PPRuNe Forums - Fake instrument flight time logged

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)

- - Fake instrument flight time logged (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/403194-fake-instrument-flight-time-logged.html)

Quote:

That being so, perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to write to CASA and ask them to change the rules based upon the practice you use. Who knows, you might get a thank you and pat on the head. Don't hold your breath though...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif

Hi Tee Em, I think it is more a case of let common sense prevail. :hmm:

The dictionary definition of "visibility" is "range of vision, as determined by conditions of light and atmosphere".
This is apparently an "inconvenient truth."
If there is insufficient light to fly by visual information recieved then it is necessary to fly by reference to instruments and this is instrument flight and should be logged as such.
Fact.

Quote:

If there is insufficient light to fly by visual information recieved then it is necessary to fly by reference to instruments and this is instrument flight and should be logged as such.

Not disputing this, I agree with it - and agree that "black hole" time is IF and should be legal to log.

What is plain wrong is any assertion that this is IMC, or that visibility, in the aviation context such as that received on the ATIS, is reduced at all, both of which you've stated. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant to determining whether VMC/IMC exists - and visibility (not what you can see but specific visibility as per ATIS etc. in pitch black darkness with nil weather is greater-than-10km. Fact.

Ok, I think I'm done with this thread, done this to death :)

Quote:

Practical

Quote:

Quote:
If there is insufficient light to fly by visual information recieved then it is necessary to fly by reference to instruments and this is instrument flight and should be logged as such.
Not disputing this, I agree with it - and agree that "black hole" time is IF and should be legal to log.

What is plain wrong is any assertion that this is IMC, or that visibility, in the aviation context such as that received on the ATIS, is reduced at all, both of which you've stated. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant to determining whether VMC/IMC exists - and visibility (not what you can see but specific visibility as per ATIS etc. in pitch black darkness with nil weather is greater-than-10km. Fact.

Ok, I think I'm done with this thread, done this to death

CFI of local flying school :p

I would hazard a guess and say that the instrument that actually measures the visibility in the ATIS/AWIS can only measure any obstructions in its target zone. It gives 9999 or >10kms when there is nothing in its way. VMC as per the convention.

However we are not all born with cats eyes and as such practically speaking (as Bushy suggests) this is for all intensive purposes IMC as you do not have a horizon and are flying on instruments.

As long as you are aware of the limitations of a NVFR rating then who really cares! If you are CIR rated and current, what you choose to log is your own business. The moral of the story? Try and keep current every 3 months however you need too.

Quote:

However we are not all born with cats eyes and as such practically speaking (as Bushy suggests) this is for all intensive purposes IMC as you do not have a horizon and are flying on instruments.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. It's important, legally, to realise that it isn't actually IMC though, if only to know the actual limitations of the ratings in question.

and close, lock and sticky perhaps?

There are no arguments left and its pretty clear what is legally acceptable.