Logging of Instrument Flight Time open to faking

[Centaurus]

The Australian 31 May has an ad for an RFDS management pilot. It stipulates among other things the applicant must have at least 8 instrument rating renewals, not less than 6000 hours command and 600 hours instrument flight time. Not bad qualifications for someone flying a light twin turbo-prop.

A CASA audit of a pilots claimed flying hours is a matter of going through past records. It may be time consuming of course. An audit of claimed instrument flight time is a different matter since there is no way the truth of such hours can be independently verified. It is not uncommon to see obvious discrepancies between claimed instrument flight hours in a pilot's log book compared with his total experience. For example there is anecdotal evidence that Cathay Pacific interview boards watch closely for this situation.

Once the pilot completes his initial command instrument rating course at a flying school, where CASA only has to check his progress record to verify true instrument flight time hours, there is usually no further verification of instrument flight time during a pilots career. In fact it is well known that some pilots log a set amount of instrument flight time hours for every flight; notwithstanding IMC never existed.

The RFDS would be well advised to keep in mind that dishonest logging of instrument flight time is rife in the industry and there is no way they can verify a candidate's claimed instrument flight time hours. Further still, because it is legal to log time spent on automatic pilot in IMC it is quite probable the majority of the claimed instrument flight time was spent monitoring an autopilot.

So if 600 hours instrument flight time is one criteria for getting a job as a KingAir pilot in the RFDS, it is not a reliable indication of the candidates flying experience on instruments - especially if autopilot time is included. In short, the RFDS selection board are fooling themselves since there will never be a reliable method of ensuring the 600 claimed hours are indeed verifiable and true hours. In that case, what's the point of demanding a certain qualification when there is no way of confirming its veracity?

Three experienced airline pilots with whom I have been associated with for many years and whose logged instrument flight time was hand flying only (in other words not on autopilot), the total flight time in their log books versus their instrument flight time was:

Pilot 1 15,000 hours of which 700 were hand flown in IMC.
Pilot 2 11,000 hours of which 520 were hand flown in IMC.
Pilot 3. 23,500 hours of which 1470 were hand flown in IMC.

Compare those "honest" hours with one character now safely esconsed in a major overseas airline who got his job with a total of 5200 total hours of which he claimed over 2500 hours on instruments while flying an Aussie Boeing 727 and DC9... Autopilots are wonderful things.

[morno]

Depends how you look at it Centaurus.

Sure, most pilots spend their time in IMC on autopilot these days, but I believe you still need those instrument flying skills, to ensure that what the autopilot is doing, is what it should be doing and everything is all working out as it should be. I've seen even the most advanced autopilots, do things that they shouldn't be doing.

The thing is, where does it say that IF time should only be logged while hand flying anyway? The company I work for, recommends the use of the autopilot for as much of the flight as possible to reduce pilot workload, among other things. If I could only log IF for the times that I were handflying, then it'd take me a month to log 0.1 IF!

Imagine the consequences because of lack of recency.

It depends on what that pilots experience is. It could be 6,000hrs of airline flying, which could be difficult to prove 600hrs of instrument flying time. However, if it were say 6,000hrs of previous turbo-prop experience, then there's a fair chance that they could well have near 600hrs IF time (sitting right in the weather a lot of the time). That said, I believe that as a rough proportion, IF time shouldn't exceed anymore than 10-12% of someone's total time.

I'll give you an example. Last week, I did a 7.8hr day. Of that 7.8hrs, which was in a turbo-prop, I only saw the ground during take off and landing, plus a bit more on descent into one of my destinations. Therefore I thought it quite legitimate, to log 6hrs IF.

The other thing, and this'll really open a can of worms. It's a dark, black, outback night. No visible horizon, very little ground lighting, you're completely reliant on your instruments. IF time? I can't see why not....

morno

[Ultralights]

im sure a pretender with falsified IFR time in actual IMC will be found out quite rapidly on their first flight into a dirt strip lit by burning barrels with cloud just on LSALT and a stiff crosswind at 3 am.

