Logging IFR hours - is my thinking correct?

[Sleepybhudda]

To make things simpler EASA's new FCL document is online to view and on pages 175 to 181 you'll find identical text to my IEM links, just badly formatted in some places. (Due to replace JAR-FCL 1 & 2)

http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc...202008-17b.pdf

Thanks Chinchilla.612 was looking for that amendment 7

[Chinchilla.612]

Sorry Bose-x,

I saw your link but couldn't find the reference to the log book compilation.

Since then found Amendment 7 as per my last post, but can't find any changes to the applicable section compared to Amendment 4.

Chinchilla.

[S-Works]

It's covered under the bit that I extracted and pasted.

[Sleepybhudda]

Just to sort things out

Bose-X you posted http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/607069.pdf

Which is from the JAA website but only contains Section 1 to JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 7


Chinchilla.612 posted Section 2 to JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 7
http://www.haf.gr/el/career/merimna/..._AM07_SEC2.pdf

They are different

[Chinchilla.612]

But Bose, that's the same extract that I put on here yesterday.

It was section 2 that cleared up the confusion and that remains unchanged in AL7 as Instrument Flight Rules.

Anyway, time to head downstairs to the restaurant I reckon.

[S-Works]

Interesting!!! That is 2 sections within the same document contravening each other. The question being which section is covered by the ANO and which section is considered guidance rather than law?

[Wodka]

Just want to clear something up that is niggling me - the extract from JAR FCL 1 -

(4) Pilot function:
(i) Pilot-in-command (including
solo\\\\ slsolo, SPIC, PICUS time)
(ii) Co-pilot
(iii) Dual
(iv) Flight instructor / Flight
examiner
(v) A remarks column will be
provided to give details of specific
functions e.g. SPIC, PICUS, instrument
flight time*, etc.
* 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

The way I read this is that section 4 is saying "if you flew in IMC you should put this in the remarks column"

Then section 5, a separate entry regarding the conditions - IFR etc "if you flew under IFR, this is the bit for that"

Are we not confusing things by saying that bit of section 4 is related to that bit of section 5? or am I just being thick!

[SNS3Guppy]

Since then found Amendment 7 as per my last post, but can't find any changes to the applicable section compared to Amendment 4.

In section 2, Amendment 7, as cited above in post #84, on page 2-A-41, the relevant guidance on filling in the log is cited just the same as the previous reference given by Chinchilla6.12...specifying the logging of IFR time. Same as Ammendment 4. The only difference is that it's oriented differently on the page.

[Tinstaafl]

I have ATPLs from Oz, Uk & USA. In all cases I've logged IF, not IFR. And, in all cases, that's what the relevent authority looked at to assess my experience. The rules in Oz & USA are quite clear about logging IF, not IFR. I would be surprised if UK rules (and subsequently JAA) really meant to mean IFR instead of IF.

I think a key point to interpreting rules & regs is that one must first start with the definitions before reading the relevent rule(s). It's not possible to derive the same meaning as the author if you aren't assigning the same meaning to the same words. Further, within a set of rules the same meaning is taken throughout the document unless another meaning has been assigned for any particular section.

In the current JAR 'IFR Conditions' is defined, just as SN3Guppy has written. I'm not aware of any exceptional use of the term only that singular definition. Any use of the term within the rules must be understood to have the meaning as defined. In short, weather conditions that dissallow using VFR or, in other words, IMC.

I suppose the problem now is resolving that instance of using just 'IFR' instead of 'IFR conditions'. My initial thoughts are that it's a discrepency that slipt through, leaving a contradiction in the rules.

[Silly Pilot]

Logging IFR

In the US, IFR time is logged when you are in "Actual" or "IMC" not just because you are on an IFR Flight Plan.
Landings are counted and labeled (in some companies) as Visual, Non-Precision and Precision. You can log a precision approach without any Actual Instrument Time.

Every time I apply to a job, everyone wants something different. Just when I thought the nifty columns in the log book was sufficient someone comes along with a different twist.
Even after converting to a computer based log book I thought that I could answer any question possibly thrown my way. Surprise!
I can quickly pull out how much time in each type of aircraft but now companies want to know how much time in that type in each company worked for, @&%!"?#.
Companies now seem to pride themselves on asking questions that they know you cant possibly know. How many hours in a C172 with yellow hub caps?

[Tinstaafl]

Ah, but is that from the *dark* yellow hubcabs column, or *bright* yellow hubcaps column? It's important to be able to account for the difference, y'know...

I'm resigned to having to trawl through each flight out of 4 logbooks over 26 years each time I apply for a job. Even approximating to some acceptable level of (in)accuracy is a pain in the arse.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Struggling to see how you chaps got this to 5 pages....the last 4 of which haven't reffered to the original post

US and everywhere else

Log time in cloud or when you are on instruments......

In the UK

Log time when IFR, all this BS that guppy goes on about padding your log book out is absolutely that - BS. The distinction beween the two is made quite clear by the longstanding policy that you factor it back by 4:1 its been like that for donkeys and you only need it to have a bloody IRI rating issued

At the end of the day, if you have a national CPL or ATPL you have demonstrated IF competency to the required standard and had the ticket issued. Period. If you have a EASA/JAA VFR CPL then you haven't demonstrated competency but the EU regs havn't caught up with this hence the conflciting references. Technically you could get a VFR CPL fly round in VMC on an IFR flightplan outside controlled airspace deviating levels and headings to maintain VMC for 400 hours and then factor that figure back to 100 hours and qualify as an IRI - probably just cheaper to do the IR - the whole course of which qualifys as sole reference.

You should be looking at ICAO references not the FARs/JAR's one of the authorities has an exemption filed somewhere.

The rules and regs in the UK may not be perfect but the US are similarly afflicted, they had some ludicrously lax rules on (61.55) second in command ratings that technically allowed engineers with PPL's and hardly any training into the RHS of some very heavy iron (such as G4's and 737's)

Were these guys "padding out" their logbook guppy?? Shouldn't they have been sat on a ramp at luton with their mickey mouse non-type ratings? The CAA certainly thought so becasue they grounded 3 airplanes that day until they were properly crewed. This is a good example of a badly written regulation, lets be honest which column we use for logging time either side of the pond isn't a major factor affecting flight safety is it.

The CAA filed an objection to the exception to the ICAO rules that the FAA had in place and that loophole was subsequently closed

So regulators dont always get it right, Ive got both ATP's and personally I'm more concerned about the filed ICAO differences to runway markings in the US than how I qualified as an IRI 10 years ago!

Back to the discussion, I'd rather hire a guy thats been operating a tail dragger off grass, within Class A, hand flying whilst talking and operating within one of the busiest bits of airspace on the planet. You may consider this less of a demonstration of ability than flying straight and level on one of the infamous 200nm direct to's you get in the US, if so then thats your opinion you're entitled to your own as is everybody else

Not disrespecting the guy in the 421 above, just shows why you dont put newbies in complex piston twins and expect to get the job done


To the original poster

YES in the UK log the lot as IFR, if you were doing it stateside then just the 0.1 or 0.2 portion where you were flying by sole reference

[SNS3Guppy]

they had some ludicrously lax rules on (61.55) second in command ratings that technically allowed engineers with PPL's and hardly any training into the RHS of some very heavy iron

This has never been the case. Operating commercially requires a commercial pilot certificate at a minimum (it's common to have pilots with only a few hundred hours flying "heavy iron" in europe, remember...whereas the same jobs in the US typically required pilots to have 5,000 hours or more).

As for a pilot with a few hours and a flight engineer or mechanic with a private pilot certificate flying a Gulfstream IV...show me where that happens in the US.

As for the last few pages being relevant, clearly you didn't bother to read it, else you'd find it most certainly has been...and educational for those who participated.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

This has never been the case. Operating commercially requires a commercial pilot certificate at a minimum (it's common to have pilots with only a few hundred hours flying "heavy iron" in europe, remember...whereas the same jobs in the US typically required pilots to have 5,000 hours or more).

Who said commercially - I didn't! Im on about (fairly obviously) Pt 91. Regarding the Jibe about guys with a few hundred hours flying 737's in Eu I agree with you totally no argument here

As for a pilot with a few hours and a flight engineer or mechanic with a private pilot certificate flying a Gulfstream IV...show me where that happens in the US.

Again never said it happens in the USA just saying that IT DID happen in the UK. again Pt91 operators of heavy jets. The NPRM from the FAA website link is here if you dont believe me. I understand transport category aircraft need to be operated under 121 which if this is the case showed a desperate lack of oversight by the FAA - somebody probably got fired unless the BBJ specifically comes under Pt 91

FAA 61.55 NPRM

The CAA grounded a BBJ and two Gulfstreams at Luton on the basis that the Pilots licenses had no mention of the aircraft on them whatsoever, all that could be produced was some logbook evidence that takeoffs and landings had been performed in the aircraft including OEI ops, ground training was not recorded as there was no requirement to. All fairly "loose" if you ask me, totally irrelevant to the thread so I'll leave it there. PS It was also reported upon in Flight International got it somewhere under a bed;

As for the last few pages being relevant, clearly you didn't bother to read it, else you'd find it most certainly has been...and educational for those who participated.

I actually read it through from page 1 thru page 5, sugest you have a re-read as what struck me quite clearly was your bullying (educational ) , I know best attitude and how you are much more interested in being right as opposed to whats right.

The FARs/JARs are NOT watertight trying to prove your point by pretending to be some part time lawyer and reading into the legalese is pointless. Our own published material in LASORS quite often conflicts with what the written law says, thats just part and parcel of trying to bring together 10 or more aviation authorities under one roof - it'll get sorted in 25 years maybe more.

The guy came on wanting a bit of guidance and had his post hijacked, WE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY OVER HERE, its not a problem and invariably the CAA who we have to deal with for crew licensing just will accept his time paradropping and issue him with a IRI (CFII) rating which is the only real reason for logging it anyway.

They quite often have to revert to the CAA "Policy" department for rulings, maybe you could offer to come over and help being as you're the expert

[what next]

Good morning!

Back to the discussion, I'd rather hire a guy thats been operating a tail dragger off grass, within Class A, hand flying whilst talking and operating within one of the busiest bits of airspace on the planet. You may consider this less of a demonstration of ability than flying straight and level on one of the infamous 200nm direct to's you get in the US, if so then thats your opinion you're entitled to your own as is everybody else

As you say, this is very opinion or expectation biased. When I used to decide wether or not to consider an application, we were (and I still am) in the air taxi / executive business. Two hundred hours of instrument time in this environment in central Europe translates to 100 sectors flown under instrument flying rules. This means, he has planned one hundred instrument flights, has filed one hundred flight plans, has negotiated one hundred airport and/or airway slots, has had to collect one hundred loads of passengers or cargo, has flown one hundred instrument departures, one hundred instrument arrivals and most important of all, one hundred instrument approaches, preferably down to minima with the odd go-around every now and then. I can send a guy with that kind of experience straight to FS for his typerating and when I put him in the right hand seat of a King Air or Citation or Cessna 421, then he knows what is expected from him and will do his job quickly and effectively.

But when I see that his 200 hours instrument time (or instrument rules time or whatever) were in reality flown on taildraggers from grass airfields, and he was only allowed to log them due to some peculiarity in the way his national authority interprets international standards, then he is not really useful for the kind of flying we are doing. Not without additional (time and cost intensive) coaching at least. And this is why we discard this kind of application letter, even if there is no suspected cheating involved in his specific case (as I have learned now).
Again, it's mostly a matter of expectation.

Greetings, Max

[SNS3Guppy]

I understand transport category aircraft need to be operated under 121 which if this is the case showed a desperate lack of oversight by the FAA - somebody probably got fired unless the BBJ specifically comes under Pt 91

Transport category aircraft have no requirement to be operated under Part 121 in the US. Part 121 is the regulation governing airline operations. Transport category aircraft may be operated under other regulations, including Part 91 or 125. I even operated them under Part 137...agricultural operations.

A BBJ may have been operated under Part 91, there is nothing which prevents this. However, if it was a commercial operation of the pilot was receiving any form of compensation, he required a commercial pilot certificate. You specifically stated that a private pilot was operating the aircraft...show me where this happened.

Again never said it happens in the USA just saying that IT DID happen in the UK.

Actually, it did not, and your failure to understand this doesn't change that fact.

The CAA grounded a BBJ and two Gulfstreams at Luton on the basis that the Pilots licenses had no mention of the aircraft on them whatsoever, all that could be produced was some logbook evidence that takeoffs and landings had been performed in the aircraft including OEI ops, ground training was not recorded as there was no requirement to.

