Logging of instruction hours for the IMC rating

[Tc Matic]

Sorry if this has been answered before. I have checked LASSORS and used the search function on this forum but couldn't find a definitive answer (lot's of interesting debate though).

So if you are instructing for the IMC rating and you find yourself in actual IMC, can you in any way log it as IMC/IFR? I suspect since you are not actually manipulating the controls (the student does), it doesn't qualify as instrument time? (let's assume the FI holds an IR, even though I suppose this doesn't really matter)

[homeguard]

Someone must be in command.

The unqualified student cannot be P1 when within IMC therefore you are. You should log the Instrument time as appropiate in your log book.

[BEagle]

Whilst the flight might be under IFR, unless you are the sole manipulator of the controls in IMC you would be fooling yourself if you logged the 'actual' time yourself. What would it gain you?

I have never logged IF time for any flight of which I was commander if I was not handling the controls at the time.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Most people would log the IF time so that eventually they can reach the magic number to be able to teach the IR.

Beagle, when you were flying bigger stuff did you log the time you were pnf in a multi crew situation? I always have done.

[Whopity]

The answer is in JAR-FCL 1.080 Recording of Flight time.

A pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

[hugh flung_dung]

BEagle, what about when you're the Captain and the autopilot's on? How is monitoring a stude different to monitoring an autopilot.

Whopity: does "operate" include monitoring a stude? or monitoring an autopilot?

And I thought that in this JAR world we recorded IFR time rather than IMC time (?)

HFD

[BEagle]

Say again s l o w l y - back in the days before I was a 4-jet captain, we didn't fly leg and leg about on our fleet. So the convention for co-piglets was to record half their time as P1 and half as P2, but none as PIC. When I was a commander, all the time was PIC. If I was on a check ride, it was P1 non-captain under military recording.

"Most people would log the IF time so that eventually they can reach the magic number to be able to teach the IR."...Oh really? More like fraudulent Parker pen time, I would suggest.

When you are controlling an aeroplane through manual controls, FBW controls or autopilot controls, you are 'manipulator of the controls'. When you are monitoring someone else doing that, you are clearly not 'manipulator of the controls'.

There's always someone trying to claim time for something they haven't done - usually their performance under test shows them up for the frauds they really are.

[LEVC]

The answer is in JAR-FCL 1.080 Recording of Flight time.



A pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

I don't agree with the last answer

I don't see there where it says you have to "manipulate", it says operate, so it's rather an issue of what you interpretate it.

Besides, if you follow this logic, if you are instructing you cannot log most of the flight time as you are not manipulating anything , just monitoring your student and perhaps giving him idications.

I wonder if we can find an answer to this in LASORS.
will check it

LEVC

[Say again s l o w l y]

In a two crew situation the pilot not flying has always got to be able to take over from the PF if required, especially in the case of incapacitation or total incompetence.

As PNF I am always monitoring the other pilot's actions as much as I would the auto pilot if I was handling, so why can't I log it?

Usually it is made fairly clear by the use of trhe phrase "sole manipulator of the controls" I fail to see that in this case, so my reading is that the PNF can log the IF time.

I will agree with you about FI's logging IF time, when they are in gin clear conditions, it's only their student who can't see the rest of the world. At the end of the day however, there is really no way of checking if they were in actual IFR conditions on a particular flight.

[Send Clowns]

As stated before, it must be logged, the instructor is PIC so legally must log it as such. The conditions of flight are IMC and IFR, therefore the flight must be logged as such.

Going by BEagle's over-emotive contribution the instructor would not log any time for a competent student doing brush up for a flight test, for the flight before first solo or first solo navigation (where I was taught never to touch the controls or give much advice if the student was handling the trip competently), let alone for a check flight or revision flight for a qualified student. Certainly anyone logging the time as flight by instruments is not indulging himself with "Parker ballpen" hours!

[African Drunk]

As an IR instructor I log the whole flight IFR, if we are in cloud (since I don't have x-ray vision) I log that time as actual instrument. So far my log book has passed three CAA inspections so I presume that is correct.

[BEagle]

"Going by BEagle's over-emotive contribution the instructor would not log any time for a competent student doing brush up for a flight test, for the flight before first solo or first solo navigation (where I was taught never to touch the controls or give much advice if the student was handling the trip competently), let alone for a check flight or revision flight for a qualified student."

Utter horse$hit. The FI is the Commander and logs the time as such.

