on a dark night its IMC and should be logged and treated as such :}

[framer]

you have poor comprehension of others posts.


Ok FGD135, that surprises me a bit, I've always been quite good at that sort of thing. I have to admit that I thought you were talking about orienting oneself via the solo star you mentioned, obviously that is not the case, can you explain it in small words for me?

If you are getting some cues from the stars

Here I thought the cues you speak of would be for which way was up etc (ie orientation) but obviously not...what cues were you talking about? When to start your descent? Distance to run?

but even without a visible horizon you can still be picking up substantial cues ....bloody cues got me again.... it's obviously not for determining your orientation in space (you've put me straight there) so maybe the cues are regarding your current fuel state? When to change frequency ?

Just one little star - provided you are aware of it - is enough to mean you are not flying solely by reference to instruments.


right...so I am flying somehow with reference to that star but nothing to do with orienting myself......determining the local time by it's distance above the horizon???Oh no thats right I don't have one....


Nobody is suggesting you can use one star for "orienting yourself".

What am I using the star for again?....I'm referencing it, I know that cause you told me.....what for though?

Thanks for your help FGD135, I look forward to learning something from you.

[The Green Goblin]

In IMC I can also see cloud out of my window, does this mean I'm not navigating by reference to the instruments?

This "star" comment would have to be one of the most stupid things I have read on pprune, I mean honestly, think about what you have said!

[framer]

spin desperately seeking the said star for spacial orientation, I hope you finally realize that on a dark night its IMC and should be logged and treated as such

Thats it in a nutshell. I'm done on this star thing . It's moronic.

Good on you PB for asking and I'm glad you've had a good response. Enjoy IFR, it can be very rewarding:ok: and on occasions very humbling:eek:
Just never stop looking for traps and if you feel at any stage you are becoming rushed then take control back by looking for some space/time/clarification.

[FGD135]

framer,

Your comprehension is poor because you have failed to discern, from my original post, that I was merely addressing the question of the definition of "flying solely be reference to instruments".

You somehow read the post as suggesting that one could, or should, orient oneself using just one star. When I made that post, I just knew that somebody would make the interpretation you did and I very nearly added a sentence or two to make the preemptive strike that would hopefully have prevented the time wasting I am going through now.

I have to admit that I thought you were talking about orienting oneself via the solo star you mentioned, obviously that is not the case, can you explain it in small words for me?Sigh. Couldn't you have just re-read my post? Here it is again. Please read, and keep re-reading until you are absolutely sure of what I am saying. Please do not post again until you are sure.

I made the statement that, "you cannot be flying solely by reference to instruments if you are getting cues (as to your attitude) from an outside reference. That outside reference can be as apparently minor as one little star."

Now surely, I don't need to spell out what the word "solely" means. That is a key word in this discussion. So key, in fact, that I have bolded it every time I have used it.

The "cues" are perceptions of apparent motion of the star. Suppose, for example, you are aware of (is in your peripheral vision) the position on the windscreen of a star. If you were to discern that the star was apparently moving vertically downwards on the windscreen, this would be a cue that your aircraft was pitching up.

There are other cues, obviously, from different movements by the star. Even an apparent non-movement is a cue. Surely this is all obvious. Just one star is enough.

I am not saying, and have never said, that you can fly solely by reference to one star - or that one star is sufficient to enable recovery from an unusual attitude - all I have said is that if you are getting cues from a star, you can't be flying solely by reference to instruments.

Edited to add: The star may be contributing 2% of the information to your brain, and the instruments 98%.

In IMC I can also see cloud out of my window, does this mean I'm not navigating by reference to the instruments?You can answer that one yourself, The Green Goblin, by asking whether you are getting cues (valid cues) from the cloud.

[framer]

FGD135, come on mate you're confusing the kids, one minute you say

framer,

Nobody is suggesting you can use one star for "orienting yourself".

and the next you say
I made the statement that you cannot be flying solely by reference to instruments if you are getting cues (as to your attitude) from an outside reference. That outside reference can be as apparently minor as one little star.

Question 1/
What is a reference with respect to your attitude if it is not orientation???

then you kindly make my point;

If you were to discern that the star was apparently moving vertically downwards on the windscreen, this would be a cue that your aircraft was pitching up.
....pretty much sounds like orientation again.

There are other cues, obviously, from different movements by the star.
Question 2/Would these cues perhaps relate to your orientation??

it all comes back to your statement;

Not correct. If you are getting some cues from the stars - even just one star - then you are not flying solely by reference to instruments.

