Actual Vs. Simulated IR logging

[ranklein]

Hi all,

I've been trying to look for some kind of a rule regarding logging Instrument times (Actual/ Simulated) in the log book.

Is there a rule that requires us to log that time, even as airline pilots that have already passed all their tests (ATPL, ETC.)?

Is there a fix number/ percentage (8%, 10%..) that we take each flight and log it as instrument time?

Mainly interested to know as some authorities require to know that time when converting licenses (FAA TO JAR for example), or when flying different parts of the world and need to convert to a local license.

Thanks!!

[Intruder]

The quick answer is, "Log it when you fly it."

After that, look in FAR 61.51(g):

(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.
(2) An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions.
(3) For the purposes of logging instrument time to meet the recent instrument experience requirements of §61.57(c) of this part, the following information must be recorded in the person's logbook—
(i) The location and type of each instrument approach accomplished; and
(ii) The name of the safety pilot, if required.
(4) A flight simulator or approved flight training device may be used by a person to log instrument time, provided an authorized instructor is present during the simulated flight.
So, if you don't have reference to the actual horizon (a good general definition of "actual instrument flight conditions"), log Actual Instrument time if it's because of something outside the airplane (clouds), or Simulated Instrument time if in a Simulator or if it's because of something inside the airplane (hood/foggles).
Log anything you might need for a further certificate or rating, or to show recency of experience (including to a prospective employer).

[SNS3Guppy]

Is there a rule that requires us to log that time, even as airline pilots that have already passed all their tests (ATPL, ETC.)?

As your profile states you're in the USA, presumably you're talking only about FAA regulation. If this is the case, the answer is no. No regulation requires you to log instrument time if you're not using it to meet the requirements of currency, a certificate, or rating.

Presently there is no requirement to log instrument time for currency. There used to be such a requirement, which was six hours of instrument time within the preceding six months, as well as six approaches, hold, tracking, etc. The requirement for logging the six hours of instrument time was eliminated several years ago.

You do still have a requirement to meet either your six month proficiency check, or six approaches (plus holding tracking, etc) in six months, and this must be logged. It must also be done under actual or simulated instrument conditions, and the approaches themselves must be flown in actual or simulated instrument conditions to minimums (per the FAA Chief Legal Counsel). These approaches must be logged as such in order to meet the requirements of the regulation.

[ranklein]

How about the fact that different authorities (JAR for Example), asks for those times when you convert the license?

Are JAR pilots require to log in that time always?
Has anyone heard of a general percentage number that can be filled out for each flight, say 10% of each flight (In an Airline) counts as Instrument flying?

Thanks!!

[kenparry]

How can there be a percentage when conditions vary so much? No, there's no such thing. As said above, log what you do.

[ab33t]

Use your logic, its safer to log any and all IFR time actual or simulated as you may need this for currency or next rating , licence etc

[Intruder]

You do still have a requirement to meet either your six month proficiency check, or six approaches (plus holding tracking, etc) in six months, and this must be logged. It must also be done under actual or simulated instrument conditions, and the approaches themselves must be flown in actual or simulated instrument conditions to minimums (per the FAA Chief Legal Counsel). These approaches must be logged as such in order to meet the requirements of the regulation.
However, you need not keep those records in a "log book." You can simply keep a record of the PT/PC session that you get from the Instructor/Evaluator at the time of the sim session.

Though there may be no formal requirement to log specific items, I believe it is a good idea to keep a current log book for whatever [unforeseen] future purpose you might need it. While your current job may be secure NOW, you can't rely on that next week or month or year. Also, if you buy or rent an airplane, an insurance company may ask you for proof of recent experience...

[Centaurus]

Presumably any logging of instrument flight time must have been hand flying and not flight on automatic pilot. Australia for instance permits pilots to log instrument flight time on automatic pilot. While this may be legal it seems rather a waste of time since the original purpose of logging instrument flight time gave prospective employers some idea of your cloud flying experience.

