View Full Version : Question about Logging EASA IFR PIC and Cross country under FAA
MojoATPL
1st May 2024, 21:01
Hello folks, I hope my message finds you all well.
I am in the US building time and need to know how EASA looks at cross country simulated time, it seems that EASA member have different interpretation of the rules.
I was told and read here in the forum that I can use all my simulated Instrument cross country time , under FAA Flying under the hood with another safety pilot (CFI or another PPL) could count toward both the cross country and simulated IR and also counts as PIC. I read here in the forums that this time could also count toward building time toward my EASA frozen ATPL.
So I contacted Czech and Austro control, Austro Control sent a generic Email which didn't answer my question but Czech CAA sent the following :"Under EASA system there is only 1 PIC during the flight. Pilot-in-command" (PIC) means the pilot designated as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight. Simulated VMC training flights (flying under the goggles/hood/restrictive vision device) are only allowed with flight instructor and these are dual instruction flight time for the student.
The flight time may be logged as PIC in the following cases:
(i) the holder of a licence may log as PIC time all of the flight time during which he or she is the PIC;
(ii) the applicant for, or holder of, a pilot licence may log as PIC time all solo flight time, flight time as SPIC and flight time under supervision provided that such SPIC time and flight time under supervision are countersigned by the instructor;
(iii) the holder of an instructor certificate may log as PIC all flight time during which he or she acts as an instructor in an aircraft;
(iv) the holder of an examiner’s certificate may log as PIC all flight time during which he or she occupies a pilot’s seat and acts as an examiner in an aircraft;
(v) a co-pilot acting as PICUS on an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or as required by operational requirements provided that such PICUS time is countersigned by the PIC;
(vi) if the holder of a pilot licence carries out a number of flights upon the same day returning on each occasion to the same place of departure and the interval between successive flights does not exceed 30 minutes, such series of flights may be recorded as a single entry;
(vii) where Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 requires the pilot to act as PIC under the supervision of another pilot (supervisor), both the pilot and the supervisor may log the flight time as PIC (this is required for air carriers under AOC).
Kind Regards,"
-According to the previous email, does that mean that my simulated instrument PIC cross country doesn't count at all because it was flown with a regular pilot not a CFI holder ?
-Other question that begs itself, what about when I am the SAFETY pilot, do I log that in my EASA logbook as PIC Cross country since EASA considering the one under the hood nonexistent ? Because under FAA I can only log PIC but not cross country when acting as a "safety pilot"
I most likely will do my license under Austro Control, I am trying to plan ahead as advised and fly good quality cross country hours that fulfills as much as possible of the requirements.
Also what about the 50 IFR hours required for my FAA -EASA CB conversion, if safety pilot is not allowed, and I cant log it as CFII because, does it mean I have to rent a plane solo, file an IFR flight plan to log that for EASA?
Please advise and thanks in advance for your contribution.
Under FAA rules you can be PIC under EASA you cannot.
You’re doing well practicing IFR under the hood with a safety pilot but you can only log the PIC time one way:
FAA compliant or EASA compliant.
Europa-land doesn’t know or understand the “safety pilot” part.
Even under FAA it was never intended as a time building excercise.
The rule has been abused as “we can both log PIC”, one for looking out and being responsible and the other as “manipulating the controls”.
Pick your poison.
I always recommended my European students to differentiate in their logbook between FAA and EASA PIC.
As an example under FAA your entire instrument rating can be logged PIC and dual received as you’re rated in the airplane.
Under EASA you could log the FAA IR as dual received only.
Hence a European student that came to the USA for a 0-CPL would have 180-200 hrs PIC under FAA and only 100 hrs EASA PIC.
MojoATPL
1st May 2024, 21:56
Under FAA rules you can be PIC under EASA you cannot.
You’re doing well practicing IFR under the hood with a safety pilot but you can only log the PIC time one way:
FAA compliant or EASA compliant.
how about if I get my CFII, how does EASA look at my IFR time if I am giving instructions?
I read that EASA is “rule based, so to fly IFR I must file a flight plan but then as a CFII you are a required crew.
Edgington
1st May 2024, 22:04
Do you hold a FAA licence with Instrument Rating?
EASA really only recognises a flight time as either under VFR or IFR, not as the FAA do it Actual/Simulated Instrument time. The FAA are looking at time with sole reference to the instruments either in actual IMC or under the hood. The FAA allow you to fly VFR, using the hood with a Safety Pilot to keep a look out for traffic, to build instrument time. That time would not count as IFR for EASA, would count as VFR PIC, assuming you hold a valid licence to fly said aircraft as PIC.
When you are flying as the safety pilot, then no you cannot log that under EASA at all.
MojoATPL
2nd May 2024, 00:26
So it seems I need to rent a plane and file IFR plan.
OR how would EASA treat time logged if I get MY CFII (instrument instructor), under FAA that would both dual given ,PIC and instrument if we are under a flight plan ?
MojoATPL
2nd May 2024, 00:31
yes i have the rating, would that (time logging change if I get my CFII and teach? can I log both PIC and instrument if we have an ifr flight plan in place. the Czech email above states "(iii) the holder of an instructor certificate may log as PIC all flight time during which he or she acts as an instructor in an aircraft "
I assume FAA recognizes instrument instructors time as both PIC and real instrument PIC even thought technically the flight instructor is not always "manipulating controls", unless I am misinterpreting something.
Under FAA rules as an instructor you actually need to teach “something” in order to log PIC as an instructor.
You can’t just log ‘dual given’ without specifying what you taught and to whom.
So ‘straight and level flight 8.0 hrs’ doesn’t cut it.
There are numerous cases where the FAA went after instructors flying with each other and both logging PIC.
As in what were you teaching when both of you are instructors?!
So as a CFII can you fly with a time builder?
Yes, you can.
Just make it a meaningful flight and practice
things like VOR tracking and holds, instrument approaches, unusual attitude recovery etc etc
Keep a record of all training you provide and it’s legitimate PIC
MojoATPL
2nd May 2024, 03:22
Under FAA rules as an instructor you actually need to teach “something” in order to log PIC as an instructor.
You can’t just log ‘dual given’ without specifying what you taught and to whom.
So ‘straight and level flight 8.0 hrs’ doesn’t cut it.
There are numerous cases where the FAA went after instructors flying with each other and both logging PIC.
As in what were you teaching when both of you are instructors?!
So as a CFII can you fly with a time builder?
Yes, you can.
Just make it a meaningful flight and practice
things like VOR tracking and holds, instrument approaches, unusual attitude recovery etc etc
Keep a record of all training you provide and it’s legitimate PIC
thanks for the extra elaboration and yes I wouldn’t go through a CFII to just log the pic instrument time, it would be cheaper for me to just rent an airplane and fly it around then going through that.
since you mentioned that, I have seen part 91 operation (jet) hire/let an sic and without a pilot development program, the sic logs dual received and pic just because the pic has a CFI MEI, I am not so sure the legality of that but oh well to each their own.
thanks for the extra elaboration and yes I wouldn’t go through a CFII to just log the pic instrument time, it would be cheaper for me to just rent an airplane and fly it around then going through that.
since you mentioned that, I have seen part 91 operation (jet) hire/let an sic and without a pilot development program, the sic logs dual received and pic just because the pic has a CFI MEI, I am not so sure the legality of that but oh well to each their own.
Under 61.55 it’s actually remarkably easy to get a SIC sign off if you only fly within the 48 states.
https://nbaa.org/flight-department-administration/personnel/sic/
Still wide open to fraudulent logging and abuse.
rudestuff
2nd May 2024, 15:26
Doesn't the regulation for CBIR state 50 hours as PIC under IFR? I don't remember seeing anything mentioned about IMC or simulated instrument flight.
'Hood time' with a CFI or safety pilot is what you need to get the rating. The rating allows you to log PIC, so we're talking about the next 50 hours.
MojoATPL
2nd May 2024, 16:45
Doesn't the regulation for CBIR state 50 hours as PIC under IFR? I don't remember seeing anything mentioned about IMC or simulated instrument flight.
'Hood time' with a CFI or safety pilot is what you need to get the rating. The rating allows you to log PIC, so we're talking about the next 50 hours.
so EASA wants you to log pretty much solo time, from my understanding. I have seen post where people used their time with a CFII ( dual received) as pic but EASA I think only accepts that if the CFII doesn’t log dual given. I think it’s also the same area of confusion faa pilot come across when trying to document their Ifr and Cpl cross country combined. From the Czech interpretation above, I can only log instrument if I am pic under a flight plan or if I becomes an instructor.
Donno of Austro control will accept my time with CFII onboard as pic I am waiting for them to reply. But this is exactly why it’s wise to maintain two logbooks, my EASA logbook will not have any simulated instrument because it is not even recognized as previously mentioned
rudestuff
2nd May 2024, 17:17
Yeah. Forget any FAA PIC time under the hood training for the IR etc. None of that counts. Get your IR - THEN fly another 50 hours. Do NOT fly with an instructor as dual received will not be recognised as PIC. You just need to fly under Instrument flight RULES, whether you have a hood on or not or a safety pilot is irrelevant. Log it as IFR and fly some Airways and approaches to legitimise it all and you should be OK. The whole safety pilot thing is a red herring. I fly IFR every time I go to work, 90% of it in clear blue skies.
Flying IFR and flying IMC are two totally different things.
When you timebuild IFR then it would help if you do the following:
File an IFR flightplan and print it out or otherwise keep a reliable record.
Ask the flight school for a printed receipt for every single flight you do.
This will allow you to put three documents next to each other,
Here is my logbook,
Here is the flightplan filed with me as PIC
Here is the receipt I paid for this flight.
rudestuff
2nd May 2024, 18:10
And now for the biggest elephant in the room:
Make sure you spend a decent amount of those 50 hours practicing NDB holds and approaches as well as doing PBN and ILS, localiser, VOR etc...
Find out what is expected from the EASA/CAA examiner in your local area and practise.
Just because you CAN get 50 hours and go straight into the EASA IR test with no training it doesn't mean you'll pass it!
Exactly ^^^
50 hrs straight and level is not going to help you much.
Pick airports relatively close together but still more then 50NM so that it qualifies as XC.
ATC in the US is usually very accommodating to IFR training flights.
If you can’t find a working NDB then you can still use a VOR as such if you have an RMI or if you have an HSI with a second needle.
I have not logged any IFR time and I hold FAA instrument airplane and instrument instructor ratings. There is no place in any of my log books to record IFR time. I have only recorded instrument time and that is subdivided into "actual" and "simulated".
Does EASA actually place some value on flying in VMC on an instrument fight plan. What particular skill does that require?
I have not logged any IFR time and I hold FAA instrument airplane and instrument instructor ratings. There is no place in any of my log books to record IFR time. I have only recorded instrument time and that is subdivided into "actual" and "simulated".
Does EASA actually place some value on flying in VMC on an instrument fight plan. What particular skill does that require?
Some logbooks like the Jeppesen ones have empty columns that you can assign.
Otherwise you can change a column that you’re not using like Rotorcraft.
More then one option.
And yes, participating in the IFR system has value, lots of it.
rudestuff
3rd May 2024, 08:22
I have not logged any IFR time and I hold FAA instrument airplane and instrument instructor ratings. There is no place in any of my log books to record IFR time. I have only recorded instrument time and that is subdivided into "actual" and "simulated".
To log actual or simulated IMC you would have been IFR. As a CFII teaching for the IR you would have been IFR for every flight. As PIC. Most IFR training flights don't actually land, so you might not often meet the FAA definition of cross country but I believe you would meet the EASA definition just by doing an approach. You might find that all you need is a pen.
Does EASA actually place some value on flying in VMC on an instrument fight plan. What particular skill does that require?Remember this particular CBIR route is all about converting an IR to an IR so you've already demonstrated that you can fly on instruments. The 50 hours PIC under IFR is there to offer those with some IFR experience but no ATP a test-only option, whilst stopping the masses from skipping the regular 15 hour route.
To log actual or simulated IMC you would have been IFR.
Would you please explain how someone flying hooded instrument approaches for practice and/or currency is "IFR". Such approaches are conducted in VMC, do not require a flight plan, and many I have done don't require any contact with ATC.
Would you please explain how someone flying hooded instrument approaches for practice and/or currency is "IFR". Such approaches are conducted in VMC, do not require a flight plan, and many I have done don't require any contact with ATC.
File a flight plan, bring a rated pilot as a lookout and wear a view limiting device.
PIC - IFR- XC- sim instr. conditions
There is a FAA ruling floating around somewhere that you can log XC when you’ve passed either the IAF or the FAF without a landing.
File a flight plan, bring a rated pilot as a lookout and wear a view limiting device.
PIC - IFR- XC- sim instr. conditions
There is a FAA ruling floating around somewhere that you can log XC when you’ve passed either the IAF or the FAF without a landing.
No, it was asserted that the simulated instrument time I have already logged is "IFR". I do not believe that it was. I have no doubt that I could conduct future flights as IFR if I wished but that's not appropriate for the type of flying I do now.
No, it was asserted that the simulated instrument time I have already logged is "IFR". I do not believe that it was.
Correct it’s not, unless it was on an IFR flightplan.
That was mistake in replying.
rudestuff
3rd May 2024, 16:44
Would you please explain how someone flying hooded instrument approaches for practice and/or currency is "IFR". Such approaches are conducted in VMC, do not require a flight plan, and many I have done don't require any contact with ATC.
Umm... because they might want to be IFR.
The 'R' in IFR stands for Rules. Every time you fly you elect to fly VFR or IFR. Flight Rules are not the same as Meteorological Conditions. You absolutely can fly IFR in VMC (but not VFR in IMC). An IFR flight plan is only required for controlled airspace.
But yes, I suppose you could choose to fly VFR under the hood.
rudestuff
3rd May 2024, 16:54
No, it was asserted that the simulated instrument time I have already logged is "IFR". I do not believe that it was. I have no doubt that I could conduct future flights as IFR if I wished but that's not appropriate for the type of flying I do now.
Probably me. I should have been more specific and said your 'Actual' could only legally have been IFR, your hood time would likely be IFR (It didn't cross my mind that people practicing IMC flying would do so VFR. It's kind of like flying at midnight but not logging night.)
It's your logbook, and if you were outside of controlled airspace only YOU can decide if it was VFR or IFR wink wink.
If you were to go for an EASA licence and you have a logbook full of approaches flown under the hood but you want to insist to them that it wasn't IFR and that none of it should count, go for it.
EASA = log time on an Instrument Flight plan
FAA = log time in actual Instrument Meteorological Conditions
Now under FAA to legally log ‘actual IMC’ the flight or a portion thereof would have had to be on an IFR flight plan.
Now under FAA to legally log ‘actual IMC’ the flight or a portion thereof would have had to be on an IFR flight plan.
Well there is an exception to that. Flight in IMC is legal in class G airspace with no IFR flight plan or ATC contact. Many not be wise but it's not illegal.
Well there is an exception to that. Flight in IMC is legal in class G airspace with no IFR flight plan or ATC contact. Many not be wise but it's not illegal.
Would you bother keeping a logbook if you did that?
Would you bother keeping a logbook if you did that?
There used to be large areas of Arizona in which class G extended well above the surface. I refreshed my memory of that by looking at a late 2005 Phoenix sectional. E.g. SW of Prescott class G used to top out at 9,500 MSL. All those class G areas that would have been suitable for cloud climbs in gliders have now gone away. There are still some class G areas that extend above 1,200 ft off the coast of Southern California.
Had I flown my glider on instruments in that airspace I would have logged it. However, most of my cross country glider flying was in contests and contest rules prohibited any instruments that enabled flight in IMC. It's quite different in UK where cloud flying in gliders is, or at least was, legal whether in a contest or not.
rudestuff
4th May 2024, 16:13
If I remember correctly the 'standard' is for class G uncontrolled up to 14,500msl unless otherwise annotated on the chart. I had a very tense CFI initial with the FAA when I stuck to my guns and said that class E started at 1200agl over southern florida, whilst the inspector said that it was 14,500msl. I was convinced that I'd failed for about 20 minutes whilst he went off to clarify. It turned out that there is a small corner of the Jacksonville chart showing that class E did indeed start at 1200agl, and the annotated area was so big that it included the entire Miami sectional!
If I remember correctly the 'standard' is for class G uncontrolled up to 14,500msl unless otherwise annotated on the chart.
I don't have any recent paper charts in the house but the 2005 Phoenix sectional says "Class E Airspace exists at 1200 ft AGL unless otherwise designated as shown above". The "above" refers to the blue staggered line used to differentiate the floors of class E greater than 700 ft above surface. All these blue staggered lines that existed in 2005 have been wiped off the current chart. I haven't found any regulatory reference for the change.
There is a lot of misconception here, but it is possible to meet both FAA & EASA requirements at the same time.
As an FAA IR holder, you should fly an IFR cross-country under the hood, with a safety pilot, with you acting as PIC. You can then log IFR, Instrument & PIC.
The safety pilot can also log SIC, as a required crew member, under 91.109(c) & 61.51(f).
MojoATPL
7th May 2024, 14:31
There is a lot of misconception here, but it is possible to meet both FAA & EASA requirements at the same time.
As an FAA IR holder, you should fly an IFR cross-country under the hood, with a safety pilot, with you acting as PIC. You can then log IFR, Instrument & PIC.
The safety pilot can also log SIC, as a required crew member, under 91.109(c) & 61.51(f).
I dont think EASA is concerned what the safety pilot or instructor write in their logs under FAA lol, I am not being sarcastic but from my comms with Czech CAA, the only thing they seem to care about are two things
1-Rules the flight is conducted under
2-Who is the sole manipulator of the flight control.
The only exception to the rule if you are logging PIC as a CFI instrument, because then although the student is flying, you are in control of what the student is inputting which makes you the PIC of the flight, that is also thrown in my initial post which is an excerpt from Czech CAA, and I am btw very content for their correspondence, I haven't seen such diligence and professionalism from any other EASA member who always throw me back to the ATO.
MojoATPL
7th May 2024, 14:36
To log actual or simulated IMC you would have been IFR. As a CFII teaching for the IR you would have been IFR for every flight. As PIC. Most IFR training flights don't actually land, so you might not often meet the FAA definition of cross country but I believe you would meet the EASA definition just by doing an approach. You might find that all you need is a pen.
Remember this particular CBIR route is all about converting an IR to an IR so you've already demonstrated that you can fly on instruments. The 50 hours PIC under IFR is there to offer those with some IFR experience but no ATP a test-only option, whilst stopping the masses from skipping the regular 15 hour route.
Also Czech informed me that I will not be converting my IR under CBIR but under EASA FAA TIP-L bilateral agreement, so I believe this makes the process slightly easier ?
rudestuff
7th May 2024, 17:23
Also Czech informed me that I will not be converting my IR under CBIR but under EASA FAA TIP-L bilateral agreement, so I believe this makes the process slightly easier ?
While technically a different route, the process is virtually identical. TIP-L allows you to take the Skill test with no training and without the 50 hours IFRPIC if you have demonstrated the TK via exams. If you haven't done the TK exams, you need 50 hours IFRPIC exactly like CBIR.
Also, annoyingly it's an EU-FAA agreement, so not all EASA licences are eligible for conversion.
MojoATPL
7th May 2024, 17:31
While technically a different route, the process is virtually identical. TIP-L allows you to take the Skill test with no training and without the 50 hours IFRPIC if you have demonstrated the TK via exams. If you haven't done the TK exams, you need 50 hours IFRPIC exactly like CBIR.
Also, annoyingly it's an EU-FAA agreement, so not all EASA licences are eligible for conversion.
Yeh I dont think the IR or CPL theoretical exams are gonna be required for me since I intend to pass the mighty ATPL 13 subjects before I initiate the process.
Also the TIP agreement state that converting an MEP IR, gives you the privileges of both SEP IR and MEP IR, more than one ATO are quoting me two different conversion processes. so its going to be interesting shopping around for an ATO that will not to try retrain me. I am planning to start my conversion after I have already had 500 hours hoping most of which will be IR cross country, planning to take my multi at the end so I can take it back to back with the conversion so I dont get rusty on the Multi Engine stuff.
rudestuff
7th May 2024, 17:48
That's the thing about ATOs, they need to make money. I would suggest you find an ATO with an airplane you're familiar with and lay it out to them: You want to rent a plane for a familiarisation flight and an IR test. You don't need their sign off or permission, just the plane. Take it or leave it.
MojoATPL
7th May 2024, 18:57
That's the thing about ATOs, they need to make money. I would suggest you find an ATO with an airplane you're familiar with and lay it out to them: You want to rent a plane for a familiarisation flight and an IR test. You don't need their sign off or permission, just the plane. Take it or leave it.
Good advise, thank you.
They make it sound like they have to refer me to an examiner, which makes me wonder if I could search for an examiner like we do in the US, I had to shop for my own DPEs.
Genghis the Engineer
8th May 2024, 08:41
As happy owner of both FAA and EASA IRs, can I inject a note of common sense.
1 - what you can log is different in the two regimes. You have to pass air law in each, so there's no excuse for not knowing both rules.
2 - if your logbook doesn't allow for different logging, modify it. If it hasn't got enough columns, buy another logbook.
3 - electronic logbooks help a lot. But, make sure that you use one that'll accommodate multiple authority logging requirements.
4 - for EASA you need two columns: flight by sole reference to instruments, and flight under IFR. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
5 - for FAA also log number of approaches, what approach, and where. EASA do not require this, but there is clearly no disbenefit in having that information.
G
As happy owner of both FAA and EASA IRs, can I inject a note of common sense.
4 - for EASA you need two columns: flight by sole reference to instruments, and flight under IFR. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
G
Technically under FAA you differentiate also between:
Simulated instrument conditions (sole ref.to instruments w/view limiting device)
Actual IMC (sole ref.to instruments but for realz)
Genghis the Engineer
8th May 2024, 12:01
Really? Do you have a reference?
G
rudestuff
8th May 2024, 12:15
Really? Do you have a reference?
61.51(b)(3)(ii)
Genghis the Engineer
8th May 2024, 12:38
Checking, you are correct! Thanks for that.
G
Yes, in the over 40 years I have held an FAA certificate, FAA has distinguished between actual IMC and simulated IMC and has had no interest at all in time flown under IFR.
The only requirement for IFR to earn an instrument rating, or an instrument instructor rating, is the IFR cross country specified in 14 CFR 61.65 (d)(2)(ii). Everything else can be hooded VFR or simulator.
It is possible to earn an FAA instrument instructor rating without ever being in actual IMC and with only one flight under IFR.
Genghis the Engineer
8th May 2024, 13:37
Comparatively, an EASA FI needs 200hrs IFR to instruct for an IR, or 800hrs IFR if they are going for a standalone IRI. But, like FAA could have never flown under actual IMC.
Back to FAA again, I accept the point that there's a regulation (probably ignored by most people!) to separately log true versus simulated IMC. But, it's not clear to me that the FAA then has any use for those separate data? So, why do they want it?
G
But, it's not clear to me that the FAA then has any use for those separate data? So, why do they want it?
That's an interesting question. FAA requires the distinction in time logged. However, an applicant for a new rating must complete FAA form 8710-1 which asks only for instrument time and does not distinguish between actual and simulated.
https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/form/faa_8710-1.pdf
I don't remember if FAA has ever asked me to complete any application that did require separate entry of simulated and actual IMC.
Edit to add - I doubt the distinction is ignored by most as typical US paper logs have assigned columns for each. My most recent paper logs have "Conditions of Flight" columns DAY, NIGHT, ACTUAL INSTR., and SIMULATED INSTR. There is a separate column for GROUND TRAINER. I kept these logging fields when I created my electronic log.
Genghis the Engineer
9th May 2024, 10:28
I'm certain that FAA have never required of me a separation of simulated versus actual IMC. I did also find it curious when I did my FAA IR course, that the instructors and especially the examiner showed a massive aversion to any actual flight in cloud; that would not be normal in Europe.
G
I'm certain that FAA have never required of me a separation of simulated versus actual IMC. I did also find it curious when I did my FAA IR course, that the instructors and especially the examiner showed a massive aversion to any actual flight in cloud; that would not be normal in Europe.
G
14 CFR 61.65 D(2)
Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-61.65#p-61.65(c)) of this section,
Mentioned separately and 61.51(b)(3)(i)(ii) tells you to log it separately.
The CFII or the DPE are PIC in IMC and (especially) for the DPE this can lead to legal liability issues.
They also don’t know the applicant and for all they know you’ll put the airplane upside down.
In addition most simple flight training aircraft are single engine, single systems.
Single alternator, single vacuum pump, single pitot heating element, no prop or wing anti icing systems etc etc etc.
So why would you want to conduct a skill based test when it’s 500’ overcast and a mile with a person whose skill level you don’t know in an aircraft you may not be very familiar with?
I fly “IFR Lite” in light SEP aircraft. For anything more serious you’re bringing the wrong tool.
Genghis the Engineer
9th May 2024, 11:56
I accept the point that the FARs require that recording - just the FAA so far as I know never then ask for that information.
Regarding cloud, and candidates, most examiners are flying candidates in known school aeroplanes, handed to them by instructors they also know. Few will fly a test in IFR minima. So, I don't get why European examiners are generally happy to fly through a bit of warm CU at 2000ft, whilst FAA examiners won't.
G
Regarding cloud, and candidates, most examiners are flying candidates in known school aeroplanes, handed to them by instructors they also know. Few will fly a test in IFR minima. So, I don't get why European examiners are generally happy to fly through a bit of warm CU at 2000ft, whilst FAA examiners won't.
There are very few days in Arizona for which IMC is available and it's actually safe to fly in it. Conditions are 100 mile visibility most days and a few with severe thunderstorms. There are a few days with a benign cumulus layer and I have received pop-up clearances to play in the clouds. I don't know that DPE here refuse to fly in IMC. It's simply not available most of the time.
MojoATPL
9th May 2024, 18:04
That's the thing about ATOs, they need to make money. I would suggest you find an ATO with an airplane you're familiar with and lay it out to them: You want to rent a plane for a familiarization flight and an IR test. You don't need their sign off or permission, just the plane. Take it or leave it.
i was wondering if there is an ACS that the EASA Examiner will use to evaluate me for the check ride.
I probably should start getting proficient with Jeppesen charts briefing too
I probably should start getting proficient with Jeppesen charts briefing too
Why would you want to buy Jeppesen charts when the government charts can be downloaded free? I have geo-referenced charts on my Android tablet and Android phone and keep a paper backup in the airplane for the approaches I expect to fly.
i was wondering if there is an ACS that the EASA Examiner will use to evaluate me for the check ride.
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/instrument_rating_airplane_acs_8.pdf
I recently received a FAAST notification that there are pending changes to the ACS to redefine "satisfactory". Maybe I'll learn more when/if I attend the Zoom webinar.
MojoATPL
9th May 2024, 20:49
Why would you want to buy Jeppesen charts when the government charts can be downloaded free? I have geo-referenced charts on my Android tablet and Android phone and keep a paper backup in the airplane for the approaches I expect to fly.
The whole post is regarding EASA checkrides and conversion to EASA.
And so that the ink for this post/reply is not completely wasted, If your aim in the US is to fly for a part 135 or 121, then learning Jeppesen early on will come long ways when you go for your interviews and typerating.
For Europe i have no idea what the examiner will expect me to use
MojoATPL
9th May 2024, 21:44
Found this document for CPL check ride standards
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/132057/en
If your aim in the US is to fly for a part 135 or 121, then learning Jeppesen early on will come long ways when you go for your interviews and typerating.
It may come as surprise to you that not all US part 121 operators use Jeppesen. One I flew flight test with uses Lido.