Fake instrument flight time logged

[Tee Emm]

Question: Perusal of a log book of a pilot with a N.T based turbo-prop operator revealed a fixed figure of 0.2 instrument flight time for every trip. The log book showed over 500 hours of simulated instrument flight time. The pilot claimed it was company policy (published in the operations manual) for each crew member to log 0.2 instrument time on every flight even if CAVOK in order to meet IFR currency requirements. This time was also logged in daily flight sheets for audit purposes. As CASA presumably "approve" company operations manuals, does this mean there is a tacit acceptance by CASA that instrument flight time can be logged in a two pilot crew, by both pilots at the same time regardless of weather conditions?

I recall that several years back a Virgin Blue captain told his first officer at the end of their last flight that day to "put me down for an hour's instrument flight time" in the daily times sheet so that official records would be kept up to date re currency. The whole day was flown in CAVOK.

As logging of instrument flight time is a matter of honesty, rather than an audit trail to satisfy CASA legal requirements, it doesn't say much for the companies that encourge such dishonest practices...

[Leatherdog]

Tee Emm

I realise that in GA that IF time really only happens in IMC. In fact I remember being criticised for having less than 1% of my total experience logged as IF. There just isn't enough clouds when your flying C210's about the top end.

However; it is very dangerous and almost impossible to fly a jet or turboprop for that matter, professionally without flying for the majority on instruments for both departure and arrival. Metro pilot's (no auto-pilot) should be logging instrument time form wheels up to touchdown. All the simulator training teaches you is to fly Power + Attitude = Performance.

If CASA cannot realise the truth that it is irrelevant if there is cloud or moon shine outside, then they really are the bunch of amateurs that the majority of professionals in and out of Australia have suspected.

Logging instrument time is a great tool for maintaining a level of training, but once out on the line and operating to your company's SOP's it achieve's nothing more than a box ticking nuisance.

Leatherdog.

[43Inches]

However; it is very dangerous and almost impossible to fly a jet or turboprop for that matter, professionally without flying for the majority on instruments for both departure and arrival.


Interesting concept, however i find it very easy to fly visually in said aircraft using the actual horizon rather than artificial. As with a C152, 172 or PA28 still use the aircrafts instruments for increased accuracy. The attitude reference especially for wings level and alignment with the runway is much more relaxing looking outside. The difference between IMC and Day VMC is that you don't have the real world option to tell you when your upside down or the little ground clues that hint for navigation profile.

[morno]

Leatherdog,
That's a very interesting concept. However I can quite happily fly a variety of turbo-prop aircraft by looking outside when I'm not in cloud. It is not by SOLE REFERENCE TO INSTRUMENTS when you can see the horizon because you're not in cloud.

This concept sounds like a rort.

morno

[Joker 10]

Flight under the Instrument Flight Rules is not just about flying an attitude and heading, SIDS, STARS and procedural rules require constant attention to the task at hand.

I think folk are confusing IFR flight with flight in IMC.

[BombsGone]

Straight from CASA

"All flight time during which the aircraft was controlled solely by reference to instruments may be recorded in the instrument 'Flight' column:
a) Time above overcast or at night in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) is not counted as instrument flight;
b) In actual or simulated instrument conditions, only the pilot manipulating the controls or providing input to the auto-pilot may log all flight time as instrument flight;
c) A flight conducted on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan is not to be counted as instrument flight unless flying in IMC;
d) Instrument approaches are to be credited to the pilot (pilots, in the case of an airborne radar approach) manipulating the controls or providing input to the auto-pilot during the approach. "

You can't count IFR fllight unless in IMC in the instrument flight column. Simple really. If everyone follows the rules then we all know what to expect from a given amount of Instrument time in the log book. I know its not prefect but at least its a standard.

Cheers

[emeritus]

In my day I only logged IF time when I was hand flying by instruments (VMC or IMC) or doing a coupled inst app and had just short of 10 percent of my total time.

Irrespective of the total instrument time someone has logged.... hand flying on instruments and operating an a/c at the same time is not something you can bullsh..t your way through.

Emeritus.

[no one]

it achieve's nothing more than a box ticking nuisance.

Completely agree with Leatherdog.

On another note, my C.P. from GA days said if your flying night VFR on a moonless night and therefore no horizon, you are flying on instruments so it can be logged as IF.

[neville_nobody]

This has been done to death every year, and unless you are in cloud you cannot log IF no matter how dark it is outside.

[Howard Hughes]

I would argue that IMC, is when you are in anything less than VMC, that would include being less than the specified distance (vertical/horizontal) from cloud! You don't actually have to be in cloud, just in IMC (ie: less than VMC).:ok:

Seriously though I would expect most pilots to have more IFR time than what is shown in their log books, not less...

[VH-XXX]

Surely you don't have to be in IMC to count instrument time?

