IFR in VMC

[tomyangyang]

G'day guys, I have a question that seems no one at my school can answer.

I have command instrument rating single engine, and wish to keep my approach recencies current by conducting practise approaches in VMC under IFR, do I need to take a safety pilot to look out for me, and does that safety pilot have to have some sort of rating or endorsement? If so, is there a reference on CAR, CAO or the AIPs?

Thanks guys

Tom

[Awol57]

I don't know about references but to me common sense would dictate that if you are operating OCTA doing the approaches "under the hood" it would be an excellent idea to have someone on board to look out for other aircraft (ie another pilot).

I thought there was a requirement to have a safety pilot who was rated on the aircraft type but I can't recall the regs. I might have a look and see if I can beat everyone else.

[capt787]

If by VMC you mean 'flying under the hood' then yes you need a safety pilot. Your safety pilot needs to be instrument rated (either CIR or PIFR) as he is flying under IFR (CAR 5.80 (1)(a)). He should also be rated on the aircraft type because he is part of the flight crew on board and all crew must be appropriately rated for the aircraft type that he is flying. (CAR 5.79 (1)(a))

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I have command instrument rating single engine, and wish to keep my approach recencies current by conducting practise approaches in VMC under IFR, do I need to take a safety pilot to look out for me

NO!

Dr :8

[Dragun]

Capt787

You don't need to be under the IFR to practice approaches in VMC. All it becomes is 'airwork on the navigation aid'. Broadcast your intentions and operate VFR following tracks and distances etc to and from the aid. I think you'll also find he doesn't need to be endorsed on aircraft type, he just needs a flight crew licence. He's not part of flight crew -he's a safety pilot.

[Lasiorhinus]

You do not need to be under the hood, to fly IFR, either!

If you are flying in VMC, the responsibility to see and avoid rests with you, the pilot. There is nothing to stop you flying an instrument approach in VMC.

Instrument approaches, for the purposes of approach recency, can be flown under the IFR or VFR.

[Shimmer]

What about logging instrument time in VMC? If you don't have an instructor, but say a CPL & IFR pilot who is rated on the aircraft, can you fly under the hood and log IF time?

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Shimmer,

If you're under the hood then you can log the IF time.

If you're VMC whilst under the hood then you need a safety pilot only - that person doesn't need to be either IFR (you're VMC!) or a CPL - just rated for the aircraft.

UTR

[Shimmer]

Thanks mate, just thought I'd check before doing it :D

[mattyj]

If you're on an IFR flight plan then just request the full approach due training, instead of the visual approach..you might get a hold..but thats good practice too.

[Gundog01]

What about logging instrument time in VMC? can you fly under the hood and log IF time?

You have to log simulated IF only, not actual.

[neville_nobody]

You have to log simulated IF only, not actual.

In a word no :=

If you're in an aeroplane then is IF regardless of you being under the hood or in 400' overcast. Simulated IF is for synthetic trainers

[300Series]

I believe the definition of Instrument Flight Time is something along the lines of the time logged while controlling the aircraft soley by reference to the aircraft instruments. Doesnt say anything about whether you are under the hood or not. And only the pilot manipulating the controls or providing input into the autopilot may log the Instrument Flight time.

300

[capt787]

dragun, i know you can practice your approach in VMC without a safety pilot. however i thought tom was asking whether he need a safety pilot if he flies 'under the hood' in VMC...

but if tom is operating in IFR then why doesn't his safety pilot (if tom flies under the hood) needs to be instrument rated? i thought safety pilot is part of the flight crew in this case.

[43Inches]

I think you need to think of the approach and IF recency seperatly,

As PIC you can conduct an approach in VMC at any time, there is no requirement for it to be under simulated IF conditions (under the hood), however you must comply with normal rules and procedure regarding low flying and circuit operations especially if there's traffic. In IMC you must be current on the approach.

If you wish to practice instrument flying in VMC for recency then it requires you referrence fully to aircraft instruments. This then requires a safety pilot to maintain an adequate lookout,

153 Flight under simulated instrument flying conditions
(1) The pilot must not fly an aircraft under simulated instrument flying
conditions if each of the following requirements is not satisfied:
(a) fully functioning dual controls are installed in the aircraft;
(b) a competent pilot occupies a control seat to act as safety pilot for
the person who is flying under simulated instrument conditions
and:
(i) the safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each
side of the aircraft; or
(ii) if the safety pilot’s field of vision is limited, a competent
observer in communication with the safety pilot occupies a
position in the aircraft from which his or her field of vision
supplements that of the safety pilot.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

[Gundog01]

If you're in an aeroplane then is IF regardless of you being under the hood or in 400' overcast. Simulated IF is for synthetic trainers

Neville in a word NO and NO

Straight from the definitions in the front of the log book

"Actual: Actual instrument flying is all flying in conditions where the aircraft CANNOT be controlled by reference to external visual aids and all maneouvres are carried out solely by reference to instruments."

"Simulated: Simulated instrument flying is all flying conducted WHEN ARTIFICALLY CREATED CONDITIONS demand that the aircraft cannot be controlled by reference to to external visual aids and all maneouvres are carried out solely by reference to instruments."

My bolding. I would suggest that wearing a hood is an artifically created condition and therefore is logged as simulated. For simulator time, you should have a separate section in your log book for synthetic trainers.

[43Inches]

Gundog,

Neville is correct in legal point that CASA does not differentiate simulated instrument flight time (under hood or blinds etc) from actual IMC instrument flight time when it comes to satisfying recency/currency. The time is all logged as instrument flight time, you may separate them if you so wish.

Do not confuse synthetic trainers with simulators as they are two separate certifications. You can log both visual and instrument ground time in either if facilities permit.

Simulator being a near exact replica of a particular aircraft type both in flight deck and handling.

Synthetic trainer being anything else that simulates flight from basic PC based procedure trainers to replicas of actual flight decks not quite approved to simulator standard.

Both have to be certified by CASA and will have an instrument approving what can be done in the machine (training/recency).

[*Lancer*]

In VMC, whether VFR or IFR, you can practice as many instrument approaches as you like, with no hood and no safety pilot.

VFR in simulated IMC (hood), you need a 'competent' safety pilot. No definition for 'competent'. They're only watching for planes and clouds, and nothing stops you from looking out the window.

In actual IMC you need to be current.

[Tee Emm]

There is no shortage of pilots who log instrument flight time purely because they are on an IFR flight plan and they are looking outside in sunny weather and twiddling the autopilot knobs.

Wasn't long ago when a Virgin Blue captain realised he was out of currency and after landing instructed his first officer who was completing the legal paperwork on the ground, to "put me down for two hours instrument flying" even though the flight was not only autopilot most of the time but in clear weather. Makes a complete mockery of the principle of the whole idea of logging time.

Of course CASA aren't interested. On another occasion the log book of an Ansett first officer revealed a grand total of 5200 hours of which 2800 hours was logged as instrument flight time on the 727. Just imagine having a nice egg and bacon breakfast on a tray in the cruise (Ansett crews ate very well - none of this low cost carrier stuff) and its your leg and its clear weather and the autopilot engaged and he logged the whole bloody trip as instrument flight time... Wonder what the captain logged...

Logging of instrument flight time in airliners is such a rort that you wonder what is the point.

It paid off though as he soon after got a job with Dragonair in Hong Kong.

[Gundog01]

43 Inches

All i know is that my log book under Instrument flying has

Simulated / Actual / App Type and No.

By the definitions of my log book if it isn't actual i.e. IMC, then it is simulated. Flying under the hood is not actual IMC. Satisfying recency and currency requirements is totally different to legally logging actual IMC time. Dont be suprised if the airlines raise an eyebrow to some one with 50% of the total time as actual IF tome.

Similar story to 'Tee Emm' a bloke i know had 900 hours total with CPL and an instrument rating. He had 500 ACTUAL because he logged every minute under an IFR flight plan as actual. The regionals had big issues with the legitimacy of his logbook for obviuos reasons.

I dont disagree that for recency/currency VMC/IMC/VFR/IFR makes no difference as long as the approach is flown.

[*Lancer*]

Tee Emm, it's still instrument flight time if you're in IMC whether you have an autopilot or not...

[Shimmer]

If "simulated instrument time" under the hood doesn't count as instrument time in flight, then how do all those in locations with good weather get instrument ratings?

The regs state that we need "40 hours instrument time of which not less than 20 hours must be on the relevant aircraft category " and "10 hours dual instrument time" to be issued with a CIR. I know I would not have been able to get the 20 hours instrument time in flight without the use of the hood, due to Melbourne's absolutely *splendid* weather.

Whilst under the hood in flight, you are controlling the A/C by sole reference to instruments, hence why it can be logged as instrument time in flight. My test was on a near CAVOK day, so surely if the test counts as IF time, anything else under the hood does as well. Logging every minute of an IFR flight plan as instrument time is obviously very rare, but hey, that's what airmanship is for.

[Gundog01]

Shimmer

Just confirm that your log book dosen't have separate columns for actual and simulated instrument time. I think the argument is in a do-loop due to different terminology. Instrument time can be broken down into actual and simulated. Actual=IMC, simulated=hood/visor etc. Therfore your 40 hours instrument time can be made up of actual and simulated. I know how much actual time i have logged and it is nothing compared to the simulated time. I have always known that you can only log actual if you are IMC.

[404 Titan]

Gundog01

I think if you have a closer look in your logbook again you will find instrument time is broken down into: Simulator, Approaches and Flight. I have five logbooks and not one has a column that is labelled “Simulated”. For the record all “IF” time in the aircraft whether it be actual IMC or simulated IMC under the hood goes into the “Instrument Flight” column. Synthetic trainer and simulator time goes into the “Instrument Simulator” column and the type of approach and number performed goes into the “Instrument Approach” column. :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

'404' too true:ok:

Here's a point to ponder.


Yr conducting an app under the IFR SP no hood normal commercial job(NDB for Eg) You start the app in cloud, fair enough but 30 secs after you start say from over head the aid you re-enter VMC say outbound but can clearly see another cloud layer beneath you so obiously you continue the App again still in VMC looking outside 'cause it's easier keeping an eye on tracking/timing etc 'till entering IMC again. You finish the app or whatever but the point is do you log that whole app as IF ? You bet you do & there was no hood or second pilot to be seen!


Wmk2

[chaz10]

I think you will find that Gundog may have a military logbook.....

Just to add to the confusion!!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I have a stop watch on the dash - whenever I go into IMC I start the stop watch and when I pop back into VMC I stop the stop watch. Keeps me pretty busy when I am flying through broken CU. After a 3 hour flight I take the accumulated time in IMC off the stop watch (ie 1 hr 3 min 25 sec) and write it up in my log book. :ok:

Isn't that what everybody does? :confused:

Sure it is! :O

Dr :8

Oh dear, has it really come to this? If we can't even get common agreement on how to log IF time, what hope is there of getting the important stuff right!

[Tee Emm]

Can someone tell me the definition of an "airborne radar approach". I was unable to find the defintion in AIP. This is mentioned in the Pilots Log Book - General Guidance, in the front of the CASA issued log book. For some unknown reason it says "instrument approaches are to be credited to the pilots in the case of an airborne radar approach" I have never heard of a specific ground borne radar approach though.

Maybe it means a surveillance radar approach where the ground borne radar operator talks you down. Or overseas maybe its a GCA or ground controlled approach where you are talked down too. But either way why should both pilots in a two crew aircraft be entitled to log the "airborne radar approach" when on a normal instrument approach such as NDB, VOR, ILS, DME arrival etc only one pilot can log the instrument approach?

[43Inches]

Sorry for the long post but this is what CASA wants you to do straight from their web site, even some of the CASA log books have reference in the front to AIC/rules which are out of date or incorrect.

Gundog - The red text is the area you may be interested in, all they care about is that it is instrument flight time and logged as such.

Logging of Flight Time

Flight time may be recorded in hours and decimals of hours, or hours and minutes. Pilots should record flight time accrued under the definition given above as follows:

Check Pilot/Approved Testing OfficerWhen not designated as pilot in command, flight time may be logged as co-pilot. In addition, the time may be recorded in the 'Specialist/Instructor' column as a record of check pilot experience.
Co-PilotIncludes all flight time as co-pilot or second officer. This flight time must not to be added to Grand Total Hours or Total Aeronautical Experience when ICUS is logged.
Dual FlyingDual time is recorded in the single or multi-engine dual column.
Flight Simulator or Synthetic Trainer TimePractice in an approved simulator or trainer may be recorded in the section provided at the rear of the log book. The instrument flight element of the simulator time may be transferred to the 'Ground' column of the Instrument Flight section of the flight record.
If a Flight Simulator or Synthetic Trainer Practice section is not available in the log book, the details may be entered chronologically in the flight record, and the Instrument flight element transferred to a suitably titled column.
In older log books, the 'Ground Training' or 'Simulator' column of the Instrument section of the flight record may be used for 'Ground' entries.
Grand Total Flying HoursGrand Total Flying Hours is calculated by adding all numbered columns in the flight record, plus ICUS, and recording the total at the bottom of the page.
In Command Under Supervision (ICUS)Includes all flight time when assigned as co-pilot acting in command under supervision as defined above:ICUS may be logged as follows:
a) in log books with single and multi-engine ICUS columns, the flight time is logged accordingly and is included in the Grand Total Hours;
b) if the log book does not have an ICUS column then ICUS may be logged in the Pilot in Command column as long as it is clearly identified as ICUS and the pilot in command is also identified;
c) alternatively, another unused column may be used to log ICUS.
Instrument ApproachesThe number and type of approaches may be recorded in the Instrument Approach column as a record of recent experience. If such a column is not available in the log book, the number and type of approaches may be recorded in the Remarks/Route, or another suitably retitled unused column.
Instrument TimeInstrument time is recorded in the Instrument column as either 'Flight' or 'Ground'.
Instrument Flight TimeAll 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.
Instrument Ground TimeVisual and instrument flight conducted in an approved flight simulator or synthetic trainer may be recorded in the appropriate section at the rear of the log book. The instrument element of a flight conducted in a simulator or synthetic flight trainer may be transferred to the 'Ground', 'Ground Training' or 'Simulator' column in the Instrument section of the flight record.
Mutual Instructor FlyingInvolves two pilots who are qualified on type, flying together for mutual practice on a flying instructor course. One designated pilot may log time in command and the other student instructor may log time as co-pilot. This flight time may be included in the Grand Total Hours.
Pilot In CommandIncludes all flight time while designated as pilot in command.
Route/Remarks/DetailsRecord all points of take-off and landing, nature of the flight (eg, mustering, aerobatics, scenic, etc) and, if required for recency, the number of landings.
Specialist/Instructor ColumnThe specialist column may be used for recording appropriate specialist activities; eg, glider towing, agricultural, check pilot, basic or navigation instruction. The activity involved should be clearly identified for each log book entry. This time is not to be included in the Grand Total Hours.
Summary of ExperienceThis section at the rear of the log book is available for use as required for type, periodical, seasonal or other summaries.
Total Aeronautical ExperienceTotal aeronautical experience is calculated by adding the totals of flight times recorded in each column but in such a way that that any flight time is not included more than once in the grand total hours.
Note also that only 50% of the time logged as a co-pilot may be included in the total.

[Gundog01]

I think you will find that Gundog may have a military logbook.....:ok:

Thats always gonna create some differences....damn civvies. I guess in the wash up it is all instrument time just logged differently.

43

I see where you're coming from but in the very next line (C) it says.

A flight conducted on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan is not to be counted as instrument flight unless flying in IMC;

Nit picking i guess, but i'm interested in your interpretation.

[framer]

Wasn't long ago when a Virgin Blue captain realised he was out of currency and after landing instructed his first officer who was completing the legal paperwork on the ground, to "put me down for two hours instrument flying"
I don't actually have a problem with that. I'm sure he would have had the actual recency required but was too lazy to log it on night flights etc. You don't fly a 737 around the country every day navigating by reference to the ground do you. To a VB 73 Captain it probably makes little or no difference to him if he is IMC or severe clear when he's trucking along at night (or day for that matter) in the cruise. I know guys who do tasman flights and won't log any IFR time if it's a nice day and others who log most of it, who really cares once you've reached that level? Not me thats for sure:)

[43Inches]

It does not state actual or simulated IMC, so simulated IMC would be accepted. If it stated flight in actual IMC only may be logged then it would be a contradiction.

framer - VFR pilots may navigate totally without reference to the ground if using radio navigation as well. The difference is an IFR pilot may operate below VMC, that is in IMC conditions, and fly only by aircraft instrument reference for flight path guidance.

I have found that it is very important for EFIS, autopilot equiped pilots to be vigilant with maintaining IFR scan currency. It is easy to get complacent whilst everything is working properly and you just have to watch the FMS/autoflight do the job. The most likely time you may loose your primary flight displays is at night in IMC after a lightning strike or surge due high power demand.

There have actually been a number of large aircraft accidents caused by flight crew disorientation at night/IMC when proper scanning and understanding of the aircraft displays would have averted the disaster, this includes A320 and 737 types. To say that currency does not matter just because they fly every day is complete rubbish.

[*Lancer*]

43inches, you obviously don't fly a 737!

3-4 times a year we get a 'lightning strike', at night in bad weather... then do a non precision approach, have a missed approach, lose an engine, do an engine out ILS, go around, catch fire, do an engine out night visual circuit on fire and land. :ouch:

Whether the flight is all in the clear, or all in the gloop, we reference the instruments the exact same amount. I imagine that since an airliner instrument scan is totally independant from the weather (except for the two extremes of low visibility operations, or visual approaches), some pilots treat IF time arbitarily.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Instrument Flight Time:All flight time during which the aircraft was controlled solely by reference to instruments may be recorded in the instrument 'Flight' column

So any time the autopilot is flying the aircraft (which it does solely by reference to instruments) can be recorded as instrument flight time, huh? :ok:

Dr :8

[tomyangyang]

Thanks guys for all the inputs, i didn't expect it to start such a fuss, but I learned a lot of things through your posts.

Just to sum it up for my situation and i hope I have understood the rules: I am allowed to fly instrument approaches in VMC without a safety pilot, in order to satisfy my IFR approach recency requirements. However it is common sense to take a safety pilot even in VMC so I can concentrate on the approach. Also, i can fly under the hood in VMC for 3 hours every 90 days while taking a safety pilot to satisfy the IFR flight recency requirements.

Thank you for your times again.

[framer]

framer - VFR pilots may navigate totally without reference to the ground if using radio navigation as well. The difference is an IFR pilot may operate below VMC, that is in IMC conditions, and fly only by aircraft instrument reference for flight path guidance.
Phew! Thanks for letting me in on that, I'l try to remember it on Monday at work.
To say that currency does not matter just because they fly every day is complete rubbish. calm down lad, nobody is saying that, all I'm saying is that our VB73 Captain flies 95% of every flight soley by reference to the instruments, scanning scanning scanning, so if he logs 2hrs on a gin clear day who cares? He has probably done 20 hours in reality.
There have actually been a number of large aircraft accidents caused by flight crew disorientation at night/IMC when proper scanning and understanding of the aircraft displays would have averted the disaster, this includes A320 and 737 types Yeah I've seen the reports and watched the tv shows. How many of them are flown by crews trained by an airline from Aus, NZ, UK or USA? Serious question, there must be one or two but the impression I am left with is always that the crew skill and coordination was shocking, so bad as to be hard to believe. Always seems to be some dodgy Asian/African/Sth american outfit. I can think of some turbo-prop examples but no jet examples. Help me out with that one.

[43Inches]

Lancer, I do not fly a 737, but struggle to understand how it is vastly different to any other aircraft of its size. They are flown by the numbers as you say in all operations, but if this was sufficient then why do they still come to grief in CFIT accidents? The largest cause is loss of situational awareness in a high workload environment, mostly in a perfectly serviceable aircraft, the overall flight path of the aircraft is misinterpreted. In some cases the loss of currency may not manifest itself in direct flight path deviation but some other area neglected as a result of the pilots focus on control.

