Is this VMC or IMC under FAR?

[SASless]

For all you offshore pilots.......

Situation: Night, 50 nm offshore, weather 10,000 and 10, no lighted objects on the surface, no visible horizion, no other visual clues, control of aircraft being done solely by reference to the instruments.

Question: Since weather would allow you to see any lighted objects (despite there being no objects to be seen) is this IMC/IFR or VMC/VFR ?

Ops Manual and Ops Specs do not specifically state..."lighted objects must be visible".

What FAR's apply here ? Or have we found a loophole in the regs ? One reading would lead one to believe that unless the "weather" induces the visibility restriction (and lighted objects could be seen) then VMC exists. A second reading gives the impression that anytime control of the aircraft is done solely by reference to instruments....then VMC no longer exists.

Anyone care to chew on this rag for a bit ???:confused: :confused: :confused:

[coalface]

In the UK, you would be VMC/IFR.

VMC because that is what the quoted weather conditions indicate.

IFR because it is night (Manditory IFR at night in UK)

The Flight Rules by which you operate are not necessarily determined by the weather conditions. You can be IFR in VMC conditions but you cannot (or should not) be VFR in IMC conditions (excepting UK Special VFR criteria in certain controlled airspace)

Flight conditions (VMC or IMC) are not determined by day/night conditions. They are purely based on weather conditions.

Clear as mud ??

[Rotorbike]

Exactly what I did last night!!!! You weren't sat next to me were you??? :) :)

I believe the following FAA regulation answers the question from their standpoint.

Part 135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.

No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.

If you haven't got 'visual surface light reference', which at night offshore you haven't, then you become IFR.

I will admit that I don't operate under their regulations so I could have found the wrong one.

Here we depart Night VFR, travel out IMC and land with a combination of VFR and IMC.

:cool:

[SASless]

Coalface,

When I did my UK ATPL....admittedly centuries ago....was there not something in the airlaw that talked about lighted objects at night in re: visibility?

When I was flying out of Sumburgh, we used to have a running gunbattle with management about whether two pilots were required at night in the S58T.....they said VMC single pilot....I said night offshore...no horizion...IMC...two pilots. Operative issue being ability to control the aircraft using external references.

Also...if flight is considered VMC/IFR, can you legally log Instrument flying time if you are in VMC conditions and not using a hood or blinds ?

What is the standard practice now-a-days on the North Sea for logging time at night in VMC conditions.....would a log book audit show a problem with pilots logging IF time when in actuality it is VMC ?

[coalface]

For SASless. Yes, there was something about illuminated objects but as far as I can remember that was for the purpose of assessing the visibilty at night for weather reporting purposes, not for determining if you were VMC/IMC/VFR/IFR.

You can be VMC at night with nothing visible outside the cockpit window solely due to darkness. VMC refers to the weather conditions not whether you are able to fly "visually" or not. In these conditions i would log time as "Instrument flying" even althought it may be CAVOK. If you can't fly the aircraft by reference to external visual references due to the darkness, you must fly by reference to instruments.

At night outside controlled airspace, you are however required to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules therefore you must operate IFR irrespective of your flight conditions.

But you needn't fly "by sole reference to instruments" when operating IFR. The weather conditions and illumination by the moon/stars/surface objects (or indeed by day) may allow flying by external visual references. In this case you may be flying "visually" but still operating IFR.

I did not notice on the original post that the reference was to FAR's. I have been talking UK rules. Apologies if i have gone "off topic"

[Devil 49]

If you can't fly by visual reference, you're on an instrument flight. Doesn't matter what the official viz, ceiling, or day of the week-if you haven't got adequate reference to control the aircraft, you're IMC. If you're not instrument proficient and adequately equipped, you stand a good chance of not completing the flight, darkness or daylight.

If you are able to control the aircraft adequately with visual reference only, then you're vfr, irregardless the official wx status. Hovering from 1 pad to the next in 100 foot vis would be a vmc flight, if you could make me do it.

Rules that allow us to something shouldn't mean we do it routinely.

[Nick Lappos]

SASless,

Thanks for the email, which woke me up to this interesting thread, which probes the fundamental issues of VFR/IFR and VMC/IMC:

Here is how I read it:

The Visual/Instrument Flight Rules are used to govern the Air Traffic Control (ATC) issues, which could care less if you roll over and kill yourself, they are written to prevent two aircraft from colliding. Thus, the clearance from clouds is specified (to prevent a peekaboo collision) and the flight visibility is specified, along with the lighting needs to allow you to avoid collisions Visually.