Domestically in the US, and for a very long time internationally, one not acting as SIC had no requirement to hold a type rating for the aircraft. This does not mean that the person in question was a private pilot with a few hours. I've certainly flown aircraft requiring a type, for which I did not hold a type...because at the time I was acting as SIC. I was fully trained in the aircraft and qualified. Until upgrade time, many employers in the US don't provide a type rating. This is common. I've done a thousand hours in some aircraft that required a type to be PIC, without the type...as it wasn't required.

This has been standard practice among airlines, corporate flight departments, some fractional providers, and many private owners, for many years, to say nothing of government agencies, and others.

The SIC type rating was created as a wave to the international community, to align closer to ICAO commonality. Most in the US consider it a ridiculous requirement, but it's there to placate others in the world who feel like they need it. The only difference between the former requirement to show training in the aircraft and to log the requisite landings, is that now one does the same thing, fills in a Form 8410, and turns it into the FAA to get the actual SIC type imprinted on the pilot certificate. Other than that, no change.

You're talking about a situation in which fully qualified individuals were ramp checked in the UK, and given a hard time over the lack of a type rating on the certificate...when the issuing authority didn't require it. This is not a loophole or a failing of the regulation; it's not necessary. Then again, on the far side of the pond we consider requiring a type rating for airplanes like the King Air to be a load of codswallop, too.

Where do you come up with the idea that the information you've cited alludes in any way, shape, or form to show that the FAA did "allow engineers with PPL's and hardly any training into the RHS of some very heavy iron (such as G4's and 737's)?" I asked you to show me where this has happened, and you failed to do so. If you intend to make a point, then back it up instead of plucking ideas out of thin air to support yourself. That's not really very much support.

PS It was also reported upon in Flight International got it somewhere under a bed;

That's authoritative.

Despite your ridicule, thus far I've stuck to official documentation and regulations to support a point and carry on a conversation. Thus far you've stuck to conjecture, opinion, misunderstood notices of proposed rule making, and magazine articles. I can see your point is well founded.

Were these guys "padding out" their logbook guppy?? Shouldn't they have been sat on a ramp at luton with their mickey mouse non-type ratings? The CAA certainly thought so becasue they grounded 3 airplanes that day until they were properly crewed.

Padding their logbook as fully qualified individuals exercising the privileges of their certificates? No. They were not padding anything.

How can you suggest a rating which doesn't exist (a "non-type rating") is micky-mouse? At least pick on something which does exist, for crying out loud. Have you been drinking?

The CAA did not think so...the CAA elected to press an issue on the grounds of ICAO compliance, not on the grounds of unqualified crew. Again, the SIC type is simply a dog-and-pony act to please the more pretentious of the international community out there. We'd hate to wrinkle that stiff upper lip of yours, wouldn't we?

WE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY OVER HERE,

Yes, clearly. Given the many responses expressing surprise at what's in your own regulation, reading and understanding them is not one of those different things.

While the JAR-FCL Section 2 reference did provide a single sentence providing guidance for an accepted logbook format, your own regulation, that of the JAR-FCL, and the definitions that multiple posters stated don't exist, clearly state that IFR conditions means conditions less than VFR...and NOT time spent on an IFR flight plan or under an IFR clearance. This has direct relevance to the thread, despite your own misgivings to the contrary. Whereas you appear to have nothing more to contribute on the subject beyond conjecture, I believe your input may henceforth be safely discounted.

The FARs/JARs are NOT watertight trying to prove your point by pretending to be some part time lawyer and reading into the legalese is pointless.

Actually, I didn't. When I first posted, numerous posters hammered me with the law...this is the UK, they said, you don't understand our regulation, our law. Okay...present the regulation. Upon their demands, we examined the regulation to learn that it doesn't really say what they thought it says.

Go figure.

The distinction beween the two is made quite clear by the longstanding policy that you factor it back by 4:1 its been like that for donkeys and you only need it to have a bloody IRI rating issued

Well, there you go. Who needs an authoritative source such as a magazine like Flight International to which to refer, when you can simply hark back to "long-standing policy,' and that "it's been like that for donkeys." Very authoritative donkey's, those. Of curiosity, what revision number are the donkeys up to, these days?

As far as that long standing policy, seems that even that program clearly shows that time spent by sole reference to instruments is considered 400% more valuable than time spent operating under a bloody clearance now, doesn't it? Don't let that detail proving my original point deter you in the least.

You should be looking at ICAO references not the FARs/JAR's one of the authorities has an exemption filed somewhere.

I never called on FAA regulation. Others did that. However, multiple posters demanded reference to the JAR-FCL, which we did. ICAO documents are conventions, but do not represent a licensing authority. In the case of the "FAR's," these do represent ICAO compliant documents, and are also federal regulation in their place of origin. The JAR-FCL likewise.

As for your ironclad references, given that you've done no better thus far, just how authoritative are we to take "has an exemption somewhere?" Cite the reference, or don't bring it up. Thus far what you've attempted to bring up has been far off the mark, so this is no surprise...but this has been a serious discussion thus far, and you're not really helping.

Back to the discussion, I'd rather hire a guy thats been operating a tail dragger off grass, within Class A, hand flying whilst talking and operating within one of the busiest bits of airspace on the planet. You may consider this less of a demonstration of ability than flying straight and level on one of the infamous 200nm direct to's you get in the US, if so then thats your opinion you're entitled to your own as is everybody else

In the US, class A is found above 18,000', which is somewhat different than the UK. As a long time ag pilot myself, I have somewhat of a soft spot for conventional gear (that's tailwheel to you) aircraft, and I really have operated in the busiest airspace on the planet...and it's not where you think it is. As for US direct-to legs, 200 nm would be a very short one indeed...but then your country would fit handily inside part of many of our 50 states...so I suppose you take what you can get, don't you? Sort of makes it seem pointless for you to take that tack, after all.

As you've introduced "straight and level," and I didn't bring it up at all, perhaps you'll be kind enough to put words in your own mouth, and not mine.

If you have more to say on the subject, and I'm sure you will, would it be too much to ask if you could at least make some effort to be right? If not that, then at least to introduce something useful, relevant, or even at a minimum, in context? Best of luck with that.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

What next

Good point well made.

Freind of mine is head of training at a corporate gig with short runways and a B200, I suppose he may be interested in the guy of the grass with excellent handling skills as opposed to somebody who is experienced into europe IFR etc as you described who you may find more suitable.

Horses for courses one would argue, all cleared up with an application of common sense, a read of the Guys CV and perhaps a pre interview phone call to confirm the applicants experience and to confirm he can string a sentence together.

Your post well demonstrates that one size doesn't fit all.

With Ryanair cadets sitting in the RHS at 185 hours is it realistic to anticipate new cojo's to have IFR experience either as P1 or as a Pilots Assistant - I guess thats a whole different discussion for a whole different thread.

If I was hiring the guy I personally would think the hands on flying and workload would be a sign that he'd cope with type training, his experiences would also be something to chat about in the cruise but thats just my opinion

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Guppy......oh guppy

If you have more to say on the subject, and I'm sure you will, would it be too much to ask if you could at least make some effort to be right? If not that, then at least to introduce something useful, relevant, or even at a minimum, in context? Best of luck with that.

95% of your last post had nothing to do with the original post - you're harping on about 61.55 . At least when I brought it up I acknowledged it had no relevance to the original posters question. Your 61.55 comments and the fact that you feel people dont need type training to fly along at 265knots in a twin turbine at FL290 really speak volumes significantly more worrying than this IFR "discussion" Its very apparent that the insurance companies do the policing in the USA not the FAA- If you want to endorse the fact that you fly around in transport category aircraft having never done a checkride then start another thread - I'll see you there.

The original point I was making was that rulemakers on both sides of the atlantic dont always get it right. Stop trying to be a know it all with your long posts because IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER the only reason you need either 400 Hours IFR or 100 Hours IMC is so you can get a IRI (CFII) rating issued. You can then only teach with it what ratings you have

[Chinchilla.612]

G-SPOTs Lost,

Not wanting to get drawn into too much more on this thread, but just wanted to correct one part of your last post incase it is taken for reference by someone else reading here.

The requirements for the IRI rating issue are 800 hours IFR or 200 hours IMC, you had the right ratio though.

Chinchilla.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Cheers

Far from sure but I think it was the old numbers when I did mine (Pre JAA) , thanks for the heads up though.

Just for a laugh I was going to ask for the LASORS ref but it'll probably be contradicting itself on the following page