Your thoughts on dodgy logging of instrument flight time.

[Tee Emm]

In my line of work we see pilots log books. Recently saw a 1200 hour pilot log book with 1000 hours copilot time A320. After obtaining an A320 type rating he got a overseas job despite only 200 hours total aeroplane time (CPL). Good luck to him. His logged instrument flight time however was 350 hours in that 1200 total. With a typical flight time of (say) 3 hours he logged 2.5 instrument flight time despite admitting to be on autopilot for the whole trip. This is legal as autopilot time in IMC by the PF is permitted by ICAO.

In the area he was flying the A320 it was extremely doubtful if IMC was encountered for 2.5 hours. In other words there is no proof that IMC time claimed on instruments was ever there in the first place. Perusal of his other flights revealed that on his "sectors" as F/O PF, generally at least 50 percent was logged as instrument flight time on autopilot.

This is not uncommon in log books. There is a significant fudging of claimed instrument flight time in airline flying going on. The weather could be fine and if the PF decides to log his sector as mostly on instruments monitoring the autopilot there is no audit trail. Logging of instrument flight time policy seems to vary with different States. Some States allow logging of all IFR flight plan time as instrument flight time.

Going back many decades it was the rule that instrument flight time could only be logged if not on automatic pilot and even then there was no check of fudging the figures or not. Job candidates in Australia at least, were partially judged on the amount of instrument flight time in their log books, keeping in mind their claimed time was on instruments manual flying.

Thus typically 50 years ago, a 1000 hour pilot with logged 50 hours instrument flight time was experienced by definition simply because he had flown 50 hours in cloud. Nowadays it is all too common to see a log book with 5000 hours and 1500 hours instrument flight time primarily on autopilot. Ever since the allowance of automatic pilot time is permitted to be logged, the whole point of logging instrument flight time is lost. As we all know thousands of hours on autopilot in IMC means nothing in the reality of the pilots true hand flying on instruments ability.

In Australia, this situation has led to the rather curious method by some chief pilots of demanding a potential employee show evidence of several instrument rating renewals as "proof" of instrument flying competency. The wise ones know this is not necessarily so. After all, there are those that renew their instrument rating partially in a synthetic trainer and may never fly on instruments until the next renewal.

It is argued that there are regulatory requirements to be met in terms of currency. One ILS every 35 days for example. That ILS may be flown visually. It doesn't have to be in IMC or under the hood. One 737 operator authorises its pilots to log 15 minutes of instrument flight time on every trip regardless of weather conditions.

It is clear that current regulatory policy is dictated by ICAO in many areas and that I suspect includes logging of flight time. Apart from permitting the logging of autopilot instrument time, the ICAO policy has been unchanged for decades.

The time is well overdue to have a long hard look at logging of instrument flight time since there is anecdotal and hard evidence it is being rorted. One suggestion is that on completion of the initial instrument rating award where all previous instrument training is with an instructor, there is no further requirement to log instrument flight time. Recurrency on instrument approaches should stay as is since these do not require instrument flight time.
The number of hours logged on instrument flight is worthless since the majority of airline flying for example is on automatic pilot. Therefore instrument flight hours as a measure of a pilot's experience level is no longer a valid method.
Comments invited.

[zanzibar]

Comments invited.

the title says it all - dodgy.

standards have been slipping inexorably, this is just another example.

ambition without due experience to warrant promotion etc - too often a Gen Y characteristic - sums it up.

[Seabreeze]

This is a serious question and I don't want to make light of it.

But I bet that less than half of the Australian qualified airline pilots could actually fly both an ILS AND an NDB by hand and keep in tolerances. Probably those that could would be the older pilots who cut their teeth in GA or the military, not the new generation

I bet that fraction drops to a very low value in most SE Asian airlines.

So it is not just about being able to log genuine IFR time when actually flying.

The fundamental question is: Wat percentage of professional pilots can actually hand fly an aeroplane within tolerances on an approach in IMC?

If this is not a high percentage, should CASA or the public care?
SB

[MonsterC01]

The answer to your question seabreeze is we'll never find out. thank god!

If any airline pilot in this country tried to hand fly an instrument approach in solid IMC conditions, in the aircraft he'd be having tea and bickies with the Op's manager pretty sharpish. All airlines i'm aware of have a strict autopilot usage policy if available. And don't think the reduction in the manipulative skills of pilots in airlines is purely a gen Y thing. CASA, and all airlines require pilots to demonstrate proficiency hand flying a raw data approach in IMC conditions with every IR renewal in the sim (once a year). Ive seen a lot of very experienced and older pilots struggle to fly a simple straight in ILS on raw data, both overseas, and here in Australia (were we like to think of ourselves as sky gods). Why, because we never do it on line (except in 8/8 blue sky, day VMC. and usually only the day before your sim!).

