2Donks said (with regard to my quote from LASORS):
What it really means is that time spent under screens is factored for the purposes of assessing total instrument time
Yes, that's true, but I think you're missing the point.
What my quote says is that flight by sole reference to instruments and not under IFR (in other words, simulated instrument time) is
more valuable than IFR time. 1 hour under the foggles counts as
4 hours of actual IFR time.
Therefore, there can be no ambiguity - so far as the requirements for instructing for an IR are concerned, the 800 hours which are needed are
IFR, not necessarily IMC. It is precisely because so much IFR flying is done in VMC that simulated instrument time is considered more valuable than actual instrument time.
Although my quote relates purely to instructing for the IR, and not to anything else, is it not reasonable, in the absence of anything else defnitive, to assume that this logging of IFR time might apply in other circumstances too?
I don't know the answer, by the way - I'm just trying to stir things up a little.....
FFF
-------------