Logging IFR hours - is my thinking correct? [Archive]

12Watt Tim

6th Aug 2009, 19:59

What a load of codswallop is being written here.

IFR has nothing to do with the reference, it is a set of flight rules. At the beginning of my log book it says nothing about what reference is being used. It says "...under instrument flight rules...".

If I am flying a visual approach I am still usually operating under instrument flight rules. In the UK, if I so choose and comply with the flight rules, I operate under instrument flight rules, regardless of conditions, service received or even qualifications. A holder of a PPL with no attached ratings is entitled to decide that while flying in VMC he is flying under IFR if he is in class F or G airspace. A commercial flight in VMC outside controlled airspace will be operated IFR by most companies for safety. At night in the UK outside controlled airspace IFR is the only option.

In fact not only is Wodka entitled, both legally and morally, to log flight in class A airspace as being under IFR, he is legally required to do so. It is very obvious when he is in class A that he is flying under IFR as he has not been given a special VFR clearance. Special VFR clearances must specifically state 'special VFR', and are not usually available for airways and TMA.

'what next' has admitted that while recruiting he has thrown away CVs of applicants due to his own misunderstanding of the rules, as it is entirely possible that the candidate he describes logged his hours correctly. OK, 'what next' might not be impressed by time logged IFR while flying VMC in class G and not wish to employ the person, but to blacklist a candidate and call him a cheat would be libellous if he identified an individual.

loftusb takes to the high moral ground, but tumbles down the slope when he actually gives a technically illegal answer.

SN3 Guppy mistakes reference for rules. Instrument Flight Rules, boys, not Instrument Flight Reference. As for increasing proficiency due to reference being flown when the autopilot is flying the aircraft, albeit with reference to the instruments, that is just plain daft. Yet a multicrew pilot might log time under IFR while asleep.

Please people, can we stick to informed answers, not personal opinion of what the rules should be? :ugh:

For clarity: you must log time IFR any time you are operating under IFR. If you have an IR you can operate under IFR in any airspace, under any conditions, receiving any level of service. In class A airspace you must do so, unless in receipt of a SVFR clearance (as far as I am aware only available in class A CTRs, e.g. Heathrow and Jersey). If you have no instrument qualification you can still log time IFR outside controlled airspace in VMC in UK airspace.

So yes, Wodka, you should log IFR.

P.S. The only case I know of where flight '...by sole reference to instruments...' is referred to in the rules is for experience needed to instruct instrument flight. In that case every hour by sole reference counts for four hours of IFR towards those requirements. This of course confirms that time can be logged IFR when not flying by sole reference to instruments.

Sleepybhudda

6th Aug 2009, 21:26

Good post 12Watt Tim. I agree with just about all of that.

SNS3Guppy

6th Aug 2009, 23:39

What a load of codswallop is being written here...

...In the UK...

Ah, well, there you go.

In the real world we just log what we fly, instead of padding our logbooks to reflect what really isn't.

Your logbook serves as a legal document, ensuring that you've met minimum requirements for licensing and certification, ensuring that you've met recency of experience requirements, and providing a way to track a record of proficiency. Logging all of one's time spent operating under an IFR clearance is a wonderful way to rack up IFR hours, but IFR hours are meaningless, and don't at all speak to one's ability or even experience at flying instruments.

If one makes a 9 hour oceanic trip in daylight visual conditions, one makes that trip perhaps with a brief climb through clouds on departure, and a brief descent and approach through obscuring phenomena on arrival...thus gaining .3 or .4 of instrument time. I can see where you'd be logging 9 hours of instrument time because the flight is done on an IFR flight plan with an IFR clearance. Good for you.

Around here we just call that padding your logbook.

You'll find that typically about 10% of one's time is instrument time. Some a little higher, depending on their vocation...if you're seeing higher percentages because you're logging all your time spent on a clearance as instrument time...do what makes you feel best. Paint little airplanes on the side of your cockpit if it makes you feel like an ace, and wear a silk scarf. At the end of the day all that's significant is whether you can do the job, and logging every waking moment as instrument time won't make you one iota more proficient, nor prove you so. As you will.

PicMas

7th Aug 2009, 04:43

SNS3Guppy:
Does that also mean that, in the real world, you only operate under IFR - Instrument Flight Rules - when you are in the clouds??

So in effect, RealWorld airliners crossing the atlantic fly VFR most of the time, as there are few clouds at cruising level.

Sounds convenient that your rules change according to operating conditions, does that happen outside aviation also?

The authorities I fly under now state that I must log flight time while operating under instrument flight rules as flight time under instrument flight rules. During this flight time under instrument flight rules, it is permitted to enter instrument flight CONDITIONS, which is a whole 'nother subject relating to meteorology.

There is a difference from the US and Europe, I have flown both places, the logging is different. There is no "padding" of anything when logging according to the regulations under which ones rating was issued.

NuName

7th Aug 2009, 06:01

The logging of instrument flight time refers to flight by the sole reference to intruments, ie no outside reference. Flight by IFR does not refer to the means by which the aircraft was safely navigated but to the rules under which it was governed at the time. Being as I am usualy way above 30,000 feet, I can usualy expect 10 or maybe 20 minutes at each end, of instrument flying, in a 7-8 hour IFR flight. If it was acceptable to log all IFR flight as instrument flight time I would have thousands. What would be the point of logging hours and hours of autopilot flight in the clear blue sky, drinking coffee and chatting with the hostess, other pilot and the boss, and proudly calling it FLIGHT BY THE USE OF INSTRUMENTS:rolleyes:

what next

7th Aug 2009, 07:57

Good morning!

'what next' has admitted that while recruiting he has thrown away CVs of applicants due to his own misunderstanding of the rules, as it is entirely possible that the candidate he describes logged his hours correctly.

Since there is no class A airspace in 'my' part of the world and dropping parachutists is a strictly daylight VFR activity, dumping CVs of people who log instrument time for this activity does nobody any undue injustice, does it? There is some flying in class C and D airspace involved but neiter under instrument flying conditions nor instrument flying rules.
I can't remember ever having gotten an application from a British paradropper, so I have a clear conscience in this respect...

My sole intention was to warn 'Wodka' of logging anything that might cause the tiniest amount of suspiction with possible future employers. The company I fly for gets about 100 job applications per week (with maybe two or three positions per year to fill). There simply is no time or willingness to discuss unclear details with the candidates.

Greetings, Max

Among The Living!

7th Aug 2009, 08:43

WODKA - When you are operating in the LTMA flying in Class A airspace - (For example from EGKH, where the base of the TMA is 3500ft and you operate up to FL120 remaining within 1.5 of the centre of the airfield) you are definitely operating under Instrument Flight Rules.

You may not be IMC at the time, but you are flying in the same (Class A) airspace as other IFR traffic (Airliners etc). All clearances you are given by London are IFR clearances.

You should know this! in your BPA ops manual it states in black and white, to operate in class A airspace - the PIC needs a valid IR/Rating or IMC/rating with an exemption from the relevant authority, if required.

A simple way of testing this (If you are brave enough) is to try flying VFR in the LTMA and see what the London controllers tell you to do!:}

If you don't use "Instrument Flying Rules" whilst flying in the LTMA you will come un-stuck very quickly.

Safe flying

Blue Skies :O

SNS3Guppy

7th Aug 2009, 09:08

Does that also mean that, in the real world, you only operate under IFR - Instrument Flight Rules - when you are in the clouds??

So in effect, RealWorld airliners crossing the atlantic fly VFR most of the time, as there are few clouds at cruising level.

Sounds convenient that your rules change according to operating conditions, does that happen outside aviation also?

I said nothing of the kind. Put words in your own mouth. Not mine.

No, when crossing the atlantic, as I correctly stated previously, one operates under IFR. This is really quite irrelevant to the logging of instrument time, however.

You log IFR time, vs. instrument experience. Got it. Do you log time spent operating VFR as VFR time? Would anybody care?

The regulations require you to log time spent operating on an instrument flight plan as instrument time, or allow you to do so? There's a difference. You're not suggesting that you're under a penalty for failing to log IFR time, when operating IFR, are you?

PicMas

7th Aug 2009, 09:27

So there are two issues here.

1) How to correctly log flight time.

2) Rules for transatlantic crossing.

Number two is fairly easy to deal with, as VFR flights are not allowed over FL65 or FL95 in the NAT system (here I assume that realworld aircrafts fly above these levels) so they must fly under IFR.

Which brings us to number one.
If your authority states, for example per 14CFR 61.51 (c) that you must log instrument time during the time you are operating solely by reference to instruments in actual or simulated instrument conditions, then do so. What you are efectively logging is IMC time. Those are the rules under FAA.
Under JAA you log IFR whenever you are flying under instrument flight RULES. Even if you are flying in VMC the JAA regards flight time on an IFR plan as instrument flight time. Whether you, me or anybody else on the operating end agree with this practice is irrelevant, those are the rules.
When I finished my business in the US, I had nearly 2000hrs TT and roughly 120 IMC - in the IFR column. I keep a separate logbook for my FAA flying, this basically means that I have in excess of 1200 hrs IFR but only around 150 hrs IMC. Arguing if this is correct/ padding/ unreal world conditions, though interesting and timeconsuming, is purely academic as I doubt none of us will see a change in the rules.

As long as everybody plays by the same rules... where they may play.

PorcoRosso

7th Aug 2009, 10:20

Personnally, I have 2 columns in my logbook
one is labelled "IFR FPL" and I log the time flown with an IFR Flight Plan
another is labelled Actual Instrument, and I log the fligt time "in the clouds"
This was done to stick with both FAA & JAA rules and practices.

Regarding the initial question, I am raising another point : is your paradropping A/C equipped and approved for instrument flying ? if placarded "VFR DAY OPS ONLY" I would tend to think it answers negatively your question

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the JAA rules lead me to think that you need the following to log IFR :

a valid IR
an IFR equipped and approved A/C
an IFR FPL

if this is the case, then you can log

SNS3Guppy

7th Aug 2009, 10:37

If your authority states, for example per 14CFR 61.51 (c) that you must log instrument time during the time you are operating solely by reference to instruments in actual or simulated instrument conditions, then do so. What you are efectively logging is IMC time. Those are the rules under FAA.

Not at all. Under 14 CFR 61.51, a pilot is not required to log flight time except for the purposes of showing recency of experience, or to meet the requirements of a privilege, certificate, or rating. On is not required to log instrument time. One may log instrument time, but may only do so when flight is conducted by reference to instruments, either simulated, or actual instrument conditions. One need not be IMC; so long as one is required to operate the aircraft by reference to instruments, it's instrument time. The FAA has no prescribed category for logging time spent on an IFR flight plan, as it's meaningless.

Under JAA you log IFR whenever you are flying under instrument flight RULES. Even if you are flying in VMC the JAA regards flight time on an IFR plan as instrument flight time.

May log, or must log? Again, there's a difference. Previous posters have stated that all time spent under IFR must be logged as IFR. You're suggesting that JAA requires that time to be logged as instrument time?

When I finished my business in the US, I had nearly 2000hrs TT and roughly 120 IMC - in the IFR column. I keep a separate logbook for my FAA flying, this basically means that I have in excess of 1200 hrs IFR but only around 150 hrs IMC.

That basically means you have 150 hours of instrument time, and 1200 hours of nothing.

As long as everybody plays by the same rules... where they may play.

Ah, but you see, we don't. I the real world, we don't pad our logs, and we certainly don't log instrument time for periods of the flight in which a distant control center has issued a paper clearance...any more than we log flight time when we look up and see airplanes flying overhead.

A few years ago during an international weather modification project I met an incoming pilot from the EU who claimed to be qualified. When I glanced through his logbooks, it turned out that all the padding he'd done given the regulations under which he operated left him barely qualified to operate a motor scooter. He advertised himself as having ample flight experience, but his instrument experience was a fraction of what he logged, for the very purposes of this thread. His PIC time was likewise, and he had logged flight time for his simulation experience in a King Air, of all things. In the end, having reviewed his logs and inteviewed him, and former associates of his, I determined that the conclusion was correct and recommended his termination. While he met the JAA letter of the law, he was, in fact, unqualified to operate on our behalf, and did not have the experience to be doing what we were doing.

We're most certainly not all operating under the same rules.

You're asserting, then, that the JAA regulation requires you to log the time...or permits you to do so?

CL300

7th Aug 2009, 11:50

as everyone knows, it is common practice to fly in RVSM, MNPS airspace at FL390, with autopilot OFF at Mach .84.....
It is equally easy to fly the same airplane, without looking at the instruments to maintain the assigned level within 200ft, especially following a cold front.
And not to mention PRNAV ops, of course.

Be realistic, common sense...

oapilot

7th Aug 2009, 12:53

Oh my God, in light of all these comments about what you can log, and use of autopilot, I've come to the conclusion that having spent most of my career flying for airlines that discourage the use of anything other than the autopilot above 1000' after take off until disconnecting at decide, my total hours have reduced from 2300 to about 250. I'd better go and see the chief pilot and offer my resignation as I don't have enough hours for the job. In fact, will point out he should resign too, as he was the daft bugger that missed it when he checked my logbook when I joined.