What about all those lowly PPL's out there who logged 2 hours instrument time in their 172 in VMC under the hood?

Is being under the hood in a Metro for example instrument time in VMC?

[no one]

This has been done to death every year, and unless you are in cloud you cannot log IF no matter how dark it is outside.

Yes if you want to get technically correct, but there is one word CASA are not interested in and that is the word practical. So because you spend hours up north going left and right due weather and fly through the odd puff you shouldn't log that 10 sec as 0.2 IF, in order to keep that 3.0 IF in last 90 days so as to enjoy the safety of Instrument Flight Rules (other traffic reporting, you own reporting for SAR, SPECI's, etc.)

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Surely you don't have to be in IMC to count instrument time?

What about all those lowly PPL's out there who logged 2 hours instrument time in their 172 in VMC under the hood?


Are you serious, dude???

In actual or simulated instrument conditions

If you are under the hood in VMC you require a safety pilot who keeps a lookout for you. How did you think a GFPT gets their 2 hours?

[Turkeyslapper]

In addition to the above comments...how about a clear night with little to no ambient light out in the middle of nowhere. I know in such conditions I am flying by sole reference to instruments! Not instrument flight....come on!

Turkey

[VH-XXX]

My enquiry was for an aircraft operating with 2 flight crew.

[BombsGone]

Yes this gets done to death every year.

YH XXX my understanding is you can log simulated time for two crew operations using an IF hood.

I disagree that this is box ticking exercise. If you don't flying in cloud for months at a time you still need to meet the recency requirements in CAO 40.2.1 PARA 11. If you're flying SID'S STARS etc in an FMS equiped airliner you should be covered under the cyclic training and proficiency program of your airline. If you're in GA and don't have access to a simulator your company should provide you with dual or ICUS under the hood every 90 days. This is an overhead but anything less constitutes a dodgy operation that CASA should investigate.

Agree that pitch black nights and sole reference to instruments are a possible exception but it's the approach phase that really counts and even on a pitch black night you have visual references in the circling area.

[VH-XXX]

In addition to the above comments...how about a clear night with little to no ambient light out in the middle of nowhere. I know in such conditions I am flying by sole reference to instruments! Not instrument flight....come on!


Ahhhhhh, The old class 4 instrument rating!

[FGD135]

Metro pilot's (no auto-pilot) should be logging instrument time form wheels up to touchdown.
Leatherdog, from this statement, I would say you don't quite understand what instrument time is.

... unless you are in cloud you cannot log IF ...
neville_nobody, that is not quite correct. You need to be in IMC to log IF - which does not necessarily mean you must be in cloud. Howard Hughes said basically this - but with better wording than I can manage at the moment.

... how about a clear night with little to no ambient light out in the middle of nowhere. I know in such conditions I am flying by sole reference to instruments!Yes, indeed you are - and you may also be, technically, in VMC at the time. My feeling on this one, however, is that you are not in VMC unless you can see that you are in VMC. Therefore, you should log this as IF.

[Stationair8]

Lets see departing Tindal, Alice Springs or Groote Eylandt at night time in a Dash8, Metro, B200 or a B58 and you rotate go onto instruments, do you really look out the window and see if you are in cloud? On a dark night with no visual horizon you would be pretty brave to be looking outside, i would rather have the head in the cockpit making sure that that the aeroplane was on track and at the right attitude.

Where do you guys come up with this crapp about so many I/F hours as a portion of your total time? Flying around the NT in the dry season probably wont log you much real I/F time, so experts how do we get the 3 hours instrument time in 90 days?

Perhaps the PPrune experts could conduct a poll and tell us many instrument hours we should have in our log books? Any pilot with an extra I/F time could be asked why they have logged extra? Likewise what them big bad/legendary GA Chief Pilots will accept as proper instrument time?

[BombsGone]

"how do we get the 3 hours instrument time in 90 days?"

You don't need to if you complete one hour dual simulated, or one hour ICUS simulated, or an hour in an approved simulator. Not hard really, all in the CAO.

No one is saying that you should look outside for attitude reference at night, just that this does not count as instrument time. Deal with it or lobby CASA to get the rule changed.

I think FGD135 might be on a reasonable track in that if you can't see that you are VMC then your not.

[Stationair8]

I am sure most companies will let you go up in a Baron/Cessna 310 for a jolly to log that 1 hour of I/F for currency purposes!!!

So if one flies between cloud layers does that get logged as instrument time?

[BombsGone]

My point was that if they don't give you the required ICUS, Dual, or Sim time and you haven't met recency requirements you can't fly as captain of an IFR flight. If you dodgy the numbers you'll be hung out to dry if there is an accident, or preferably if CASA pick you up before an accident. It is not a jolly it is a requirement that it appears many GA companies pay lip service too if the comments on this thread are anything to go by.

