He He... Woomera,

The exam went quite well - not sure on my score yet - I'll let you know tomorrow.

Sadly, I'm not doing Chemistry next year - it was that or History and I really enjoy listening to our History teacher - then again, I could drop Specialist Maths and take up Chem? See what happens.

As for mixing up concoctions for PPRuNe bashes - I've only just finished my first year of Chem - not sure how well I'd go knocking up home brew!

Could always give it a go...

So if you guys happen to hear about a 17 year old blowing himself up while trying to make a bit of home brew - don't be too alarmed, it's only me... :}

Cheers,

Soulman.

From my deep dark recesses the reg many years ago had it, that VFR flight above FL250 was 'Impracticable'.

Sky Monkey, if you think its IMC then it is. Log it as I.F.
Apparently everybody else does!

If you can slump down in the seat and therefore can’t see an horizon, it's I.F.

Hey, interpret the ambiguous rules to suit your self.


Mack.
:)

AV8R and Skymonkey,

It does not matter if you have half the wing of your Navajo or 182 in cloud, you are not VMC so by definition you are IMC but you cannot log I.F. as you can still see external features (ground, horizon, the pyramid, sugar cane, Mount Bartle Frere etc).

When you can no longer see any things outside, to reference the aircraft by visually, then it's IF.

When you can no longer see any things outside, to reference the aircraft by visually, then it's IF.

That's the criteria I use, but after reading this thread I'll be more strict and so probably log less IF hours as such.
As for ducking under the dashboard to log IF time, isn't that (almost!) what we do with those funny IF goggles things? :)

Folks,

Interesting thread, particularly since CASA has managed to confuse others in its attempts to clarify things.

When Part 5 of the CAR(88) was written, it was on a fairly simple basis. For certain licences and ratings, a minimum amount of instrument flight time was, inter alia, prescribed. Accordingly, "instrument flight time" was defined in CAR(88) 2(1) and remains unchanged today. The definition purposely makes no reference to the flight rules. No subordinate legislation can change that definition.

CAR(88) 5.52 is the head of power that allows rules for logbooks to be set out in CAOs - it happens to be set out in CAO 40.1.0 subsection 9 with clarification in subsection 10. That reference again purposely makes no reference to flight rules and is consistent with CAR(88) 2(1) insofar as "instrument flight time" is concerned.

So, regardless of my flight rules, if I am forced or, subject to CAR(88) 153, choose to fly the aircraft by sole reference to the instruments then I am engaged in "instrument flight time", the sole regulatory purpose of which is to qualify for certain licences or ratings. Moreover, under CAO 40.1.0, that is how I am permitted to record that time in my logbook.

All other advisory material, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the primary legislation, is incorrect and has no legislative effect.:mad:

The AICs various and other material found on AirNoServices web sites etc was originally intended to clarify those particualr matters that the legislation did not prescribe. That the material therein is inconsistent with legislation is a reflection of the level of supervision within CASA and a problem to be resolved by CASA.

For those of you still struggling with issues of flight rules, the reference to flight above the overcast or in VMC at night was originally intended to relate solely to the issue of sufficient external reference to maintain safe flight, since the definitions for the flight rules are silent on the presence or absence of adequate external visual reference!! [Amazing how powerful the marine pilot transfer lobby was at the time. :mad: ] In fact, one could still be in VMC at night and lack the necessary external references, thereby properly accruing "instrument flight time" regardless of the flight rules at the time. Unfortunately, the explanatory material did not go on to explain the issues.

As for job qualifications, what an employer may demand is quite unrelated to the purpose of the legislation. The discussion on flight time under the IFR is interesting because I do not know of any logbook that easily lends itself to such a record. As we have also seen, flight under the IFR may be totally unrelated to instrument flight time and should not be confused. Of course, in the end, all that matters to the employer is that you can fly to an appropriate standard by sole reference to the instruments - a matter most often unconnected with any records in your logbook!

As for logbook cheats, dob them in - remaining silent only rewards their lack of integrity and that same lack of integrity may well hurt someone else badly in the future.

Stay alive.

Here here.:ok:
DOB THEM IN!
Lets do it right here, right now and create a SHAME file.

"Yes - dob 'em in" said the walrus doubtfully -"what a good idea - I'm all for justice and the OZ true blue way of Life". But in OZ culture whistle-blowers are marginally lower than scabbing on our union comrades. And way below our cultural mates the rag-head terrorists.

Just as an aside for anyone contemplating falsifying hours, some time ago when I went through the interview process for Kendell noone ever even asked to see a logbook at either interview - which I found quite surprising. Their critique was based on the sim ride and the interviews themselves. Even after I got in all they wanted to see was a current medical! So I guess they believed that could tell in your flying whether you were for the job or not without the need to see a book. So it would seem it is hardly worth trying to falsify especially considering how easy it is to fall down as per previou posts.

If I have to use instruments to fly (in cloud, not in cloud but viz too poor to see a discernalble horizon, v. dark night and can't see a horizon etc), I log it as IF.
:cool:

Centaurus me old,

There is another rule - if you are prepared to condone by inaction, don't whinge about it.

My whole point is simply that if a person will cheat in their logbook, they will cheat elsewhere.

Stay alive