[deadcut]

Isn't this the reason why most Aussie operators require number of renewals instead of instrument time. If they need 3 renewals that means that pilot would have been checked to be competent 3 times thus will have good instrument skills.

[Tee Emm]

The thing is, where does it say that IF time should only be logged while hand flying anyway? The company I work for, recommends the use of the autopilot for as much of the flight as possible to reduce pilot workload, among other things. If I could only log IF for the times that I were handflying, then it'd take me a month to log 0.1 IF

I don't think there are any ICAO civil regulations that state anything about hand flying as a prequisite to log instrument flight time. But you make a interesting point about you would only log 0.1 in a month for the times you handflew on instruments. Let's be clear on this point, though. Hand flying on instruments requires certain skills.

Watching an autopilot fly the aircraft in cloud or at night in IMC takes another set of skills, particularly if you are having your lunch on your knee, and admiring the attractive FA when she brings in the coffee.:ok:

Obviously there is a world of difference. Decades back, both in civil aviation and the military, it was considered cheating yourself if you logged autopilot time on the clocks. In fact, the RAAF log books issued in those times specifically directed that instrument time could only be logged if hand flying. This recognised the fact that experience with hand flying on instruments was considered valuable and a vital part of assesssment of a pilots flying experience. Not so nowadays, as seen above where watching the autopilot becomes a boring exercise so much that pilots have been known to fall asleep.

[Tee Emm]

If they need 3 renewals that means that pilot would have been checked to be competent 3 times thus will have good instrument skills

True, except in simulators most of the renewals are with full use of the automatics and a very small percentage by hand. Not a true test of instrument flying ability but ticks the legal boxes of course and that is the main thing it seems.:E

[ANCPER]

TM,

I guess it's about 15 yrs ago when CASA changed the requirement, prior to that it was required to be hand flown to log IF.

[Tinstaafl]

Interestingly, in the US an instrument instructor may log IF in IMC while the student flies. And some places (JAR-la-la land, for one) specify IF*R* time, not IF, for various things.

[Towering Q]

It's a dark, black, outback night. No visible horizon, very little ground lighting, you're completely reliant on your instruments. IF time? I can't see why not....


Absolutely....flying a 'black hole approach' can be just as demanding as flying an instrument approach.

[blacklabel]

Well 600 is 10% of 6000 which is about right as a ball park figure of what u should have if u fly under the ifr on a regular basis.
It is hard to start and stop a stopwatch every time you get in or out of cloud. Personally i find it unfair that an ifr instructor can't log any if other than what he is hand flying although he could be in the poo with a student for 3 h, which is what they do in the states, which is more aligned with ICAO regulation, what Australia used to do ! !

[PA39]

You're only fooling yourself if you fudge your IF hours. Personally I didn't allow coupled approaches or the over use of the A/P on a renewal. One must learn to hand fly in IMC and handle the workload on his own. The time may come when you will be on your own and the A/P F/D has gone U/S. You can judge how the candidate handles him/herself within the first five minutes if they are capable of handling an aircraft in IMC. Falsifying hours only falsifys oneself.

[Kelly Slater]

Anything more than about 10% of total time will be looked on dubiously, no matter how legitimate. Keep the IF ticking over in the log book to satisfy requirements but even if it is justified, I wouldn't recommend filling the book with what may seem excessive IF hours to others.

[compressor stall]

This pops its head up every couple of years.

Yes you can log IF on a dark horizon less night clear of cloud.

When flown by George, however, it has the same value as when George flying IMC. Legal, but pointless.

[Offcut]

It's the most pointless column in the log book. Where I work we simply log a fixed amount per sector as PF. In NZ the rules state to log time as IF if it is spent "navigating solely by reference to instruments" or something similar. Which is from takeoff to shortly before touch down on every flight. There is no reference to cloud. So should we be logging the whole flight? But then there is this 10% rule of thumb. Where did that come from? I think a more accurate column would be a "IFR flight plan" one.

[ga_trojan]

Yes you can log IF on a dark horizon less night clear of cloud.

Unless the rules changed recently you have to be in in cloud to log IF in Australia other countries have different rules and interpretations.

If you fake IF time you'll get caught at a interview as most people will expect IF time to be within a specific ratio of total time. You will have a hard time explaining 1500 total and 1000 IF unless you were doing night freight in Tasmania or New Zealand.

It's people who fake twin time and shaft everybody to the decent jobs are the guys who should be hung drawn and quartered and I believe a few have over the years.

[By George]

Well I am George, by George, and my IF time is only 5% of my total. 10% would be maximum in my book. Meaningless really, a simulator ride will always tell the real truth. I still only log 'hands on' and not autopilot because that's the way I started and I can see no point in logging the mechanical George.

[Tee Emm]

Where I work we simply log a fixed amount per sector as PF

Even though you may be flying in CAVOK? Does this not prove that logging of instrument flight time is entirely dependent on the honesty of the pilot:E

[compressor stall]

Ga-Trojan. Please show me the regs to support that statement. Start with the beginning of the CARs

[404 Titan]

CS,

We have been down this argument before but unless you are prepared to test the regulators interpretation of the regulations in court it is a very brave individual to argue against their stance, especially at an audit.

[OpsNormal]

Centaurus does raise some valid points however having been through the selection process of the operator being referred to recently, any shortcomings in one's claimed IF time become immediately apparent. There are a number of members of staff involved in the recruitment process who are very astute at getting to know how a candidate's performance aligns with his/her logbook and are very good at weeding out those who are not so aligned...

On one hand Australia still has a number of Commuter category turbo props in service in which an autopilot would be a well recieved part of the avionics (such as most Metros, some Jetstreams etc). It is usually found that these people have a very good manipulative skill set while they are current on these machines. While no-one can truly say for certain that the claimed IF hours on these aircraft are true in all senses of the word, what IF they are actually doing is old school IF being hand flown. Most other multi crew turbo prop operators have a column in their paperwork for the recording of IF time. Those who tend to round up "significantly" are usually soon identified and a quiet word sought...

I must admit I have seen some interesting interpretations of IF, even from one well known FSM from another section of the organisation being discussed in an "informal chat" one day.

My IF? A quick look shows a bit below average it seems at around 7% of my Total Time. I must try harder it seems but I will say one thing - the way my new employer lists IF experience on their website you'd need well above the minimum specified total time hours for a look in at a position.

What percentage of pilots are deliberately over logging IF? I wouldn't know, but reckon they'd get found out fairly quickly if they did so in any of the operations I've been involved in to date.

Regards,

OpsN.;)

[kalavo]

So if you're in Class A airspace and you've put the windshield cover up so you cant see a thing outside, does it count as IF?

[Tankengine]

It counts as being an idiot!:ugh:
Mark one eyeball is still the best defence against all sorts of ****.:=

[Jack Ranga]

You guys are full of it :ugh: either you obey the rules AS THEY ARE WRITTEN IN LEGISLATION or you are whingers. Either shut your mouths, comply with the legislation & log instrument time as it is legislated or quit whinging on this board & actually do something about the change process.

Yep, as I thought, whingers............

[Super Cecil]

Big day today Ranga?

[Offcut]

(c) A pilot who manipulates the flight controls of an aircraft under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions solely by reference to instruments and without external reference points is entitled to be credited with the instrument flight time acquired in this way towards the total instrument flight time experience required for—

(1) a higher grade of pilot licence; or

(2) an instrument rating; or

(3) the recent experience requirement of an instrument rating already held.