Regarding control of the aircraft, all pilots are trained in Instrument Control of their aircraft, regardless of what the ATC situation is. In Part 91, para 507, the FAA says that you must have full instrument equipment if you fly in VFR on top, or at night, the inference being that this is where it is probable that you need more reference than visual cues can provide.

The slight confusion of this thread illustrates a basic difference between the thinking patterns on each side of the Atlantic! In the States, ATC and the FAA are there to assure that you do not run into each other. That defines VFR, IFR, and night lighting requirements. All other responsibilities are left to the Pilot In Command. You can actually fly without reference to the ground, without outside attitude reference, and without a US Government person giving you advice and direction. Makes my head swim!

In the East Side of the Atlantic, it is all one big muddle, where (given enough paperwork) you climb up into the Government's sky, and an ATC guy protects you, navigates you and also makes sure you are dotting all your i's and crossing your t's.;)

[Bronx]

I'm no expert on this, but here goes anyways.

FAR 91 gives only visibility requirements and cloud clearance minimums for VFR and IFR.
They are dictated by airspace and altitude.
Part 91 doesn't require a visibile horizon, reference to ground objects, or any other visual cue. As long as you keep clear of those cloud requirements, you are technically VFR.
So is night flight over water with no horizon legal?
Looks like it is for part 91 ops.
But not very clever unless you're instrument rated, current, and comptetent.

Part 135 specifies VFR limits, but I'm not familiar with the regs.

BUT I don't see how Part 91 can apply if you're going 50 miles offshore anyway because of Section 91.101: Applicability which says 'This subpart prescribes flight rules governing the operation of aircraft within the United States and within 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States.'


Nick Lapos
Am I am missing something here? :confused:

[S76Heavy]

There seems to be confusion in some minds about VMC/VFR and IMC/IFR. MC means Meteorological conditions, i.e. OUTSIDE the A/C. FR means Flight Rules, the way one operates the aircraft.

So one can fly IFR/VMC, VFR/VMC and IFR/IMC but not legally and certainly not safely VFR/IMC.

I do log my night time as IF, because I am not allowed to fly VFR at night in my neck of the woods. And I do operate the machine with sole reference to the flight instruments, notwithstanding a good lookout for other traffic on the North Sea..

[ShyTorque]

Hey Nick, where is this caring figure of an ATCO based? I have flown in UK for many a year and I am yet to speak to him / her on the radio but it sounds great! :D

The one exception was one particular controller I used to speak to regularly in my last job on nights. She used to remind me of MSA with great concern in her voice when I used to reply "not above 1500 feet" when asked for my operating altitude at night.

Much of the time we don't even have to speak to anyone if we choose not to.

[Nick Lappos]

Shy Torque,

I was waxing poetically, of course, about speaking to the UK controllers all the time. I am sure they are too busy filling out those big leather bound logs and pouring coffee to have much free time to actually speak to anyone! ;) In the US, they are busy calculating their leave days accrued!

Let me recap the explanation for this VFR/IMC stuff.

VFR is a term that describes the collision avoidance means you are using. It says nothing about if you need to use instruments in order to fly safely. Visual Flight Rules apply for collision avoidance only. If there is enough vis and cloud clearance, then you can be VFR, even if there is nothing showing in your windows due to darkness and geography. While VFR, the rules are "see and be seen". IFR means that you have to let ATC separate you from the other aircraft. It has nothing to do with the fact that you might have to be staring at your instruments.

If you fly night VFR in the US, you must have a full set of instruments in your aircraft, so you can be flying VFR while flying with sole reference to your instruments. You can, of course, log "instrument time" while flying under VFR!

The concept of the need for instruments due to attitude cue environment is not mentioned in the FAR's except with regard to logging time for ratings and currency, where the phrase instrument time is used, and defined in Part 61 as actual or simulated flight "solely by reference to instruments".

In FAR, IMC is only mentioned as it affects the ability to avoid collisions:

Part 170, definitions - "Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) means weather conditions below the minimums prescribed for flight under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). "

In other words, 50 miles off shore, with 3 miles vis and basic cloud clearance, you are under VFR, and can be in IMC, logging instrument time.

