Struggling to see how you chaps got this to 5 pages....the last 4 of which haven't reffered to the original post
US and everywhere else
Log time in cloud or when you are on instruments......
In the UK
Log time when IFR, all this BS that guppy goes on about padding your log book out is absolutely that - BS. The distinction beween the two is made quite clear by the longstanding policy that you factor it back by 4:1 its been like that for donkeys and you only need it to have a bloody IRI rating issued
At the end of the day, if you have a national CPL or ATPL you have demonstrated IF competency to the required standard and had the ticket issued. Period. If you have a EASA/JAA VFR CPL then you haven't demonstrated competency but the EU regs havn't caught up with this hence the conflciting references. Technically you could get a VFR CPL fly round in VMC on an IFR flightplan outside controlled airspace deviating levels and headings to maintain VMC for 400 hours and then factor that figure back to 100 hours and qualify as an IRI - probably just cheaper to do the IR - the whole course of which qualifys as sole reference.
You should be looking at ICAO references not the FARs/JAR's one of the authorities has an exemption filed somewhere.
The rules and regs in the UK may not be perfect but the US are similarly afflicted, they had some ludicrously lax rules on (61.55) second in command ratings that technically allowed engineers with PPL's and hardly any training into the RHS of some very heavy iron (such as G4's and 737's)
Were these guys "padding out" their logbook guppy?? Shouldn't they have been sat on a ramp at luton with their mickey mouse non-type ratings? The CAA certainly thought so becasue they grounded 3 airplanes that day until they were properly crewed. This is a good example of a badly written regulation, lets be honest which column we use for logging time either side of the pond isn't a major factor affecting flight safety is it.
The CAA filed an objection to the exception to the ICAO rules that the FAA had in place and that loophole was subsequently closed
So regulators dont always get it right, Ive got both ATP's and personally I'm more concerned about the filed ICAO differences to runway markings in the US than how I qualified as an IRI 10 years ago!
Back to the discussion, I'd rather hire a guy thats been operating a tail dragger off grass, within Class A, hand flying whilst talking and operating within one of the busiest bits of airspace on the planet. You may consider this less of a demonstration of ability than flying straight and level on one of the infamous 200nm direct to's you get in the US, if so then thats your opinion you're entitled to your own as is everybody else
Not disrespecting the guy in the 421 above, just shows why you dont put newbies in complex piston twins and expect to get the job done
To the original poster
YES in the UK log the lot as IFR, if you were doing it stateside then just the 0.1 or 0.2 portion where you were flying by sole reference
Last edited by G-SPOTs Lost; 11th Aug 2009 at 06:32.