As for all the time I've flown airways by sole visual reference to the next enroute VOR, well, I now realise I'm a total fraud. (I will even admit to not actually knowing exactly which cornfield some of the waypoints I've been sent to were over, and just pretended to).

Once again our regulatory bodies have conspired to write something which should be simple in a fashion that is wide open to interpretation. :ugh:

Wodka

7th Aug 2009, 15:12

Thanks for all your further replies, some interesting points well made :)

PorcoRosso, just to answer some of your points...

I have a JAR CPL/IR
No placards re "VFR only" - The aircraft is IFR certified.
We are flying on an IFR clearance

Kelly Hopper

7th Aug 2009, 16:33

I ceased logging instrument flying after earning the I/R years ago. As far as I am concerned it all is these days. I cannot see the relevance?

I do know it is an Ozzie & NZ thing though. Usually logging a percentage as "instrument." What the purpose of this is I am still scratching over.

what next

7th Aug 2009, 18:23

Hello!

I cannot see the relevance?In my part of the world, instrument hours are relevant for two purposes:

1. Qualifying as an instrument instructor (JAR-FCL 1.395 requires 800 hours flown under instrument rules) and

2. Upgrade to captain (or gaining single pilot qualification) in the commercial environment (JAR-OPS / EU-OPS). The number of hours required depends on the type of operation and is stated in the operating manual of the company.

Once you have achieved your goal (either 1 or 2 or both) you can stop logging instrument hours, because nobody will ever ask you again about them.

Greetings, Max

PicMas

7th Aug 2009, 18:30

Finally I understand it...
Unless you are in the clouds you navigate by visual landmarks. If it is possible to look outside, you do not fly by reference to instruments - makes sense.

I gather that you only log multiengine when on assymetric power, as otherwise, it flies like a single engine, and should be logged as such.

And for PIC, only as long as you are hand flying otherwise.....

421dog

8th Aug 2009, 02:14

Ok, I just compared my logbook with flightaware and in the past 6 months I've flown 523 actual hours (logged) 489 hrs show up on flightaware as being in the three aircraft which I alone would fly in the same period. These are all on IFR flightplans. My logbook, however, shows 61.5 hrs of actual instrument time. (I need to point out that on non-passenger legs, I am guilty of finding benign stratus clouds on occasion to do paperwork while the autopilot is on to "keep my skills current") So, claiming that the time spent on top or between layers as IFR is, in my book, and given my admitted padding by seeking out "wussy weather" completely disingenuous.

But hey, y'all can set whatever standards for yourselves that you want. I just know that my last 2200nm revenue trip where the autopilot folded up on our 340 right after takeoff in the LA basin and things were hardball IFR until eastern Kansas including an approach for fuel in the middle of the southern rocky mountains at night was tiring, but well within company expectations and my capabilities.

NuName

8th Aug 2009, 04:43

PicMas
I dont think you do understand it, logging instrument flight time, which is a testimony of ones ability to actualy control all aspects of a flight to include departure, cruise, transition and approach without visual references, i.e. in IMC conditions, is a very serious consideration when selecting flight crew. Those who log any time spent on a IFR flight plan regardless of the inflight conditions as instrument flight obviously wish to give an impression of experience that does not actualy exist, and, this being the case, it will become very apparent the first time the "experience" is called upon, usualy just before termination of employment or serious incident.:ugh:

PicMas

8th Aug 2009, 06:12

I understand it just fine.

I think you gentlemen from FAA land have an impression that the logging is open to interpretation, and that in JAA land we should adopt your rules.

My first job with a JAA employer I was actually asked to "convert" my FAA instrument time, so that, every flight that had included an approach was logged as instrument time - otherwise they could not compare my time with the remaining applicants - I did and got the job. The review was done before getting hired and not before termination or serious accdent.

And really, how hard is it?? If you have done it umpteen hundred times, how difficult is a departure and an approach? I am of the opinion that VFR flying with reference to landmarks and no GPS is extremely difficult, you should therefore not by pad your logbook with VFR hours.

IFR time logged on an IFR plan shows time spent in the environment of IFR flying, who cares if there is cloud outside the windows, you must still fly gauges... and you will, in busy European high density airspace.

You are of course free to have your opinion on logging and any other aspect of aviation as you wish, I take offense to the claims that you should log less than allowed for the reasons given here.

NuName

8th Aug 2009, 06:49

PicMas
I have both CAA and FAA qualifications. I find it rather disturbing that a qualified pilot would compare flying VFR/VMC with reference to landmarks, to, IFR/IMC with reference to instruments, and state that VFR in comparison is "extremely difficult". The whole emphasis of instrument flying, and recency of such, is the ability to deal with spatial disorientation, situational awareness, and human shortcomings in this evioroment. Cruising at altitude, VMC, autopilot engaged, FMS working normaly does not create a demanding envioroment, if it does for you I have to suggest that maybe you have chosen the wrong vocation. If you are unable to understand the difference in skill levels required between VFR/VMC with a defined horizon, and, IFR/IMC with no visual horizon, possible turbulance, rain, sleet, snow, ice, high workload in high density area's then I rest my case. If you do understand the difference then you must also appreciate just why only flight in IMC conditions should be logged as instrument flight.

Chinchilla.612

8th Aug 2009, 07:50

Just out of idle curiosity (and yes I'm bored while waiting for some updates to download).....
I notice that the FAA interpreters on this post only log "Instrument" time when flying by sole reference to instruments etc, and that the JAA holders are logging "Instrument Flight Rules" times as per their local authorities requirements.
My own understanding of it shows both camps as correct, since FAA wants to know how much time is spent IMC and JAA want to know how much time is spent IFR. I really don't see what the problem is?!
Out of interest though, do I assume (due to the arguement presented by the FAA advocates so far) that they only log Instrument time when they are hand flying, since if the autopilot is engaged a view out of the window or by reference to instruments appears somewhat irrelevant?
Anyway, back to FMS updates.
Chinchilla.

(PS, I log IFR for JAA and a seperate column of IMC for anyone who cares)
Edit: Having done some reading this afternoon, I now remember why I log the IF time as well as IFR time....see my next post.

12Watt Tim

8th Aug 2009, 12:57

SN3Guppy

In the UK, yes. Since the London TMA is entirely within UK airspace, I reckon that might have some relevance to the answer given. Yes FARs state you must log flight conditions, but that is not the case under JARs. Of course in any log book that has a space for IFR flight under IFR must be logged unless that column is clearly marked to be unused (e.g. crossed out entirely). It is a legal document, and the pilot signs each page to state that it is correct to the best of his knowledge. 'Padding' has nothing to do with it, unless you accuse the airline pilot who is required to use the autopilot (for example in RVSM airspace, or simply where company SOPs demand as in many cases) of padding every flight.

As for flying under IFR clearance being irrelevant I beg to differ, but then again I am still talking about UK and European airspace, so I know what I am talking about. The experience varies of course, but the discipline of flying correctly under IFR in any conditions and any class of airspace found in the busier areas of the UK and Europe, and most especially in controlled airspace, is very relevant. That is without considering the flights I have made hand-flying in the airways when the autopilot was tech. Good visibility did not make that less challenging. Yes it is possible to fly legally IFR without that discipline in UK class G airspace, but that is not the subject under discussion.

Any decent recruiter (and yes, I have also been deeply involved in recruitment and training of pilots for public-transport operations) knows what that experience means from the CV (resume); the "IFR" column simply details the quantity. Recruitment by numbers is a terrible habit indulged in by some flight operations.

Having said that personal recommendation is even more important. Two of the best pilots I ever worked with flew all their IFR previous to that job as Wodka does, paradropping in the London TMA. This seems far more relevant to the discussion at hand than FARs.

what next

Ah, so instead what you talked about was entirely irrelevant. Silly me, assuming that in answer to an honest question your rather disparaging answer actually had something to do with what Wodka wanted to know. In my experience potential recruits come from all over the JAA region, and have flown in various areas, so why assume they are cheating if they could be completely honest but flying in an environment different to Stuttgart's? I recruited a Danish pilot whose drop hours were all flown in the UK, and the rules in this respect are very different in the UK and Denmark. Damned good pilot, you probably chucked his CV at some stage and spat on his name (he did speak fair German).

As for flying paradropping under IFR, you cannot rule it out even in Germany, if the pilot holds an IR and so chooses, or if the weather only permits an IFR clearance into that class C or D airspace. Indeed you cannot rule out the possibility that some of the flight to or from the drop zone is in IMC. Although that is unlikely in some parts of the world, I doubt it is unknown in the UK.

PicMas

Agree entirely. I worked for an employer who would not allow flight on a live leg under VFR except in exceptional circumstances, despite the extra cost in fees to Brussels, as once you are used to IFR flight a fully visual sector is much harder work both in navigation and in flight management.

SNS3Guppy

8th Aug 2009, 14:21

Yes FARs state you must log flight conditions,

Actually, the CFR states that one may...not that one must.

Again, for the umpteenth time...does the JAR state that one must log all time spent operating on an IFR flight plan as instrument (or IFR) time...or that one may? Are you violating a regulation if you fail to log that time?

Meikleour

8th Aug 2009, 14:24

Tim, why do you continue to lambast SN3Guppy`s perfectly sensible replies to the original question? Too many contributors continue to confuse "Instrument Flying" with "Flight under Instrument Flight Rules"

Consider this: when I was doing my basic fliying training in the military - at the instrument stage we, amongst other things, carried out "recovery from unusual attitude" training whilst under the hood. That was conducted in class G airspace, was definitely not under an IFR flightplane but sure as hell was `real instrument time`!!!

Please, everyone, stop confusing IFR with IF One does not necessarily mean the other. For me to consider my 21,000 hrs of airline ops logged as "instrument time" is patently absurd and meaningless.

PicMas

8th Aug 2009, 14:54

Under JAA if:

- The pilot is instrument rated
- The aircraft is equipped and maintained to IFR standards
- The flight is on an IFR clearance

You can legally log IFR. If the contributors from the big firebreathing country well west of JAA land wants to offer an opinion on how time should be logged it will be just that, an opinion.

We can discuss back and forth on the next two pages if this is correct or not, doesn't really change the fact the: JAA pilots may log IFR when on an IFR flight plan.

Thanks for venting your concerns and voicing your opinions. I, for one, will think about this next time I fly IFR and following log IFR as per the Joint Aviation Regulations.

If you chose to perform a duty and following not log to the full extend of what may be legally logged thats your choice. I fail to see how that does anything for you, that your CV does not reflect your actual accomplishments and experience. Either you can fly to the required standards or you can't.

Chinchilla.612

8th Aug 2009, 15:15

SNS3Guppy,

Since no one else seems to want to answer your direct question, for JAA logbook entries, Lasors Section A, Appendix B states that
"The record shall contain the following information:"
"3. Operational conditions:
a. Night.
b. IFR."

My understanding of SHALL in this context is an instruction, while MAY would be the optional condition.

3b is a record of time spent IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) and not flight by sole reference to instruments (IF) and so for JAR logging of any time spent under Instrument Flight Rules is correct and required.

HOWEVER, Lasors also states that
"Pilot logbooks must be kept in accordance with the
provisions of the UK ANO currently in force and should
also conform to JAR-FCL (IEM FCL 1.080/2.080 refers)."

If you then check the UK ANO under part 4, section 35 it states:
"(2) Particulars of each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order, as the case may be, shall be recorded in the log book at the end of each flight or as soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable, including—
(d) particulars of any special conditions under which the flight was conducted, including night flying and instrument flying; and"

So the UK ANO requires a record of IF time to be kept in addition to the JAR requirement of IFR time.

I have only copied the relevant paragraphs, but please feel free to read the whole sections if you have as much free time as me.

Hope that helps clear it up.

Chinchilla.

SNS3Guppy

8th Aug 2009, 16:38

Thanks for that. Surprisingly, I do have some free time at the moment. Perhaps a link the relevant regulation would be forthcoming?

Chinchilla.612

8th Aug 2009, 16:43

SNS3Guppy,

A copy of the UK ANO can be found at:

The Air Navigation Order 2005 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm)

and Lasors available from:

LASORS 2008 | Personnel Licensing | Safety Regulation (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=175&pagetype=68&gid=780)

Happy reading,

Chinchilla.

12Watt Tim

8th Aug 2009, 16:53

SN3Guppy you are repeating a question even though I have pointed out it is irrelevant. If you are signing a legal document to say that you have filled out a page correctly, and it has a column for flight under IFR, you must fill it in correctly to the best of your knowledge!

Chinchilla has answered the question directly, but I am not sure why you think it would be acceptable to fill out the logbook incorrectly and then sign it even if JARs read differently.

Meikleour

Because SN3's answer was not "...perfectly sensible...". It was completely wrong in the context, and quite obviously so from the thread headline, "Logging IFR hours". IFR is a set of flight rules, SN3 started talking about flight reference which is irrelevant.

Had Wodka been in the USA SN3's answer would have been relevant but confusing, as he did not explain why he was suddenly changing to flight reference when Wodka was talking about rules. As it is Wodka was asking about flight in the LTMA. To avoid ambiguity you can look at his location, which is London, so given different rules it can only really be assumed that he means the London TMA, so if he is meat bombing it must be on a JAA licence, so under JAR FCL-1 rules.

We are not talking about military flight logs either. You also logged lift to land in the military I assume, but you can add a little time to each flight when you transfer to a civilian logbook. We are talking here about civilian rules, and IFR not flight by sole reference to instruments.

You are the one making a meaningless statment when you talk about "instrument time", as you are not distinguishing between flight under IFR and flight in IMC, in the very sentence after you complain at others for confusing the two. Wodka is asking about flight under IFR, and he very definitely is required to log time in the TMA as such. He should log other time as such, if he is complying with IFR, has decided to fly under IFR and has informed any ATSU he is in contact with that he is flying under IFR.

Under JAR-FCL-1 the difference between flight under IFR and flight by sole reference to instruments is only relevant to low-hour pilots who want to instruct IF!

PicMas

Don't forget that in the UK (and any other country that does not allow VFR flight at night) a pilot does not even require an instrument qualification to fly IFR in VMC outside controlled airspace.

Denti

8th Aug 2009, 18:05

Or just check out JAR-FCL (http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/607069.pdf) directly, search for 1.080 or just go to page 66.

This version is still from the JAA and therefore is a tad older, however FCL 1.080 was not changed even in the most recent version.

SNS3Guppy

9th Aug 2009, 00:47

SN3Guppy you are repeating a question even though I have pointed out it is irrelevant.

Ah, well...12watttim has spoken...no need to press on. Let's all pack up and go home, everybody.

Thanks to Chinchilla.612 for the references, and to Denti, as well.

Perhaps someone can explain the reference in JAR-FCL 1.080 which states:

...(v) A remarks column will be
provided to give details of specific
functions e.g. SPIC, PICUS, instrument
flight time*, etc.

* 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.

Given this thread, one might inadvertently be under the impression that such language in the regulation is restricted only to the "colonies."

Appears it's relevant after all, doesn't it?

421dog

9th Aug 2009, 02:16

"...Under JAR-FCL-1 the difference between flight under IFR and flight by sole reference to instruments is only relevant to low-hour pilots who want to instruct IF!"

I don't doubt that this is factually accurate, however, being in clouds with stuff going on that requires that you actually fly an airplane by reference to the instruments as opposed to pressing buttons and looking at the scenery, is a skill that we, as professional pilots who are entrusted with the lives of our passengers are expected to possess. It stands to reason that the rationale behind logging instrument time (given SNS's revelation) is to document that you have actually done this on occasion.

Flying a 182 full of parachutists up to 15000 and trying to beat them back to the ground under visual conditions 10 times in an afternoon exercises none of the skills relevant to instrument flying other than talking to ATC and existing in airspace in which, apparently, you have to "be IFR".

NuName

9th Aug 2009, 07:06

So, now we know. (post above). Next time someone asks, how much instrument time do you have, will it be time on a IFR flight plan or time spent controling the aircraft in IMC? One of these answers would be misleading at the very least.

Sleepybhudda

9th Aug 2009, 09:17

The last post from SNS3Guppy is interesting. I hadn't noticed that in JAR-FCL 1 before. So it appears that you "shall" log IFR time but you "may log" instrument time.

My Jeppesen JAR FCL log book which is nearly a direct copy of the JAR-FCL 1 IEM 1.080. (page 2-A-30 & 2-A-31) doesn't contain an Instrument column but does contain an IFR column.

12Watt Tim

9th Aug 2009, 09:17

SN3

If you have any reasoned argument against anything I have said then feel free to make it. However if you ask a question that has already been answered without addressing that answer, someone will just repeat that, and point out that you are not taking any notice of answers already given!Perhaps someone can explain the reference in JAR-FCL 1.080 which states:No, I don't think anyone can explain that to you, as more than one person has and you still appear not to understand. However I will try.

The item says "instrument flight time", and clearly defines this as "time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.". Wodka was asking about time flying under IFR. That is time flown under an IFR clearance in controlled airspace or following instrument flight rules in class F or G airspace.

Notice that under the section you quote the instrument flight time, if it is to be logged at all,is to be logged in a spare column (in some logbooks a separate column is marked "IF", but that is not always the case). That is separate from the IFR column in all JAR logbooks!

SNS3Guppy

9th Aug 2009, 09:44

12watt,

We've seen poster after poster patiently explain that the logging of instrument time is only something applicable in the US, that europe does it differently, logging whenever one is on an instrument flight plan, instead. Clearly, as we've seen the regulation verbatim, this is incorrect.

You've attempted patiently to explain the difference between instrument flight, and instrument flight rules...when there has never been a misunderstanding of the fact in any way, shape, or form.

Poster after poster has stated that one MUST and SHALL log IFR when on an IFR flight plan...when this is NOT the case.

The only thing you're left with, then, is the JAR-FCL 1.080 provision for conditions of flight...which provides two classifications: night, and IFR.

You'll note, if you think for a moment, that this is a condition of flight: Night CONDITIONS, and IFR CONDITIONS. Not Night Rules and IFR Rules. Not Night Regulations and IFR Regulations.

The regulation is clear. You log IFR C O N D I T I O N S.

Furthermore, the regulation is explicit with respect to when one may log instrument flight time, and it does not spell out logging it when on an IFR flight plan or clearance. In fact, the only thing to which it points is instrument conditions, and then clearly specifies that instrument conditions are those, and ONLY those in which one is required to operate the aircraft only by reference to instruments or under simulated instrument conditions.

JAR–FCL 1.080 Recording of flight time
(See IEM FCL 1.080)
(a) Details of all flights flown as a pilot shall
be kept in a reliable record in a logbook format
acceptable to the Authority (see IEM FCL 1.080).
Details of flights flown under JAR–OPS 1, may
be recorded in an acceptable computerised
format maintained by the operator. In this case
an operator shall make the records of all flights
operated by the pilot, including differences and
familiarisation training, available on request to
the flight crew member concerned.
(b) The record shall contain the following
information:
(1) Personal details:
Name and address of the holder
(2) For each flight:
(i) Name of Pilot-in-command
(ii) Date (day, month, year) of
flight
(iii) Place and time of departure
and arrival (times (UTC) to be block
time)
(iv) Type (aeroplane make,
model and variant) and registration of
aeroplane
(v) SE, ME
(vi) Total time of flight
(vii) Accumulated total time of
flight
(3) For each flight simulator or FNPT
session:
(i) Type and qualification
number of training device
(ii) Synthetic training device
instruction
(iii) Date (d/m/y)
(iv) Total time of session
(v) Accumulated total time
(4) Pilot function:
(i) Pilot-in-command (including
solo\\\\ slsolo, SPIC, PICUS time)
(ii) Co-pilot
(iii) Dual
(iv) Flight instructor / Flight
examiner
(v) A remarks column will be
provided to give details of specific
functions e.g. SPIC, PICUS, instrument
flight time*, etc.
* 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.
(5) Operational conditions:
(i) Night
(ii) IFR

Now, several posters have expounded at great length, stipulating that we can consider nothing but the regulation, and here is the regulation presented verbatim regarding what is required per the JAR-FCL for a logbook entry. Do we find anywhere a reference to logging operational rules applicable to the flight? We do not. Do we find anywhere a reference applicable to logging the type of flight plan under which the flight is conducted? We do not. Do we find anywhere cited in which the log holder is to note the clearance under which the flight is conducted? Hardly.

What we do find is a requirement to note the CONDITIONS under which the flight is conducted, and we're given two options: night conditions, or IFR conditions. Clearly as a flight conducted under instrument flight rules can be in VFR conditions or IFR conditions, the regulation isn't asking the pilot to log the flight plan, the clearance, or the regulation under which he or she has operated...but the CONDITIONS.

Given that the regulation specifies the conditions as being night or IFR, and then clarifies just when IFR conditions may be logged (all together now: "A pilot may log as instrument flighttime only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions")...that leaves us with a regulation which authorizes the logging of IFR conditions and instrument flight when conditions are requiring flight by reference to instruments, or simulated instrument flight.

Nothing in the regulation points to, discusses, or touches on an IFR clearance, an IFR flight plan, or operating under IFR regulations. Only IFR conditions...or in other words, such conditions which do not permit flight without reference to instruments.

Now again, without waffling on about what's relevant here...can you explain this, 12watttim?

So it appears that you "shall" log IFR time but you "may log" instrument time.

Not at all. The regulation stipulates the conditions under which you may log instrument time, but speaks nothing about logging "IFR time."

The regulation speaks to logging IFR conditions of flight, and night conditions of flight. You shall log conduct your log in accordance with the regulation, and you shall log the conditions of flight, be it as applicable, night, or IFR.

Being on a clearance, a flight plan, or operating in a particular airspace dosn't come into it at all.

Notice that under the section you quote the instrument flight time, if it is to be logged at all,is to be logged in a spare column (in some logbooks a separate column is marked "IF", but that is not always the case). That is separate from the IFR column in all JAR logbooks!

The logbook does not define the regulation, does it? Of course it does not.

You've seen the regulation copied direct, and it's very specific. What's marked in the logbook is, as you like to say, irrelevant. What's marked in the regulation, as several posters have pointed out, is relevant...and the regulation does NOT speak to instrument flight rules, but IFR CONDITIONS.

12Watt Tim

9th Aug 2009, 15:01

SN3

No. You are simply, plainly, objectively wrong. It is a common error, although more often among pilots with little or no IFR experience.

IFR, Instrument Flight Rules, have nothing to do with in-flight conditions. They relate only to operational conditions. IFR stands for Instrument Flight Rules, and can be flown under any meteorological conditions, and under diurnal or nocturnal conditions. VFR, Visual Flight Rules, are related to conditions, as one of the rules is that the aircraft must remain in VMC (and in UK airspace cannot be flown under at night).

IMC is an in-flight condition, Instrument Meteorological Conditions, under which one is only permitted to fly under IFR. However Wodka's question did not ask about logging time under IMC, it asked about logging time under IFR.

By the way I know of no airspace in the UK where an instrument-rated pilot cannot choose to fly under IFR under day VMC in-flight conditions as long as those IFR are complied with. I have been to areas where no IFR flight is allowed (Egelsbach in Germany for example) but not in the UK FIRs.Do we find anywhere a reference to logging operational rules applicable to the flight? We do not.How much clearer do you want it to be? The extract below is from the rules you quotes, and yes it instructs that your record "shall" (not "may") contain flight under IFR. Sorry but again you are just objectively wrong.(b) The record shall contain the following information:
...
(5) Operational conditions:
(i) Night
(ii) IFRI am not sure why you ask me to answer for sleepybuddha's comments. Please check who wrote what!

A logbook does certainly not define the regulations. However I sign every page of my logbook, and it is a legal document. It is also designed by someone who is actually familiar with flight in the UK, unlike some people I could mention.

Sleepybhudda

9th Aug 2009, 15:07

It doesn't say IFR conditions. The subtle difference is that it wants to know the conditions under which you operated.

at night

or under Instrument Flight Rules

I understand what IMC is...Instrument Metorlogical Conditions (when you can't comply with the Visual flight Rules because your not in VMC). There is no such definition for IFR conditions. Just a definition for IFR.

Instrument flight (IF) it says is to be noted in the remarks column.

In the IEM pages at the back of JAR-FCL 1 there are examples of log book pages to comply with the regulations. No instrument flight time column just a remarks column for that.
But there is a specific IFR column. There emphasis appears to be on time conducted under Instrument Flight Rule (IFR).

I think 12watt tim explained it better.

SNS3Guppy

9th Aug 2009, 21:01

I am not sure why you ask me to answer for sleepybuddha's comments.

I didn't. I quoted that poster, and addressed the quoted comment. Work on your comprehension.

It is a common error, although more often among pilots with little or no IFR experience.

Timmy, I'm not going to get into an anatomy measuring contest with you, but suffice it to say I probably have a fair bit more instrument experience than you...and most likely substantially more under IFR...and probably for a lot more years, as well, domestic, and international, large aircraft, and small.

The clue in the verbiage of the regulation is the header: CONDITIONS.

IFR, Instrument Flight Rules, have nothing to do with in-flight conditions. They relate only to operational conditions. IFR stands for Instrument Flight Rules, and can be flown under any meteorological conditions, and under diurnal or nocturnal conditions.

Precisely. The instrument flight rules do not require one to be in instrument conditions. When one is in IFR conditions, however, the very terminology refers to conditions less than VFR...and the big hint is the use of the word CONDITIONS. This is very different than simply specifying flight under IFR. The regulation very specifically points to IFR conditions, not simply IFR rules or regulations, but conditions. Conditions less than VFR. The regulation does not point to operations under IFR, operations in accordance with an IFR clearance, or operations in airspace requiring an IFR clearance. Only to IFR conditions, which of course, is conditions less than VFR.

There emphasis appears to be on time conducted under Instrument Flight Rule (IFR).

Appears? The emphasis appears? Is that anything like "looks like?" What, exactly is the regulatory basis for that assumption, given that the language of the regulation specifies IFR Conditions...not simply IFR.

The only definition cited beyond what's been listed, is in JAR FCL 1.001, and is for "Instrument Flight Time." Nowhere does it address operations under instrument flight rules or in accordance with an ATC clearance, but simply...

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

Where is the regulatory reference, then? Both of you cite the printing of your logbook as proof that you should be logging time on a clearance or flight plan as IFR...and your logbook isn't a regulatory document. It's a document required by the regulation, but your signature in that book doesn't make what's printed therein into regulation, nor does it codify a column marked "IFR" in the log into the JAR-FCL, does it? (It does not).

Accordingly, what's printed in your logbook, as Tim likes to say, is irrelevant.

What's printed in the JAR FCL, however, isn't...and it doesn't point to logging time under an IFR flight plan at all...only to IFR Conditions.

www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/500969.pdf

This document points to an EASA document providing a definition of "IFR conditions. Specifically, the reference from the above link states:

*‘IFR conditions’
ref. EASA CS-Definitions.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/doc/Agency_Mesures/Certification_Spec/CS-Definitions_CONSOLIDATED_Def%20Amdt.%201%20(14.12.07).pdf

This link provides a definition for "IFR Conditions" as follows:

‘IFR conditions’ means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.

Which brings us back to the concept that when the regulation states that for conditions of flight you may list IFR conditions, or Night conditions...it's not talking about listing time spent on an IFR flight plan, or under an IFR clearance. It's talking about flight in weather conditions below the minimum for visual flight rules.

421dog

10th Aug 2009, 02:11

SNS, for some reason that escapes me, I've spent several hours chasing European references.
Near as I can tell, you're right.

Last night, I wrote a fairly inflammatory post impuning the motives of those who would pad their experience with "flight under IFR" rather than "Flight in IMC" which disappeared (presumably deleted by the moderators). It seems to me that the practice as promulgated by "Timmy" et al is, indeed, indefensible.

Let 'em beat you up, at least one of us thinks you're right.

SNS3Guppy

10th Aug 2009, 03:52

I'm certainly open to a frank explanation for these references, but thus far none has been forthcoming...other than references to a printed logbook. I'm no expert in European air legislation...not remotely close. I would like to see a reference that explains away what's already been posted though, and clearly shows that one should log time not based on IFR conditions (as defined), but on a flight plan, airspace, or a clearance.

Seems that explanation is rather elusive. In all probability they may be right...but it would be nice to see a conclusive answer beyond conjecture.

For moral and practical purposes, however, you're absolutely right. Logging is done for the purposes of recording experience, and time spent on an IFR clearance, of it's own accord, is about as valuable as a two legged milkstool in an earthquake. Time spent actively engaged in the art of instrument flight, however, regardless of the clearance, flight plan, or airspace, is an educational commodity which requires close attention to detail, situational awareness, a rapid scan, a good mastery of the aircraft and instrumentation, a working knowledge of procedure, and genuine skills.

I suppose I can see why some might be drawn to piling up as much time as they can simply on an IFR flight plan, instead...:rolleyes:

NOSIGN

10th Aug 2009, 05:54

2nd + opinion - SNS2Guppy is spot on (at least with regards to Aussie & NZ regs)

2 cents worth - log IFR flight plan time if you need to obtain the ATP "planned IFR" rq's. This is not IF/IMC/ ACTUAL IF flight time as shown in typical logbook column. You can create a column in your logbook to log IFR flight plan time to know when you have reached the IFR rq... then scrap it.

story: I know a retired QANTAS Captain who has logged less IF time than many 1000 hour wannabees.

Tip: use your stopwatch when you enter/leave IMC conditions. :ooh:

Meikleour

10th Aug 2009, 07:31

Guppy,

I have enjoyed your robust arguments but it seems the time has come when the phrase
"You can take a horse to water but you can`t make it drink" has arrived! Happy flying - VFR/IFR or otherwise!

Chinchilla.612

10th Aug 2009, 09:07

Wodka,

Sorry for ignoring your question, but I have to admit that I missed your point at first as I got distracted by the definitions arguement that has taken over on here lol.

To answer your question about logging P1 IFR whilst doing your job, I can not give you a definite answer but am able to tell you my own experience. My first job (after instructing) was flying aerial surveys, and as such I would spend up to 6 hours per sortie flying (often inside Class A airspace including the London TMA) but as you can imagine flying IMC would not produce very good images! Our flights were given clearances to enter the airspace, but we were not flying on an IFR flight plan, they were special clearances. A friend of mine flies para dropping and tells me they have a similar clearance......but as I said, I cannot comment on your own operation.

Since, at the time the IFR time would have been useful to me for moving onto air taxi work (to meet the 100hrs ME IFR for single pilot ops) I enquired from the UK CAA PLD about the validity of logging those hours. The response was that the IFR hours had to have been logged on an IFR flight planned route, or could be achieved in actual IF conditions (IMC).

So for my own operation only those hours spent positioning to/from survey sites in IMC counted, and the several hundred hours flying in Class A airspace did not.

This was about 4 years ago though, so if you want a definate and up to date answer check with the CAA, they have always been very approachable to me.

That said though, unless you are planning to do single pilot charters or IR instruction there seems very little point worrying over it. Once I'd met the 100 hour starting point, I've never been asked my IF or IFR time since. Also, if you are thinking of going down the single pilot charter line.....bear in mind that it's multi engine IFR time you need for most AOC requirements (just thought I'd mention that incase you're flying a single at present).

Sorry for the previous thread creep, and hope that helps you.

Chinchilla.

NuName

10th Aug 2009, 09:14

Thread creep or not, I'm sure Wodka got all the information he would have got anyway. Fact is SNS3Guppy is totaly correct and my countrymen should be slightly embarrased at having to have this explained to them by one of our American collegues.

Chinchilla.612

10th Aug 2009, 09:42

NuName,

Whilst I'm sure there are different ways to interpret written regulations to fit in with ones own understanding, I think I'll stick with the UK CAA's version of it rather than Mr Guppys' (no matter how well intentioned).

The many posts on here (from your own countrymen as you put it) are correct, and over here in JAR land IFR is time spent on an IFR flight planned route, and IMC is IF and should be recorded in the remarks (or spare column) of your logbook. This is worth doing as it is stated quite clearly in LASORS (which is of no relevance to the FAA amongst us, but is rather important for anyone wanting to upgrade a JAA licence) that "1 hour sole reference to instruments may be counted as 4 hours flight by IFR." thus also reinforcing the difference. (Lasors H2.1 if you want to look it up). If as Guppy maintains IF and IFR are the same, this variance would truly make no sense.

The reason I was given for keeping a record of IFR time as well as IF time is due to the complex and busy airspace in Europe, and to show currency in the operating environment (or operational condition if you will). There is still a requirement to also record the time spent flying by sole ref to the instruments (IF time) in accordance with the ANO. In this way you have a record of your experience for both Instrument Flying skills, and currency of operational procedures.

I'm sure if we all read up on the FAA regs we'd find other ways to interpret how they do things too, but is it reallly worth it?!

Surely the best plan is to record the information requested by our own local licencing authorities, (but perhaps be sure to input only the IF time when applying for an FAA position since they do not want to know how much time has been spent operating under Instrument Flight Rules).

At the end of the day, we don't have to agree with any of the rules the authority set....we just have to follow them.

Chinchilla.

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 09:46

I should also point out as a parachute pilot myself, we are not operating under IFR when dropping. We are operating under an exemption that allows us into Class A airspace. It is physically impossible for us to operate under Instrument Flight Rules when climbing and descending vertically!! So in anwer to the original question relating to parachute dropping none of the time is IFR. You will of course be climbing and descending through cloud a lot of time so you can log those bits in the instrument flight column.

SNS is bang on with his interpretation. At work we fly a mix of IFR and VFR and I have only ever logged flight time by sole reference to instruments not IFR time. I make a note in the comments column if it was an IFR or VFR flight plan. I can often do an IFR flight and not see so much as a fluff of cloud in 6 hours.

In the UK a pilot with a PPL and no IR or IMC can fly everywhere under IFR having to remain VMC so logging IFR time is utterly pointless.

Chinchilla.612

10th Aug 2009, 09:57

Bose-x,

I agree fully with regard to para dropping not coming under IFR (same as the aerial survey work I did).

Disagree over the logging of IFR time as being pointless though! If you want to become an Instrument Rating Instructor (for example) the minimum requirements are to "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."

So yes, you are right, even without being in IMC you can still qualify as an IRI based on your IFR experience........so can be worth recording depending on what your career plans are really.

Whether you agree with Guppy or the CAA is entirely up to you.

Happy flying :)

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 10:36

I am an IRI and my application was accepted on the actual instrument time not my IFR time. The CAA never even questioned it.

I raised the question about flight time logging at my last examiner renewal and the CAA view is that actual flight time by sole reference to instruments should be logged. Where for example someone is a multi crew pilot where all work is under IFR they will accept IFR flight time on the assumption that there should be enough actual instrument time within it. Hence the reason for the 4-1 exchange rate.

Chinchilla.612

10th Aug 2009, 10:45

Bose-x,

Quite right too, and as you have written yourself there, exactly why IFR AND Instrument Flight time should both be recorded in line with CAA requirements.

So since you say yourself that, like me, you have also been told by the CAA that they need to know the IFR flight time what is the point with which you agree with Guppy?

Chinchilla.

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 10:58

Ha!, you misunderstood my post or are trying to play games with me?

The CAA do not need to know IFR time only flight by sole reference to instruments. However where that is all that is available they will give credit at a 4-1 rate.

It is my view and one confirmed from the CAA that logging of instrument time refers to flight by sole reference to instruments. In that respect SNSGu is correct and that was the point I agreed with. I see nothing wrong in logging both. I have accumulated several logbooks over the years all FAA & JAR FCL Compliant and they all have a note at the front about instrument time being sole reference to instruments. My current ASA Professional log says the same.

What I do see as wrong is trying to claim IFR time when a parachute dropping where as I said before it is IMPOSSIBLE to comply with IFR!!!

Chinchilla.612

10th Aug 2009, 12:20

Bose-x,

I might be dragging this out more than needs be as I'm a bit bored today lol, but not really playing games with you my friend.

I don't think anyone has disagreed about logging of instrument time as being when the flight has been conducted by sole ref to instruments. And I agree fully with all those who have pointed out that logging of even IFR time when para dropping is not acceptable.

However, logging of IFR time when flying procedurally is acceptable and should ALSO be logged. I have not said that one should be logged and the other not logged. They both serve a purpose, and are both recognised by the authority.

As you said, a multi crew pilot may achieve an IRI with the 800 hours IFR, and in some areas that may be before 200 hours IMC (especially if they operate in my part of the world), so a record of both could allow them rating upgrades sooner.

Which figure you put on a job application surely has more to do with what the employer is interested in.

In my own company the IFR (or operational airways and proceedures) experience is of more relevance. This is partly because we operate with the autopilot doing most of the flying from departure through the cruise along the airways and down to 100' above minimums on approach. The weather here is predominantly VMC, and manual handling skills in IMC are tested 6 monthly in the sim.....opportunity to practice in the aircraft is limited.

Whilst it is "nice" to have a candidate who also has plenty of actual instrument time this could just as easily have been flown outside of controlled airspace and airways and whilst their handling skills may be fine, they can be lacking in operational experience. The ideal candidate has evidence of both and thus recording it in the log book is a sensible thing to do.

Like yourself and Guppy, once you reach a certain level it really loses it's relevance, but to the lower houred on here it can be advantageous to demonstrate both the IFR and IF experience as previously expressed.

Out of interest, for the FAA requirements do you record your approach types and holds in the remarks section, or do you have dedicated columns?

:)

SNS3Guppy

10th Aug 2009, 13:32

The many posts on here (from your own countrymen as you put it) are correct, and over here in JAR land IFR is time spent on an IFR flight planned route, and IMC is IF and should be recorded in the remarks (or spare column) of your logbook. This is worth doing as it is stated quite clearly in LASORS (which is of no relevance to the FAA amongst us, but is rather important for anyone wanting to upgrade a JAA licence) that "1 hour sole reference to instruments may be counted as 4 hours flight by IFR." thus also reinforcing the difference. (Lasors H2.1 if you want to look it up). If as Guppy maintains IF and IFR are the same, this variance would truly make no sense.

Thanks again for the regulatory reference. This is precisely what I was after.

The UK licensing requirements do ask, in several places (as cited above) for a record of experience operating under instrument flight rules (IFR), per LASORS, as one way of showing compliance. The same regulation, of course, recognizes actual instrument time as being worth four times what time spent under IFR is valued.

At no point did I ever insinuate, or suggest that Instrument Flight, and IFR are the same; in fact, my point has been exactly the opposite.

What the regulation in the UK does not prescribe is a requirement to log time spent under IFR. Many posters have suggested that the regulation states the pilot shall log flight under IFR, and as we have seen, this is false.

The regulations specific to the maintenance of a logbook clearly prescribe a requirement to show conditions of flight, which are IFR conditions (not flight under IFR).

What one records in excess of this, to show compliance with the LASORS experience requirements, for example), is separate and apart from the logging requirements of the JAR-FCL 1.080.

The regulation does not use the phrase IMC, but rather refers to "IFR conditions"...which as we've seen (and contrary to what many posters have stated), is clearly defined as flight in conditions less than VFR.