It's a cockamaimy (like that?) statement at best. The reality is in that situation you would be ignoring the cues from the star as well as the cues from your bum that tell you you are in a climb or from your ears that you are in a turn. By your logic as long as you are recieving feedback from your ears and bum you are not "flying soley by reference to instruments"

Question 3/ If the star in the featureless night sky suddenly starts moving down your windscreen and all your instruments remain showing straight and level flight.....do you nose over to keep the star in the same place??? Correct answer "No because I'm flying soley by reference to instruments"

[Mark1234]

Maybe a daft question, maybe I'm missing the point, but turn it around - you're on an IFR flight plan, flying in IMC. Do you get to log IF?

Now, let's say you're flying along at 8500ft, with your fin in the clouds.. it's perfectly clear below, you can aviate and navigate perfectly well by visual means if you so choose, but you're still in IMC (courtesy of cloud clearance requirements), and on an IFR plan. What do you then log?

[The Green Goblin]

FGD,

Fancy Latin ain't going to help you out this time I'm afraid. I suppose you failed the section in your human factors ATPL exam on autokinesis, you may want to brush up!

[FGD135]

....bloody cues got me again....
Since the word "cues" is causing you so much difficulty, I will drop it and use a different word. It is tough enough having a written debate with somebody with poor comprehension but when that person has difficulty with the meaning of everyday words then such debating can become almost impossible.

Instead of "getting cues from the star(s)", I will say "getting assistance from the stars".

Whether you want that assistance or not, you get it, and it influences you. The only way to prevent that influence would be to wear a hood or cover the windscreen.

If the idea of being influenced by a solitary star is a bit too esoteric or out of this world - and that seems to be the case for some posters on this thread - then, instead, consider a light on the ground. But for ease of discussion, make it several lights - make it a small town.

If you agree that the lights of a small town in the windscreen can assist you in your efforts to control the aircraft's attitude, then you would have to admit that a lone star can do the same. The only difference, of course, is that the latter is a little higher on the windscreen.

Although these outside sources of light may be offering some assistance, you are still, of course, controlling the aircraft predominately by reference to the instruments - but not solely by reference to the instruments.

I suppose you failed the section in your human factors ATPL exam on autokinesis, you may want to brush up!
Autokinesis has ZERO relevance to this discussion. That discussion, by the way (the part I am involved in), is about whether, in the absence of a discernible horizon, you must be flying solely by reference to the instruments.

Mark1234, the short answer to your first question is yes, and no to the second. I know it doesn't make sense, but just because you do not satisfy VMC criteria doesn't automatically mean you must be in IMC.

About that second question, it could be said that the aircraft is in neither VMC, nor IMC. But that apparent dilemma is not relevent to the question of whether IF can be logged as that question is comfortably answered by the published rules/guidance on when IF can be logged.

Here is said rules/guidance (from AIC H5/98):


Recording of Instrument Time. Instrument time is recorded in the Instrument column as either "Flight" or "Ground".

- "Flight" component. All flight time during which the aircraft was controlled solely by reference to instruments may be recorded in the instrument "Flight" column.
(i) Time above overcast or at night in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) is not counted as instrument flight.

(ii) In actual or simulated instrument conditions, only the pilot manipulating the controls or providing input to the auto-pilot may log all flight time as instrument flight.

(iii) A flight conducted on an IFR flight plan is not to be counted as instrument flight unless flying in IMC.

(iv) When an instructor is giving dual instruction in actual conditions, both instructor and student may record the time as instrument flight time.

(v) Instrument approaches are to be credited to the pilot manipulating the controls or providing input to the auto-pilot during the approach.
- "Ground" component. Visual and instrument flight conducted in an approved flight simulator or synthetic trainer may be recorded in the appropriate section at the rear of the log book.

[framer]

FGD135,
Yes you can take orientation cues (assistance) from a small town. No you shouldn't attempt to take orientation cues from a single point light source.(and if you do you may well end up dead)

There's a big difference between a lone star and a small town my friend, it seems your original argument couldn't stand alone and you had to modify it significantly to carry on. Don't feel bad, either 'man-up' and admit that my comprehension of your initial statement was spot on and you actually meant something else.....or carry on, it doesn't really affect me. Being able to say 'Yep fellas, I cocked that one up' is an admirable personal trait and very valuable on a flight deck.
Regards, Framer

[FGD135]

There's a big difference between a lone star and a small town my friend


Please explain that "big difference".

[Mark1234]

Mark1234, the short answer to your first question is yes, and no to the second. I know it doesn't make sense, but just because you do not satisfy VMC criteria doesn't automatically mean you must be in IMC.