Anyway, it's quite clear from LASORS Section A Appendix B that although the JAA requires you to log any 'operational conditions' (i.e. night or IFR), for any licensing requirement which states a minimum total of 'instrument flight time', that is defined as per Appendix A: Instrument Flight Time: Time during which a pilot is controlling an aircraft in flight solely by reference to instruments. Watching your student doing so does NOT meet this definition.

If there is a general misunderstanding of these requirements, perhaps it's time for the CAA to clarify the matter?







Fat chance!

[FlyingForFun]

I'm surprised that no one has so far mentioned the requirements for instructing for an IR, since these, IMHO, give interesting clues as to how to log instrument time.

In order to instruct for an IR, you need a certain amount of IFR flight. The rules then go on to say something along the lines of (I don't have the exact quote to hand, and I'm not going to track it down right now because the exact details aren't relevant) "if you have logged time by sole reference to instruments, as oposed to logging IFR time, then 1 hour by sole reference to instruments counts as 4 hours IFR."

There are a few points here:

First of all, there are (at least) two different ways of logging instrument time.

Secondly, an hour by sole reference to instruments is considered more valuable than an hour IFR. From that, we can surely imply that you should log your time as IFR, even if you are in VMC and not using any view-limiting device, any time you undertake an IFR flight - this is why such time is not as valuable as time by sole reference to instruments. That would include any airways flight. It would include any flight where you are prepared to enter IMC should you encounter such conditions. It would even include any night flight in the UK outside controlled airspace - although that may be stretching the point too far!

The alternative method of logging time - by sole reference to instruments - seems to me to only include that time where you are in actual IMC, or where you are using a view-limiting device.

How does this relate to an IMC instructor? Well, if the instructor has chosen to log his IFR time, then any routes he flies, and probably any approaches, must be IFR, and should be logged as such. General handling might be IFR, or it might be VFR if the weather is VMC and the instructor has chosen to fly VFR.

On the other hand, if the instructor has chosen to log his time by sole reference to instruments, then only that time in actual IMC may be logged, since the instructor is presumably not wearing a view limiting device.

So, is this actually relevant? It is based purely on the requirements for becoming and IR instructor, which is something which no one has asked about, so maybe it's not relevant? But, as far as I'm aware, there are only 2 times where either the CAA or JAR-FCL requires a given amount of instrument time. One is the instrument flying requirements for ATPL issue (75 hours, I think?), and there is no detail about exactly what counts as instrument flying for this purpose. And then there are the requirements for becoming an IR instructor. So yes, I think it is relevant, because it's the only written guidelines that I can find anywhere.

All of this assumes, by the way, that BEagle is incorrect in his assumption that an IMC instructor can not log instrument time because he is not at the controls - something which everyone seems to be agreed on except BEagle himself.

FFF
---------------

[Send Clowns]

Utter horse$hit. The FI is the Commander and logs the time as suchErmmm ... that is what I said! That is not the issue, the issue is that the trip is in IMC therefore by IFR, and must be logged as such.

No-one has mentioned anthing about "instrument flight time". We have been talking about flight in IMC and flight under IFR. The former does not quite fit the definition you quote, as a student can be flying by sole reference to instruments in VMC rather than IMC due to a sight-limiting device, and IFR does not fit your description as many IFR flights are on gin-clear days.

Do you have an answer to my other points, that on many trips the instructor doesn't touch the controls but still logs the hours?

[GASH !]

Agreed, and if we took Beagles logic to the extreme, I imagine most FI's would never reach the 200 hours IF required to teach the IR. Instead we'd reach 800 hours IFR (the alternative route)which could have all been flown in VMC.

[BillieBob]

Extract from an e-mail received some months ago from the Belgrano -

"The CAA will accept flight time gained as a flight instructor in IMC as counting towards the instrument flight time requirements for a licence or rating irrespective of whether said instructor was handling the flight controls."

Why rely on opinion and rumour when you can simply ask the Authority?

[AFIS]

Under JAR-FCL the definitions of IFR and instrument time are quite clear but some schools and instructors seem to be confusing the two.
I know of one school (approved & training for the IR) where they log the block time of each flight as IFR and use this time to meet the JAR-FCL 1 requirements for the IR (40 FNPT 2 + 15 hrs aircraft). In my opinion this is wrong, 15 hours block time on an IFR flight plan does not mean 15 hours Instrument time!