The above is copied directly from part 61 in NZ. I'm guessing it must be different in Oz. I have only about 6% of my total time as IF, despite 90% of it being conducted under IFR. My reading of the above is that it is legal to log the whole flight as IF, regardless of autopilot or weather conditions. As long as you do not navigate by looking out the window. Which I do not. It is simply tradition that anything over 10% is considered fraudulent. Am I wrong?

[Wally Mk2]

Stop whinging JR, you've been labeled we all know that but why practice it?:E:E

Like most things humans do they are open to interpretation & abuse.
Reg's are fine we have them & we need them but not everyone follows them, the road speed limit for Eg is one big ticket item that is broken by EVERYONE so logging IMC flight time is subjective & inaccurate but the honest ones out there do their best:-)
At the end of the day telling fibs is only fooling yourself.


Wmk2

[Jack Ranga]

lol Wal :}

If you don't comply with the rules there are consequences??

If the rules are ambiguous that's not your fault as a pilot. If it can be justified, do it. As on another thread, strict liability will sort it out?

[Ejector]

Many Western developed countries it is legal and normal to log IFR flight Time as IF time.

[scavenger]

Interestingly, in the US an instrument instructor may log IF in IMC while the student flies. And some places (JAR-la-la land, for one) specify IF*R* time, not IF, for various things.

I am led to believe that instructors will indeed be able to log IF while student flies or monitors autopilot in IMC under new Part 61. Long overdue.

[Howard Hughes]

My IF? A quick look shows a bit below average it seems at around 7% of my Total Time. A quick check of my logbook shows about the same, 7%! :ok:

[ga_trojan]

Ga-Trojan. Please show me the regs to support that statement. Start with the beginning of the CARs

AIC H10/99 is pretty clear as to what is expected. I'm not a fluent with the CAO/CARs as I once was but I thought the CAOs had a reference to it.

You would have a hard time going to court and arguing that flight on a moonless night with no horizon is IFR. How can you log IF time when in the exact same conditions you could fly NVFR?

Also then what determines IF? Is the Takeoff IF time too? If so what are the operating minimas that apply there? The problem with saying that flying on a moonless night is IF is you create other problems.

It will all unravel in a big way if you have a incident and then there is some dispute over what flight time you have.

[Andy_RR]

Offcut, are you manipulating the flight controls still when the autopilot is engaged...?

I read your quote as meaning hand flying only.

[Offcut]

Hmm, that's an interesting point. I've certainly never had anyone raise that before. My way of thinking is that even with the autopilot on, you are still manipulating the controls, just doing it through the autopilot. Contrary to public opinion, these aircraft don't fly themselves. If this isn't the case then there would literally be no current IFR pilots in my airline. Ie, only logging handflown, IMC time, we would get maybe 30 mins a month max. So therefore most guys simply log two hours per sector flown as PF (long haul). Like I said earlier, I think it is so irrelevant these days to be pointless. Time spent on an IFR plan would give a much better summary of experience in my opinion.

[darkroomsource]

I believe all the confusion comes from the statements in the regs (as far as I know they all say about the same thing, but there are some slight differences) is that the regs mostly say IF is to be logged when flying by reference to instruments, not external references.
And those who 'take advantage' of this, tend to think that means navigation by instruments.
I believe, however, that most regulatory agencies have made it clear that if you're keeping the shiny side up by instruments alone, then you should be logging IF, but if you're keeping the shiny side up by looking outside, then you shouldn't be logging IF. So cloud layer above and below - IF, cloud layer below, blue sky above - NOT IF. See the ground - NOT IF.

[das Uber Soldat]

Logging IF at night whilst flying in VMC? lol. Jesus.

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

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;

:rolleyes:

edit : Instead of waiting i'll see off the predictable response now. The above appears to have no legislative backing and has been stated prior to be 'at odds' with the legislative reality.

I agree that the regs, the CAO specifically avoids referencing class of flight (IFR/VFR) or even being in IMC. You can conduct 'instrument flight' if you are flying soley via reference to the instruments in situations where no external reference is available.

However, the conduct of 'instrument flight' is not what is up for debate, but rather what you can log. 40.1.0 - 10.9 addresses this and limits it specifically and relevantly to flight in instrument conditions.

Before you jump up with 'ha!', 'flight in instrument conditions' is defined precisely nowhere in the regulations, be it CAR, CAO or even AIP.

Be that there is no specific definition to link it to 'instrument flight' and that there are specific instructions issued by CASA as shown above I think you'd be an optimistic man should you find yourself in front of a magistrate or relevant authority to claim that you had every right to log instrument flight in visual conditions.

I generally take the safe view. Having four figure cmd hours in a Metro flying in the middle of the night, by some arguments here I could log nearly 90% of my flight time as IF.

I find that scenario ridiculous and would expect the same reaction from any potential employer.

[j3pipercub]

Get back to the ACOS Soldat

[das Uber Soldat]

Im already finished so ner :P

[morno]

Flying up and down the east coast, even on a moonless night - enough external lighting to not warrant calling it IF time.

Flying out around western Qld, on a moonless night, when you can't see ****, then how could you not justify that as being IF? Maybe someone from CASA needs to come flying with me sometime and tell me exactly what I'm supposed to be looking at outside. But they couldn't possibly do that, because it'd mean working after 5pm.

morno

[A37575]

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;

(Australian rules meaning manual flying or autopilot flying)

(c) A pilot who manipulates the flight controls of an aircraft under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions solely by reference to instruments and without external reference points is entitled to be credited with the instrument flight time..

(NZ rules meaning hand flying only)


In other words the above examples of regulations would indicate "manipulating the controls" means manual flying and "providing input to the autopilot" is another thing altogether.

[Howard Hughes]

Flying out around western Qld, on a moonless night, when you can't see ****, then how could you not justify that as being IF?
Tell me about it! Probably why I only have 7% IF! :ooh:

Note: Substitute Western Qld with Western NSW.;)

[Checkboard]

I am amazed that a reply in post #2 quoting the regs would stop this thread. The number of (presumably) licensed pilots saying "I don't know about the regs, but ..." astonishes me (for Australia - no one in the rest of the world reads the things ...)

[OpsNormal]

The problem is Checkers is that the Regs are still the mish mash of rubbish they were before you guys headed off to the You Kaye. Nothing has changed really apart from they've succeeded in making the rules even more ambiguous where they could.

A sceptical person might wonder why CASA was so keen to introduce strict liability all those years ago when they realised they would never quite "get around" to getting the rule book too clearly written... Hence the differing interpretations of some as to what actually constitutes IF time...

[Oktas8]

The IF currency rules are quite a bit more complicated than they need to be. Secondly, they fail to distinguish between someone in an airline environment (including a cyclic recurrency program) and someone in a less structured role.

Hence we have pilots in GA who don't know the rules, although they should, and pilots in the airlines who are required to learn rules that do not contribute to safety in the context of that operation.

Your EASA currency rules, Checkers, are a model of simplicity. Pass an annual renewal with one precision and one non-precision approach, and go flying!*

Oktas "put me down for 0.2" 8

* Not quite that simple I know.

[neville_nobody]

Checkboard it is not in the regs hence the disagreement. And the damn things change so often you have to 'qualify your statement with ' last time I looked'.
Australian pilots are probably more legally aware than other countries because of the appaling legal state of aviation regulation. Hence the myriad legal debates here on pprune which in other countries is a non event. This post being another one!:ok:

[haughtney1]

Australian pilots are probably more legally aware than other countries because of the appaling legal state of aviation regulation. Hence the myriad legal debates here on PPRuNe which in other countries is a non event. This post being another one!

Which would explain their well deserved reputation (with notable exceptions) for being pedantic nitpicking b'stards:}
Seriously? I'm more interested in the price of a beer at the hotel or if the bog paper is 100 grit or 1000 grit...:E
My advice is to get out more:ok: