Logging of instruction hours for the IMC rating
No high horse - I just don't understand why people think that that it's reasonable for them to log 'Instrument Flight Time' other than as defined in JAR-FCL.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, BEagle, you were arguing that we should not log instrument time when JAR-FCL (as interpreted by the CAA) state that the time should be logged as instrument time. You were using your own judgement, specifically not JAR-FCL!
It is the CAA's interpretation which seems to contradict JAR-FCL; in any case, what on earth is the point of logging 'watching student IMC flying' as your own Instrument Flight Time?
I think I shall check what the actual situation is with the CFE.
I think I shall check what the actual situation is with the CFE.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: England
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR-FCL states that time by sole reference is when you OPERATE a plane by instruments only. This is what happens when you teach in actual IMC conditions. You are not merely watching a student, but also operating the aircraft and making sure they perform accordingly. I don't think anyone is claiming that IMC time is logged when not in IMC, and the student is in simulated IMC under screens/foggles.
Not sure what your beef is beagle, but you seem to think teaching and logging hours is somehow 'cheating', when in fact it is often harder in instrument conditions than just flying yourself.
Not sure what your beef is beagle, but you seem to think teaching and logging hours is somehow 'cheating', when in fact it is often harder in instrument conditions than just flying yourself.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno 'bout you, average, but I find that instructing is nearly always harder than flying yourself!
The point, BEagle, is accuracy, and consistency in the log book. What is the point of logging time at all when instructing with the student handling? After all you are not actually manipulting the controls. How about PNF in a multi-crew aircraft?
The point, BEagle, is accuracy, and consistency in the log book. What is the point of logging time at all when instructing with the student handling? After all you are not actually manipulting the controls. How about PNF in a multi-crew aircraft?
What an entirely ludicrous and pointless exchange this has turned out to be!
The CAA has said, in writing, that it will accept time flown by an instructor in IMC as counting towards the requirement for 'Instrument Flight Time' towards a licence or rating, whether or not he/she was handling the controls at the time. No amount of posturing by individuals, no matter how well or poorly qualified will change that, no 'opinions', other than those of the Authority, are valid, or even of any value.
People have, and will continue to gain licences and ratings based on this premise - Those are the facts and, if you don't like them, Beagle - TOUGH! Time to get out of your ivory (sorry, pale blue) tower and join the real world, I fancy.
The CAA has said, in writing, that it will accept time flown by an instructor in IMC as counting towards the requirement for 'Instrument Flight Time' towards a licence or rating, whether or not he/she was handling the controls at the time. No amount of posturing by individuals, no matter how well or poorly qualified will change that, no 'opinions', other than those of the Authority, are valid, or even of any value.
People have, and will continue to gain licences and ratings based on this premise - Those are the facts and, if you don't like them, Beagle - TOUGH! Time to get out of your ivory (sorry, pale blue) tower and join the real world, I fancy.
There is no need for such insulting comment, BillieBob. I have put the question to the CFE and will be interested to hear his view.
The Authority has interpreted other aspects of JAR-FCL incorrectly (e.g. requirements for SEP revalidation signatures not more than 3 months before Rating expiry, to mention just one), so it is indeed essential that the 'opinions' you deride are raised in a public forum - if for other no reason than to assist the CAA.
You might be surprised to learn that the CAA do indeed respond to reason when the facts are presented to them!
The Authority has interpreted other aspects of JAR-FCL incorrectly (e.g. requirements for SEP revalidation signatures not more than 3 months before Rating expiry, to mention just one), so it is indeed essential that the 'opinions' you deride are raised in a public forum - if for other no reason than to assist the CAA.
You might be surprised to learn that the CAA do indeed respond to reason when the facts are presented to them!