[BEagle]

Quite so!

The CAA's e-mail merely confuses the issue yet further. Quite how watching a student's flying in IMC can be considered to be 'Instrument Flight Time' for the FI is something I simply cannot comprehend.

[BigEndBob]

The problem seems to be including the term IFR.
We know that any flight could be flown IFR. That doesn't prove anything regard I/F experience.
Surely we/they, who ever they are, should only be considering IMC flight only, manually flown, only in a P.1 capacity.

True I/F time is hard to get, simulator is 100% I/F.
I have seen airline pilot log books where flight time and I/F logged are nearly the same. How can this be, most airline flights i,ve been on there is only about 10% of time spent IMC and probably only 2% manually flown! (I except there are exceptions). In 25 years of flying and 9000 hrs i have probably managed to get 300hrs actual I/F, from doing my IMC rating, I/R rating, sim. time and flogging through crap to find a descent horizon through the winter in the UK.

[AFIS]

May seem like a stupid question, but who actually decided to use 'IFR' hours for removal of the FI rating restrictions under JAR-FCL 1? Was this a mistake that should be changed?
All other ratings talk of Instrument time.

[BEagle]

Some nameless Eurocrat who will no doubt be impossible to trace........

'IFR time' is utterly meaningless in a country in which IFR flights in Class G airspace may be made in VMC.

[DFC]

IFR flights can be made in any country and in any airspace in VMC.

The average IFR flight by say a B747 can spend less than 30 minutes in IMC out of a 12 hour flight. Pilots do not sit there noting down the times they enter IMC and then exit again.

Simply log the airborne time (which you will have a record of) as instrument time and use the CAA factor of .25.

The IR training establishments I know of log the block time less 10 minutes (airborne time) as instrument time and the whole block time as training time. After all, the taxi time is part of the training even on a VFR training flight.

-------

BEagle,

Quite how watching a student's flying in IMC can be considered to be 'Instrument Flight Time' for the FI is something I simply cannot comprehend

If the instructor is not operating the aircraft in IMC by sole reference to the instruments, how do you think that he ensures the safety of the aircraft when the students gets disorientated or fails to complete a required manoeuvre or to track as required.

The aircraft is in IMC - unless the instructor has some special powers they must rely solely on the instruments to safely operate the aircraft - and to perform the required training that the students is there to receive.

If however the flight remains VMC throughout then I can see your point.

You must remember that in most countries to go IFR IMC requires controlled airspace, flight plan and the instructor to hold an IR.........thus JAR-FCL assumes that the required experience for instructing the IR will be gained by a pilot holding an IR and operating IFR flights not what happens in the UK.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

DFC - sorry, but you are merely attempting to justify the fraudulent method used by some inexperienced FIs to claim wholly unjustified Instrument Flight Time.......

AFIS has summed up the situation far better than I have.

[Whopity]

Why is everyone so concerned about logging Instrument Flight Time? In order to apply for an ATPL you need 75 hours of it. Thereafter, it is of no value for anything!

To become an IRI (stand alone) you need 800 hours in accordance with IFR; not Instrument Flight Time. Most professional pilots will be able to find this.

For an FI to become an IRI, JAR-FCL requires 200 hours IFR time. As nobody logs IFR time the 4:1 ratio was chosen as a way to use what most pilots will achieve whilst obtaining a professional qualification. If you have an IR you will have 50 hours IF logged and can do the IRI course.

Thereafter who gives a damm what you record because it has no market value!

[DFC]

BEagle,

Can you please explain to me how you think that the commander of an aircraft in IMC can operate without reference to instruments?

Can you also confirm as others have asked that an instructor on a VFR flight who never touches the controls (say a navigation exercise) can claim P1 time?

The problem we have here is that the CAA is I believe incorrectly allowing hours in IMC gained while holding only an IMC rating to be counted towards the required experience to teach the IR.

The CAA should not issue IMC ratings with an absolute minimum of experience, say that the IMC rating is not intended for prolonged enroute flight in IMC and also prevent IMC holders from flying on airways...........while at the same time saying that 800 hours of this intermittent off airways popping through clouds is good enough to teach the IR, the day after one gets one!

I believe that the only hours that should count towards the minimum experience to teach the IR are those hours gained while holding a valid IR.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

1. Can you please explain to me how you think that the commander of an aircraft in IMC can operate without reference to instruments?

The instructor is the Commander. He/she is not 'operating the aircraft' but monitoring the student's operation. There is a clear and obvious difference.

2. Can you also confirm as others have asked that an instructor on a VFR flight who never touches the controls (say a navigation exercise) can claim P1 time?

Of course. On any instructional flight conducted by a qualified FI, the FI is the Commander and logs P1C time for the entire flight. The student logs the time as Pu/t.

Actually, instructing for an IMC Rating can often be a lot more demanding than for an IR. The IMC Rating trainee will probably be less experienced and has to be taught full and limited panel unusual attitude recoveries as well as basic IF, timed turns using a wet compass and stopwatch usually in an aeroplane with a basic DI and limited navigation aids etc.

The experience levels of some 'hours building' FIs is quite worrying at times - unlike in virtually every other industry, civilian flying training mainly relies on the blind teaching the blind with the only filter being the Examiner.

[Whopity]

"The problem we have here is that the CAA is I believe incorrectly allowing hours in IMC gained while holding only an IMC rating to be counted towards the required experience to teach the IR."

To teach for an IR you must hold an IR; you must also teach in an approved FTO where you receive standardisation training and a test.

In order to achieve that, you will have acquired 50 hours Instrument flight time in addition to anything you may have gained teaching IMC!

"The CAA should not issue IMC ratings with an absolute minimum of experience, say that the IMC rating is not intended for prolonged enroute flight in IMC and also prevent IMC holders from flying on airways"

All licences and ratings including the IR are issued on the basis of"minimum" hours!

The privileges onf the IMC rating are given in the ANO, the CAA cannot add time stipulations either you have the privilege or you don't.

Holders of an IMC rating are prohibited from flying in Airways!

[DFC]

BEagle - define operator. There is a difference between operating an aircraft, being responsible for that operation and manipulating the controls.

---
whopity

In order to achieve that, you will have acquired 50 hours Instrument flight

Wow, a whole 50 hours!

They will no doubt have been to several European destinations on IFR flights in cr@p weather and will be passing on their vast experience - not!

More likely, they will have done little if any IFR flying on airways and in busy airspace other than on school training routes where the numbers are learned by rote and they will move into the right seat and teach those same routes by rote to the next generation.

I am not anti-IMC - I think that the idea is overall sound and I agree that the CAA should not issue a rating and then try to limit the use of that rating through peer pressure.

However, take a non-UK applicant for IRI - they will have at least the minimum hours instrument experience most of which will have been gained flying IFR using their IR. The UK applicant for the same rating could have never flown an IFR flight on airways outside the training system! That can't be right.

At the moment, many UK training organisations are using ex-mil and other older experienced IRIs and that works very well. However, look 10 years down the road and the situation that prevails at PPL training (the blind leading the blind) could be causing problems at the IR stage!!

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

DFC - 'operate' was your irrelevant term. See the proper definition of Instrument Flight Time:

Instrument Flight Time: Time during which a pilot is controlling an aircraft in flight solely by reference to instruments.

That clearly does not include watching someone else doing such. Logging someone else's instrument time at the helm is utterly pointless.

[LEVC]

Then an IRI cannot log any of the time he spends instructing IFR because he is no at the controls, that does not make too much sense.

[BEagle]

Whilst the 'operational conditions' might be IFR, because the FI is not controlling the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, he/she is not achieving 'instrument flight time'.

A confusion of the idiotic JAA, further compounded by the CAA!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Beagle

The experience levels of some 'hours building' FIs is quite worrying at times - unlike in virtually every other industry, civilian flying training mainly relies on the blind teaching the blind with the only filter being the Examiner.

Is it me or did anybody else find this statement a little pompous?

I think you need to cut the civilian instructors a little slack, any newly qualified instructor will inevitably go through a maturing phase taking many months/hours.

I would venture that the above statement applied to all of us at some point or another - even you!

How you can be so opiononated/concerned about the quality of civil instruction when you could well be flown on your holidays with a newbie fATPL sat in the RHS of a passenger jet is difficult to comprehend. Hour building instructors are serving a flying apprenticeship whether they wish to be there or not.

We all cant be wonder instructors/FE's and if every budding PPL had to wait for an FI/FE of your calibre then I'd venture you wouldn't get through the queue!

If you have got a beef with the standard of instruction take it up with the FIC Examiners or indeed the length of the FI course which at 20hrs dual is quite frankly pi$$ poor.

[BillieBob]

Whilst the 'operational conditions' might be IFR, because the FI is not controlling the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, he/she is not achieving 'instrument flight time'. Beagle - Whilst your opinion may be that the instructor should not be achieving 'instrument flight time', that fact is that he/she is achieving 'instrument flight time' that fulfills the requirements for the issue of a licence or rating.

However deeply held your opinion may be, it is completely worthless in this case and it is only the opinion of the issuing Authority that counts.

Fume away, old horse, it will make not a jot of difference.

[DFC]

Is it me or did anybody else find this statement a little pompous?

G-SPOTs Lost,

Absolutely not!

It is a statement of fact.

It is also true that we were all probably in that same boat at some time but that does change the fact that people with little or no experience outside the training system are training others.

One would probably be wrong to say that it is the blind leading the blind.More correct to say that it is the partially sighted leading the blind.

This is not confined to pilot training. A recent study into ATC training in the UK highlighted a similar problem - ATC staff with 2 years experience are used to train cadet controllers while the more experienced tend to shy away from training as much as possible because they have had enough of continuous training for years after they had the minimum 2 years experience.........................sound familiar?

Regards,

DFC

BEagle,

Say that the weather is 2.5K and Overcast at 600ft at the ILS equipped training base.

The instructor departs with an IMC student on an IFR flight plan to practice holds before making an ILS to land.

At all times after passing 600ft in the climb until reaching 600ft on approach the flight is in IMC.

How do you think that the instructor will record the flight to show that a) They were pilot in command, b) the flight was IFR and the aircraft was operated by sole reference to instruments?

Don\'t forget that the pilot log book is not only a record of hours flown but a legal record of the flight and the circumstances of that flight.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Commander: (FI)
Holder's Operating Capacity: P1
Pilot-in-Command time: 100% of flight time
Instrument Flying: Whatever hand-on-pole-time the FI actually did in IMC. If the student flew the whole thing, then zero.
Remarks: Op condition IFR: (100% of flight time minus probably 10 min on the ground).

Which is why with 9225 hours TT (5500 on 4-jets) I have only recorded about 690 'Instrument Flying' hours. But they're mine, all mine - and not time claimed whilst watching someone else!

[Send Clowns]

In other words you have filled in your logbook incorrectly. It doesn't really matter, but it doesn't make you right either!

[BEagle]

A personal log book is just that!

[DFC]

BEagle,

Did you ever use an autopilot on your aircraft. If so, then I presume that you would not log instrument time while the sperry pilot did the flying.

It may be your personal log book. However it is a legal record opf the flights you made.

Based on your statement, there will probably be a number of IFR IMC flights where you have logged the flight in such a manner as to indicate that the flight was in VMC at all times when it was not.

Never mind, with 690 hours instrument time and most of that on multi pilot aircraft we have years to wait before you become a single pilot IRI - don't we. ;)

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Sperry? How quaint. And what on earth ".....there will probably be a number of IFR IMC flights where you have logged the flight in such a manner as to indicate that the flight was in VMC at all times when it was not" is supposed to infer, I have no idea.

Most of my IF time was actually on single pilot a/c as the 4-jet IF time was often shared with the other pilot. In the 15 years I was a 4-jet IRE I claimed barely any IF time at all when doing that rather small part of my job.

And although I teach and examine for the IMC rating, wild horses wouldn't persuade me to bother with the mind blowing dullness of grinding around NDB holds in something like a PA 34 teaching IR flying to airline wannabes. Feel free to keep that particular style of slow death all to yourself!

[hoey5o]

Beagle,

I have never heard of someone flying a large multi engined jet without using the artificial horizon whether vmc or imc. That means your flying on instruments all the time whether you can see or not.

I'm interested in your suggestions for how an airline captain, with autopilot should log the hours.

[pilotbear]

Do you know what, I have been on this site regularly since 1999 and in all that time Beagle has always known better than us mere mortals:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

By that trite definition, using an ASI could be considered to be 'Instrument Flying'! 'Sole reference to instruments' is the criterion, not just the odd look inside now and again.

You have your opinions, I have mine. But you cannot convince me that watching someone else's instrument flying should be considered 'Instrument Flight Time' under the JAR definition:
Time during which a pilot is controlling an aircraft in flight solely by reference to instruments

There is only one situation I can think of when hand flying the a/c yourself in IMC is definitely not 'Instrument Flight Time'....

[Send Clowns]

BEagle

Now you really are completely wrong.

Sole reference to instruments allows the hours to count for 4 times the number, as specifically stated. The requirement for becoming an IRI is 800 hours, but this drops to only 200 if all are by sole reference to instruments. Instrument flight time is flight under IFR, which is not necessarily by sole reference to the instruments at all. You might look up the definitions of IFR and VFR just to remind yourself. If you were in class A airspace then you were flying under IFR - unless someone clear you special VFR in the airways? It's illegal to fly VFR in class A.

800 hours flying IFR in perfect, gin-clear VMC is sufficient to qualify to start an IRI course.

Are you really so arrogant you cannot simply admit you didn't know the rules? It has not harmed anyone, you were only being over cautious. You are now arguing a course that could misinform others whose careers you could damage.

[BEagle]

Sorry, the definition of 'Instrument Flight Time' I provided is a direct quote, not my own definition.

The standalone IRI(A) 800 hr requirement is for 'flight under IFR':

"Have completed at least 800 hours of flight time
under IFR of which at least 400 shall be in
aeroplanes. Where pilots have recorded flight by
sole reference to instruments and not under IFR,
then 1 hour sole reference to instruments may be
counted as 4 hours flight by IFR."

If the CAA has decreed that there is no formal requirement to have any more 'instrument time' (rather than 'flight under IFR')to become a standalone IRI(A) beyond that required to hold an IR(A), then so be it. But, due to the requirements for IR(A) issue, it's impossible for any FI(A) holding an IR(A) not to have the requisite instrument time to qualify for the removal of the 'no applied instrument' restriction:

Have flown at least 200 hours flight time in
accordance with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), of
which up to 50 hours may be instrument ground
time in an approved flight simulator or FNPT II.
Where pilots have recorded flight by sole reference
to instruments and not under IFR then 1 hour of
flight by sole reference to instruments may be
counted as 4 hours flight by IFR. Where pilots wish
solely to instruct for the IMC Rating a reduced
experience level of 10 hours flight time by sole
reference to instruments is applicable

Thus there simply isn't any issue regarding IR(A)-holding FI(A)s; it is the standalone IRI(A) applicant with low experience of his/her own flying in IMC (e.g. claiming 'flight under IFR' when floating around in clear VMC) with which I harbour doubts.

Still haven't worked out the occasion when you could be in IMC but not actually 'instrument flying'?

And thank you, I do know the requirements for IFR, VFR and SVFR - as well as the restrictions imposed by Class A airspace.

[hoey5o]

Beagle,
What utter TOSH,

So you flew your big multi jets by setting visual attitudes ???????

I ask again, how does an Airline Captain with an Autopilot log the hours ?

quick hint -99.9% of them dont do it your way !

[AFIS]

Please remember that it is possible (and normal) to complete up to 40 hours of the IR in an approved FNPT 2. That being the case, a pilot may have only logged 15 hours of instrument time during his/her Instrument Rating and would therefore still be short of time to get the 'no applied instrument' restriction removed from their licence.
I must say that I do agree that logging the time your students spend flying the aircraft by sole referance to the instruments in Visual Conditions (VMC) is not very honest... you should be looking out for traffic!
As I mentioned previously, there seems to be a lot of confusion between IFR and instument time. They are two very different things. Just remember that by logging IFR time you are only recording the time you spent following a certain set of rules and procedures... it does NOT mean you were flying the aircraft by sole referance to the instruments.
In my opinion, until you have all the ratings you desire, it may be wise to log both instrument time (as defined in JAR-FCL 1) and operational condition time (IFR).
Now, if you really do want 200 hours of IFR time then start filing IFR flight plans... and if you want instrument time then fly by sole referance to the instruments and either take a safety pilot along to lookout (who does not log instrument time!!!) or file an IFR flight plan and remain in controlled airspace where you are not required to lookout and provide your own separation (A, B, & C I believe).

[BEagle]

hoey50, I do not understand your impolite diatribe. What was it I said which caused you to wet your pants?

And yes, 4-jets don't just lumber about on instruments in airways. On very many occasions I have flown by reference to visual attitudes.

So how can you fly in IMC and not be 'flying on instruments'? Have you worked it out yet?

[GusHoneybun]

Beagle


Is the answer when you are bimbling along with no cloud, at 4000 feet, with 4km vis in Class G (or F) airspace?

Below VFR minima's but perfectly legal for a plain PPL.

[BEagle]

Nope - you would be flying in conditions which required compliance with IFR under such circumstances.

[DFC]

The answer I expect you are after BEagle is on a Special VFR flight.

However, that shows what an ass the current system is because Special VFR is basically desribed as a flight in a control zone in IMC or at Night or when the airspace is Class A.

Leaving out everything except ther IMC bit how can one say that a PPL requesting a Special VFR clearance and having the legal requirement of 10Km be in IMC when they can fly VFR in the same airspace in 5Km.

Perhaps the definition should say a flight by a PPL in better than VMC!

------------

I expect that BEagles answer to he autopilot question is that he would be controlling the autopilot and thus controlling the aircraft.

:YUK:

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

SVFR is never available in IMC. If your licence privileges preclude compliance with mandatory IFR (for example, a PPL without IMC Rating in a Class A control zone), then you may fly SVFR if the visual conditions are within the limits specified by the controlling authority.

The 5km (VFR) versus 10Km (SVFR) visibility requirement for unrated PPL holders flying SVFR in Class D control zones is indeed odd.

The answer?

When flying as wingman in close formation in cloud. You are flying visually using the formation reference points of the other a/c even though you are in IMC. So you're not flying by sole reference to instruments......

[Say again s l o w l y]

All getting a bit pedantic here isn't it.

Just to throw my oar in here, in my view if you are on an IFR flight plan, then that is an IFR flight. What the actual met conditions are is irrelevant in my view. I personally haven't got a clue how much time I've spent in 'actual' IMC and to be honest don't really care either.

However, if you are logging IMC time whilst instructing in the open FIR on a VFR flight whilst in VMC (ie the student is under the hood but you are in good viz) then that is a bit naughty.

But as I said before, who's going to check?

[hoey5o]

Beagle,

I wet my pants when you produced your log book.

[DFC]

BEagle,

Check the definition of Special VFR flight.

IMC means conditions that are less than VMC.

Therefore if on a special VFR clearance in a Class D zone in say 4K vis then by definition one is flying in IMC because the conditions are less than VMC.

Another example of being in IMC but not using instruments is cruising along at FL80 in 100K visibility but only 500ft above a cloud.

Getting back to log books, pilots must rmember that if you ever go for a job and claim certain experience then the prospective employer will have a good look at your log book and parker pen flying is always easy to spot........and it only takes one instane for employers to ruin one's chances because parker pen in the personal log unusally means the tech log etc may not also be accurate.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

DFC, I concur. Less than VMC must mean IMC and my comment was incorrect. 'Degraded visual conditions' might be a better way of thinking about SVFR - except within Class A CTRs when it's a bit of a bodge to enable unrated pilots to fly 'visually' in permanent IFR airspace. Which is a bit of an odd way to go about such regulations, I would say.

[Send Clowns]

BEagle

What you quote is exactly what I said in my argument, and completely contradicts yours! That hours count if flown under IFR, but count 4 times if flown by sole reference to instruments. Therefore the first bit cannot possibly refer to flight by sole reference!

P.S. I believe in the UK it is technically possible to fly VFR in IMC. It is due to IMC being defined as per international regulations but there being a UK-only concession on conditions in class G below 3,000 feet at less than 140 kts. I'd have to look it up to check, though - Air Law was never one of my strong points. Never flying VFR at the limits because my self-preservation is stronger than the law, I do not know them well.

[2close]

Wow, I hope I've got this now.........methinks not!

Okey dokey, here goes...

JAR-FCL 1.080 (c)(1)(ii) states that all instructional time counts as PIC and so far as instrument flight time goes as per 1.080 (b)(4)(v) I think the term 'operates' would include 'instructs'. But in the absence of clear definition I think personally that the spirit of the rules dictate that time in actual IMC should be counted as IMC time by the instructor but only time in actual IMC and not time in VMC.

So, by my interpretation:

IMC Training Flight ABC123 for Student with PPL

Flight time 1000 Z - 1100 Z Brakes off to Brakes On

At 1010 Z a/c enters IMC and continues exercise in IMC until 1050 Z.

Student logs time 1 hour PUT - 40 mins Instrument

Instructor logs 1 hour PIC (JAR-FCL 1.080 (c)(1)(ii))- 40 mins Instrument (as that portion of the flight was in actual IMC s/he must have been instructing also by sole reference to instruments)

But take the same flight all in VMC with the student under the hood; the student logs the same time including the 40 mins instrument but the instructor logs only 1 hour PIC but NO instrument time as HIS/HER flight duty was NOT made by SOLE reference to instruments.

Well, that's my twopence worth (if it's worth that much!!!) and I eagerly await other opinions.

Regards (whilst heading for the shelter),

2close

[Centaurus]

Surely only one pilot can honestly log IMC if he is the sole manipulator of the controls. Based on that premise, the instructor should not log IMC if he is not physically handling the controls.

Logging IMC if the aircraft is on autopilot is really cheating, isn't it? Let's be honest here - there is no handling skill in flying on autopilot.

[Say again s l o w l y]

No, but there is more to being a good handling pilot than just the ability to move the a/c around the sky.
You still have to keep up your situational awareness, planning and be ready to take over in case "George" has a hissy fit.

An autopilot is an aid, not the be all and end all device that some people believe it to be.

[average bloke]

Special VFR. The clue is in the VFR bit. For a PPL (or CPL for that matter) without any additional ratings you can fly SVFR in controlled airspace if in flight visibility is 10k or more. With the addition of an IMC you can accept an SVFR if vis is 3k+. This is not IMC, as an IMC rated pilot can fly VFR with a vis of 1.5k+. For a PPL VFR is 3k+ outside controlled airspace, and 5K+ in class C/D/E. There does not seem to be any confusion on this point.

Re logging hours, when I teach IMC I log hours that are in IMC as such. You may not be 'manipulating' the controls, but you are scanning exactly the same as the student (probably more), whilst teaching and keeping spacial awareness. This to me seems like a sound approach. When conditions are not IMC then the situation is different and the job involves lookout and all the other aspects of VFR flight, so should not be logged as IMC, and personally I do not. It can however be logged as IFR, depending on which part of the course you are teaching (en route/approaches etc).

Think you should get off the high horse a bit beagle.

[BEagle]

No high horse - I just don't understand why people think that that it's reasonable for them to log 'Instrument Flight Time' other than as defined in JAR-FCL.

[Send Clowns]

No, BEagle, you were arguing that we should not log instrument time when JAR-FCL (as interpreted by the CAA) state that the time should be logged as instrument time. You were using your own judgement, specifically not JAR-FCL!

[BEagle]

It is the CAA's interpretation which seems to contradict JAR-FCL; in any case, what on earth is the point of logging 'watching student IMC flying' as your own Instrument Flight Time?

I think I shall check what the actual situation is with the CFE.

[average bloke]

JAR-FCL states that time by sole reference is when you OPERATE a plane by instruments only. This is what happens when you teach in actual IMC conditions. You are not merely watching a student, but also operating the aircraft and making sure they perform accordingly. I don't think anyone is claiming that IMC time is logged when not in IMC, and the student is in simulated IMC under screens/foggles.

Not sure what your beef is beagle, but you seem to think teaching and logging hours is somehow 'cheating', when in fact it is often harder in instrument conditions than just flying yourself.

[Send Clowns]

Dunno 'bout you, average, but I find that instructing is nearly always harder than flying yourself!

The point, BEagle, is accuracy, and consistency in the log book. What is the point of logging time at all when instructing with the student handling? After all you are not actually manipulting the controls. How about PNF in a multi-crew aircraft?

[BillieBob]

What an entirely ludicrous and pointless exchange this has turned out to be!

The CAA has said, in writing, that it will accept time flown by an instructor in IMC as counting towards the requirement for 'Instrument Flight Time' towards a licence or rating, whether or not he/she was handling the controls at the time. No amount of posturing by individuals, no matter how well or poorly qualified will change that, no 'opinions', other than those of the Authority, are valid, or even of any value.

People have, and will continue to gain licences and ratings based on this premise - Those are the facts and, if you don't like them, Beagle - TOUGH! Time to get out of your ivory (sorry, pale blue) tower and join the real world, I fancy.

[BEagle]

There is no need for such insulting comment, BillieBob. I have put the question to the CFE and will be interested to hear his view.

The Authority has interpreted other aspects of JAR-FCL incorrectly (e.g. requirements for SEP revalidation signatures not more than 3 months before Rating expiry, to mention just one), so it is indeed essential that the 'opinions' you deride are raised in a public forum - if for other no reason than to assist the CAA.

You might be surprised to learn that the CAA do indeed respond to reason when the facts are presented to them!