Bronx,
Nice try about the 12 mile limit! If you think that when beyond the 12 mile limit you do not need to follow FAR, try busting a rule, and see. US pilots have been violated for flying mistakes in other countries. Also, your PT 135 Ops manual does not mention that it is invalid beyond 12 miles, does it? I thought not!
:D

[Nigel Osborn]

In Australia the answer to this question is much simpler.
VFR is not actually a collision avoidance system, it is a set of rules for operating in VMC which is defined in our AIPs. If conditions do not meet those requirements, then it is IMC which requires an instrument rating and is to be flown under IFR.
Night VFR requires normal VMC plus surface lighting or celestial lighting; i.e. the moon must be out.
The license to fly VFR and IFR is another issue.:D

[Rotorbike]

Nick

You are correct in saying that if you are further than 12 miles offshore you can't bust FAR's but FAR 91.101 is just stating where the geographical limits are. So if you are operating further than 12 miles then you need to find alternative regulations. In this case it would have to be under 135 or 121???

Plus if you are going 50 miles offshore and dropping passengers shouldn't the operation be 135!!

In 135 it clearly states what the operating limits for Night VFR are as stated in my earlier post.

[Helinut]

One of the extra complexities for us poor souls who fly in the UK is that it is mandatory to fly IFR at night. So we get this half-baked situation where you have to fly IFR, but you don't need an IR (just a night rating for PPLs) or a twin IFR-certified helicopter if you fly "visual contact" flight in uncontrolled airspace (Class F&G). However, if you want to fly in controlled airspace this special night rule does not apply - you must have an IR and fully IFR helicopter - unless of course you get an SVFR clearance.

In this case, the IFR definitely refers to the RULES you fly under and not the met conditions which need to be "visual".

This is so confusing that you often see CAA publications misunderstanding what the requirements are. We spend so long working out what to do for night flights it is usually dawn before we get airborne, which sorts the problem anyway. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Devil 49]

To Rotor bike's excellent and definitive citation, I'll add-

"§135.213 Weather reports and forecasts.


(a) Whenever a person operating an aircraft under this part is required to use a weather report or forecast, that person shall use that of the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by the U.S. National Weather Service, or a source approved by the Administrator. However, for operations under VFR, the pilot in command may, if such a report is not available, use weather information based on that pilot's own observations or on those of other persons competent to supply appropriate observations..."

...You can't observe what you can't see. In this case you have no way of knowing you're maintaining required VFR minimum visibility.

If you're working for an operator who micromanages and second guesses your judgement, I'd start shopping a new position.

[Nick Lappos]

Devil49,

That is an excellent paragraph for Part 135 operators. It is an operating rule for those 135 operations only, and has no force for Part 91 or 127 operations. It is similar to the Part 121 rules with increased VFR takeoff requirements (2000 feet), in that it raises the basic FAR level of safety for commercial passenger carrying operations.

However, to support your position, I know of no offshore operation flown under Part 91, they are all Part 135, I believe.

[Rotorbike]

For those that are interested in how the intent of the law is meant to be used I give you the following Frequently asked Questions (http://av-info.faa.gov/data/640otherfaq/pt61-16.pdf) it is a 298 page (takes a while to download) document and describes the FAA Flight Standards Service policy as it relates to a regulation.

On page 65/66 I found the following senario and it very closely covers our offshore, no visible horizon and how it relates to regulations.

QUESTION: The question came up about logging “actual” instrument time when over the desert at night with no visual references. When you are flying with sole reference to instruments, is that actual time? If not, is it “simulated” instrument time? Our take on the question is actual instrument time can only be logged when the aircraft is in IMC. The weather determines actual instrument time, not flying by sole reference to instruments. That settles the actual instrument question, but what about “simulated” instrument time? Our feeling is it can be logged as “simulated instrument time.” It would be the same as having a hood on while flying by sole reference to instruments. What about the requirement for a safety pilot under these conditions? Our answer is "no" because the pilot is still able to "see and avoid" conflicting traffic.

ANSWER: Ref. §61.51(g); The only definition in the rules is the definition on “instrument flight time” and that is addressed in §61.51(g) and is defined as: (g) Logging instrument flight 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. However, I understand your question to be that you’re asking for a definition of “actual instrument time” as opposed to “simulated instrument time.” I believe you’re interchanging the terms “actual instrument time” where the rules only state “actual instrument conditions.” And you state “simulated instrument time” but the rules only state“simulated instrument conditions.” So there is no official FAA definition on “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time” in the FARs, FAA Orders, advisory circulars, FAA bulletins, etc. And the reason why the FAA has never officially defined “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time” is because in all of the aeronautical experience requirements for pilot certificate and/or ratings in Part 61, the rule does not differentiate between “actual instrument time” as opposed to “simulated instrument time.” In fact, in Part 61 it only refers to the aeronautical experience for instrument time to be “. . . instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument
conditions . . .” So it is irrelevant whether the instrument flight time is logged as “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time.” Part 61 only refers to “actual instrument conditions” or “simulated instrument conditions.” I agree with your statement that just because a person is flying “. . . by sole reference to instruments . . .” has nothing to do with whether the flight can be logged as “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time.” Only the weather conditions establish whether the flight is in “actual instrument conditions.” And that is dependent on the weather conditions where the aircraft is physically located and the pilot makes that determination as to whether the flight is in “actual instrument conditions” or he is performing instrument flight under “simulated instrument conditions.” But for a “quick and easy” answer to your question, it was always my understanding if I were flying in weather conditions that were less than the VFR weather minimums defined in §91.155 and I was flying “solely by reference to instruments” then that was the determining factor for being able log instrument flight under “actual instrument conditions.” Otherwise, if I were flying solely by reference to instruments in VMC conditions then I would log it as instrument flight in “simulated instrument conditions.” In your example, the flight is clear of clouds and in good visibility conditions at night over the desert with an overcast above and no visible horizon. But other examples could include flight between sloping cloud layers or flight between layers of clouds at night. These could equally meet the requirement for operations that can only be accomplished solely by reference to instruments. But, the lack of sufficient visual reference to maintain aircraft control without using instruments does not eliminate the possibility of collision hazard with other aircraft or terrain. So, now to answer your other question “What about the requirement for a safety pilot under these conditions? Your question is answered by §91.109(b)(1) and it states: “(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless— (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.” Normally, in order to log instrument flight time under “simulated instrument conditions,” the pilot needs to be utilizing a view limiting device. But, the only place in the rules requiring a view limiting device will be found under §61.45(d)(2) as part of the equipment for a practical test. Otherwise, no where else in the rules, orders, bulletins, or advisory circulars does it specifically state that pilots need to be utilizing a view limiting device. But, except for meteorological conditions as in our examples above, how else, could a pilot comply with §61.51(g) for logging instrument flight time [i.e., “. . . when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . .”] unless the pilot was utilizing a view limiting device when logging instrument flight time in simulated instrument conditions?

[Flare Dammit!]

someone wrote:
"However, to support your position, I know of no offshore operation flown under Part 91, they are all Part 135, I believe."

In the U.S., Chevron USA operates under part 91 when flying their own people (although they do have a 135 certificate so they can use their aircraft for charters). There are other, smaller oil companies who own their own ships and operate them offshore under part 91 (day and night!), as well as some pipeline companies who do the same.

[rjsquirrel]

The issue is not that they operate under Part 91, but what equipment and training they use. If they meet the equipment and training of Part 135, even if they are operating under 91, that's OK. If they use 91 to skimp on equipment, that's poor headwork.

Some oil companies use unstabilized 212's offshore at night. That means that oil workers are exposed to extra safety problems because their companies use Part 91 to hide from reasonable safety rules. Does their senior management know that the simple requirements of Part 135 are not followed by their professional transport sections?

If you are offshore at night, you are in instrument conditions, and you should be in a helicopter equipped to handle instrument flight. What a meaty ground for law suits from the families of passengers lost in accidents. It is amazing that in the 21st century, this common sense safety concept is ignored!

Those oil passengers should be told what their company is exposing them to, and that the cheapest fleabag Charter operator in the US has higher safety standards! Pass the life jacket, please, and sit me next to an exit.:mad:

[5milesbaby]

After trying to sorta understand what you're going on about and failing miserably, I'll put in a little which might actually mean less than nowt, but here goes.

If you are IFR in class G airspace, we have no requirements to separate. Under a RIS/RAS we will aid by giving traffic info, and under a RIS, further this by saying 'if unseen turn/change level....'

In class F, we separate IFR's that are known to us, VFR as above.

In classes D+E, IFR's separated, and traffic info given to IFR's on VFR's, and vv in D.

In class C, separate IFR's from everything, VFR's get traffic on VFR's.

Class B, separate everything, but how you can be VFR in UK Class B is another matter!!

Class A, VFR not permitted.

Basically, outside you have to be under a RIS/RAS to get any help as IFR, but we can refuse to give this due workload, and can limit it taking away responsibilty again due workload, or a large number of unknown returns, or due to you being on the edge of the radar cover or limits.

Must go, coffee time :eek: