Logging IFR hours - is my thinking correct?

[PicMas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Forgive me chief pilot, I have sinned.....

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.

[Wodka]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[PicMas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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