Obviously if you had flown a lot of hours by hand in cloud and you had not killed yourself by now, then you could assessed as safe. But logging instrument hours eating lunch up front watching the autopilot do it's stuff cannot seriously be considered a skill component of flying an aeroplane.

[SNS3Guppy]

Presumably any logging of instrument flight time must have been hand flying and not flight on automatic pilot.

Not at all. Logging of instrument flight time refers to conditions of flight: simulated, or instrument.

The PIC of a flight may log PIC while the F/O is flying, and may log instrument time for that portion of the flight when the aircraft is operated in instrument conditions or by reference to instruments.

I've found in some aircraft that my biggest challenge isn't hand flying, but operating the aircraft through the automation. I found, for example, that my tendency in the simulator in one aircraft was to disconnect the autopilot and hand-fly, and my difficulty was doing everything through the aircraft systems.

Being proficient at both is important.

[Centaurus]

I've found in some aircraft that my biggest challenge isn't hand flying, but operating the aircraft through the automation.

Tell that to the dead pilots who through sheer incompetency at hand flying were killed along with their passengers because they had found themselves out of their depth in unusual attitudes recovery and spent their last seconds trying to engage the automatic pilot.

Your interpretation of logged instrument flight time as not differentiating between observing the automatic pilot doing it's job or the pilot hand flying, may well be correct in current society. In other words the logged instrument flight time is worthless if the majority of hours claimed is "monitoring"

But the original intention back when I started flying in 1951 was that the only time the pilot logged instrument flight time was either hand flying in cloud, or under the hood. In fact the two columns in log books of that era were headed "Actual" and "Simulated". "Actual" - meaning in cloud. Automatic pilot time was not counted.

I find it hard to understand how hand flying in IMC or under the hood is seen by some as easier than pressing automatic pilot buttons or twiddling a few knobs. Having seen log books showing for example 2500 hours logged instrument flight time in a grand total of 4000 hours, I would have grave doubts about the real instrument flying skills concerned.

Having frequently observed in the simulator experienced captains and copilots making a complete hash of raw data non-automatics instrument approaches to the extent they would fail any reasonable instrument rating, it is obvious their logged instrument flight time on automatics was worth exactly zilch in terms of skill.

[SNS3Guppy]

Your interpretation of logged instrument flight time as not differentiating between observing the automatic pilot doing it's job or the pilot hand flying, may well be correct in current society.

No. It's not my "interpretation."

I can't speak to Australian regulation (used to live there, but that was some time ago), but what I provided is the regulation in the US with regard to logging flight time.

In other words the logged instrument flight time is worthless if the majority of hours claimed is "monitoring"


Logging of flight time is worthless, period. It's ink on a page.

Experience counts. Hours mean nothing. I've met many ATP rated pilots with whom I wouldn't allow my dog to fly. I've met many private pilots with whom I'd allow my children to fly. The hours are worthless, but experience is everything.

I've known very competent pilots who could hand fly very well, but for whom automation was their biggest challenge. I may well be one of them.

Tell that to the dead pilots who through sheer incompetency at hand flying were killed along with their passengers because they had found themselves out of their depth in unusual attitudes recovery and spent their last seconds trying to engage the automatic pilot.


Yes, and tell it as well to the dead pilots and passengers of those who failed to properly use automation. The crew of American Airlines #965, for example. You rave about pilots who can't hand fly. Whereas much flying today is done on automation by company policy, by regulation, and by preference or in some cases aircraft requirement, being proficient at systems management and flying through the automation is every bit as important as hand flying...and often presents the greater challenge.

The purist in you perhaps believes that hand flying is real flying, whereas flying through automation is not. I've spent much of my career hand flying with precision, operating within inches of the ground in formation with other aircraft, sometimes beneath powerlines, often close to hills and rocks, where no mistakes can be tolerated. Hand flying is not the challenge, for me. Instead, I find my own greatest challenge comes from working the airplane through automation. In some of the aircraft I fly, there's nothing that actually connects me to the control surfaces on the wings, and horizontal and vertical stabs. I make control inputs and the airplanes systems in turn move the control surfaces. Some systems determine how far to move the surface based on a variety of factors such as speed and aircraft configuration. I don't necessarily get to determine just how far those control surfaces move.

With that in mind, there's little difference between manipulating the yoke or control column in the cockpit, and manipulating an autopilot, FMS, FMS, INS, IRS, autothrottle, AFCS, or other control system. As the pilot, I make my inputs through one means of control or another, to make the airplane do as I wish.

It behooves me, therefore, to be fully proficient in control of the airplane through all the means available.

I can absolutely guarantee you that I can hand fly an airplane in formation with another, under powerlines while applying chemical to a crop, because I've done it many times on the job. I very seriously doubt I could achieve the same thing through the autopilot, or the trim wheels, for that matter. I wouldn't want to try. Never the less, I still fly blind to a little tiny point in space on an instrument approach on automation with expensive cargo and passengers aboard. I can absolutely guarantee you, therefore, that being able to do that on automation is a critical skill, every bit as much as being able to fly it by hand.

The logbook doesn't care which way I did it, so far as logging instrument time. All it cares about is the condition of flight; actual, or simulated. The logbook means nothing, really. It's merely a means of showing legal compliance with regulation by meeting technical requirements.

Experience can't be logged. It only shows up when one attempts to fly the airplane, and there, it can't be denied. Written pages are worthless regardless of what is written down; logging flight time is not the same as flying.

Instrument time regards the conditions of flight, not the means by which one operated the airplane in those conditions.

[Intruder]

Having frequently observed in the simulator experienced captains and copilots making a complete hash of raw data non-automatics instrument approaches to the extent they would fail any reasonable instrument rating, it is obvious their logged instrument flight time on automatics was worth exactly zilch in terms of skill.
Flying has evolved a bit since 1951...

You confuse 2 different issues: The logging of experience flying in IMC and the ability to hand-fly approaches in a degraded mode in some airplanes. For the first issue, the recent and current regulations are clear -- logging of instrument time does NOT depend on whether automatic pilot, flight director, FMS or other aids are used or not. They ONLY depend on the visual conditions and whether the pilot is the handling pilot.

HOWEVER, I do agree that even in this day of fully automated cockpits, it is essential to maintain proficiency in flying by ALL the available modes, automated and manual. I have recent experience in both the 744 and 747 Classic, and there tends to be one chief difference in handling philosophy taught: In the 744, the handling pilot is expected to "properly" use the automation to assess and resolve issues with real-time navigation; whereas in the 747 Classic the pilot is expected to monitor the available automation and be ready to take over manually if a problem arises. Still, in either case, the same Situational Awareness is required, and the pilot is expected to make use of the instrumentation he has.

[A37575]

HOWEVER, I do agree that even in this day of fully automated cockpits, it is essential to maintain proficiency in flying by ALL the available modes, automated and manual

Right on. This subject has been comprehensively discussed in previous posts on automation. Ops management pay lip service to what you have stated but fail to back it up with the priority it requires during recurrent training in the simulator.

The just released NTSB report on the One to Go MD80 crash at Phuket reveals yet another on-going example of the absymal lack of basic pure flying skill of pilots who relied totally on automation at a critical moment and along with their unfortunate passengers paid the ultimate penalty. It is not enough to protest that their lack of automation knowledge led to this tragic result. In this accident both pilots apparently forgot to push open the throttles from idle for a go-around. Would you send a student solo in a Cessna 150 if he forgot to apply power in a go-around and stalled? And there is no automatic pilot in a Cessna 150.

Time and again we read of automation related accidents where basic airmanship would have prevented the end result. That worrying absence of basic airmanship is demonstrably more common to those brought up on complete reliance on automation to the detriment of commonsense.