Fair enough on the first, but I would suggest you're mistaken on the second. You are *EITHER* VMC, or IMC. If VMC conditions do not exist, you are by definition IMC, whether you can see or not. Whether that means you are IFR, I won't suppose to know, though AIP-ENR-1.3 suggests if you are not VFR, in general, you must be IFR (excepting SVFR and casa authorisation).

H5/98 does not say you must be in cloud, or deprived of all visual reference to log IF. It does say you must be in IMC. Which circles around to my original point. If you can't meet the VMC minima, according to the rules you are IMC (unless someone gives me a reference to prove otherwise, whereupon I shall eat humble pie).

I've certainly never heard of a third set of conditions, though I grant most people will make the differentiation between 'technical IMC' (visual, but not VMC), and 'hard IMC' (can't see anything) - I can find nothing in the AIP that differentiates.

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
There's a big difference between a lone star and a small town my friend
Please explain that "big difference".

One light source is BIG the other is not :ok:

Instead of "getting cues from the star(s)", I will say "getting assistance from the stars".

Twinkle Twinkle little star
How I wonder where I are
Up above the world so dark
In a Diamond VFR.........
Twinkle Twinkle little star
How I wonder where I are :E

Autokinesis has ZERO relevance to this discussion.

Still so sure after you mentioned the following?

The "cues" are perceptions of apparent motion of the star. Suppose, for example, you are aware of (is in your peripheral vision) the position on the windscreen of a star. If you were to discern that the star was apparently moving vertically downwards on the windscreen, this would be a cue that your aircraft was pitching up.

Perhaps I'll put a little definition of Autokinesis just for you fella!

Autokinesis is a visual illusion. It can occur under certain conditions, especially on dark nights in areas with few visual cues (such as lights or other illuminated objects or landmarks). When a small, dim, and fixed light source remains within visual range for an extended period of time, this phenomenon can occur, making it appear as if the light source were moving. This visual illusion can be of particular danger to pilots at night

Autokinesis and Countermeasures for Pilots

A stationary light stared at for 6 to 12 seconds in the dark will appear to move. This phenomenon can cause considerable confusion for pilots, especially those flying in formation or rejoining on a refueling tanker at night.
To prevent, or overcome this phenomenon, the pilot should:
Shift their gaze frequently to avoid prolonged fixation on light sources.
Attempt to view a target with a reference to stationary structures or landmarks.
Make eye, head, and body movements to eliminate the illusion.
Monitor the flight instruments to prevent or resolve any perceptual conflict.

Twinkle Twinkle little star :p

[framer]

Please explain that "big difference".

Ok...without getting my PPL text books out to check I'll suggest that a town , viewed from the cockpit at night, will provide depth perception due to the fact that the lights remain stationary relative to each other, thus allowing your brain to determine how you are moving relative to them. A single point light source on the other hand does not provide you with this depth perception. as a result the mind struggles to figure out if a) you a moving and the light is stationary, or b) the light is moving and you are stationary. Another problem is that although the light may well be on the ground it will often seem to be above the horizon which has led pilots to pitch into an attitude in keeping with the resulting false horizon. The reverse is also true whereby the light is a solo star and appears to be on the ground creating a false horizon.
NB the text in itallics is copied from the net, the first part is my best guess.....really needed those PPL books!
Regards,
Framer

[The Green Goblin]

a town , viewed from the cockpit at night, will provide depth perception due to the fact that the lights remain stationary relative to each other, thus allowing your brain to determine how you are moving relative to them.

Sometimes Framer at night you completely loose your depth perception viewing the town from aloft. You most definitely loose your distance perception and if navigating by DR (as in an NVFR training exercise) you may instigate a decent far too early. A simple circuit and visually initiating a decent from downwind can be a complete nightmare as your depth perception is in peril and you can loose your situational awareness very rapidly even in VMC conditions!

[framer]

Yeah I agree. I still feel there is a big difference between the single point and the small town. My own personal experience involves departing Katherine as a green IFR pilot in a Chief at night.....big difference depending on whether you depart towards the town or not. I imagine that now many years later it wouldn't begin to phase me as I lock fairly solidly on the clocks during rotation at night. Back then I got quite a shock lifting off into a black hole and beginning to lose SA , the reason was I had always had the lights of Katherine in the windshield on previous departures.
I agree with your statement but reserve the opinion that a small town offers much better cues to assist in your orientation than a single point light source.:)

[FGD135]

I still feel there is a big difference between the single point and the small town. My own personal experience involves departing Katherine as a green IFR pilot in a Chief at night
I know I didn't specify this explicitly, but I was referring to the appearance of small towns during that phase of flight where pilots spend most of their time: in the cruise. Not during takeoff and landing!

Another thing I wasn't specific about was how the star was viewed. I have always meant that it was not looked at directly, but simply visible in the peripheral vision. I did strongly imply this, back at post #53, but will admit that I could have been more specific about that. I obviously didn't think it necessary to emphasise that point, as there is no reason, in normal circumstances, to be looking directly at outside lights.

The circumstances about which I have been referring to all along are those where the aircraft is at altitude in the cruise, the pilot is looking at his instruments (repeatedly scanning) and has a star visible in his peripheral vision. He may glance at the star, upon first becoming aware of it (to confirm it is not the lights of another aircraft), but does not look directly at the star at any time thereafter.

That star appears as an indistinct "blob". Unless you have tunnel vision, it is impossible not to be aware of that blob of light. If the aircraft is straight and level, the blob will appear stationary.

As I said in an earlier post, that blob is assisting the pilot to control the attitude of the aircraft and that assistance can only be prevented by donning a hood or covering the windscreen. That assistance may be small, compared to the wealth of information he gets from the instruments, but it is still some assistance.

A light (or patch of lights from a small town) on the ground ahead of the aircraft will also, in these circumstances, appear as a stationary, indistinct blob of light.

With no discernible horizon (and that is another of the circumstances specific to my posts), it can be nigh on impossible to tell whether the blob of light emanates from a star, or a town. If the light seems to be low on the windscreen, then the likelihood of it being a town is increased. But if high on the windscreen, then this likelihood is low.

Hopefully I have now clarified things to the point where my original posts make sense. All along - in response to another post - I have merely been asserting that, just because you have no discernible horizon, doesn't mean you must be flying solely by reference to the instruments.

framer,

"Depth perception" is the same thing as "distance perception". If you have some depth perception then you are able to estimate the distance to an object. To have depth perception, by either day or night, requires two things: an idea of the angular size of the object (at the time of viewing), and an idea of what the actual size of the object is.

Depth perception will give us an idea of the distance to an object, but that knowledge is of no assistance to us whatsoever (in our efforts to control the attitude of the aircraft).

The Green Goblin,

Autokinesis is not relevent to this discussion because, as I pointed out above, the light source is not looked at directly. Autokinesis cannot occur to lights that are in the peripheral vision. And that passage of mine that you quoted - in relation to autokinesis - specifically mentioned that the star was viewed in the peripheral vision!

[The Green Goblin]

FGD135,

I think you are starting to clutch at straws mate.

Lets say if this little blob, (star) was just above the horizon for which you cannot see. You could not tell if you were inverted or in a 90 degree angle of bank in relation to the said star.

In all the time I have spent single pilot IFR and multi crew at night, I can honestly say I have not paid one ounce of attention to what the stars are doing! You're either on the dials, or you're not :ok:

Twinkle Twinkle :p

[FGD135]

Lets say if this little blob, (star) was just above the horizon for which you cannot see. You could not tell if you were inverted or in a 90 degree angle of bank in relation to the said star.
Sigh. How many times do I have to say that you are not (intentionally) using the star in any way and are not looking at it? At post #46 and post #53 I strongly made that point.

Perhaps you are a speed reader, TGG, but in the post to which you have just responded, I stated several times that you are seeing the star only in the peripheral vision - and that at all times, you are looking at the instruments with the intention of using them for controlling the aircraft attitude.

In all the time I have spent single pilot IFR and multi crew at night, I can honestly say I have not paid one ounce of attention to what the stars are doing! You're either on the dials, or you're not About as much attention as you pay to actually reading what others are posting. I have never said that you are not fully on the dials.

Once again, I repeat myself here:

Despite being on the clocks and only on the clocks - and looking nowhere else but at and around the panel in front of you - you will be aware of a star ahead of you in your peripheral vision. Whether you want it or not, that star will be assisting you and you can only prevent that assistance by donning a hood or covering the windscreen.

[FGD135]

Mark1234,

You are *EITHER* VMC, or IMC. If VMC conditions do not exist, you are by definition IMC.
I agree that, logically, if you're not in VMC, then you must be in IMC.

But, because the definitions are much more loose than the logic, it cannot be said that failing to satisfy the definition for VMC automatically means you satisfy the definition of IMC.

I wouldn't be too concerned about this shortcoming in these definitions. This is by no means the only place throughout the rules and regs where such deficiencies exist.

I doubt you could find anybody that would say the aircraft in your second question was in IMC.

The published rules/guidance on logging of IF are clear for your cases.

[The Green Goblin]

You said:
Quote:
... but with the lack of an external horizon I AM FLYING:

"solely by reference to instruments" - straight from the very definition of Instrument Flight!!
Not correct. If you are getting some cues from the stars - even just one star - then you are not flying solely by reference to instruments.

Denials not a river in Egypt my friend :)

Despite being on the clocks and only on the clocks - and looking nowhere else but at and around the panel in front of you - you will be aware of a star ahead of you in your peripheral vision.

Twinkle Twinkle :cool:

[Mark1234]

FDG135, or anyone else - can you point me to the official definition of IMC please? I appreciate that logic and regulation are infrequent bedfellows, but I've never found a definition of IMC, other than 'not VMC'. It's only for of academic interest as I'm not IR anyhow (and definately not logging as such..)

[The Green Goblin]

If I'm in smoke, smog, cloud, eyes in two crew/ under the hood or its pitch black and I can't see the horizon then I log it as IF.

[ResumeOwnNav]

I was merely addressing the question of the definition of "flying solely be reference to instruments".


FGD135, this whole solely thing with regards to your lonely star. I would like to ask: The only time you ever log IF is when in a synthetic trainer?

Because in an actual aircraft I experience cues from my inner ear and postural cues while referencing my instruments.

The star may be contributing 2% of the information to your brain, and the instruments 98%.

My inner ear and postural cues may be contributing 2% of the information to my brain and the instruments 98%. So going with your interpretation of the regs a flight in complete IMC all the way to the minima before coming visual would not constitute IF time. As I was only receiving 98% of information from the instruments, not 100%?

Nav.

[framer]

:D:D You're a classic FGD:D:D
Come on man...you've had to elaborate so heavily on your original argument that it is now no longer recognisable. I doubt anyone really cares much about it but you were quite rude in the way you suggested that other peoples comprehension was lacking. Maybe the comprehension was fine but you expressed your opinion less than clearly?
Go on....admit it... and then we can have a big hug and everything will be alright:ok:

[FGD135]

Mark1234,

I have the CASA document library on CD and spent about an hour last night, trying to find a definition for "IMC" but was unable. Even just finding the explanation of what "IMC" stood for wasn't easy (it appears in only a couple of places - relatively obscure ones at that).

ResumeOwnNav,

Welcome to the discussion. The key difference between cues such as those from the inner ear/posterior and cues from the star outside is that the former don't give any useable assistance.

So, with neither external lights nor an horizon, the only useable assistance the pilots gets is from his instruments - so it can be said that he is flying solely by reference to instruments in these circumstances.

If I'm in smoke, smog, cloud, eyes in two crew/ under the hood or its pitch black and I can't see the horizon then I log it as IF.
Are you saying that if you are "eyes in" then you log it as IF? Genuine question, as that is not clear from your sentence.

If it is pitch black and you can't see the horizon you say you log it as IF. But you would be in contravention of the rules if you did this when in VMC.

I agree with you that you should be logging IF in those circumstances, however.

... you've had to elaborate so heavily on your original argument that it is now no longer recognisable.The only thing I have changed are the words "getting cues from the star" to "being assisted by the star". That change improved my wording considerably and for that I must thank you.

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
If I'm in smoke, smog, cloud, eyes in two crew/ under the hood or its pitch black and I can't see the horizon then I log it as IF.
Are you saying that if you are "eyes in" then you log it as IF? Genuine question, as that is not clear from your sentence.

Yes I am :) One crew member has eyes outside the other eyes in. When you fly something a little bigger than your average Cessna you will find they are not designed for VFR nav and as such the vis out the front is not that great. If your eyes are in, you can't see anything in your peripheral vision at all.

[framer]

[My apologies. I was not referring to simulated IF /QUOTE]

[quote]The only thing I have changed are the words "getting cues from the star" to "being assisted by the star"uh huh.....

Since the word "cues" is causing you so much difficulty, I will drop it and use a different word.

If the idea of being influenced by a solitary star is a bit too esoteric or out of this world - and that seems to be the case for some posters on this thread - then, instead, consider a light on the ground. ...oh it's a light on the ground....

make it several lights - make it a small town.

...ok a small town

I know I didn't specify this explicitly, but I was referring to the appearance of small towns during that phase of flight where pilots spend most of their time: in the cruise. Not during takeoff and landing!
...oh ok...in the cruise only....

Another thing I wasn't specific about was how the star was viewed....

Sorry FGD, when you were taking the p1ss about my comprehension skills I didn't realise you were talking about lights from a small town viewed from in the cruise.....mainly cause you originally saidIf you are getting some cues from the stars - even just one star - then you are not flying solely by reference to instruments.

and I took that to mean one star....sorry. my bad.