Yes I have seen it done in GA by a reputable firm.

[Exaviator]

It is my experience that most IFR departures and arrivals in particular when hand flying the aircraft is a combination of head down and head up, especially in the early part of the departure/arrival when following the SID/STAR or other ATC instructions, dealing with configuration changes and cockpit checks. At the same time the aircraft can be passing through changing met conditions from VMC to IMC both during climb and descent.

As such it becomes impossible to keep track of the exact time spent in actual IMC.

Accordingly logging a percentage of each or most flights as instrument time is perfectly normal and practiced by most airline pilots. :ok:

[Leatherdog]

FDG135

from this statement, I would say you don't quite understand what instrument time is.

You assume it's lack of knowledge, but rather lack of understanding and respect, on your behalf. The point was that the Metro is quite a good example of an aircraft that needs good IF skills to operate correctly. I believe, anyone who is current on a Metro, is MORE than IF current.

I do not see your motive to quote this point, other than demonstrating your skill to quote people on a forum, and attack people who wont/cant snot you back for lack of respect. I don't and wont qualify myself here, and nor should anybody else.

Back on topic...The point is line drivers need to 'create' enough IF time to remain current, rather than the fuss of a day offline in the sim. It has no effect on one's ability to fly safely.

L/dog.

[BombsGone]

Whoa, those last two comments leave me speachless.

[neville_nobody]

Leatherdog you might want to have a look at a few court cases involving accidents before you start sprouting off 'practical' interpretations of aviation law. If you fly a metro around the NT in the dry and are logging IF time without a hood that is faking your logbook; noone is going to care about 'respect' they will just look at the CAO and say well this guy has been faking IF time.

CASA are not interested in and that is the word practical.

Yeah and neither is the prosecution when you stand trial!! If you Parker pen your logbook, then prang an aeroplane and they get a whiff of fake logbook you will be taken to the cleaners.

Where do you guys come up with this crapp about so many I/F hours as a portion of your total time?

It is just some BS that some operators make up. Never heard of line pilots talk about it but I have heard a Chief Pilot bring it up during interviews or when looking at resumes. But remember like every requirement in aviation that are all subject to change and are inversely proportional to the total time of the candidates on offer. These type of requirements go out the window if they are struggling to crew aeroplanes. It's all kinda amusing really listening to people berate you one year for having not enough of this or that only to see them hire a guy with 150 hours straight out of flight school a year later!!

[bushy]

There are some dead people who thought that a dark night departure from a remote location could easily be done visually.
At Alice Springs many years ago two pilots were taking off at night and there was a power cut shortly after they lifted off. The runway lights and all the town lights instantly went out. They crashed and died.
When that last runway light is behind you on a dark night with no other lights in the area, conditions are definitely IMC.
It has been proven the hard way many times.

[ZappBrannigan]

Yes, this gets done every year - but I STILL admit I haven't got my head around it all. The questions I still hear equally convincing and opposing answers to:

- Is time in IMC always loggable as IF (as has been stated)? I go with no, as, for example, flying in 2km visibility 10ft below overcast is IMC, but is not flying by *sole* reference to instruments, and I don't log this. And I consider IMC to be less-than-VMC, NOT necessarily zero-vis.

- Conversely, is flying into the "black hole" under the NVFR on a CAVOK night considered IF? It's the reverse of the above - clearly not IMC, but does seem to satisfy the "sole reference to instruments" bit. I never log any IF under the NVFR, just to be on the safe side (and cause I rarely fly NVFR). I know people will yell "NO YOU CAN'T, I ALREADY SAID THAT!!!!" - but what's the legal basis for this? We can obviously log IF time under the VFR under the hood (with safety pilot obviously) - so what's different legally about NVFR with absolutely no visual reference?

I know this has been discussed to death over many threads, but I still haven't seen a massively conclusive argument either way.

Although anybody who's said "I generally fly my departures with reference to instruments, not the horizon, so I always log some IF" on a CAVOK day should really go and look up the definition of IF - and it kind of amazes me they actually justify it to themselves to log this.

[The Green Goblin]

The point was that the Metro is quite a good example of an aircraft that needs good IF skills to operate correctly. I believe, anyone who is current on a Metro, is MORE than IF current.

At the risk of a flaming on here I tend to agree with you. The only time you are really looking out the window in a Metro is on Final and during the takeoff/Landing roll. The rest of the time is on the instruments. That being said, you still have some outside reference i.e blue up, brown down out of the minute side windows and a few other clues here and there. You realize how much you do get visual reference from these sources when you fly a black hole approach in a Metro. IMO at night in a Metro without a moon it may as well be IF time as you would not know if you were in cloud until the strobes and beacons reflected off it.

Unfortunately while most agree that if you don't have a horizon at night to establish a visual reference it should be IF time, someone can fly VFR legally in the same conditions without an instrument rating.

In two crew just call I'm eyes in and the PNF can be a safety Pilot while you legally don the foggles and clock up some IF time for currency purposes.

Food for thought.

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Bushy, as always spot on with your answer.

Perhaps you may like to refresh the PPrune experts about the C210 that crashed at Alice in 1989.

[neville_nobody]

When that last runway light is behind you on a dark night with no other lights in the area, conditions are definitely IMC.

err no.:rolleyes: One would have to have viz <5000m and/or cloud.

[Spotlight]

I will have a go at explaining the 210 prang at Alice. I was there, I heard certain things and for many years I have had a fixed understanding in my mind.

It was a 210, Nack and Jack and Air, Coon Air to the rest of us. Kept themselves to themselves mostly. Had a hangar next to the AeroClub.

Circumstances were that a new pilot needed the three take-offs and landings, the senior pilot was to conduct this.

The tower was operating and a clearance for take-off Left circuit was given.

(left circuit off 12 at Alice at night is possible, and safe but not what was generally expected)

The 210 started a right turn, then was asked to confirm left circuit. At that moment the lights went out, as Bushy says Strip and Town.

A Lear was on short final fo 12 and the Tower person was looking for that while pulling a handle for the emergency lighting. Looked for the 210 and it was gone!

[100.above]

anyone got the adsb link to that event?

[PA39]

Bombsgone.....good on you mate, you're spot on! guys and gals please read the regs.

[bushy]

When there are insufficient visual indications to safely control the aeroplane visually,then it is necessary to fly by reference to the instruments. That is IFR flight and should be logged as such, because it is. Whether the cause is cloud, haze, fog or just a lack of any lights,
definition or contrast, the effect is the same. (kennedy?)
I remember being told that jet airliers had such a high nose attitude on takeoff and climb that they always logged IFR due to the lack of a visual horizon.
On the other hand I remember an instructor in England telling me that you don't need a horizon for visual flight if you could see the ground below you. (they did a lot of that in the sixties). Interpretations are many, and our regulation is too often vague on these matters. Despite the legal hairsplitting and skullduggery that sometimes occurs, if you do not have sufficient visual idications you fly by reference to icstruments, and it's IFR.

[ZappBrannigan]

Bushy, I completely agree that at certain attitudes/flight conditions in many different aircraft (not just big jets), the aircraft is best flown by reference to instruments, regardless of weather conditions. When visual traffic avoidance is not an issue, I fly all my IFR departures this way, IMC or not, and I'm only flying piston twins.

I cannot possibly agree though, that any of this type of flight, flown in VMC, can be logged as IF. A specific question about the logging of *IF* (not "IFR" or "IMC") frequently turns into a discussion of the merits of flying certain types primarily on instruments - and while this may be true, and a valid discussion, it's got nothing to do with the legal logging of Instrument Time.

I'm no airline pilot - but anybody logging IF on departure due to a "high nose attitude" is REALLY pushing it.

[BombsGone]

Bushy you are entirely right to bring up the catastrophic results of using visual reference to set attitudes at night. I met a pilot a few years ago who had been taught to use the lights of Sydney as an attitude reference at night! If I set an attitude at night without looking at the AI my instructor would jump down my throat. The only exception as someone pointed out earlier is short finals.

Night flight where you navigate by visual references or use them for orientation does not count as Instrument flight in accordance with the rules.

Edit: What Zapp said.

[Tempo]

So what do you want the pilots to do.....start a stopwatch every time they go into cloud and stop it when they exit. Over a 8 hour flight I can tell you that s*#t is not going to happen. I think 0.2 every sector is fair.

[402bitch]

Moonless night in a metro, if you are looking at anything other than the primary instruments, you will be wondering all over the place. No matter how well you think you have the bastard trimmed up, it'll always gently roll or pitch or if shes really bent...do both!! We still never logged it as IF time but it was always a hot topic. Personally and many freight doggies agree, it should be IF time...all you who disagree need to actually try it sometime.

[mustafagander]

Is NVMC legal for RPT ops?

[Dog One]

RPT has to be planned IFR. A visual approach or departure can br carried out, but NVMC is not approved

[Line Driver]

I don’t believe that IF time can be logged while flying NVFR As you need to have two requirements met to log IF time as per the regs - First IMC is needed and secondly you must be controlling the aircraft by sole reference to instruments.

Even with the black hole effect you only have 1 of these (sole reference to instruments) but lack of a horizon isn't a criteria of maintaining VMC, and therefore isn't IMC conditions. So IF can’t be logged (unless wearing goggles and carrying a safety pilot)

If the regs stated that for VMC you need vis/cloud sep & A HORIZON then a black hole dep would be IMC AND the aircraft being flown by sole reference to instruments so IF could be logged.

But what I want to know from people who argue that
“When that last runway light is behind you on a dark night with no other lights in the area, conditions are definitely IMC.”
Can a non instrument rated pilot legally depart on a NVFR flightplan given they know that they will be breaking VMC and venturing into IMC?

Line Driver

[cficare]

Cum on fellas,

So your've got 10000 hours in the log book...half of which on a IFR plan...how many hours IFR are you claiming???

[eocvictim]

haha NVFR not N V M C I can just see it now "OH damn, sorry boys cant go flying there's NO cloud, its VMC."

Here's another one. What about thick smoke. I remember flying in smoke so thick at 4000 I had could only see the ground below. Its not cloud...

What about when you're in between 3+ layers of cloud. Cloud below above and to the sides. You're technically "IN" Cloud...

For your info I didnt log either as IF but thats me.

Quite often I find myself Flying in the middle of nowhere late at night and have to flick the lights on to check if I'm in IMC. Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. I split the difference.

I log IMC whenever I cant see anything, anywhere. Most of the time you've got stars but sometimes there is a layer above, as far as I'm concerned I could be in a thin layer with no precip, thats IMC.

I dont understand though, I'm logging at least 5 hours a month. Not many approaches now though :(

[The Green Goblin]

I just manage to keep current every three months flying full time. We do't fly in it often as they are usually big black and not nice looking so we go around. Its either cu or blue skies. The only real time you get any decent solid smooth stratus is during cyclone season.

[bentleg]

you need to have two requirements met to log IF time as per the regs - First IMC is needed and secondly you must be controlling the aircraft by sole reference to instruments.
For my education as a new IFR pilot can someone please point me to the regulation that says both requirements apply.


CAO 40.2.11.2 (a) says as one of the currency requirements -
completed 3 hours instrument time
and instrument time is defined at 40.2.1.2.1 as
instrument time means instrument flight time and instrument ground time

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

Screw it, what if I just blast into cloud and all sorts of terrible IMC but refuse to fly by instruments? If I do this (and manage to live somehow) do I have to log IF as I didn't fly by sole reference to the instrument?

~FRQ CB

[framer]

Geeeeeeze Wayne, this just as painful as it was last year!
How about stop clinging rules like they themselves will come and save you on a dark stormy night ,and start using some common sense. If it is safer to fly soley by reference to the instruments (ie departure into the desert at night ) then do so ,and log it as IF. If you can happily do a mix of inside and outside to build your picture then don't.

[ZappBrannigan]

But what I want to know from people who argue that
“When that last runway light is behind you on a dark night with no other lights in the area, conditions are definitely IMC.”
Nobody should be actually arguing that. Yes, it's practically IMC, for all intents and purposes it's IMC, but it's not IMC. IMC is a legal, technical term that precisely defines conditions to be below a certain level (i.e. VMC). It seems a disturbing amount of people here don't seem to know the difference between IF, IFR and IMC. Note: I'm still sitting on the fence as to whether you can log "black hole" NVFR time.

If conditions were "definitely IMC", then you wouldn't be allowed to legally depart NVFR. Pretty simple.

IFR defines the flight rules - nothing else. IMC defines the conditions as less than VMC, regardless of what you can or cannot actually see in front of you. IF defines flight where there are no external visual cues assisting the pilot flying. And the prescence or absence of cloud is not a requirement for any of them.

[compressor stall]

Howard Hughes and Zapp - top of the class. :ok: You appear to be the only ones who have got the guts of the night IF issue from - surprise, surprise - the CAR Definitions! It's funny how so many people here have posted moaning and bleating about this being a thread every year, but they still get it wrong! Maybe it should be here every 6 months? :eek:

It seems many people should check the definitions in the front of the CARs of both Instrument Flight and Instrument Meteorological Conditions. Then check that of VMC and follow its lead to VFR flight. A good understanding of same would save much irrelevant twaddle every year and erroneous statements in this thread. Remember IMC is defined as not VMC which is in turn determined by those VFR flight distances from cloud.

Unless the CARs and CAOs have changed since September 2009, one CAN log IF on a pitch black night with no external references. The category of operation (IFR or VFR) is irrelevant. All that matters is that it is completely black out there and you are flying with sole reference to instruments. These conditions are less common than many people think.

Refer to the following thread where it is explained in detail by me (and others) 6 years ago.

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/109353-faking-log-book-flying-hours-3.html

And the list of points that BombsGone gave on page one in this thread are from an obselete blue AIC that is no longer - most likely as it contradicted the CARs and CAOs. :ugh: The fact that it still exists in the front of many logbooks does not make it "straight from CASA" nor correct.

[j3pipercub]

I was going to mention that a thread like this tends to do the rounds every 9-12 months, just outside the realms of most people's living/working memory...

[BombsGone]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Home (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_90100)

What I quoted on page one comes straight from the CASA web page covering the logging of flight time. It doesn't come directly from the CAR's and CAO's.