I assume you refer to sim exercises which whilst is very good training, the crew are usually aware and well prepared for rather than just sprung at random when your fatigued at the worst possible time. Do you have to study for a sim or do you just turn up and pass because you've kept up to date during the 3-6 months between them? A lot is still left to the individual to ensure they maintain a constant state of readiness for the unusual in the interim period. If your a little rusty on the controls it only makes dealing with a problem that little bit harder.

Simulator training/checking is all part of currency and helps to make pilots subject to it safer overall. Emrgency procedure training/crew briefs/planning and basic hands on flying skill all add to safety. When mentioning currency earlier I was not just refering to the CASA minimums.

Just had to add that I agree that Aus does have good training/support & procedures for airline pilots, however we are also in an area with mild weather conditions and low terrain compared to Europe/Asia/Nth & Sth America.

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

Hey Tom,

The only thing I would add to your last post is that if instead of flying three hours as PIC you may want to only do one hour of Dual or ICUS (if you are working for a company willing to assign you as ICUS). Additionaly, if ICUS, Dual or PIC (with safety pilot) there's no requirement for the other pilot to have an Instrument Rating (think about all those fresh-faced non-rated instructors getting a CPL students 10 hours up).

Have fun,

FRQ CB

[framer]

43Inches, do you actually fly the a/c differently depending on whether you're VMC or IMC? I understand your need to stay current if that is the case.
About the only difference I can think of above 10,000ft, is that if I'm VMC and get TCAS traffic I'll actually look for it. Apart from that, and the occasional longing look at a surf break, there's no difference to me.

[tomyangyang]

Hi FRQ CB, thanks for the additional points. Just one thing to clarify, when you say dual or ICUS, does that mean i just need to fly with a classmatef for 1 hour every 90 days to get current on my IFR?

Cheers.

Tom

[43Inches]

How I control the aircraft does not change, the procedures obviously will dependent on whether a visual approach or ILS is performed.

[framer]

Good stuff. My point remains though, whether or not the VB cap gets his F/o to write down 2hrs IF or not doesn't change the amount of instrument flight time the captain has done, which effectively is much more than the minimum required. I'm not saying it's right to make up IF time , but I don't think it's a big deal or in any way dangerous if you are a 737 Captain in a country where you need many thousands of hours to reach that position.
If you've only got a couple thousand hours and you're flying a chieften it's a different story.
The recency of approaches is much more important. ie if you hadn't done a non precision approach in six months then had to do one for real it would be less than ideal.

[Tee Emm]

calm down lad, nobody is saying that, all I'm saying is that our VB73 Captain flies 95% of every flight soley by reference to the instruments, scanning scanning scanning, so if he logs 2hrs on a gin clear day who cares? He has probably done 20 hours in reality.


Nice one but surely you are not serious? 737 takes off and rotates (QF or DJ) autopilot quickly engaged at flaps up speed. Time totally on instruments (with full peripheral reference if visual) while hand flying on autothrottle and flight director (say) four minutes. Rest of flight "scanning, scanning, scanning" chatting to F/O about latest union bitching, women, reading newspaper, scratching balls, looking outside in clear gin weather, fiddling with CDU and maybe even radar, making PA's, chatting up female or male flight attendants, depending on your personal preferences, and in between glancing at flight instruments out of nothing else to do - but always he says "scanning, scanning, scanning....!!" Rubbish.

On final - maybe two miles from touch down if you are daring, announce disconnecting autopilot but leave FD on and maybe deselect speed on AT and press stopwatch to time actual hands on flying. Lets be generous and say four minutes of half automatics and half hand flying. Total time of hands on flying for whole flight eight (8) gripping minutes when the life of your passengers are in your hands.

So who are you kidding when you say the captain/FO of a typical B737 airliner flight in Australia spends most of his flight scanning, scanning, scanning. And after landing he says to the data input processor in the right hand seat "Hey! Maaate - put me down for two hours I/F wilya?"

Having observed some of these aces in the simulator struggling to fly wings level hand flying raw data, then their hours and hours of "scanning, scanning, scanning" hasn't improved their "scanning".

[who_cares]

Tee Emm -Spot on.

Thats why I only log .2 I.F for every sector I fly, figure the after a year the law of averages it works it self out. Some days 8/8s blue sky others never get out of the weather.

[Lasiorhinus]

Hi FRQ CB, thanks for the additional points. Just one thing to clarify, when you say dual or ICUS, does that mean i just need to fly with a classmatef for 1 hour every 90 days to get current on my IFR?



Oooh, very very no.

Dual time is time with a rated instructor, and ICUS is a specified situation, requiring both pilots to be appropriately rated, both holding at least a CPL, and the operator designating the flight as an ICUS flight.

[framer]

Nice one but surely you are not serious?
Totally serious.
Don't get too wound up about it though, I didn't realise you had a different log book, one with a "hand flown IMC" column and one with a "A/P engaged IMC" column.
chatting to F/O about latest union bitching, women, reading newspaper, scratching balls, looking outside in clear gin weather, fiddling with CDU and maybe even radar, making PA's, chatting up female or male flight attendants, depending on your personal preferences
I've not seen much of this go on without a scan going at the same time and have seen someone read a news paper in the cruise on only two or three occasions on the 737 in last 12 months. However when I was on a two crew turbo prop with no A/P we used to read the paper a fair bit....go figure. Have fun logging your IF time....make sure you get it just right:)

[who_cares]

Cant say I ever read the paper 2crew no autopilot, but im definately update now with the news

[Shimmer]

Oooh, very very no.

Dual time is time with a rated instructor, and ICUS is a specified situation, requiring both pilots to be appropriately rated, both holding at least a CPL, and the operator designating the flight as an ICUS flight.I think what he means is, if he is a CPL IFR rated pilot endorsed on the C182, can his class mate; also CPL IFR endorsed on the 182 be next to him and have him log ICUS?

If that's not what he means, then I'm curious to know anyway :}

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

For ICUS you must be appointed by an operator. Two mates (without the blessing of an Operator) cannot just go log ICUS. I'm no instructor but I imagine that in Aus (not so in the US I believe) one cannot log Dual unless operating under the auspices of an approved flying school. Without an AOC holder it looks like you'll be stuck with doing 3 hours per 90 days.

FRQ CB

[43Inches]

Dual = Training = Airwork = AOC required, except for a few exemptions.

One way to keep the cost down is too find a basic synthetic trainer approved for recency purposes, some can be cheap and you can use them for 2 of the 3 hours required, legal and no grey areas.

On the red 737s for the last time, I think I figured out when the 5% of non-scanning occurs, must be visual descent and approach as have noticed a few being in strange positions near final and conducting a go-round or are they just lacking VMC currency?

[who_cares]

43"s

On the red 737s for the last time, I think I figured out when the 5% of non-scanning occurs, must be visual descent and approach as have noticed a few being in strange positions near final and conducting a go-round or are they just lacking VMC currency?


Maybe thats the problem they are scanning instead of looking outside

[framer]

Maybe thats the problem they are scanning instead of looking outside Today 02:34
heh heh, thats way closer to the mark!
a few being in strange positions near final and conducting a go-round or are they just lacking VMC currency? Yesterday 16:00
probably just c0cked it up and made the decision to go round and have another crack....what would you suggest? let me guess....never get in that position in the first place by being an ace pilot? Or maybe they should have logged their IF time more acurately to prevent such a situation? :hmm:

[43Inches]

Or maybe they should have logged their IF time more acurately to prevent such a situation?


Maybe,

Or maybe they're just worn out from scanning, scanning, scanning,

I'm also now interested to know what the FO does as the captain is scanning 95% of the time, is he also scanning?


never get in that position in the first place


Why do you have to be an ace pilot to achieve this, especially if your monitoring your instruments constantly the whole flight, should be easy.

[framer]

To answer your questions 43,
I'm also now interested to know what the FO does as the captain is scanning 95% of the time, is he also scanning

Yes.

Why do you have to be an ace pilot to achieve this, especially if your monitoring your instruments constantly the whole flight, should be easy.
Sometimes people make mistakes and/or errors in judgement. Sometimes ATC places a restriction on your descent, and a stage is reached where a stable approach is no longer achievable. If you fly for long enough one of these things will happen to you and you have two choices 1/ Carry out a go round, or 2/ carry out an unstable approach. Here in Australia we are pretty good at making the sometimes difficult decision to go-around.
Sorry if I was a bit short with you in earlier posts, I had assumed you were a commercial pilot. My bad. Have a good Christmas.
Framer.......Out.

[43Inches]

Sometimes ATC places a restriction on your descent, and a stage is reached where a stable approach is no longer achievable.


If your captain had such a efficient scan he would be aware of this and;

1. Would make ATC aware of this fact, request extra track miles, an orbit etc...

2. Not accept track shortening which leads to an unstable approach.

3. Be monitoring descent profile the entire descent, anticipate what ATC is doing with other traffic and position the aircraft to be flexible in case track shortening becomes available. This requires effective situational awarness generated by an good scan and management.

Of course a go-round is necessary in cases of an unstable approach or any other situation which requires it, but a go-round will cost a lot more than a few extra miles or minor profile adjustments to avoid it.

If the crew choose to ignore what their 'scan' is telling them and push on for a close approach to save time than this highlights another problem.

[cjam]

43 Inches,
You seem hell-bent on showing that QF/DJ 737 pilots don't scan enough and that it can sometimes be a safety issue. Fair enough i guess but you are not supporting your argument with any logic. Just a side-swipe comment about 'red 737's' having to do go-arounds. Are you reffering to DJ and QF 737's when you say 'red 737's' or have you narrowed the focus to just QF now?
When Framer said that ATC restrictions can cause a visual approach to become unstable if continued any further he/she was quite right, and often it is the result of an ATC error not a crew error. Or just a circumstance like a busy frequency meaning further descent does not become available soon enough.
You countered the statment by saying;

"If your captain had such a efficient scan he would be aware of this and;

1. Would make ATC aware of this fact, request extra track miles, an orbit etc...

2. Not accept track shortening which leads to an unstable approach"

Most of the time what you say is carried out, no problem. What Framer means is that sometimes things just don't come together, for whatever reason, and then the correct action is to go-around.
Saying that the captains scan rate has a bearing on any of this is a long stretch of the bow. I'd go so ar as to say it's a bit silly really.
CJAM......ps, sometimes I make up my IF time which might explain why I had to go-around last week when someone decided to request an airways clearance on tower frequency with many ums and arrs to fill the pauses. If only I had scanned my way out of that one ha ha.

[*Lancer*]

Instrument flying scan rate and situational awareness are two entirely different things.

[tomyangyang]

Thanks for all your input guys. I finally found the references for my question. "CAR 157 and CAO 40.0 - 2.7".

Cheers:)

[Cap'n Arrr]

Just to clarify for anyone reading the thread, in order for you to be logging ICUS, both pilots MUST be employed by a company, operating under the company AOC, with the company dictating who is PIC and who is ICUS. There are a couple other rules as well, but the main point is that you CANNOT just fly ICUS with a classmate.

Although one that I'm interested in knowing, can one fly ICUS on a ME IFR flight (commercial flight, say a charter) if they hold a MECIR but are not IF recent (3hrs etc)? PIC is current on everything.

[cjsurfer]

1. I am currently in the US flying a BE 200 and I was wondering under CASA regs if time is logged as dual recieved and given can it be logged as PIC by both if the captain is an instuctor or would it be UCIS for the right seat only. Both of them are Multi Enigine Rated and endorsed. Here in the US if you are both rated in the A/C and endorsed I.E. High Altitude and one of you is an instructor you can both log PIC if it is also logged as dual given and recieved

2. As well as if there are two pilots flying taking turns under the hood while the other is acting as saftey pilot can they both log PIC?

The reason why I ask I will be flying in Australia and I am trying to make my log books understandable by both FAA and CASA from training to present day

[Hornet306]

Remember CAR163A -
163A Responsibility of flight crew to see and avoid aircraft
When weather conditions permit, the flight crew of an aircraft must,
regardless of whether an operation is conducted under the Instrument
Flight Rules or the Visual Flight Rules, maintain vigilance so as to
see, and avoid, other aircraft.:rolleyes: