Logging IFR hours - is my thinking correct?

[Chinchilla.612]

G-SPOTs Lost,

It's in Lasors H2.1 ....... and although not contradicted on the next page, you're probably right that there will be something different stated somewhere in JARs lol.

We could have a prize for the first person to find a contradiction to this requirement?? (jk)

Chinchilla.

[SNS3Guppy]

95% of your last post had nothing to do with the original post - you're harping on about 61.55

You brought it up. Not me. Don't want to talk about it? Don't bring it up.

If you do bring it up, at least be accurate about it. You weren't.

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

Didn't you wag on about how you'd read the thread? The references have been posted...and discussed in detail. You just missed that part, didn't you?

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"

I said nothing of the kind. You said this. Again, if you intend to enter here, do me the courtesy of putting words in your own mouth, and not mine. At no time did I state or suggest that people don't need training, whether it's flying at 265 knots of 20 knots. Of course people need training.

Do people need a "SIC Type Rating" to make them a better pilot, better qualified, or able to do the job? Of course not. There's a difference between the ink on the paper, and being qualified. You asserted that unqualified private pilots with a few hours of training had been flying heavy iron. You did so quite inaccurately, of course, and you continue to be wrong by pushin words upon me that I never said. You are able to speak for yourself, are you not?

Thus far, not a single thing you've set forth has been correct. You're consistently exactly wrong. Never the less, let's press on...

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.

Apparent to you, perhaps...but then you wouldn't know. The FAA does the enforcement of the regulation. Insurance companies most certainly do have an influence, but do not do any policing.

I did not make any endorsement of flying tranpsort category aircraft without a checkride...again, something you're suggested, and only you...and once again you're attempting to put words in my mouth.

I stated that not holding an SIC type does not make one unqualified. You find a place in this thread where I suggested one does not need to take a checkride or demonstrate competency. I didn't say it. Again, YOU did. You'll also not find a place where I endorsed a lack of a checkride...this is YOUR assertion. Can you not speak for yourself??

That the regulation formerly did not require a SIC type rating is really irrelevant to competency, and that a checkride may not have been taken for the SIC type (which didn't exist) does not mean a SIC check wasn't taken.

US Part 121 carriers for many years required no type rating, but all pilots received the same checkride, equivilent to a full type rating ride, every six months in order to maintain currency...and all pilots underwent the full training program. Adding a type rating to that training for the SIC wouldn't have changed their ability or skill in the airplane one iota. Traditionally, many companies have only paid for and awarded the type as part of the upgrade training. That the SIC could log the time as SIC is no condemnation on the pilot, the operator, or the FAA...because in most cases the SIC's were far more qualified, with far more experience, than their fellow ICAO brethren abroad.

Again, whereas you can put a few-hundred hour pilot in your airplane and type him, calling him "qualified," traditionally over here we've seen ten to twenty times the experience for someone to fill the same position. Whether that person has a SIC type rating (invented to keep folks like you happy, incidentally, certainly not out of anything but administrative necessity) does not determine their ability, functionality, or skill in the cockpit, and in no way influences or impinges on that individual's judgment.

Now, you appear unhappy this subject was brought up. Of course, you're the one who brought it up. Where does that leave you now?

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Guppy

I brought it up and then admitted it wasn't relevant and moved on. You must have been typing for over an hour on that last diatribe about 61.55!!

You then accuse me of irrelavance - classic!

Try sticking to the thread title instead of turning each thread into the guppy show

Another guppy classic....

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?

You mean long standing policy like this

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.

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

Both quotes from the same post

You've been doing it for ages - must be right then!! Oh no hang on a minute the CAA GROUNDED your countrymen's aircraft just all of a sudden cos they felt like it that day - but you've been doing it for YEARS.....

Didn't you wag on about how you'd read the thread? The references have been posted...and discussed in detail. You just missed that part, didn't you?

Dunno maybe....I could easily have been forgiven for falling asleep half way through, try and be a bit more concise old chap, you're typing lots but saying little

Off topic

PS flew around for many years pt 91 on a US PPL internationally with a 61.55 rating in a FAR25 2 crew aircraft. So dont kid a kidder it does happen. You mention all the best examples - the rules are open to misuse and abuse, dont think AA or Delta think lear25 charters inc. from buttf**k alabama with no training budget to speak off

[SNS3Guppy]

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

That would be a typo. It should have read "Domestically in teh US, and for a very long time internationally, one not acting as PIC had no requirement to hold a type rating for the aircraft." I'm sure you could have probably figured that out though...and thus there's no disparity.

Oh no hang on a minute the CAA GROUNDED your countrymen's aircraft just all of a sudden cos they felt like it that day - but you've been doing it for YEARS.....

No, the CAA didn't ground them. The CAA requested a change of crew, specifically pointing to ICAO convention. The crew continued to enjoy a long and productive career, no doubt...but then you've been unable to point to the specific event or document it...so I think we can safely conclude your point is...without point. (You did cite a notice of proposed rule making--not a rule--which didn't address the event in question).

You've been doing it for ages - must be right then!!

No. Been doing it for ages because it was legal, and right. Presently the regulation is modified as a nod to the whining EASA and CAA...though in substance nothing has changed...and as stated before, the only difference between then and now is that the SIC type is printed on the certificate. No change in the crew training or testing...just the letters on the certificate. It was right then, and right now. Get over it.

dont think AA or Delta think lear25 charters inc. from buttf**k alabama with no training budget to speak off

How might you have phrased that if you intended to sound like an adult and a professional? One can only wonder.

Perhaps if you're done being wrong, and pontificating on irrelevant subjects, we can get back to the thread. Are you able?

[G-SPOTs Lost]

your last post smacks of desparation. Its another long one got as far as this.....

No, the CAA didn't ground them. The CAA requested a change of crew

Errr ok then the CAA wouldnt let them depart...... = grounded

Quote:
dont think AA or Delta think lear25 charters inc. from buttf**k alabama with no training budget to speak off

How might you have phrased that if you intended to sound like an adult and a professional? One can only wonder.

Well dodged - cleverly avoided the point I was making - full marks, because every little operator in the USA adheres to the rules just like legacy carriers dont they - or are you dellusional?

As I said in one of the other threads when you were holding court with your 4 sided replies I can fully imagine you telling Ernest Gann he was doing it all wrong

Perhaps if you're done being wrong, and pontificating on irrelevant subjects, we can get back to the thread. Are you able?

Absolutely.....despite that little barbed invite to continue taunting you please continue......you were saying regarding IFR in the LTMA.......

[G-SPOTs Lost]

But just before we press on.....

This took me 30 seconds to find on google

Not quite the smoking gun to finally put the matter to bed unfortunately, it was a CAA FlightOps inspector who told me the guy in the RHS of the BBJ was the a/c A&P and PPL.

How about you spend the next hour typing a reply that sweeps the matter under the carpet and then we can talk about IFR in the London TMA again??

[SNS3Guppy]

This took me 30 seconds to find on google

Sounds like you wasted thirty seconds...because this is the content of the article you linked:

Some first officers flying US-registered business jets in Europe under
US Federal Aviation Administration licensing regulations have been contravening International Civil Aviation Organisation standards, an ICAO safety audit spot-check has revealed. The UK Civil Aviation Authority says it has advised the FAA to notify US pilots and operators about crew qualification requirements of which they might not have been aware.

During a spot-check carried out under the ICAO international aviation safety audit system, some pilots flying as co-pilots in N-registered business jets at London Luton airport were found not to have type ratings, although the pilots in command did. This is permitted in the USA under regulation FAR 61.55, but under European and ICAO rules both pilots must have full type ratings to fly commercial transport aircraft or any aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of more than 5,700kg (12,5001b), according to the CAA.

It is understood that a US-based Dassault Falcon crew was spotchecked
and that the co-pilot was found not to have a type rating on his licence. The operations manager of the London Luton airport fixed based operation affected says he is aware of the incident. The manager understands that other crews had been found to be operating the same way under FAR 61. The CAA says it has contacted the FAA, which is to disseminate the information to pilots and operators who may have not been aware of the rule.

Find anything in there about flight engineers with private pilot certificates and a few hours flying "heavy iron?" I surely didn't. Nor did the article discuss the grounding of those mythical engineers. The CAA's action in this article? To contact the FAA and request that they disseminate the information. Not quite the same as your description, is it?

it was a CAA FlightOps inspector who told me the guy in the RHS of the BBJ was the a/c A&P and PPL.

Oh. That was your authoritative source. Couldn't link that conversation of course, so you linked an article that didn't support you at all. Good thinking.

The article is in error, of course, because both crewmembers are not required to have "full type ratings," and under present regulation, SIC's continue to operate legally with an SIC type rating.

Well dodged - cleverly avoided the point I was making - full marks, because every little operator in the USA adheres to the rules just like legacy carriers dont they - or are you dellusional?

I'm not delusional at all. Having flown for a number of the small operators, I know exactly what the score is. Having a fair knowledge of the regulation on this side of the pond (and when I say "this," I say it in a relative term, as I'm abroad, and working internationally...but I do keep up to date on US regulation as that's the basis of my certification), I also know that small operators do work with in the regulations that apply to them. This includes 14 CFR 61.55...which still does NOT require a SIC type if flying domestically...and you can bet the same operators do obtain it presently if flying internationally. Then again, most small operators have no need.

Errr ok then the CAA wouldnt let them depart...... = grounded

Delayed, pending a crew change.

I can fully imagine you telling Ernest Gann he was doing it all wrong

Well, when you see me doing so...then you can talk. Thus far you've spent an inordinate amount of time putting words in my mouth, misquoting me and others, citing things someone told you as evidence of your inaccuracies, and now you're going to indict me on what you imagine I might say to a dead person? You're truly amazing.

Anything to keep from addressing the topic of conversation.

As we're seen clearly laid out, your own home-grown regulations which govern the logging of time clearly state that it's IFR conditions to be logged, and go on to define them as conditions less than VFR, and give special guidance in wording nearly identical to the same regulation in the US...establishing that instrument time specifically refers to flight by sole reference to instruments. Quite relevant to the topic at hand...unlike the issue of US regulation on seconds in command...which you've introduced and thoroughly (and inaccurately) beat to death.

Having been discredited, you've elected to pursue personal attacks, and not content with that, have dredged up personal attacks based on what you imagine might be said to a dead person. In most quarters, this might seem a little strange, but it's perfectly in concert with all your other comments, so nothing to see here.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Guppy

After a particularly unpleasant toilet service I promised My FO 3 or 4 legs back to back and that I would do the next Jeppy update.

So I haven't had a landing in 10 days and I was presented this morning with a large pile of Jepp's finest

Well its been fun swordfencing with you today but now I've got better things to do other now that the Jepps are done.

I might just ask you to consider that because there is not an internet link for everything that happens in life doesn't mean it didn't happen. And that some things are said figuratively and not literally over here.

You have an answer for everything and your refusal to let the facts get in the way of a good story has got a little tedious so I'll just bow to your better knowledge and judgement, sincerely apologise for overstepping the mark if I have done and bid you all the best and good evening.

[SNS3Guppy]

So I haven't had a landing in 10 days and I was presented this morning with a large pile of Jepp's finest

Well its been fun swordfencing with you today but now I've got better things to do other now that the Jepps are done.

My deepest sympathies, having been there myself.

I've also appreciation from the position of an F/O in the past, of a captain who steps in to do the swamp work; you're good crew.

I believe I'm done here also; the conversation for me has run it's course. I will say that I've learned a few things about the UK process and legislation, and thanks to those who provided the links. For me, at least, it's certainly been educational, if not entertaining.

[MaintainYourHeading]

Back to the original thread question

One can log IFR time only when the pilot is flying solely by reference to instruments. That does not mean you must be inside clouds. Whenever flying by visual references is not possible, and reference to flight instruments is mandatory for the conduct of the flight, then it is IFR.

Example: you are flying outside of clouds but in less than 2 kilometers visibility, it would be difficult to navigate without any instrumentation.

Example: you are flying at night by a moonless night over the ocean, no outside reference is possible, can not see any horizon, this is IFR time.

Usually I ask myself the question: can I fly now in these conditions by looking outside, conduct a safe flight without being disoriented and putting the aircraft into an unusual attitude. If the answer is no, then this is IFR.

If is independent of your type of flight plan. Now if you are under VFR flight plan into IMC, then you are breaking the rules and that is a different question. You can still log your IFR time though.

Cheers

[CL300]

About 20 years ago, I was based out of Hatflied (UK) with N registered aircrafts, (6 months contract) ( easy to spot the operator, only one at that time at LBA )
FO had NO type rating, would it be on the mighty C500 or the infamous GII.
But times are changing, later on out of UK with a Falcon 900, (under the same circumstances, but different operator, and BEFORE the SIC rating), the CAA ramp checked us, and let us go back across the pond, with a warning that next time FO needs a TR on the plane.

The interesting part was when I got a french ATPL (non-FCL), the DGAC would not count towards my grand total, any flight time done as an SIC with no rating or flight in a plane that was not certified in France. 10 years later,a letter cmae through in order to let me know that NOW, these hours were recognised and that I could log them ( what a difference between 8000 and 10K !!!!) . The only only point being that things are changing, and that what used to be normal procedure in the past is outlaw today, and vice-versa.

A bit like logging IFR, used to be IMC conditions; now all time spent under IFR FPL....At the end of the day , who cares ? Except a dodgy Chief Pilot ?

Enjoy your flying, every minute counts, would it be Single engine Sea, or MultiJet Land, day or night, in the traffic pattern or accross PAC...The rest is only bar discussion, or pprune for that matter..

[Carrier]

Instrument flight time depends on the type of flying a pilot is doing and where he is doing it. Flying for a day VFR operator should not provide much instrument flight time! Some parts of the world because of different weather/climate require more instrument flying than other parts.

As a rule of thumb the instrument flight time of an experienced pilot will be between 5% and 10% of his total time. Anything over this will require some explaining and proper evidence. A resume with more than 15% would probably belong to a Parker Pen pilot and would go straight into the garbage can.

Here's the information from the World's biggest aviation country:

Federal Aviation Regulation Sec. 61.51 - Pilot logbooks.

(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

(2) An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions.

(3) For the purposes of logging instrument time to meet the recent instrument experience requirements of §61.57(c) of this part, the following information must be recorded in the person's logbook --

(i) The location and type of each instrument approach accomplished; and

(ii) The name of the safety pilot, if required.

(4) A flight simulator or approved flight training device may be used by a person to log instrument time, provided an authorized instructor is present during the simulated flight.

[NuName]

Carrier, spot on, I am amazed that there are "pilots" out there that manage to confuse instrument flight time with time spent on a IFR flight plan. One only has to accept the fact that a SE PPL with no ratings whatsoever is perfectly entitled to file a IFR flight plan but will be required to maintain VFR. Maybe someone who thinks otherwise could explain just what would be the value of a total of time spent in flight on a IFR flight plan.

[CL300]

Stop quoting FAR's please. Title 14 of CFR is only representing a quarter of people flying in this world. Let accept that there is other rules, other countries, other regulations. In those, T/O to Ldg is counted towards Instrument flight.
Happy hours !

[NuName]

Lets KEEP quoting FAR's please. If it represents 25% of people flying in this world (which if you were to include all the countries that base their licence's on FAA regs it would not, very much more indeed) then that is a huge representation. I dont care what anyones rules are, when the question is asked, how many hours of instrument flight do you have, we all know what the question really is. If a guy has 10,000 hours with 7,000 hour of instument time he would be laughed at and rightly so. Then when it is asked of him, what is the real number, he will not know will he as it will be hidden in amongst all those hours of sitting there eating, drinking and doing the crossword puzzles.

[CL300]

as a matter of fact only Us of A is basing the licensing on the title 14 of CFR part 61. This document is based on ICAO recomandations. Every single country part of the 186 members of ICAO is using the same recomandations. Some countries do accept to give an equivalence, or sometimes only a validation from another memeber into their respective Licences. ( Well known are Bermudan and Cayman authorities) This does not mean they are basing their licences on the US of A view. They are basing this on an ICAO recommandation.
The fact that the american regulator put in part 61 some restrictions is a right and a privilege; that every single country has. Besides this other regulators, would it be CAA or EASA or else are having their own view.
There is a very good article on AIN about the fact that europe is leading the way in many fields of aviation , CDFA, CArbon offset, fatigue managemen ,weather reporting, etc..
I can only suggest that you have to stick to the rules from where you are flying; but in today's world, no one can care less about IFR total time; Time in type is what matters, along with total time. Now if you can keep the altitude within 100 ft at FL 450 without looking at your instruments, I know a couple of companies that will hire you for in flight calibration at once.

[NuName]

CL300, I can't even fly a C150 at 2000' without consulting the altimeter from time to time, IMHO that hardy constitutes instrument flying. And having flown with, and hired, and fired many individuals the time on type has never been a higher priority than instrument flying skills and management. It has been my experience that a good pilot remains good in any aircraft, and a bad one remains bad. A good instrument pilot...................

[Tinstaafl]

It's not just the US that distinguishes between IFR (Instrument Flight *Rules*) and IF (flight without external reference for control). Australia, for example, is one amongst many.

I have flown many hours under IFR in gin clear conditions. I have also flown quite a few hours of IF under VFR. The two are not the same.

[Needles Crossed]

What if it's not possible to log IFR?

I've read all the above points with interest, but have one unanswered question. We all seem to agree that time flown by sole reference to instruments should be logged. What if this cannot be done under an IFR flight plan? As far as I am aware, its perfectly acceptable to go up in a suitably equipped aircraft with a hood or screens, and fly the aircraft by sole reference to instruments whilst a buddy keeps the required lookout. This is even specified in JARs as 'simulated instrument conditions'. If this is done in an aircraft which lacks some equipment which prevents it from flying under an IFR flight plan (for example a servicable ADF when you're planning to fly an ILS approach), can this not be logged as IFR or IF time and count towards the requirements for a single pilot operation or an IRI qualification?

[Mikehotel152]

6 pages of well-intentioned argument, confused thinking, reliance on clearly poorly drafted secondary legislation, arguments where the antagonists are at crossed-purposes, and downright unwillingness to see the wood for the trees. Surprisingly, I learned quite a bit.

Frankly, the only time that matters in airline flying is time on type. If you're flying scheduled pax around, anywhere in the world, you'll almost certainly be flying according to IFR regardless of the weather or time of the day. VMC or IMC is irrelevant except insofar as it prompts you to turn on the TAI, change the landing gate or select a different approach plate.

As far as I'm concerned the quoted rule which mentioned recording time spent in 'IFR conditions' is a red herring and the sort of poor drafting, at worst, or outdated terminology, at best, that causes unnecessary debate. One can only guess what the draftsman intended. Akin to much of the JAA ATPL syllabus, one can only imagine it's a phrase which was translated eight times before written down in English.

IFR means the rules. It implies operating under a FPL. Note, flying a FPL doesn't imply flying IFR.

IFR conditions is a nonsense, but could be intended to mean the weather conditions in which VFR flight is not legal.

Instrument Flight is clearly intended to mean 'actual' Instrument Flight, which has been described as being a more accomplished form of flying. I'm not sure who does this?

Seeing as almost all professional airways flying involves a magenta line created with reference to instruments, whether that line is followed manually, with FDs or by the AP, I can only presume that actual Instrument Flight is in fact raw data flying? Bully for you if your airline encourages this.

So, where are we at? Log IFR if your FPL is predicated on IFR. Don't if it's a VFR FPL. Simple. But what's the point? Anyone employing you for an airline job will assume you fly IFR because everyone does. Time on type is all they care about.

If you're training for an initial IR Rating, flying mixture of VFR and IFR in GA or bizjets, or your logbook is more of a hobby than your flying, log your 'actual' Instrument Flying hours, minutes and seconds if you feel like it. These days very few people will care and as this thread proves, very few people will understand the difference.

Now, let's have the same discussion about PICUS...