Compressor Stall. Thanks for pointing me at the CAR's. Volume 1 interpretation:

instrument flight time means flight time during which a person is flying an aircraft solely by reference to instruments and without external reference points.
instrument ground time means time during which a person practices simulated instrument flight in a synthetic flight trainer that has been approved by CASA under regulation 5.60.

I guess the key here seems to be "without external reference". Not that you're not looking at them but that they don't exist.

My major beef is that it appeared that people were advocating bending the rules so as not to have to meet recency requirements.

I think I've said enough on the topic.

Happy Flying

Bombs

[compressor stall]

BombsGone - thanks for the link. It's interesting that that old AIC has reappeared in a different form online. As said, it contradicts the CARs and CAOs.... No doubt two FOIs will have three opinions on the matter :E
I guess the key here seems to be "without external reference". Not that you're not looking at them but that they don't exist.


Exactly. And there are not too many areas and even fewer occasions when this is the case. e.g. you'd struggle to meet this in Victoria when clear of cloud.

[NOSIGN]

"So what do you want the pilots to do.....start a stopwatch every time they go into cloud and stop it when they exit. Over a 8 hour flight I can tell you that s*#t is not going to happen. I think 0.2 every sector is fair. "

Tempo,

I use a stop watch timing when I enter and leave IMC. It isn't as painful as it sounds. Even if you miss a few bouts of IMC, you have a better understanding of what 0.1 IMC is after you have been timing it for years. You're right though, maybe that's not everyone's cup of tea.

I started this method just after my IR after hearing a story that a retired QANTAS LH Capt had less IF time than some of the young GA Pilots wandering around.

NOSIGN

[hardNfast]

Pitch black night and your flying under IFR and using your instruments. Technically you could be in VMC. However how often have you flown into a cloud and not realised til your stobes are flashing in your face?

In fact being so dark how can you tell your actually VMC? There may be a cloud out there within 1000ft or 1500m (think thats the VMC requirment). You wouldn't see it til your in it.

Its dark your flying off instruments in my opinion is IF time. this doesn't apply if your flying over Sydney or another large town.

[43Inches]

My major beef is that it appeared that people were advocating bending the rules so as not to have to meet recency requirements.


Spot on,

This defines what can be logged;


instrument flight time means flight time during which a person is flying an aircraft solely by reference to instruments and without external reference points.



"Without external reference" includes lack of directional sunlight providing basic orientation. Whether you are flying a jet off the panel or a light trainer via the horizon, in day VMC especially you will always have an extra sense playing its part. Without knowing it your brain is still factoring which way is up not purely from the instruments alone. You will only know how well you orientate without this factor when it is gone. Hence the requirement to maintain some form of recency. Recency ensures you remember to maintain an effective scan in situations requiring it.

Transport category pilots are less prone to accidents of this form in modern times more due to the fact of autoflight and two crew, feel a little disoriented switch on the autopilot.

As far as;


"So what do you want the pilots to do.....start a stopwatch every time they go into cloud and stop it when they exit. Over a 8 hour flight I can tell you that s*#t is not going to happen. I think 0.2 every sector is fair. "


I'm sure you could quite easily make an estimate of the total flight time in cloud without being too pedantic. However to just say you did 0.2 on a flight in clear skies with 100km vis is just wrong. Also what on earth are you doing during the 8 hours that you lack time to estimate how much cloud was entered.

As far as the Metro goes I think CASA should introduce a new category of aircraft for this machine as it must be vastly different to everything else out there (Aeroplane, Airship, Balloon, Helicopter and Metroliner).

[glekichi]

I'm not totally against it, but the fact is that a lot of people milk the logging of IF at night.

350 Hrs of night and still no expert but I still haven't seen more than one or two times when there is no visual reference whatsoever (and yes, I fly in the middle of nowhere).

There is almost always a few stars or a ship or something, and even when you can't see anything then you should still be scanning outside for traffic so not truly flying 'solely' on the instruments like you are when in cloud.

If you're gonna log black hole night as IF and are visual the rest of the time then why do we even bother with a night column in the logbook? Because its not Day VMC, but IMHO its not IF either: Its night visual flying and its a whole skill of its own.

[hardNfast]

Here is a good one I have just thought of.

If while flying under IFR at night can you not make a Visual Apporach like during the day from 25nm? I'm only guessing not enough visual refernce? You have to shoot an approach or wait until you are within circiling area where you would be visual.

[The Green Goblin]

350 Hrs of night and still no expert but I still haven't seen more than one or two times when there is no visual reference whatsoever (and yes, I fly in the middle of nowhere).

Perhaps in NZ....

In Australia flying over the dessert you may not see a light on the ground for two hours, in fact the only lights you will often see are the city you depart from and the runway lights at your destination. If there is overcast and no moon it's awfully dark out there. While not defined as IMC as you can legally fly in the same conditions NVFR i'd love to see the average non instrument rated Pilot who is barely current do it with ease.

Personally I think flying in cloud is easier than flying in the above conditions, at least you are popping in and out of the blue yonder occasionally and can often see the brightness of the sun above through the murk.

When you are signed out on a Australian NVFR rating you are specifically told "while you can fly with this rating anytime anywhere subject to the regulatory requirements, it is in spirit, designed as a tool to depart before first light and arrive after last light giving your flight planning more flexibility". "If you require to be able to fly in the middle of the night an instrument rating is highly recommended".

I don't think from what I have read on here anybody is confused or doesn't know the difference between IMC-IFR, IFR-VMC and VMC-VFR and NVFR, I just think most people are pointing out the 'gray' areas in the regs.

I always found it fascinating that I could be flying a Metro completely on the instruments with no outside reference what-so-ever at night, yet it's still VMC as there is no cloud.

In spite of what the regs say, if I cannot see a horizon regardless of the in-flight visibility (how can you tell if you can't see anything) I consider myself in IMC, YET I will only log I/F time if I was flying in cloud.......everyone I have spoken to has their own interpretation. Generally you log what the CP or checkies interpretation is depending on your company.

[glekichi]

Nah GG all but 20 of that is in OZ.

Perhaps up north over the ice cream (sorry:E) you get more overcast up in the flight levels (genuine question)?

Down in the south east the 99% of the cloud is below 10k, so in the cruise the night is usually quite starry and whilst you couldn't necessarily fly just by looking outside you definitely have a cue if the aircraft begins to pitch, roll, or yaw, which, even if only picked up by the peripheral vision, adds to the scan and makes flying easier than what it would be in a true black hole under overcast.

[The Green Goblin]

Up north particularly during the dry there is a lot of smoke and haze which creates a huge inversion at night. You can't see the ground very well above 10,000 feet during the day! Just brown murk. At night no chance.

There is also a lot of high level cirrus and during the wet it is overcast much of the time, although generally during the wet the sky is much clearer and visibility better.

If you are flying south eastern Australia there will always be lights, navaids and generally (but not always) the air is clearer. Up north there is literally nothing for large distances and it gets really black!

[ZappBrannigan]

Up north there is literally nothing for large distances and it gets really black!Yep. I've flown early morning departures up north into the black hole plenty of times - climbed through a bit of cloud at the lower levels, then sat in the cruise at 10,000' for a long time with nothing but inky black all around.

I certainly agree with your earlier post that the NVFR rating should be used sensibly - not as a pseudo-CIR for long flights into the black hole.

[eocvictim]

Here is a good one I have just thought of.

If while flying under IFR at night can you not make a Visual Apporach like during the day from 25nm? I'm only guessing not enough visual refernce? You have to shoot an approach or wait until you are within circiling area where you would be visual.


Its an LSALT thing, it allows you to descend earlier, not really the same context we're discussing.

350 Hrs of night and still no expert but I still haven't seen more than one or two times when there is no visual reference whatsoever (and yes, I fly in the middle of nowhere).

How far is the middle of nowhere? Bass Strait? (I dont know if you are but that has heaps of light references)

Flying out in the center a truck in the distance will often look like a plane flying towards you, sound like you could see the horizon? Obviously its not IF and I wouldn't be logging it but if I cant see those trucks or stars above (there are no towns) I log it.

[glekichi]

Ecovictim, yes a lot of that time is over bass straight, and I know of people who log a lot of it as IF time. :yuk:
There may be a few ships about on a clear night, but its the stars that are visible mostly. No horizon, but, as I said earlier, you can still get cues that assist in flying.
The explanation given by GG of high level overcast further north makes sense, and I appreciate there would be more true black hole situations up/out there.

[Stationair8]

Done much flying over Bass Strait at night time glekichi?

In fact done much night flying at all?

Done any real IFR flying?

Big dark world at there when you get away from the bright lights of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.

GG makes a valid comment about smoke haze in the NT, try flying around regional Victoria or NSW when the bushfire season is on, smoke can go up to FL200 plus and can vary in visiblity from a few 100 metres to a bit over 1000m.

[glekichi]

Done much work on reading and comprehension?

The bulk of the 350 night hours is IFR over bass straight.

I don't call that a whole heap, but enough to know that flying over bass straight out of cloud is incredibly different to flying it in cloud, and that difference needs to be reflected in the logbook!

[porch monkey]

Ah, but on those few really clear nights Owen, levelling off at 10000 out of Tassie, you can just make out the glow of good old Mel. Or the flashes of the thunderstorms waiting to meet you on the way........:ok: Enjoy!

[eocvictim]

I've done my fair share of night flying around Vic SA NSW and Tassy but nothing compares to the black hole you get in WA/NT. I thought I knew what a blackhole approach was before I flew in WA. Give me a dark night into Whitemark over Giles anytime!

But this is getting way off topic.

[bushy]

If there is a total absence of outside light then you cannot see hills, objects or a horizon and visibility is below that requred for visual flight. Conditions are IMC. Instrument flight is required and should be logged as IF.
This can happen without low cloud, fog or haze. It usually requires overcast to eliminate starlight, and a lack of ground lighting.
Our esteemed regulators have have not spelled this out in their writings, but I am sure a court would find it so. And there have been many accidents to prove it.
The coroner in the Alice springs C210 accident actually went for a night flight in the police Navajo to see this for himself.
It is also important to realise that legal flight according to the written rules is necessary but the rules alone may not guarantee safety.We need to look further.

[ZappBrannigan]

If there is a total absence of outside light then you cannot see hills, objects or a horizon and visibility is below that requred for visual flight. Conditions are IMC. Instrument flight is required and should be logged as IF.I'm sorry mate, but it isn't IMC. And this is not what visibility means in aviation terminology. You might be in a total black hole, not a single bit of light - but if there isn't a shred of weather around, it's VMC and the visibility is >10km. You are correct that instrument flight is required - but it's instrument flight in VMC.

You might not be able to see anything - but if a hypothetical aircraft 10km ahead of you turned on its powerful landing light aimed straight at you, you'd instantly be able to see it. So visibility is >10km. It's slightly disturbing that people here, especially some of the more experienced guys, don't seem to have their head around this.

Note well: I'm NOT saying conditions are not "as bad as" IMC. But it's clearly not IMC, and the courts, which deal with strict legal definition, would find the conditions to have been VMC and the flight quite legal.

I agree with your last sentence.

[compressor stall]

Bushy - I.F. and I.M.C. are two totally different concepts. IMC does not mean that you can automatically log IF.

IMC is defined in CARs as non VMC. To look at it the other way, you can be at 10,000' and 100m laterally from a towering Cu and can see the horizon 121nm away in broad daylight (or at night). This is not VFR, therefore by definition, non VMC, thus you are IMC. Clearly you can't log IF here.

Instrument Flight relies solely on the inability to have an external reference. Nothing to do with Flight Rules or Instrument conditions.

Forgive me if I sound like a broken record, but this understanding is such an important point and does help to explain things. Personally, I think the regs that matter (CARs and CAOs) are quite clear in this, but they are obfuscated the regurgitated AIC now published on the CASA website. :ugh:

EcoVictim - Give me Giles over Eucla!

[Tee Emm]

Accordingly logging a percentage of each or most flights as instrument time is perfectly normal and practiced by most airline pilots.

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...:ok:

[Tee Emm]

Talking about flying over the never never on pitch black nights. Many years ago I met a RNZAF Hastings pilot who did a regular courier service NZ to Singapore via Amberley and Darwin. He was told that between Amberley and Darwin the population was sparce and not to expect ground lights for hours at a time.

Not so, he found out and reported that he could often see at night millions of tiny lights on the ground over the outback. He later figured they must have been the upturned eyes of the flies.:ok:

[xxgoldxx]

thanks for stallie..
if you cant see ****e its time to log IF..
the actual conditions are irrelevant..
how could anyone say that mornington island to Groote on a moonless night with high overcast is not by "sole reference".. nearest cloud at your level might be 200nm away..

[bushy]

And visibility means being able to see things that are out there.

[ZappBrannigan]

And visibility means being able to see things that are out there.Not in aviation it doesn't. How can I put this any clearer? Nowhere in the definition of VMC or IMC does physically being able to see objects matter. Actually requiring visual on objects starts coming into play with visual approach requirements, descent below LSALT, MDA etc. The requirements for VMC are not affected in the slightest by absence of light.

It's GFPT level stuff.

[xxgoldxx]

I dont really think anyone is debating that.. but its got nothing to do with logging IF.. if someone has to turn on a light to see if your in VMC then you must be flying by "sole reference" and therefore entitled to log as IF..

[compressor stall]

Thanks Zapp, over to you from now on :ok:

As an aside, I never bother, but I could have legally logged 0.4 I.F. the other day - when in day VMC. That's another story though. :):E

[43Inches]

if someone has to turn on a light to see if your in VMC then you must be flying by "sole reference" and therefore entitled to log as IF..


Having your own lights on will very quickly tell you whether your in IMC. The landing lights and strobes will refract/reflect back into the cockpit if in cloud.

[xxgoldxx]

Ah yeah.. by someone I did mean anyone..

what difference would it make to logging IF..?

[Exaviator]

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/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

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

[bushy]

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.

[ZappBrannigan]

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 :)

[The Green Goblin]

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.

Practical

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.

[ZappBrannigan]

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.

[eocvictim]

and close, lock and sticky perhaps?

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