IFR flying, new IR rated, cumulus clouds
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you should generally be flying on the instruments because your "VFR" skills and altitude/heading keeping will probably not be to IFR standards.
CJ Driver, I disagree with what you wrote about logging IF time. IF time is that spent controlling the aircraft (or in many jurisdictions, monitoring the autoflight system) by sole reference to instruments. You would need to be in IMC or using a view limiting device to log IF. Merely flying in airspace that requires IFR is not IF.
Logging IF is not the same as logging IFR although some people seem happy to log IFR and claim it as IF.
Logging IF is not the same as logging IFR although some people seem happy to log IFR and claim it as IF.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinstaafl, I will both agree and disagree with you. I agree that IF time is that time spent flying by sole reference to the instruments. I completely disagree that the prevailing conditions MUST be IMC for that to be true.
When I am flying a complex SID in a high workload environment, I can assure you that I don't look out of the window to check whether it is, or is not, IMC outside at any particular instant. I look at the instruments. All the time.
And I log it as instrument flight.
Because it was.
When I am flying a complex SID in a high workload environment, I can assure you that I don't look out of the window to check whether it is, or is not, IMC outside at any particular instant. I look at the instruments. All the time.
And I log it as instrument flight.
Because it was.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ Driver, as to flying on instruments while in controlled airspace, even if VFR, I thought that was a good idea flying in Florida, near Orlando. Filed IFR, and relaxed, until another small plane crossed my bow all close and unexpected, so I squawked to the controller "Why didn't you tell me about that traffic?" Replied he, "If you are in VFR, ma'm, you must maintain your own lookout!!"
How about that?
And, as to not feeling the lift or sink that the instruments are telling you is taking place, that is why we are taught to trust the instruments, and not your butt when in IFR, yes?
In a glider, if you think your vario is telling porky pies, because the battery has gone kaput, the instrument that usually tells the truth is the alt. I got a big thrill when I realised, in Scotland, after years of flying gliders, that it has THREE HANDS, not just two!
How about that?
And, as to not feeling the lift or sink that the instruments are telling you is taking place, that is why we are taught to trust the instruments, and not your butt when in IFR, yes?
In a glider, if you think your vario is telling porky pies, because the battery has gone kaput, the instrument that usually tells the truth is the alt. I got a big thrill when I realised, in Scotland, after years of flying gliders, that it has THREE HANDS, not just two!
CJ, are you not required to keep a good lookout/see & avoid/take all actions necessary to avoid a collision, or similar language? Even though IFR, when in VMC those types of rules usually still apply.
CJ, are you not required to keep a good lookout/see & avoid/take all actions necessary to avoid a collision, or similar language? Even though IFR, when in VMC those types of rules usually still apply.
8 (1) Notwithstanding that a flight is being made with air traffic control clearance it shall
remain the duty of the commander of an aircraft to take all possible measures to
ensure that his aircraft does not collide with any other aircraft.
The rule applies in VMC or IMC , under IFR or VFR. The borderline between VMC and IMC has no special significance for this purpose.
I'm aware of the lack of distinction between VMC & IMC. I was trying to keep it germane to when logging IF is reasonable. You're right, of course. VMC or IMC doesn't matter. Even in VMC the IF requirement is for sole reference to the instruments with view limiting devices to prevent external views. Hard to reconcile that with looking outside in VMC.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 17th Jul 2011 at 22:38.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to have started something here - a few replies:
Mary Meagher - you should note that the low altitude "Victor" airways in the USA are (unlike European airways) only Class E airspace, and therefore there is no separation between IFR and VFR traffic, so the controller was quite right.
Bookworm - a bit of mixing IMC/VMC, IFR/VFR and being on a clearance in your post. The words you quote are quite correct, but don't really affect how a pilot should control the aircraft when flying IFR.
Tinstaafl - you may not have tried it yourself, but if you choose the right meterological conditions - a clearly defined sloping slot between cloud layers works well - with an inexperienced instrument pilot as PF you can very quickly convince them why, even when the conditions are VMC, they should control the aircraft by sole reference to the instruments, and ignore the outside cues.
Mary Meagher - you should note that the low altitude "Victor" airways in the USA are (unlike European airways) only Class E airspace, and therefore there is no separation between IFR and VFR traffic, so the controller was quite right.
Bookworm - a bit of mixing IMC/VMC, IFR/VFR and being on a clearance in your post. The words you quote are quite correct, but don't really affect how a pilot should control the aircraft when flying IFR.
Tinstaafl - you may not have tried it yourself, but if you choose the right meterological conditions - a clearly defined sloping slot between cloud layers works well - with an inexperienced instrument pilot as PF you can very quickly convince them why, even when the conditions are VMC, they should control the aircraft by sole reference to the instruments, and ignore the outside cues.
