QUOTE(BMeister @ Oct 25 2008, 03:40 AM) [snapback]128746[/snapback]
Oh I wasn't bragging about it, that's why I brought it up in a question, secondly, I was looking at outside 90% of the time, however what happens if your flying along an airway VFR to your destination, what are you doing then guessing where the airway is, so you dont star at the CDI
Look, my intent is not to get into a finger-pointing exercise here. You acknowledge that you ask a lot of questions (and I’m all in favor of someone asking rather than doing something wrong), and you also recognize that many here wonder why you don’t “look it up in the FAR/AIM like the rest of us;” but side-stepped that approach by saying you’re slowly learning how to do that. Some of your questions are good questions – but there are a lot of them that are answered easily by reading the rules.
Also, please don’t feel the necessity to become defensive … although, I DO
see how my use of the word “bragging” could lead you to feel that way. For that, I apologize. Of course, flying VFR doesn’t mean never
looking at your instruments. You may or may not know that airline pilots, flying on IFR clearances and who advise ATC that they have the airport “insight,” are often given the clearance, “cleared for the visual approach to Runway XX.” (That’s usually a clearance to help out the controller, not to help out the pilot, but that’s another issue for another time…) While not a VFR clearance, it is
a clearance to maneuver the airplane to the runway by using visual references. However, what some folks don’t recognize is if an ILS is available and working on that runway, that pilot may not go below that ILS glide slope even though he/she is flying by visual references. This requires that pilot to pay very close attention to the instruments - even when flying by visual references.
I happen to believe quite strongly that instrument training should include a lot of instrument flying while NOT under the hood (somewhere in the neighborhood of one-quarter to one-third of the total training time) … where the responsibility for “seeing and being seen” would still remain with the instructor or safety pilot. I think being required to fly the instruments precisely while being able to see what is going on in the “outside world” while you are keeping those instrument readings precisely where you want them is a very valuable training aid. We used to say “one peek is worth a thousand cross-checks;” and it’s true. By flying primarily on instruments, but being able to periodically “peek” at the outside world, you get a much better understanding of what pitch, bank, and power setting changes do for you and why sometimes it’s too much and sometimes it’s not enough. I’m a very big believer in the idea of a pilot knowing where she/he is (spatially and geographically) at all times, knowing the attitude of the airplane at all times, knowing where he/she wants the airplane to go at all times, and knowing what control inputs are required to accomplish that goal at all times. And I believe that legitimized “peeking” helps make that idea a reality. Of course, not ALL instrument training should be conducted this way, and what there is of it should be distributed throughout the course. But, you’ll note, my suggestion for doing this, includes the presence of an instructor or safety pilot.
When you said, “I didn't have a safety pilot and I flew to an airport in VFR conditions and decided to try the approach there, by myself with no hood obviously in VMC, that's why it ended up in my logbook…” I was going on the assumption that you were familiar with FAR 61.51, that says “(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.” Note that it says “operates … SOLELY by reference to instruments.” Either you were operating solely by reference to instruments while flying VFR and thereby potentially jeopardizing safety, or you were not operating solely by reference to instruments and therefore entered untrue information in your logbook. Obviously, neither choice is admirable, which you recognized, given your comment “probably shouldn’t of logged it.” Your logbook is your testimony of what you’ve done in an aircraft. As such I always recommend that a logbook should contain whatever you want it to contain (as some have said here, including cake recipes) but whatever it contains should be as complete as possible and be factual. The “factual” part, because logbooks are used as evidence in court trials; used to verify a pilot’s experience to the FAA for additional licenses/ratings and for currency requirements; used for confirmation for pay purposes; and other such important issues. The complete part, and trust me on this, for a very meaningful nostalgia generator some distance in the future.
I recognize that for pilots just beginning their career, the numbers in the logbook are very important … but my advice is to simply fly … instruct … whatever you want. Get your experience flying. Log what, when, where, how much, and how long as completely and as accurately as you can – and don’t worry about the numbers. They will come – at first they won’t seem to come quickly enough – but, and again, trust me here, they WILL come. And you can ask any pilot anywhere, on this forum, or any other forum – it’s the QUALITY of the time that really counts; and that quality counts as much or more than the QUANTITY of the time.