Logging of instruction hours for the IMC rating
By that trite definition, using an ASI could be considered to be 'Instrument Flying'! 'Sole reference to instruments' is the criterion, not just the odd look inside now and again.
You have your opinions, I have mine. But you cannot convince me that watching someone else's instrument flying should be considered 'Instrument Flight Time' under the JAR definition:
Time during which a pilot is controlling an aircraft in flight solely by reference to instruments
There is only one situation I can think of when hand flying the a/c yourself in IMC is definitely not 'Instrument Flight Time'....
You have your opinions, I have mine. But you cannot convince me that watching someone else's instrument flying should be considered 'Instrument Flight Time' under the JAR definition:
Time during which a pilot is controlling an aircraft in flight solely by reference to instruments
There is only one situation I can think of when hand flying the a/c yourself in IMC is definitely not 'Instrument Flight Time'....
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Now you really are completely wrong.
Sole reference to instruments allows the hours to count for 4 times the number, as specifically stated. The requirement for becoming an IRI is 800 hours, but this drops to only 200 if all are by sole reference to instruments. Instrument flight time is flight under IFR, which is not necessarily by sole reference to the instruments at all. You might look up the definitions of IFR and VFR just to remind yourself. If you were in class A airspace then you were flying under IFR - unless someone clear you special VFR in the airways? It's illegal to fly VFR in class A.
800 hours flying IFR in perfect, gin-clear VMC is sufficient to qualify to start an IRI course.
Are you really so arrogant you cannot simply admit you didn't know the rules? It has not harmed anyone, you were only being over cautious. You are now arguing a course that could misinform others whose careers you could damage.
Now you really are completely wrong.
Sole reference to instruments allows the hours to count for 4 times the number, as specifically stated. The requirement for becoming an IRI is 800 hours, but this drops to only 200 if all are by sole reference to instruments. Instrument flight time is flight under IFR, which is not necessarily by sole reference to the instruments at all. You might look up the definitions of IFR and VFR just to remind yourself. If you were in class A airspace then you were flying under IFR - unless someone clear you special VFR in the airways? It's illegal to fly VFR in class A.
800 hours flying IFR in perfect, gin-clear VMC is sufficient to qualify to start an IRI course.
Are you really so arrogant you cannot simply admit you didn't know the rules? It has not harmed anyone, you were only being over cautious. You are now arguing a course that could misinform others whose careers you could damage.
Sorry, the definition of 'Instrument Flight Time' I provided is a direct quote, not my own definition.
The standalone IRI(A) 800 hr requirement is for 'flight under IFR':
"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."
If the CAA has decreed that there is no formal requirement to have any more 'instrument time' (rather than 'flight under IFR')to become a standalone IRI(A) beyond that required to hold an IR(A), then so be it. But, due to the requirements for IR(A) issue, it's impossible for any FI(A) holding an IR(A) not to have the requisite instrument time to qualify for the removal of the 'no applied instrument' restriction:
Have flown at least 200 hours flight time in
accordance with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), of
which up to 50 hours may be instrument ground
time in an approved flight simulator or FNPT II.
Where pilots have recorded flight by sole reference
to instruments and not under IFR then 1 hour of
flight by sole reference to instruments may be
counted as 4 hours flight by IFR. Where pilots wish
solely to instruct for the IMC Rating a reduced
experience level of 10 hours flight time by sole
reference to instruments is applicable
Thus there simply isn't any issue regarding IR(A)-holding FI(A)s; it is the standalone IRI(A) applicant with low experience of his/her own flying in IMC (e.g. claiming 'flight under IFR' when floating around in clear VMC) with which I harbour doubts.
Still haven't worked out the occasion when you could be in IMC but not actually 'instrument flying'?
And thank you, I do know the requirements for IFR, VFR and SVFR - as well as the restrictions imposed by Class A airspace.
The standalone IRI(A) 800 hr requirement is for 'flight under IFR':
"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."
If the CAA has decreed that there is no formal requirement to have any more 'instrument time' (rather than 'flight under IFR')to become a standalone IRI(A) beyond that required to hold an IR(A), then so be it. But, due to the requirements for IR(A) issue, it's impossible for any FI(A) holding an IR(A) not to have the requisite instrument time to qualify for the removal of the 'no applied instrument' restriction:
Have flown at least 200 hours flight time in
accordance with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), of
which up to 50 hours may be instrument ground
time in an approved flight simulator or FNPT II.
Where pilots have recorded flight by sole reference
to instruments and not under IFR then 1 hour of
flight by sole reference to instruments may be
counted as 4 hours flight by IFR. Where pilots wish
solely to instruct for the IMC Rating a reduced
experience level of 10 hours flight time by sole
reference to instruments is applicable
Thus there simply isn't any issue regarding IR(A)-holding FI(A)s; it is the standalone IRI(A) applicant with low experience of his/her own flying in IMC (e.g. claiming 'flight under IFR' when floating around in clear VMC) with which I harbour doubts.
Still haven't worked out the occasion when you could be in IMC but not actually 'instrument flying'?
And thank you, I do know the requirements for IFR, VFR and SVFR - as well as the restrictions imposed by Class A airspace.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
What utter TOSH,
So you flew your big multi jets by setting visual attitudes ???????
I ask again, how does an Airline Captain with an Autopilot log the hours ?
quick hint -99.9% of them dont do it your way !
What utter TOSH,
So you flew your big multi jets by setting visual attitudes ???????
I ask again, how does an Airline Captain with an Autopilot log the hours ?
quick hint -99.9% of them dont do it your way !
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please remember that it is possible (and normal) to complete up to 40 hours of the IR in an approved FNPT 2. That being the case, a pilot may have only logged 15 hours of instrument time during his/her Instrument Rating and would therefore still be short of time to get the 'no applied instrument' restriction removed from their licence.
I must say that I do agree that logging the time your students spend flying the aircraft by sole referance to the instruments in Visual Conditions (VMC) is not very honest... you should be looking out for traffic!
As I mentioned previously, there seems to be a lot of confusion between IFR and instument time. They are two very different things. Just remember that by logging IFR time you are only recording the time you spent following a certain set of rules and procedures... it does NOT mean you were flying the aircraft by sole referance to the instruments.
In my opinion, until you have all the ratings you desire, it may be wise to log both instrument time (as defined in JAR-FCL 1) and operational condition time (IFR).
Now, if you really do want 200 hours of IFR time then start filing IFR flight plans... and if you want instrument time then fly by sole referance to the instruments and either take a safety pilot along to lookout (who does not log instrument time!!!) or file an IFR flight plan and remain in controlled airspace where you are not required to lookout and provide your own separation (A, B, & C I believe).
I must say that I do agree that logging the time your students spend flying the aircraft by sole referance to the instruments in Visual Conditions (VMC) is not very honest... you should be looking out for traffic!
As I mentioned previously, there seems to be a lot of confusion between IFR and instument time. They are two very different things. Just remember that by logging IFR time you are only recording the time you spent following a certain set of rules and procedures... it does NOT mean you were flying the aircraft by sole referance to the instruments.
In my opinion, until you have all the ratings you desire, it may be wise to log both instrument time (as defined in JAR-FCL 1) and operational condition time (IFR).
Now, if you really do want 200 hours of IFR time then start filing IFR flight plans... and if you want instrument time then fly by sole referance to the instruments and either take a safety pilot along to lookout (who does not log instrument time!!!) or file an IFR flight plan and remain in controlled airspace where you are not required to lookout and provide your own separation (A, B, & C I believe).
hoey50, I do not understand your impolite diatribe. What was it I said which caused you to wet your pants?
And yes, 4-jets don't just lumber about on instruments in airways. On very many occasions I have flown by reference to visual attitudes.
So how can you fly in IMC and not be 'flying on instruments'? Have you worked it out yet?
And yes, 4-jets don't just lumber about on instruments in airways. On very many occasions I have flown by reference to visual attitudes.
So how can you fly in IMC and not be 'flying on instruments'? Have you worked it out yet?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Westward TV
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
Is the answer when you are bimbling along with no cloud, at 4000 feet, with 4km vis in Class G (or F) airspace?
Below VFR minima's but perfectly legal for a plain PPL.
Is the answer when you are bimbling along with no cloud, at 4000 feet, with 4km vis in Class G (or F) airspace?
Below VFR minima's but perfectly legal for a plain PPL.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer I expect you are after BEagle is on a Special VFR flight.
However, that shows what an ass the current system is because Special VFR is basically desribed as a flight in a control zone in IMC or at Night or when the airspace is Class A.
Leaving out everything except ther IMC bit how can one say that a PPL requesting a Special VFR clearance and having the legal requirement of 10Km be in IMC when they can fly VFR in the same airspace in 5Km.
Perhaps the definition should say a flight by a PPL in better than VMC!
------------
I expect that BEagles answer to he autopilot question is that he would be controlling the autopilot and thus controlling the aircraft.
:YUK:
Regards,
DFC
However, that shows what an ass the current system is because Special VFR is basically desribed as a flight in a control zone in IMC or at Night or when the airspace is Class A.
Leaving out everything except ther IMC bit how can one say that a PPL requesting a Special VFR clearance and having the legal requirement of 10Km be in IMC when they can fly VFR in the same airspace in 5Km.
Perhaps the definition should say a flight by a PPL in better than VMC!
------------
I expect that BEagles answer to he autopilot question is that he would be controlling the autopilot and thus controlling the aircraft.
:YUK:
Regards,
DFC
SVFR is never available in IMC. If your licence privileges preclude compliance with mandatory IFR (for example, a PPL without IMC Rating in a Class A control zone), then you may fly SVFR if the visual conditions are within the limits specified by the controlling authority.
The 5km (VFR) versus 10Km (SVFR) visibility requirement for unrated PPL holders flying SVFR in Class D control zones is indeed odd.
The answer?
When flying as wingman in close formation in cloud. You are flying visually using the formation reference points of the other a/c even though you are in IMC. So you're not flying by sole reference to instruments......
The 5km (VFR) versus 10Km (SVFR) visibility requirement for unrated PPL holders flying SVFR in Class D control zones is indeed odd.
The answer?
When flying as wingman in close formation in cloud. You are flying visually using the formation reference points of the other a/c even though you are in IMC. So you're not flying by sole reference to instruments......
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All getting a bit pedantic here isn't it.
Just to throw my oar in here, in my view if you are on an IFR flight plan, then that is an IFR flight. What the actual met conditions are is irrelevant in my view. I personally haven't got a clue how much time I've spent in 'actual' IMC and to be honest don't really care either.
However, if you are logging IMC time whilst instructing in the open FIR on a VFR flight whilst in VMC (ie the student is under the hood but you are in good viz) then that is a bit naughty.
But as I said before, who's going to check?
Just to throw my oar in here, in my view if you are on an IFR flight plan, then that is an IFR flight. What the actual met conditions are is irrelevant in my view. I personally haven't got a clue how much time I've spent in 'actual' IMC and to be honest don't really care either.
However, if you are logging IMC time whilst instructing in the open FIR on a VFR flight whilst in VMC (ie the student is under the hood but you are in good viz) then that is a bit naughty.
But as I said before, who's going to check?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
Check the definition of Special VFR flight.
IMC means conditions that are less than VMC.
Therefore if on a special VFR clearance in a Class D zone in say 4K vis then by definition one is flying in IMC because the conditions are less than VMC.
Another example of being in IMC but not using instruments is cruising along at FL80 in 100K visibility but only 500ft above a cloud.
Getting back to log books, pilots must rmember that if you ever go for a job and claim certain experience then the prospective employer will have a good look at your log book and parker pen flying is always easy to spot........and it only takes one instane for employers to ruin one's chances because parker pen in the personal log unusally means the tech log etc may not also be accurate.
Regards,
DFC
Check the definition of Special VFR flight.
IMC means conditions that are less than VMC.
Therefore if on a special VFR clearance in a Class D zone in say 4K vis then by definition one is flying in IMC because the conditions are less than VMC.
Another example of being in IMC but not using instruments is cruising along at FL80 in 100K visibility but only 500ft above a cloud.
Getting back to log books, pilots must rmember that if you ever go for a job and claim certain experience then the prospective employer will have a good look at your log book and parker pen flying is always easy to spot........and it only takes one instane for employers to ruin one's chances because parker pen in the personal log unusally means the tech log etc may not also be accurate.
Regards,
DFC
DFC, I concur. Less than VMC must mean IMC and my comment was incorrect. 'Degraded visual conditions' might be a better way of thinking about SVFR - except within Class A CTRs when it's a bit of a bodge to enable unrated pilots to fly 'visually' in permanent IFR airspace. Which is a bit of an odd way to go about such regulations, I would say.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
What you quote is exactly what I said in my argument, and completely contradicts yours! That hours count if flown under IFR, but count 4 times if flown by sole reference to instruments. Therefore the first bit cannot possibly refer to flight by sole reference!
P.S. I believe in the UK it is technically possible to fly VFR in IMC. It is due to IMC being defined as per international regulations but there being a UK-only concession on conditions in class G below 3,000 feet at less than 140 kts. I'd have to look it up to check, though - Air Law was never one of my strong points. Never flying VFR at the limits because my self-preservation is stronger than the law, I do not know them well.
What you quote is exactly what I said in my argument, and completely contradicts yours! That hours count if flown under IFR, but count 4 times if flown by sole reference to instruments. Therefore the first bit cannot possibly refer to flight by sole reference!
P.S. I believe in the UK it is technically possible to fly VFR in IMC. It is due to IMC being defined as per international regulations but there being a UK-only concession on conditions in class G below 3,000 feet at less than 140 kts. I'd have to look it up to check, though - Air Law was never one of my strong points. Never flying VFR at the limits because my self-preservation is stronger than the law, I do not know them well.
Last edited by Send Clowns; 10th Jun 2005 at 11:50.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I hope I've got this now.........methinks not!
Okey dokey, here goes...
JAR-FCL 1.080 (c)(1)(ii) states that all instructional time counts as PIC and so far as instrument flight time goes as per 1.080 (b)(4)(v) I think the term 'operates' would include 'instructs'. But in the absence of clear definition I think personally that the spirit of the rules dictate that time in actual IMC should be counted as IMC time by the instructor but only time in actual IMC and not time in VMC.
So, by my interpretation:
IMC Training Flight ABC123 for Student with PPL
Flight time 1000 Z - 1100 Z Brakes off to Brakes On
At 1010 Z a/c enters IMC and continues exercise in IMC until 1050 Z.
Student logs time 1 hour PUT - 40 mins Instrument
Instructor logs 1 hour PIC (JAR-FCL 1.080 (c)(1)(ii))- 40 mins Instrument (as that portion of the flight was in actual IMC s/he must have been instructing also by sole reference to instruments)
But take the same flight all in VMC with the student under the hood; the student logs the same time including the 40 mins instrument but the instructor logs only 1 hour PIC but NO instrument time as HIS/HER flight duty was NOT made by SOLE reference to instruments.
Well, that's my twopence worth (if it's worth that much!!!) and I eagerly await other opinions.
Regards (whilst heading for the shelter),
2close
Okey dokey, here goes...
JAR-FCL 1.080 (c)(1)(ii) states that all instructional time counts as PIC and so far as instrument flight time goes as per 1.080 (b)(4)(v) I think the term 'operates' would include 'instructs'. But in the absence of clear definition I think personally that the spirit of the rules dictate that time in actual IMC should be counted as IMC time by the instructor but only time in actual IMC and not time in VMC.
So, by my interpretation:
IMC Training Flight ABC123 for Student with PPL
Flight time 1000 Z - 1100 Z Brakes off to Brakes On
At 1010 Z a/c enters IMC and continues exercise in IMC until 1050 Z.
Student logs time 1 hour PUT - 40 mins Instrument
Instructor logs 1 hour PIC (JAR-FCL 1.080 (c)(1)(ii))- 40 mins Instrument (as that portion of the flight was in actual IMC s/he must have been instructing also by sole reference to instruments)
But take the same flight all in VMC with the student under the hood; the student logs the same time including the 40 mins instrument but the instructor logs only 1 hour PIC but NO instrument time as HIS/HER flight duty was NOT made by SOLE reference to instruments.
Well, that's my twopence worth (if it's worth that much!!!) and I eagerly await other opinions.
Regards (whilst heading for the shelter),
2close
Surely only one pilot can honestly log IMC if he is the sole manipulator of the controls. Based on that premise, the instructor should not log IMC if he is not physically handling the controls.
Logging IMC if the aircraft is on autopilot is really cheating, isn't it? Let's be honest here - there is no handling skill in flying on autopilot.
Logging IMC if the aircraft is on autopilot is really cheating, isn't it? Let's be honest here - there is no handling skill in flying on autopilot.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, but there is more to being a good handling pilot than just the ability to move the a/c around the sky.
You still have to keep up your situational awareness, planning and be ready to take over in case "George" has a hissy fit.
An autopilot is an aid, not the be all and end all device that some people believe it to be.
You still have to keep up your situational awareness, planning and be ready to take over in case "George" has a hissy fit.
An autopilot is an aid, not the be all and end all device that some people believe it to be.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: England
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Special VFR. The clue is in the VFR bit. For a PPL (or CPL for that matter) without any additional ratings you can fly SVFR in controlled airspace if in flight visibility is 10k or more. With the addition of an IMC you can accept an SVFR if vis is 3k+. This is not IMC, as an IMC rated pilot can fly VFR with a vis of 1.5k+. For a PPL VFR is 3k+ outside controlled airspace, and 5K+ in class C/D/E. There does not seem to be any confusion on this point.
Re logging hours, when I teach IMC I log hours that are in IMC as such. You may not be 'manipulating' the controls, but you are scanning exactly the same as the student (probably more), whilst teaching and keeping spacial awareness. This to me seems like a sound approach. When conditions are not IMC then the situation is different and the job involves lookout and all the other aspects of VFR flight, so should not be logged as IMC, and personally I do not. It can however be logged as IFR, depending on which part of the course you are teaching (en route/approaches etc).
Think you should get off the high horse a bit beagle.
Re logging hours, when I teach IMC I log hours that are in IMC as such. You may not be 'manipulating' the controls, but you are scanning exactly the same as the student (probably more), whilst teaching and keeping spacial awareness. This to me seems like a sound approach. When conditions are not IMC then the situation is different and the job involves lookout and all the other aspects of VFR flight, so should not be logged as IMC, and personally I do not. It can however be logged as IFR, depending on which part of the course you are teaching (en route/approaches etc).
Think you should get off the high horse a bit beagle.