The truth is being a PROFESSIONAL pilot, in a PROFESSIONAL airline doesn't mean your a top shelf stick and rudder operator. In fact hand flying skills are a very small aspect of what companies are looking for in potential employees these days. Today being an airline pilot is much more about strict adherence to exhaustive and all encompassing SOP's, aircraft systems knowledge and management, effective time and space management and sound decision making. Much more than actually being able to fly a plane.

I will agree with you on the logging of IF time thou. It's unbelievable what some people are willing to put into a log book these days. Your log book should be a source of pride. When you look back thru it over the years you want to know that you earned every 0.1 of an hour in there. I've got over 8,000 hours in my log books, and for 4 years I flew night freight turbo props without autopilots, and to date I've amassed 324.2 hours IF time.

But I know I've earned every single 0.1 of it! I don't think we need to remove it from log books. We should always require pilots to maintain an accurate record of their skill sets. I think pilots need to take a look at what their log books say about themselves. Your either a person of character and substance, or your a hack, and it doesn't matter who you work for or how flash your uniform is. It doesn't change the person/pilot you are underneath. If you've made it into an airline with dodgy hours, then your just a hack in a nice uniform. And real pilots can spot those guys a mile away.

[clear to land]

I have always worked on the assumption that it would be around 10% max. I am old school though and used the military definition-I actually had to be in IMC to log it. Thus, with 12k + hrs I have approx 1100 Instrument-last 11 years in jets.

[mattyj]

They bloody-well expect your hand flying skills to be pretty perfect first go on your interview sim!! Pretty tough when it's your first go in any sort of sim and ( in my case) too poor to buy a practice flight.

Possibly they just used the sim to turn me down because it is easier than saying you're a miserable ol' bugger :o

[DirectAnywhere]

On a 12 hour flight I typically log about 30 mins - climb and descent which I'll generally handfly. 7000 hours and about 270 IF.

[Di_Vosh]

Tee Emm

This is a good example of regulations not keeping pace with technology and workplace practice.

In the past it sounds reasonable to only log IF time when hand-flying in IMC. But as MonsterC01 correctly points out, we're not encouraged to do so.

I'd suggest that with many airline pilots engaging the autopilot at 1000' and disengaging below 1000' on approach it would be impossible to log 3 hours IF within 90 days under those rules.

At Qlink we wouldn't be carted if we hand flew an entire approach to the minima in IMC, and some pilots hand-fly up to cruise altitude on a regular basis. But we're flying a Dash, not a widebody!

Not sure of the best solution. At Qlink IFR requirements are met if you're part of the cyclic process.

DIVOSH!

P.S. My IMC time is around 7.5% of my TE.

[kalavo]

Instrument time? I wouldn't believe half of what's in some logbooks these days.

I know of one operator whose pilots admit to regularly logging more night than the planned flight time... and the flight takes off well before last light.


This situation isn't unique to logbooks.. as long as people set a KPI (in this case in the form of license or entry requirements) people will find a way to make that target. Whether as an employer that KPI/entry requirement gets you what you really wanted is a different story.

[Ollie Onion]

My question is what rules was he flying under whilst overseas. I have NEVER logged actual IMC time except in Australia and New Zealand. Whilst flying in an Airline overseas it was not required to log it at ALL. My logbook only had a column for VFR or IFR under operational conditions, so it meant that on a 3 hour flight pretty much ALL the time from take off to landing was logged as IFR time. It caused a bit of a problem on return to New Zealand, the CAA here though were quite happy with me claiming 10% of my 8000 hours as actual IMC time for the issue of the ATPL.

[psycho joe]

On the other side of this coin. I recall sitting in an interview for a well known Australian airline, having just spent years hand flying in PNG, Solomons etc and amassing several hundred hours of IMC.

The interviewer looks across the desk and informs me that I've been "caught" falsifying my logbook. Because "everyone knows that there is no IFR flying in PNG" :ugh:

The following PNG and South Pacific geography lesson was a waste of breath, and I'm sure that even today my story is uttered as a cautionary tale for interviewers to beware any pilot claiming to have flown in IMC outside of Australia. :D

[By George]

One problem is, that in the past you could only log actual I/F when hand-flying in actual I/F conditions. Somewhere along the line the rules changed to include the auto-pilot. In the interest of accuracy I have always logged I/F to the old rules. After 43 years of full-time flying I have only 685 actual I/F. out of a total of 24,100 hrs. I've seen people with 5,000 hours total with 3,000 hours claimed as IFR. Most of the old guard can see through this 'experience'.

My first log, under the halcyon days of the DCA; says...."Time spent at the controls while in flight under actual or properly simulated instrument flight conditions".

There is not much value added experience watching an auto-pilot, especially in cruise. Also glass cockpit I/F is not the same as an old light-twin with round dials and that God awful old red lighting. As they say, "oils ain't oils".

Small thread drift, flew a YAK 52 recently with the AH brown on the top! Now that would be real I/F, keeping that thing right side up in cloud.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

When I learnt to fly there was no such thing as an AH. Us super hero types flew all our IF with a basic panel only - so I have only ever logged IF when hand flying what is now called "partial panel"!

As a result, less than 0.001% of my Total Time is IF!

Logging IF time when flying 2 pilot ops is crap IMHO. Should only count when it's all on the line - you f&@k up, you die!

Dr

:8

[tinpis]

As long as your pay sheets are properly filled why bother logging anything at all?
Just three sets of tick boxes should do, 5-1000hrs, 10000-20000, 20000- to stratospheric bull**** mate.

[zlin77]

Above certain Altitudes/Levels in most countries VFR is not permitted, so I would assume this is logged as IFR time as distinct from IMC time?

[RENURPP]

If he did dodgy his log book, and it sure sounds like he did, he may well get caught out at an interview when he hops in the sim and his I/F standard is not what you would expect of a 800 hrs I/F pilot. At the end of the day it should be the standard achieved NOT the hours in the book.

With around 20,000 hrs I think I have somewhere around 1,000hrs I/F logged. I have only logged when flying an approach in IMC, I could have legitimately logged lots more.
Logging IF time when flying 2 pilot ops is crap IMHO. Should only count when it's all on the line - you f&@k up, you die! Tell me again how many pilots were up front of that Air France A330.
As for single pilot bonanza pilots being some form of folk hero, maybe at the local aero club bar??

[havick]

As for single pilot bonanza pilots being some form of folk hero, maybe at the local aero club bar??

Funniest thing I've read on Pprune to date!! there should be a thread on here with classic quotes :ok:

[pcx]

So Forkie in that case I'm curious.
How do you comply with the 3 hours in 90 day I/F requirement.
Not really having a go, just wondering.

[OpsNormal]

On the other side of this coin. I recall sitting in an interview for a well known Australian airline, having just spent years hand flying in PNG, Solomons etc and amassing several hundred hours of IMC.

The interviewer looks across the desk and informs me that I've been "caught" falsifying my logbook....

The funny part of that sort of thing happening is that it isn't an isolated case in any way, shape or form. Maybe not exactly the same circumstance but at one stage a question was raised at an interview I once attended about my IF hours (large upper echelon GA operator). The answer was right in front of the person in my log book for them to see... The bizzare thing was that this person's well respected and long time Chief Pilot had asked me personally to put in an application at a previous meeting after I had conducted an aircraft type rating at their HQ so that I could introduce the type onto an AOC I was responsible for at the time.

6-7 years previous to the interview I'd left Sydney at around 80 odd percent of the way through my initial issue instrument training (I'd run out of money anyway and was busting a gut to go and use my freshly minted CPL) to head north on the definte sniff of a job. When I finally got back to (almost completely and with another school) re-do my CIR-M/E four and a bit years later I had effectively twice the required instrument hours as any other newly rated person (around 75-80 odd at the time) when I was finally issued with the CIR. Coupled with the fact I'd only accumulated around another 50 or so instrument hours (for my two renewals) in the intervening time to the interview my interviewer called me on my instrument time, which I explained to him quite clearly. :ugh:

The resultant expletive ridden missive I recieved from him about there being no way anyone could get 130 hours IF in the time from initial issue CIR was misdirected and would have made anyone's toes curl and, from what I later found out, wasn't out of place for this person to act in that way. I later learned that the "dodgy IF" was the only reason I was "unsuitable"... He even tried to put it on a couple of my good friends that still work there that I had lied about my hours FFS... :rolleyes:

All I can say is that they missed-out on someone who would probably still be there today. Their loss... :=

Back to the original poster... I must admit to not having seen to much of what you talk about in relation to the suspect logging of it. If I fly a fair dinkum approach but in VMC I'll log a small amount 0.2 or so dependant upon the length of time I am flying the dials only. En-route a bit different for those of us who spend life at mid to high teen flight levels. Might pick-up the odd 0.2-0.5 depending on length of sector/wx/icing etc, but I do make the other crew member hand fly it if they want to log it - as I do myself.

I'm probably in the minority though as I've seen some log books with half the TT but as much as (if not more than) my IF time....

[Ollie Onion]

So you are allowed to log IMC time with the Autopilot engaged yet you will only log IMC time when you are hand flying :{ You will then log IMC time when hand flying an approach even when in VMC ???

That is some pretty weird logic. :sad:

[Capt Fathom]

3 hours in 90 day

The only reason to log IF time!

Ooops! I must be cheating. I'm logging 25hrs a year!

[Centaurus]

If I fly a fair dinkum approach but in VMC I'll log a small amount 0.2 or so dependant upon the length of time I am flying the dials only.

Careful what you say. CASA read Pprune and now you admit to cheating just an itsy bit of 0.2 of VMC. A courageous decision Prime Minister:D

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

RENURPP - your post is deeply offensive!

"Folk hero" status cannot be achieved by flying just any old Bonanza - it has to be a V-tail ! :E

Dr :8

[OpsNormal]

Centaurus there is no cheating involved. Flight by sole reference to instruments is instrument flight when flying in multi crew or with a safety pilot - even in VMC (day or night), as there is no legal requirement to restrict external vision (foggles, covered screen etc) - even during a test. I was admonished many years ago by a CASA FOI when I put forward a point of view similar to your one there whilst I was undergoing a Chief Pilot assessment flight test... Their rules, not mine.

On a side note, have always enjoyed your contributions.

Regards,

OpsN.

[drpixie]

All depends on where you're based.

Here in Oz the regs talk "flight solely by reference to instruments" so that means IMC (and not night VFR, though I agree that some nights you might as well be IMC) and it's typically 0.1 or 0.2 climbing through the clouds, though sometime you can arrange to cruise in cloud :)

In Europe now and Asia, they refer to IFR time - flight under IFR procedures, which is the whole lot.

Personally, I keep two columns - the real "instrument time", and then use one of the spare columns for IFR time - which is much more than IMC time.

[nomorecatering]

The other night I was out west of Hay, night vfr, 9500, high above a layer of stratus. No lights could be seen, no horizon, no ground lights, no stars, nothing. Total blackness. Does this qualify as IMC.

[Capt Fathom]

There was a full moon the other night! :E

[Tankengine]

My airline seems to be a standard entry of 30mins per sector/ 1hr if WX crappy. This is only to cover 3hrs/90days.:rolleyes:
25+ years of it gives me about 850hrs. If you wanted me to count all "IMC" time then it would be probably 5000-10000hrs! :ooh:
I do mainly 5-10 hr sectors so with A/P generally coming on at about 5000' once clean and off again at about 1000' on final once cleared to land then the "hand-flying" hours would never meet the 3/90 requirement.:ugh:
[only every second sector as I give the F/O some too!]
I now fly Airbus so am never "really" hand-flying.:E

[ramble on]

CAO 40 doesnt help much either;

"10.9 Instrument flight time may be logged by the pilot monitoring or providing input to the autopilot/auto-stabilisation equipment when it is engaged or by the pilot manually manipulating the controls when the aircraft is flown by reference to instruments under either actual or simulated instrument flight conditions."

At high altitude, with no discernable horizon (day or night) and not navigiating by sole reference to a visible horizon or to ground or water (ie; you are not flying visually) what are you doing?

Flying (or monitoring the autopilot flying) by reference to the instruments.

[Seabreeze]

following on from ramble on's post

I reckon that when technically VFR by day in terms of horizontal visibility etc, but with no horizon, just a small patch of ocean/dirt below, and a small patch of sky blue somewhere above, this is actually IMC.

[Centaurus]

Flight by sole reference to instruments is instrument flight when flying in multi crew or with a safety pilot - even in VMC (day or night), as there is no legal requirement to restrict external vision (foggles, covered screen etc) - even during a test

I am a little confused. If there is no legal requirement to restrict external vision for simulated instrument flying then am I right in assuming you can tell the ATO or an FOI to belt up because you refuse to wear an instrument flying hood on your instrument rating test because there is nothing in the Regs to say you need a hood or some type?

Does that also mean anyone can simply look at his instruments and promise not to peek outside and legally log instrument flying?

[Cessna 180]

I concur with the bloke near Hay.
Was surveying out the back of Telfer the other night (before the moon rose)
and I can tell you was near impossible to keep the wings level without reference to instruments.
Once the moon rose and I had a horizon obviously this was then visual.

Anyway, if you can't keep it level without the a h then it is I f. If you can then it is not.