Logging IFR hours - is my thinking correct?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Qatar mainly & Sometimes Oxfordshire or Texas!
Age: 46
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Qatar mainly & Sometimes Oxfordshire or Texas!
Age: 46
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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!!!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Qatar mainly & Sometimes Oxfordshire or Texas!
Age: 46
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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 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.
(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.
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).
Last edited by SNS3Guppy; 10th Aug 2009 at 13:47.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......
As for the other stuff, I think you will find we are actually in agreement......
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: From Despair To Nowhere
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SN3
Read your own post. You addressed it specifically to me.
Exactly 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.
No you are not. You have distorted the longest reference you have made, and initially lied about what it said. That is not very frank.
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".
I quoted that poster, and addressed the quoted comment. Work on your comprehension.
I probably have a fair bit more instrument experience than you
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 references
... time spent on an IFR clearance, of it's own accord, is about as valuable as a two legged milkstool ...
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".
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard dozens of drop aircraft cleared into the LTMA, and never once heard the words special VFR spoken.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?ca...90&pageid=7238
Hope this is what you're looking for
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?ca...90&pageid=7238
Hope this is what you're looking for
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Qatar mainly & Sometimes Oxfordshire or Texas!
Age: 46
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
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."
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope this is what you're looking for
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Qatar mainly & Sometimes Oxfordshire or Texas!
Age: 46
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Qatar mainly & Sometimes Oxfordshire or Texas!
Age: 46
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-x,
Just found Amendment 7 at
http://www.haf.gr/el/career/merimna/..._AM07_SEC2.pdf
Page 2-A-41 is still identical to Amendment 4, so not sure what the changes are to which you refer?
Just found Amendment 7 at
http://www.haf.gr/el/career/merimna/..._AM07_SEC2.pdf
Page 2-A-41 is still identical to Amendment 4, so not sure what the changes are to which you refer?