For those who have clung doggedly to their logbooks as evidence of the regulation, we've fairly thorougly dismissed this as any establishment of regulation, as it is not. What the log book makers have done is kindly provided a column for which applicants may record their IFR time for meeting certain licensing requirements...but there's no requirement to log such for the purposes of the JAR-FCL 1.080. It's simply not there, and as such, is not a regulatory requirement of keeping a logbook. Whereas many posters have repeatedly stated that one SHALL and MUST record time spent under IFR, this is patently false.

There has never been a disagreement over the difference between flight in instrument conditions, and flight under instrument flight rules...of course they are different. The regulation, however, recognizes only flight in instrument conditions when sole reference to instruments is required, for the logging of instrument time...and this is the clearly the meaning (as defined by previously cited documents) in JAR-FCL 1.080.

Per Chinchilla.612, the LASORS section H2.1 as previous specified is as follows:

b. 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.

This particular requirement is for the privilege of Instrument Instructor in Aeroplanes, and is specific to that rating...not to the general logging of flight time. Where regulations specific to the general logging of flight time are concerned, one is not required to log time spent under IFR...but one is required to log flight in IFR conditions. Flight in IFR conditions, as previously shown, is flight in conditions less than VFR.

Out of interest, for the FAA requirements do you record your approach types and holds in the remarks section, or do you have dedicated columns?

The FAA doesn't prescribe a logbook format or make an effort to detail columns in the book; this is a function of each individual logbook maker, and they vary somewhat. So long as the logbook is able to break down time adequately to show compliance with the regulation, the FAA isn't concerned with the format.

The FAA does not require the logging of flight time except to show compliance with recency of experience or certification requirements, and to show a record of privileges extended in certain cases (eg, student pilots solo privileges, etc). One can fly a thousand trouble free hours and log none of it, if one wants. One may also add to the logbook, such as recording hours spent under IFR, if one wants...but there is no regulatory requirement for, or against this action.

The specific regulatory requirement to log time is found in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61.51(a), which states:

(a) Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:

(1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part.

(2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

By and large the recording of flight time beyond the regulation (eg, logging IFR) in the US is considered padding one's log and looked upon with some distain and discouragement. I know an individual who is flying as a civilian in a combat zone, and is presently logging "combat time." While he's certainly entitled to put whatever he wants in that log, it's caused no shortage of ridicule, and of course, impresses no one.

What's in the US regulations so far as logging of flight time is of course, irrelevant to the thread, but as the question was asked, one must record the type of approach, and location. There is no specific requirement as to how or where this information must be recorded in the logbook. However, most logbooks include a place to put this information, and it's a good practice to record it for the sake of details, whether it be in the remarks section, one's own personal section, or a dedicated, preprinted column which specifies the type of approach and location. As far as the FAA is concerned, the individual needs to either show an instrument proficiency check in the past six months, or log six approaches, holding, and tracking of a course. (What's required to actually be proficient, of course, is another matter, largely specific to the individual).

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 13:33

My ASA logbook has a column for the approaches and you annotate the type of approach and tracking holding etc in the comments column. I tend to prefer the ASA format as it covers both JAA and FAA requirements.

As for the other stuff, I think you will find we are actually in agreement......

12Watt Tim

10th Aug 2009, 13:41

SN3 I quoted that poster, and addressed the quoted comment. Work on your comprehension.Read your own post. You addressed it specifically to me.I probably have a fair bit more instrument experience than youExactly my point. You are making an error that is usually made by people with far less instrument experience (both IFR and IMC) than you have. Most get the confusion sorted in a short time, although I have had to resolve the confusion during line training.

No, not CONDITIONS but OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS, a very different thing, although I think the terminology is poor as it easily confuses those who have no idea about flying under JARs. In common aviation use the term 'conditions' refers to meteorological in-flight conditions. To ignore a vital part of a term you posted yourself is simply a dishonest argument, and invalidates most of your response to me!

There is no such thing as "IFR conditions" or "VFR conditions", they are things my PPL students would talk about. To specify "flight under IFR" is to specify an operational condition (note IFRs themselves are not a condition at all, but a set of rules; the choice to operate under IFR is an operational condition) that can be applied in any in-flight conditions, as you yourself admit. There is such thing as IMC, instrument meteorological conditions, under which VFR flight is not allowed (although in very restricted circumstances special VFR flight is allowed).

Flight under such Instrument Flight Rules is IFR flight, regardless of the meteorological conditions. The rules themselves define what constitutes flight under them, so there is no need for a separate definition.

The only reason you consider it necessary is because you are wrong about the nature of the term IFR, but that nature is inherent in the expansion of the abbreviation; it is a set of rules, and if the pilot is following all those rules, and is entitled to fly under IFR (and if the pilot so chooses, in circumstances where IFR is elective) then the flight is conducted under IFR regardless of in-flight conditions experienced.I'm certainly open to a frank explanation for these referencesNo you are not. You have distorted the longest reference you have made, and initially lied about what it said. That is not very frank.... time spent on an IFR clearance, of it's own accord, is about as valuable as a two legged milkstool ...Wrong. That is equivalent to saying that the PNF should not be logging time, or that a pilot taking a nap should subtract that time. It is also something that could only be said by someone who has never flown in South East England, the very area under discussion.

For real IFR flight operations, experience of flight under IFR clearance or under ATC guidance outside controlled airspace can be far more relevant than flight in IMC. Flying in empty class G in a cloud is very different to flying under radar control in busy class A airspace. The weather is for the most part completely irrelevant, as the aircraft is flown on autopilot!

bose-X

If you are operating in class A airspace then unless someone states specifically that you are operating special VFR then you are IFR, even if you are operating under an exemption in order to be allowed to do so. I have heard dozens of drop aircraft cleared into the LTMA, and never once heard the words special VFR spoken.

There are only three ways of flying, VFR, IFR and special VFR. You must be under one of them at any time you are flying legally. You cannot fly under VFR in class A airspace. For special VFR there is a legal requirement that you be offered and accept a clearance containing the term "special VFR". If you are in class A airspace legally and have not heard and read back "special VFR" then you are IFR!

Which IFR is it impossible for you to comply with? I have not dropped, but can't think what you might do against IFRs. If you have an exemption then it will be from that rule, not from IFRs themselves. Otherwise you would be airborne but not flying under any rules!

If you are flying on a JAA licence not only have you cut out a lot of your claim for experience by not logging IFR but you are also breaking the JAR-FCL regulations that SN3 quoted. See item 5, your "...record shall include ... (5)Operational conditions ... (ii)IFR".

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 13:49

I have heard dozens of drop aircraft cleared into the LTMA, and never once heard the words special VFR spoken.

Tell me what terminology was used?

This is all wrapped up in the exemption for parachute dropping in CAS, the exemption in the UK also allows IMCR holders to operate within CAS that is normally excluded to them, i.e Class A.

SNS3Guppy

10th Aug 2009, 13:56

12watttim,

Whereas the regulation does state conditions of flight, specifically IFR conditions, and we've seen clearly that the regulation defines "IFR Conditions" as conditions less than VFR...your repeated assertion that the regulation refers to flight under an IFR flight plan or clearance is clearly wrong, and has been thoroughly dismissed.

That you keep arguing to the contrary doesn't change that, and neither does the formatting of your commercial logbook.

If you'll show a regulatory reference to support your claims...that would be worth something. However, you cannot.

There is no such thing as "IFR conditions" or "VFR conditions", they are things my PPL students would talk about.

I know...you've already said this before. We've proven it patently false, however, by quoting the regulation, and the defintion thereof, verbatim.

As you'll recall from reading the thread, if you have done so..."IFR Conditions" is clearly defined in official documentation, as "‘IFR conditions’ means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

Given that you've been provided the documentation, links, and references to see this for yourself...there's really no room for discussion there.

What I was after was a specific regulation pointing to any need or use of logging IFR, and this was provided by Chinchilla6.12 when he or she cited LASORS H2.1.

It should go without saying (but apparently does not), once again, that the specific regulation applicable to logging of flight time (JAR-FCL 1.080 was provided) does not in any way, shape, or form, point to the logging of IFR...but to instrument conditions...which are then clearly defined as previously shown.

If you can't read and understand this, there's little point having further discourse with you. Repeating the same tired arguments without documentation does nothing to further your case, which may thus safely be discounted for lack of evidence.

Thanks again, Chinchilla6.12.

Wodka

10th Aug 2009, 13:58

Well this has mushroomed into quite a discussion!

I do disagree with Bose-x re the IFR. If we are flying in the TMA we are under IFR just like all the other traffic. I regularly climb through and sometimes hold in cloud layers - if I was VFR / SVFR (Which our clearance is not) I would not be able to do this as i'm not maintaining flight in VMC conditions. The ATCO's treat us as they would any other traffic and consider us as operating under IFR in the TMA (I phoned them and asked).

As an example - consider this possibility:

We are cleared to FL100. When at FL100 the controller requests us to take a radar heading 090 because of some traffic they want to slot around us. While on this radar heading we enter IMC. If I was VFR I would not be able to accept a radar heading that took me knowingly into IMC.

Just one example, I may be wrong in my thinking - discuss!

What have I decided (so far!):

I will log actual time in IMC as 'Instrument time' and use the 4/1 method too.
I will log a small amount of IFR time (A conservative 30% of total flight time representing the climb / holds to altitude in the TMA) (BUT be clear about what this experience is made up of on my CV - I have no interest or intention of misleading people and whilst I agree this is not a full departure, airway, arrival - it is in my view good operational experience nonetheless.

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 14:24

We are cleared to FL100. When at FL100 the controller requests us to take a radar heading 090 because of some traffic they want to slot around us. While on this radar heading we enter IMC. If I was VFR I would not be able to accept a radar heading that took me knowingly into IMC.

I think you need to understand the exemptions that parachute dropping operates under in CAS. You can either talk to the BPA or NATS.

As for the rest of your suggestion on logging, strikes me as a good compromise!!

Don't get me wrong, I understand fully the type of operational pressure you are working under especially in UK conditions where quite often you will be in IMC in very odd aircraft configurations waiting for the required hole to appear in front of you which will give the 'cargo' clear sight of the ground.

It may not be departure and arrival experience but it is sold instrument experience transition on and of the clocks a dozen or more times an hour.

Sleepybhudda

10th Aug 2009, 16:42

This is a great thread and I'm glad I've learned something.

I have to concede to SNS3Guppy that EASA CS-Definitions does define "IFR Conditions" I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it myself.

But before you think you've won (i mean this nicely) I've got the rarely seen section 2 for JAR-FCL 1.

I forgot that the IEM quotes from my early post can't be found on the normal JAR websites. So here is a link via the UK CAA website to JAR-FCL 1 Section 2 Part A covering the IEM (Interperative Explanatory m
Material) its is how to comply with JAR-FCL 1. It is part of the regulation.

Pages 2-A-28 to 2-A-35 is the juicy stuff. Including instructions on filling out the required format and an example of a 747-400 entry with all flight time logged as IFR.

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=175&pagetype=90&pageid=7238

Hope this is what you're looking for

:ok:

Chinchilla.612

10th Aug 2009, 17:03

Nice one Sleepybhudda,

I guess you can't get much clearer on the rules than that lol

"Column 9: enter flight time undertaken at night or under instrument flight rules if applicable."

:ok:

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 17:22

The only problem being is that was JAR FCL1 v4 that sleepybuha is referring to and was suprceded, the current version is Amendment 7 and that refers to conditions not rules. The UK CAA have currently adopted Amendment 5 which is what our ANO refers to. However the section remains the same between the 2 amendments.

http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/607069.pdf

Page 1-A-12 refers.....

* 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.
(5) Operational conditions:
(i) Night
(ii) IFR

SNS3Guppy

10th Aug 2009, 17:27

Hope this is what you're looking for

Excellent, Sleepybuddah. That's exactly what I was looking for. While set as an example, it's not regulatory language, but in context certainly official, and I believe meets the burden of proof. Well done.

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 17:34

It would be proof if it had not been superseded. FCL1 amendment 4 is no longer the regulation. Amendment 7 is and the wording is totally different........

Chinchilla.612

10th Aug 2009, 17:44

Bose-x,

Do you have a link to AL7 with the new wording?

Guess I've been using out of date information if it's changed, but at least sleepybuddah was able to find the reference that had us filling our log books out in the previously mentioned manner lol.

I think I'll still keep the 2 columns going for myself though....once started and all that.

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 18:04

chinch. I posted the link above!

Chinchilla.612

10th Aug 2009, 18:06

Bose-x,

Just found Amendment 7 at

http://www.haf.gr/el/career/merimna/pdf/JAR-FCL1_AM07_SEC2.pdf

Page 2-A-41 is still identical to Amendment 4, so not sure what the changes are to which you refer?

Sleepybhudda

10th Aug 2009, 18:09

To make things simpler EASA's new FCL document is online to view and on pages 175 to 181 you'll find identical text to my IEM links, just badly formatted in some places. (Due to replace JAR-FCL 1 & 2)

http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202008-17b.pdf

Thanks Chinchilla.612 was looking for that amendment 7

Chinchilla.612

10th Aug 2009, 18:13

Sorry Bose-x,

I saw your link but couldn't find the reference to the log book compilation.

Since then found Amendment 7 as per my last post, but can't find any changes to the applicable section compared to Amendment 4.

Chinchilla.

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 18:39

It's covered under the bit that I extracted and pasted.

Sleepybhudda

10th Aug 2009, 18:48

Just to sort things out

Bose-X you posted http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/607069.pdf

Which is from the JAA website but only contains Section 1 to JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 7

Chinchilla.612 posted Section 2 to JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 7
http://www.haf.gr/el/career/merimna/pdf/JAR-FCL1_AM07_SEC2.pdf

They are different

Chinchilla.612

10th Aug 2009, 18:51

But Bose, that's the same extract that I put on here yesterday.

It was section 2 that cleared up the confusion and that remains unchanged in AL7 as Instrument Flight Rules.

Anyway, time to head downstairs to the restaurant I reckon.

S-Works

10th Aug 2009, 18:57

Interesting!!! That is 2 sections within the same document contravening each other. The question being which section is covered by the ANO and which section is considered guidance rather than law?

Wodka

10th Aug 2009, 19:51

Just want to clear something up that is niggling me - the extract from JAR FCL 1 -

(4) Pilot function:
(i) Pilot-in-command (including
solo\\\\ slsolo, SPIC, PICUS time)
(ii) Co-pilot
(iii) Dual
(iv) Flight instructor / Flight
examiner
(v) A remarks column will be
provided to give details of specific
functions e.g. SPIC, PICUS, instrument
flight time*, etc.
* 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.

(5) Operational conditions:
(i) Night
(ii) IFR

The way I read this is that section 4 is saying "if you flew in IMC you should put this in the remarks column"

Then section 5, a separate entry regarding the conditions - IFR etc "if you flew under IFR, this is the bit for that"

Are we not confusing things by saying that bit of section 4 is related to that bit of section 5? or am I just being thick! :confused:

SNS3Guppy

10th Aug 2009, 20:12

Since then found Amendment 7 as per my last post, but can't find any changes to the applicable section compared to Amendment 4.

In section 2, Amendment 7, as cited above in post #84, on page 2-A-41, the relevant guidance on filling in the log is cited just the same as the previous reference given by Chinchilla6.12...specifying the logging of IFR time. Same as Ammendment 4. The only difference is that it's oriented differently on the page.

Tinstaafl

10th Aug 2009, 23:09

I have ATPLs from Oz, Uk & USA. In all cases I've logged IF, not IFR. And, in all cases, that's what the relevent authority looked at to assess my experience. The rules in Oz & USA are quite clear about logging IF, not IFR. I would be surprised if UK rules (and subsequently JAA) really meant to mean IFR instead of IF.

I think a key point to interpreting rules & regs is that one must first start with the definitions before reading the relevent rule(s). It's not possible to derive the same meaning as the author if you aren't assigning the same meaning to the same words. Further, within a set of rules the same meaning is taken throughout the document unless another meaning has been assigned for any particular section.

In the current JAR 'IFR Conditions' is defined, just as SN3Guppy has written. I'm not aware of any exceptional use of the term only that singular definition. Any use of the term within the rules must be understood to have the meaning as defined. In short, weather conditions that dissallow using VFR or, in other words, IMC.

I suppose the problem now is resolving that instance of using just 'IFR' instead of 'IFR conditions'. My initial thoughts are that it's a discrepency that slipt through, leaving a contradiction in the rules.

Silly Pilot

11th Aug 2009, 03:37

In the US, IFR time is logged when you are in "Actual" or "IMC" not just because you are on an IFR Flight Plan.
Landings are counted and labeled (in some companies) as Visual, Non-Precision and Precision. You can log a precision approach without any Actual Instrument Time.

Every time I apply to a job, everyone wants something different. Just when I thought the nifty columns in the log book was sufficient someone comes along with a different twist.
Even after converting to a computer based log book I thought that I could answer any question possibly thrown my way. Surprise!
I can quickly pull out how much time in each type of aircraft but now companies want to know how much time in that type in each company worked for, @&%!"?#.
Companies now seem to pride themselves on asking questions that they know you cant possibly know. How many hours in a C172 with yellow hub caps? :ugh:

Tinstaafl

11th Aug 2009, 06:08

Ah, but is that from the *dark* yellow hubcabs column, or *bright* yellow hubcaps column? It's important to be able to account for the difference, y'know... :hmm:

I'm resigned to having to trawl through each flight out of 4 logbooks over 26 years each time I apply for a job. :{ Even approximating to some acceptable level of (in)accuracy is a pain in the arse.

G-SPOTs Lost

11th Aug 2009, 06:12

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

SNS3Guppy

11th Aug 2009, 07:06

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

This has never been the case. Operating commercially requires a commercial pilot certificate at a minimum (it's common to have pilots with only a few hundred hours flying "heavy iron" in europe, remember...whereas the same jobs in the US typically required pilots to have 5,000 hours or more).

As for a pilot with a few hours and a flight engineer or mechanic with a private pilot certificate flying a Gulfstream IV...show me where that happens in the US.

As for the last few pages being relevant, clearly you didn't bother to read it, else you'd find it most certainly has been...and educational for those who participated.

G-SPOTs Lost

11th Aug 2009, 08:59

This has never been the case. Operating commercially requires a commercial pilot certificate at a minimum (it's common to have pilots with only a few hundred hours flying "heavy iron" in europe, remember...whereas the same jobs in the US typically required pilots to have 5,000 hours or more).

Who said commercially - I didn't! Im on about (fairly obviously) Pt 91. Regarding the Jibe about guys with a few hundred hours flying 737's in Eu I agree with you totally no argument here

As for a pilot with a few hours and a flight engineer or mechanic with a private pilot certificate flying a Gulfstream IV...show me where that happens in the US.

Again never said it happens in the USA just saying that IT DID happen in the UK. again Pt91 operators of heavy jets. The NPRM from the FAA website link is here if you dont believe me. I understand transport category aircraft need to be operated under 121 which if this is the case showed a desperate lack of oversight by the FAA - somebody probably got fired unless the BBJ specifically comes under Pt 91

FAA 61.55 NPRM (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgNPRM.nsf/0/E6B8340AF4DD61D186256F4E007765A5?OpenDocument)

The CAA grounded a BBJ and two Gulfstreams at Luton on the basis that the Pilots licenses had no mention of the aircraft on them whatsoever, all that could be produced was some logbook evidence that takeoffs and landings had been performed in the aircraft including OEI ops, ground training was not recorded as there was no requirement to. All fairly "loose" if you ask me, totally irrelevant to the thread so I'll leave it there. PS It was also reported upon in Flight International got it somewhere under a bed;

As for the last few pages being relevant, clearly you didn't bother to read it, else you'd find it most certainly has been...and educational for those who participated.

I actually read it through from page 1 thru page 5, sugest you have a re-read as what struck me quite clearly was your bullying (educational :ugh:) , I know best attitude and how you are much more interested in being right as opposed to whats right.

The FARs/JARs are NOT watertight trying to prove your point by pretending to be some part time lawyer and reading into the legalese is pointless. Our own published material in LASORS quite often conflicts with what the written law says, thats just part and parcel of trying to bring together 10 or more aviation authorities under one roof - it'll get sorted in 25 years maybe more.

The guy came on wanting a bit of guidance and had his post hijacked, WE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY OVER HERE, its not a problem and invariably the CAA who we have to deal with for crew licensing just will accept his time paradropping and issue him with a IRI (CFII) rating which is the only real reason for logging it anyway.

They quite often have to revert to the CAA "Policy" department for rulings, maybe you could offer to come over and help being as you're the expert :D

what next

11th Aug 2009, 09:56

Good morning!

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

As you say, this is very opinion or expectation biased. When I used to decide wether or not to consider an application, we were (and I still am) in the air taxi / executive business. Two hundred hours of instrument time in this environment in central Europe translates to 100 sectors flown under instrument flying rules. This means, he has planned one hundred instrument flights, has filed one hundred flight plans, has negotiated one hundred airport and/or airway slots, has had to collect one hundred loads of passengers or cargo, has flown one hundred instrument departures, one hundred instrument arrivals and most important of all, one hundred instrument approaches, preferably down to minima with the odd go-around every now and then. I can send a guy with that kind of experience straight to FS for his typerating and when I put him in the right hand seat of a King Air or Citation or Cessna 421, then he knows what is expected from him and will do his job quickly and effectively.

But when I see that his 200 hours instrument time (or instrument rules time or whatever) were in reality flown on taildraggers from grass airfields, and he was only allowed to log them due to some peculiarity in the way his national authority interprets international standards, then he is not really useful for the kind of flying we are doing. Not without additional (time and cost intensive) coaching at least. And this is why we discard this kind of application letter, even if there is no suspected cheating involved in his specific case (as I have learned now).
Again, it's mostly a matter of expectation.

Greetings, Max

SNS3Guppy

11th Aug 2009, 10:23

I understand transport category aircraft need to be operated under 121 which if this is the case showed a desperate lack of oversight by the FAA - somebody probably got fired unless the BBJ specifically comes under Pt 91

Transport category aircraft have no requirement to be operated under Part 121 in the US. Part 121 is the regulation governing airline operations. Transport category aircraft may be operated under other regulations, including Part 91 or 125. I even operated them under Part 137...agricultural operations.

A BBJ may have been operated under Part 91, there is nothing which prevents this. However, if it was a commercial operation of the pilot was receiving any form of compensation, he required a commercial pilot certificate. You specifically stated that a private pilot was operating the aircraft...show me where this happened.

Again never said it happens in the USA just saying that IT DID happen in the UK.

Actually, it did not, and your failure to understand this doesn't change that fact.

The CAA grounded a BBJ and two Gulfstreams at Luton on the basis that the Pilots licenses had no mention of the aircraft on them whatsoever, all that could be produced was some logbook evidence that takeoffs and landings had been performed in the aircraft including OEI ops, ground training was not recorded as there was no requirement to.

Domestically in the US, and for a very long time internationally, one not acting as SIC had no requirement to hold a type rating for the aircraft. This does not mean that the person in question was a private pilot with a few hours. I've certainly flown aircraft requiring a type, for which I did not hold a type...because at the time I was acting as SIC. I was fully trained in the aircraft and qualified. Until upgrade time, many employers in the US don't provide a type rating. This is common. I've done a thousand hours in some aircraft that required a type to be PIC, without the type...as it wasn't required.

This has been standard practice among airlines, corporate flight departments, some fractional providers, and many private owners, for many years, to say nothing of government agencies, and others.

The SIC type rating was created as a wave to the international community, to align closer to ICAO commonality. Most in the US consider it a ridiculous requirement, but it's there to placate others in the world who feel like they need it. The only difference between the former requirement to show training in the aircraft and to log the requisite landings, is that now one does the same thing, fills in a Form 8410, and turns it into the FAA to get the actual SIC type imprinted on the pilot certificate. Other than that, no change.

You're talking about a situation in which fully qualified individuals were ramp checked in the UK, and given a hard time over the lack of a type rating on the certificate...when the issuing authority didn't require it. This is not a loophole or a failing of the regulation; it's not necessary. Then again, on the far side of the pond we consider requiring a type rating for airplanes like the King Air to be a load of codswallop, too.

Where do you come up with the idea that the information you've cited alludes in any way, shape, or form to show that the FAA did "allow engineers with PPL's and hardly any training into the RHS of some very heavy iron (such as G4's and 737's)?" I asked you to show me where this has happened, and you failed to do so. If you intend to make a point, then back it up instead of plucking ideas out of thin air to support yourself. That's not really very much support.

PS It was also reported upon in Flight International got it somewhere under a bed;

That's authoritative.

Despite your ridicule, thus far I've stuck to official documentation and regulations to support a point and carry on a conversation. Thus far you've stuck to conjecture, opinion, misunderstood notices of proposed rule making, and magazine articles. I can see your point is well founded.

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.

Padding their logbook as fully qualified individuals exercising the privileges of their certificates? No. They were not padding anything.

How can you suggest a rating which doesn't exist (a "non-type rating") is micky-mouse? At least pick on something which does exist, for crying out loud. Have you been drinking?

The CAA did not think so...the CAA elected to press an issue on the grounds of ICAO compliance, not on the grounds of unqualified crew. Again, the SIC type is simply a dog-and-pony act to please the more pretentious of the international community out there. We'd hate to wrinkle that stiff upper lip of yours, wouldn't we?

WE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY OVER HERE,

Yes, clearly. Given the many responses expressing surprise at what's in your own regulation, reading and understanding them is not one of those different things.

While the JAR-FCL Section 2 reference did provide a single sentence providing guidance for an accepted logbook format, your own regulation, that of the JAR-FCL, and the definitions that multiple posters stated don't exist, clearly state that IFR conditions means conditions less than VFR...and NOT time spent on an IFR flight plan or under an IFR clearance. This has direct relevance to the thread, despite your own misgivings to the contrary. Whereas you appear to have nothing more to contribute on the subject beyond conjecture, I believe your input may henceforth be safely discounted.

The FARs/JARs are NOT watertight trying to prove your point by pretending to be some part time lawyer and reading into the legalese is pointless.

Actually, I didn't. When I first posted, numerous posters hammered me with the law...this is the UK, they said, you don't understand our regulation, our law. Okay...present the regulation. Upon their demands, we examined the regulation to learn that it doesn't really say what they thought it says.

Go figure.

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

Well, there you go. Who needs an authoritative source such as a magazine like Flight International to which to refer, when you can simply hark back to "long-standing policy,' and that "it's been like that for donkeys." Very authoritative donkey's, those. Of curiosity, what revision number are the donkeys up to, these days?

As far as that long standing policy, seems that even that program clearly shows that time spent by sole reference to instruments is considered 400% more valuable than time spent operating under a bloody clearance now, doesn't it? Don't let that detail proving my original point deter you in the least.

You should be looking at ICAO references not the FARs/JAR's one of the authorities has an exemption filed somewhere.

I never called on FAA regulation. Others did that. However, multiple posters demanded reference to the JAR-FCL, which we did. ICAO documents are conventions, but do not represent a licensing authority. In the case of the "FAR's," these do represent ICAO compliant documents, and are also federal regulation in their place of origin. The JAR-FCL likewise.

As for your ironclad references, given that you've done no better thus far, just how authoritative are we to take "has an exemption somewhere?" Cite the reference, or don't bring it up. Thus far what you've attempted to bring up has been far off the mark, so this is no surprise...but this has been a serious discussion thus far, and you're not really helping.

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

In the US, class A is found above 18,000', which is somewhat different than the UK. As a long time ag pilot myself, I have somewhat of a soft spot for conventional gear (that's tailwheel to you) aircraft, and I really have operated in the busiest airspace on the planet...and it's not where you think it is. As for US direct-to legs, 200 nm would be a very short one indeed...but then your country would fit handily inside part of many of our 50 states...so I suppose you take what you can get, don't you? Sort of makes it seem pointless for you to take that tack, after all.

As you've introduced "straight and level," and I didn't bring it up at all, perhaps you'll be kind enough to put words in your own mouth, and not mine.

If you have more to say on the subject, and I'm sure you will, would it be too much to ask if you could at least make some effort to be right? If not that, then at least to introduce something useful, relevant, or even at a minimum, in context? Best of luck with that.

G-SPOTs Lost

11th Aug 2009, 10:28

What next

Good point well made.

Freind of mine is head of training at a corporate gig with short runways and a B200, I suppose he may be interested in the guy of the grass with excellent handling skills as opposed to somebody who is experienced into europe IFR etc as you described who you may find more suitable.

Horses for courses one would argue, all cleared up with an application of common sense, a read of the Guys CV and perhaps a pre interview phone call to confirm the applicants experience and to confirm he can string a sentence together.

Your post well demonstrates that one size doesn't fit all.

With Ryanair cadets sitting in the RHS at 185 hours is it realistic to anticipate new cojo's to have IFR experience either as P1 or as a Pilots Assistant - I guess thats a whole different discussion for a whole different thread.

If I was hiring the guy I personally would think the hands on flying and workload would be a sign that he'd cope with type training, his experiences would also be something to chat about in the cruise but thats just my opinion

G-SPOTs Lost

11th Aug 2009, 10:47

Guppy......oh guppy

If you have more to say on the subject, and I'm sure you will, would it be too much to ask if you could at least make some effort to be right? If not that, then at least to introduce something useful, relevant, or even at a minimum, in context? Best of luck with that.

95% of your last post had nothing to do with the original post - you're harping on about 61.55 :ugh:. At least when I brought it up I acknowledged it had no relevance to the original posters question. Your 61.55 comments and the fact that you feel people dont need type training to fly along at 265knots in a twin turbine at FL290 really speak volumes significantly more worrying than this IFR "discussion" Its very apparent that the insurance companies do the policing in the USA not the FAA- If you want to endorse the fact that you fly around in transport category aircraft having never done a checkride then start another thread - I'll see you there.

The original point I was making was that rulemakers on both sides of the atlantic dont always get it right. Stop trying to be a know it all with your long posts because IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER the only reason you need either 400 Hours IFR or 100 Hours IMC is so you can get a IRI (CFII) rating issued. You can then only teach with it what ratings you have

Chinchilla.612

11th Aug 2009, 10:56

G-SPOTs Lost,

Not wanting to get drawn into too much more on this thread, but just wanted to correct one part of your last post incase it is taken for reference by someone else reading here.

The requirements for the IRI rating issue are 800 hours IFR or 200 hours IMC, you had the right ratio though.

Chinchilla.

G-SPOTs Lost

11th Aug 2009, 11:09

Cheers

Far from sure but I think it was the old numbers when I did mine (Pre JAA) , thanks for the heads up though.

Just for a laugh I was going to ask for the LASORS ref but it'll probably be contradicting itself on the following page

Chinchilla.612

11th Aug 2009, 11:19

G-SPOTs Lost,

It's in Lasors H2.1 ....... and although not contradicted on the next page, you're probably right that there will be something different stated somewhere in JARs lol.

We could have a prize for the first person to find a contradiction to this requirement?? (jk)

Chinchilla.

SNS3Guppy

11th Aug 2009, 11:49

95% of your last post had nothing to do with the original post - you're harping on about 61.55

You brought it up. Not me. Don't want to talk about it? Don't bring it up.

If you do bring it up, at least be accurate about it. You weren't.

Just for a laugh I was going to ask for the LASORS ref but it'll probably be contradicting itself on the following page

Didn't you wag on about how you'd read the thread? The references have been posted...and discussed in detail. You just missed that part, didn't you?

Your 61.55 comments and the fact that you feel people dont need type training to fly along at 265knots in a twin turbine at FL290 really speak volumes significantly more worrying than this IFR "discussion"

I said nothing of the kind. You said this. Again, if you intend to enter here, do me the courtesy of putting words in your own mouth, and not mine. At no time did I state or suggest that people don't need training, whether it's flying at 265 knots of 20 knots. Of course people need training.

Do people need a "SIC Type Rating" to make them a better pilot, better qualified, or able to do the job? Of course not. There's a difference between the ink on the paper, and being qualified. You asserted that unqualified private pilots with a few hours of training had been flying heavy iron. You did so quite inaccurately, of course, and you continue to be wrong by pushin words upon me that I never said. You are able to speak for yourself, are you not?

Thus far, not a single thing you've set forth has been correct. You're consistently exactly wrong. Never the less, let's press on...

Its very apparent that the insurance companies do the policing in the USA not the FAA- If you want to endorse the fact that you fly around in transport category aircraft having never done a checkride then start another thread - I'll see you there.

Apparent to you, perhaps...but then you wouldn't know. The FAA does the enforcement of the regulation. Insurance companies most certainly do have an influence, but do not do any policing.

I did not make any endorsement of flying tranpsort category aircraft without a checkride...again, something you're suggested, and only you...and once again you're attempting to put words in my mouth.

I stated that not holding an SIC type does not make one unqualified. You find a place in this thread where I suggested one does not need to take a checkride or demonstrate competency. I didn't say it. Again, YOU did. You'll also not find a place where I endorsed a lack of a checkride...this is YOUR assertion. Can you not speak for yourself??

That the regulation formerly did not require a SIC type rating is really irrelevant to competency, and that a checkride may not have been taken for the SIC type (which didn't exist) does not mean a SIC check wasn't taken.

US Part 121 carriers for many years required no type rating, but all pilots received the same checkride, equivilent to a full type rating ride, every six months in order to maintain currency...and all pilots underwent the full training program. Adding a type rating to that training for the SIC wouldn't have changed their ability or skill in the airplane one iota. Traditionally, many companies have only paid for and awarded the type as part of the upgrade training. That the SIC could log the time as SIC is no condemnation on the pilot, the operator, or the FAA...because in most cases the SIC's were far more qualified, with far more experience, than their fellow ICAO brethren abroad.

Again, whereas you can put a few-hundred hour pilot in your airplane and type him, calling him "qualified," traditionally over here we've seen ten to twenty times the experience for someone to fill the same position. Whether that person has a SIC type rating (invented to keep folks like you happy, incidentally, certainly not out of anything but administrative necessity) does not determine their ability, functionality, or skill in the cockpit, and in no way influences or impinges on that individual's judgment.

Now, you appear unhappy this subject was brought up. Of course, you're the one who brought it up. Where does that leave you now?

G-SPOTs Lost

11th Aug 2009, 12:14

Guppy

I brought it up and then admitted it wasn't relevant and moved on. You must have been typing for over an hour on that last diatribe about 61.55!!

You then accuse me of irrelavance - classic!

Try sticking to the thread title instead of turning each thread into the guppy show

Another guppy classic....

Well, there you go. Who needs an authoritative source such as a magazine like Flight International to which to refer, when you can simply hark back to "long-standing policy,' and that "it's been like that for donkeys." Very authoritative donkey's, those. Of curiosity, what revision number are the donkeys up to, these days?

You mean long standing policy like this

This has been standard practice among airlines, corporate flight departments, some fractional providers, and many private owners, for many years, to say nothing of government agencies, and others.

Domestically in the US, and for a very long time internationally, one not acting as SIC had no requirement to hold a type rating for the aircraft

Both quotes from the same post

You've been doing it for ages - must be right then!! Oh no hang on a minute the CAA GROUNDED your countrymen's aircraft just all of a sudden cos they felt like it that day - but you've been doing it for YEARS..... :=

Didn't you wag on about how you'd read the thread? The references have been posted...and discussed in detail. You just missed that part, didn't you?

Dunno maybe....I could easily have been forgiven for falling asleep half way through, try and be a bit more concise old chap, you're typing lots but saying little

Off topic

PS flew around for many years pt 91 on a US PPL internationally with a 61.55 rating in a FAR25 2 crew aircraft. So dont kid a kidder it does happen. You mention all the best examples - the rules are open to misuse and abuse, dont think AA or Delta think lear25 charters inc. from buttf**k alabama with no training budget to speak off

SNS3Guppy

11th Aug 2009, 13:36

Domestically in the US, and for a very long time internationally, one not acting as SIC had no requirement to hold a type rating for the aircraft

That would be a typo. It should have read "Domestically in teh US, and for a very long time internationally, one not acting as PIC had no requirement to hold a type rating for the aircraft." I'm sure you could have probably figured that out though...and thus there's no disparity.

Oh no hang on a minute the CAA GROUNDED your countrymen's aircraft just all of a sudden cos they felt like it that day - but you've been doing it for YEARS.....

No, the CAA didn't ground them. The CAA requested a change of crew, specifically pointing to ICAO convention. The crew continued to enjoy a long and productive career, no doubt...but then you've been unable to point to the specific event or document it...so I think we can safely conclude your point is...without point. (You did cite a notice of proposed rule making--not a rule--which didn't address the event in question).

You've been doing it for ages - must be right then!!

No. Been doing it for ages because it was legal, and right. Presently the regulation is modified as a nod to the whining EASA and CAA...though in substance nothing has changed...and as stated before, the only difference between then and now is that the SIC type is printed on the certificate. No change in the crew training or testing...just the letters on the certificate. It was right then, and right now. Get over it.

dont think AA or Delta think lear25 charters inc. from buttf**k alabama with no training budget to speak off

How might you have phrased that if you intended to sound like an adult and a professional? One can only wonder.

Perhaps if you're done being wrong, and pontificating on irrelevant subjects, we can get back to the thread. Are you able?

G-SPOTs Lost

11th Aug 2009, 13:55

your last post smacks of desparation. Its another long one got as far as this.....

No, the CAA didn't ground them. The CAA requested a change of crew

Errr ok then the CAA wouldnt let them depart......:ugh: = grounded

Quote:
dont think AA or Delta think lear25 charters inc. from buttf**k alabama with no training budget to speak off

How might you have phrased that if you intended to sound like an adult and a professional? One can only wonder.

Well dodged - cleverly avoided the point I was making - full marks, because every little operator in the USA adheres to the rules just like legacy carriers dont they - or are you dellusional?

As I said in one of the other threads when you were holding court with your 4 sided replies I can fully imagine you telling Ernest Gann he was doing it all wrong

Perhaps if you're done being wrong, and pontificating on irrelevant subjects, we can get back to the thread. Are you able?

Absolutely.....despite that little barbed invite to continue taunting you please continue......you were saying regarding IFR in the LTMA.......

G-SPOTs Lost

11th Aug 2009, 14:28

But just before we press on.....

This took me 30 seconds to find on google (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2003/2003%20-%202441.html)

Not quite the smoking gun to finally put the matter to bed unfortunately, it was a CAA FlightOps inspector who told me the guy in the RHS of the BBJ was the a/c A&P and PPL.

How about you spend the next hour typing a reply that sweeps the matter under the carpet and then we can talk about IFR in the London TMA again??:E

SNS3Guppy

11th Aug 2009, 17:24

This took me 30 seconds to find on google

Sounds like you wasted thirty seconds...because this is the content of the article you linked:

Some first officers flying US-registered business jets in Europe under
US Federal Aviation Administration licensing regulations have been contravening International Civil Aviation Organisation standards, an ICAO safety audit spot-check has revealed. The UK Civil Aviation Authority says it has advised the FAA to notify US pilots and operators about crew qualification requirements of which they might not have been aware.

During a spot-check carried out under the ICAO international aviation safety audit system, some pilots flying as co-pilots in N-registered business jets at London Luton airport were found not to have type ratings, although the pilots in command did. This is permitted in the USA under regulation FAR 61.55, but under European and ICAO rules both pilots must have full type ratings to fly commercial transport aircraft or any aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of more than 5,700kg (12,5001b), according to the CAA.

It is understood that a US-based Dassault Falcon crew was spotchecked
and that the co-pilot was found not to have a type rating on his licence. The operations manager of the London Luton airport fixed based operation affected says he is aware of the incident. The manager understands that other crews had been found to be operating the same way under FAR 61. The CAA says it has contacted the FAA, which is to disseminate the information to pilots and operators who may have not been aware of the rule.

Find anything in there about flight engineers with private pilot certificates and a few hours flying "heavy iron?" I surely didn't. Nor did the article discuss the grounding of those mythical engineers. The CAA's action in this article? To contact the FAA and request that they disseminate the information. Not quite the same as your description, is it?

it was a CAA FlightOps inspector who told me the guy in the RHS of the BBJ was the a/c A&P and PPL.

Oh. That was your authoritative source. Couldn't link that conversation of course, so you linked an article that didn't support you at all. Good thinking.

The article is in error, of course, because both crewmembers are not required to have "full type ratings," and under present regulation, SIC's continue to operate legally with an SIC type rating.

Well dodged - cleverly avoided the point I was making - full marks, because every little operator in the USA adheres to the rules just like legacy carriers dont they - or are you dellusional?

I'm not delusional at all. Having flown for a number of the small operators, I know exactly what the score is. Having a fair knowledge of the regulation on this side of the pond (and when I say "this," I say it in a relative term, as I'm abroad, and working internationally...but I do keep up to date on US regulation as that's the basis of my certification), I also know that small operators do work with in the regulations that apply to them. This includes 14 CFR 61.55...which still does NOT require a SIC type if flying domestically...and you can bet the same operators do obtain it presently if flying internationally. Then again, most small operators have no need.

Errr ok then the CAA wouldnt let them depart...... = grounded

Delayed, pending a crew change.

I can fully imagine you telling Ernest Gann he was doing it all wrong

Well, when you see me doing so...then you can talk. Thus far you've spent an inordinate amount of time putting words in my mouth, misquoting me and others, citing things someone told you as evidence of your inaccuracies, and now you're going to indict me on what you imagine I might say to a dead person? You're truly amazing.

Anything to keep from addressing the topic of conversation.

As we're seen clearly laid out, your own home-grown regulations which govern the logging of time clearly state that it's IFR conditions to be logged, and go on to define them as conditions less than VFR, and give special guidance in wording nearly identical to the same regulation in the US...establishing that instrument time specifically refers to flight by sole reference to instruments. Quite relevant to the topic at hand...unlike the issue of US regulation on seconds in command...which you've introduced and thoroughly (and inaccurately) beat to death.

Having been discredited, you've elected to pursue personal attacks, and not content with that, have dredged up personal attacks based on what you imagine might be said to a dead person. In most quarters, this might seem a little strange, but it's perfectly in concert with all your other comments, so nothing to see here.

G-SPOTs Lost

11th Aug 2009, 18:30

Guppy

After a particularly unpleasant toilet service I promised My FO 3 or 4 legs back to back and that I would do the next Jeppy update.

So I haven't had a landing in 10 days and I was presented this morning with a large pile of Jepp's finest

Well its been fun swordfencing with you today but now I've got better things to do other now that the Jepps are done.

I might just ask you to consider that because there is not an internet link for everything that happens in life doesn't mean it didn't happen. And that some things are said figuratively and not literally over here.

You have an answer for everything and your refusal to let the facts get in the way of a good story has got a little tedious so I'll just bow to your better knowledge and judgement, sincerely apologise for overstepping the mark if I have done and bid you all the best and good evening.

SNS3Guppy

11th Aug 2009, 18:46

So I haven't had a landing in 10 days and I was presented this morning with a large pile of Jepp's finest

Well its been fun swordfencing with you today but now I've got better things to do other now that the Jepps are done.

My deepest sympathies, having been there myself.

I've also appreciation from the position of an F/O in the past, of a captain who steps in to do the swamp work; you're good crew.

I believe I'm done here also; the conversation for me has run it's course. I will say that I've learned a few things about the UK process and legislation, and thanks to those who provided the links. For me, at least, it's certainly been educational, if not entertaining.

MaintainYourHeading

17th Jan 2010, 02:11

One can log IFR time only when the pilot is flying solely by reference to instruments. That does not mean you must be inside clouds. Whenever flying by visual references is not possible, and reference to flight instruments is mandatory for the conduct of the flight, then it is IFR.

Example: you are flying outside of clouds but in less than 2 kilometers visibility, it would be difficult to navigate without any instrumentation.

Example: you are flying at night by a moonless night over the ocean, no outside reference is possible, can not see any horizon, this is IFR time.

Usually I ask myself the question: can I fly now in these conditions by looking outside, conduct a safe flight without being disoriented and putting the aircraft into an unusual attitude. If the answer is no, then this is IFR.

If is independent of your type of flight plan. Now if you are under VFR flight plan into IMC, then you are breaking the rules and that is a different question. You can still log your IFR time though.

Cheers

CL300

17th Jan 2010, 07:25

About 20 years ago, I was based out of Hatflied (UK) with N registered aircrafts, (6 months contract) ( easy to spot the operator, only one at that time at LBA :ok: )
FO had NO type rating, would it be on the mighty C500 or the infamous GII.
But times are changing, later on out of UK with a Falcon 900, (under the same circumstances, but different operator, and BEFORE the SIC rating), the CAA ramp checked us, and let us go back across the pond, with a warning that next time FO needs a TR on the plane.

The interesting part was when I got a french ATPL (non-FCL), the DGAC would not count towards my grand total, any flight time done as an SIC with no rating or flight in a plane that was not certified in France. 10 years later,a letter cmae through in order to let me know that NOW, these hours were recognised and that I could log them ( what a difference between 8000 and 10K !!!!) :cool: . The only only point being that things are changing, and that what used to be normal procedure in the past is outlaw today, and vice-versa.

A bit like logging IFR, used to be IMC conditions; now all time spent under IFR FPL....At the end of the day , who cares ? Except a dodgy Chief Pilot ? :ouch:

Enjoy your flying, every minute counts, would it be Single engine Sea, or MultiJet Land, day or night, in the traffic pattern or accross PAC...The rest is only bar discussion, or pprune for that matter.. ;)

Carrier

17th Jan 2010, 23:36

Instrument flight time depends on the type of flying a pilot is doing and where he is doing it. Flying for a day VFR operator should not provide much instrument flight time! Some parts of the world because of different weather/climate require more instrument flying than other parts.

As a rule of thumb the instrument flight time of an experienced pilot will be between 5% and 10% of his total time. Anything over this will require some explaining and proper evidence. A resume with more than 15% would probably belong to a Parker Pen pilot and would go straight into the garbage can.

Here's the information from the World's biggest aviation country:

Federal Aviation Regulation Sec. 61.51 - Pilot logbooks. (http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part61-51-FAR.shtml)

(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

(2) An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions.

(3) For the purposes of logging instrument time to meet the recent instrument experience requirements of §61.57(c) of this part, the following information must be recorded in the person's logbook --

(i) The location and type of each instrument approach accomplished; and

(ii) The name of the safety pilot, if required.

(4) A flight simulator or approved flight training device may be used by a person to log instrument time, provided an authorized instructor is present during the simulated flight.

NuName

18th Jan 2010, 04:45

Carrier, spot on, I am amazed that there are "pilots" out there that manage to confuse instrument flight time with time spent on a IFR flight plan. One only has to accept the fact that a SE PPL with no ratings whatsoever is perfectly entitled to file a IFR flight plan but will be required to maintain VFR. Maybe someone who thinks otherwise could explain just what would be the value of a total of time spent in flight on a IFR flight plan.:bored:

CL300

18th Jan 2010, 05:31

Stop quoting FAR's please. Title 14 of CFR is only representing a quarter of people flying in this world. Let accept that there is other rules, other countries, other regulations. In those, T/O to Ldg is counted towards Instrument flight.
Happy hours ! :hmm:

NuName

18th Jan 2010, 05:44

Lets KEEP quoting FAR's please. If it represents 25% of people flying in this world (which if you were to include all the countries that base their licence's on FAA regs it would not, very much more indeed) then that is a huge representation. I dont care what anyones rules are, when the question is asked, how many hours of instrument flight do you have, we all know what the question really is. If a guy has 10,000 hours with 7,000 hour of instument time he would be laughed at and rightly so. Then when it is asked of him, what is the real number, he will not know will he as it will be hidden in amongst all those hours of sitting there eating, drinking and doing the crossword puzzles.:D

CL300

18th Jan 2010, 06:40

as a matter of fact only Us of A is basing the licensing on the title 14 of CFR part 61. This document is based on ICAO recomandations. Every single country part of the 186 members of ICAO is using the same recomandations. Some countries do accept to give an equivalence, or sometimes only a validation from another memeber into their respective Licences. ( Well known are Bermudan and Cayman authorities) This does not mean they are basing their licences on the US of A view. They are basing this on an ICAO recommandation.
The fact that the american regulator put in part 61 some restrictions is a right and a privilege; that every single country has. Besides this other regulators, would it be CAA or EASA or else are having their own view.
There is a very good article on AIN about the fact that europe is leading the way in many fields of aviation , CDFA, CArbon offset, fatigue managemen ,weather reporting, etc..
I can only suggest that you have to stick to the rules from where you are flying; but in today's world, no one can care less about IFR total time; Time in type is what matters, along with total time. Now if you can keep the altitude within 100 ft at FL 450 without looking at your instruments, I know a couple of companies that will hire you for in flight calibration at once. :bored:

NuName

18th Jan 2010, 14:22

CL300, I can't even fly a C150 at 2000' without consulting the altimeter from time to time, IMHO that hardy constitutes instrument flying. And having flown with, and hired, and fired many individuals the time on type has never been a higher priority than instrument flying skills and management. It has been my experience that a good pilot remains good in any aircraft, and a bad one remains bad. A good instrument pilot...................

Tinstaafl

18th Jan 2010, 21:32

It's not just the US that distinguishes between IFR (Instrument Flight *Rules*) and IF (flight without external reference for control). Australia, for example, is one amongst many.

I have flown many hours under IFR in gin clear conditions. I have also flown quite a few hours of IF under VFR. The two are not the same.

Needles Crossed

14th Feb 2012, 13:03

I've read all the above points with interest, but have one unanswered question. We all seem to agree that time flown by sole reference to instruments should be logged. What if this cannot be done under an IFR flight plan? As far as I am aware, its perfectly acceptable to go up in a suitably equipped aircraft with a hood or screens, and fly the aircraft by sole reference to instruments whilst a buddy keeps the required lookout. This is even specified in JARs as 'simulated instrument conditions'. If this is done in an aircraft which lacks some equipment which prevents it from flying under an IFR flight plan (for example a servicable ADF when you're planning to fly an ILS approach), can this not be logged as IFR or IF time and count towards the requirements for a single pilot operation or an IRI qualification?

Mikehotel152

29th Dec 2013, 10:42

6 pages of well-intentioned argument, confused thinking, reliance on clearly poorly drafted secondary legislation, arguments where the antagonists are at crossed-purposes, and downright unwillingness to see the wood for the trees. Surprisingly, I learned quite a bit.

Frankly, the only time that matters in airline flying is time on type. If you're flying scheduled pax around, anywhere in the world, you'll almost certainly be flying according to IFR regardless of the weather or time of the day. VMC or IMC is irrelevant except insofar as it prompts you to turn on the TAI, change the landing gate or select a different approach plate.

As far as I'm concerned the quoted rule which mentioned recording time spent in 'IFR conditions' is a red herring and the sort of poor drafting, at worst, or outdated terminology, at best, that causes unnecessary debate. One can only guess what the draftsman intended. Akin to much of the JAA ATPL syllabus, one can only imagine it's a phrase which was translated eight times before written down in English.

IFR means the rules. It implies operating under a FPL. Note, flying a FPL doesn't imply flying IFR.

IFR conditions is a nonsense, but could be intended to mean the weather conditions in which VFR flight is not legal.

Instrument Flight is clearly intended to mean 'actual' Instrument Flight, which has been described as being a more accomplished form of flying. I'm not sure who does this?

Seeing as almost all professional airways flying involves a magenta line created with reference to instruments, whether that line is followed manually, with FDs or by the AP, I can only presume that actual Instrument Flight is in fact raw data flying? Bully for you if your airline encourages this.

So, where are we at? Log IFR if your FPL is predicated on IFR. Don't if it's a VFR FPL. Simple. But what's the point? Anyone employing you for an airline job will assume you fly IFR because everyone does. Time on type is all they care about.

If you're training for an initial IR Rating, flying mixture of VFR and IFR in GA or bizjets, or your logbook is more of a hobby than your flying, log your 'actual' Instrument Flying hours, minutes and seconds if you feel like it. These days very few people will care and as this thread proves, very few people will understand the difference.

Now, let's have the same discussion about PICUS... :rolleyes: