Instructor shortage?

[BillieBob]

Unless of course it's 'I filed IFR, so I logged IFR'.

As MJ indicates, it is exactly that. The requirement is for flight in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules, whether that flight is by sole reference to instruments or entirely by visual reference is irrelevant. Flight by sole reference to instruments is only mandated within certain approved courses of training - there is little point in recording it at any other time.

[mad_jock]

From memory.

You need something like 70 hour of it for your ATPL. But when you include sim time for the type rating and MCC, behind the screens time for the CPL and IR. You virtually have it already.

And in some of the instructor ratings under the UK system your could factor it so that you required less than IFR time for getting the applied instrument restriction removed.

[PPRuNeUser0173]

MJ

Please check your PM's.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Should we all start logging IFR time as well as instrument time in our logbooks then?

G

[BillieBob]

Ghengis - see JAR-FCL 1.080(b)(5)

(b) The record shall contain the following information:
.....
(5) Operational conditions
(i) Night
(ii) IFR

or AMC1 FCL.050(a)(5)

(a) The record of the flights flown should contain at least the following information:
....
(5) Operational conditions, namely if the operation takes place at night, or is conducted under instrument flight rules

In neither case is there any requirement to record Instrument Flight Time.

[mad_jock]

G I haven't a single min of instrument time logged.

Most JAR era pilots with out mil exposure will be the same.

[Whopity]

Should we all start logging IFR time as well as instrument time?

The ANO does not require it and JAR-FCL was not law. Art 79

(3) The information recorded in accordance with paragraph (2) must include:

(d) information about any special conditions under which the flight was conducted,
including night flying and instrument flying; and

Note, no mention of Flight Rules!
Under EASA, the CAA still determine what we log.

[Genghis the Engineer]

An interesting dichotomy. Looks like there may be some small benefit and little effort in logging both, at-least until CAA and EASA reach any consensus.

G

[BillieBob]

I think it's fair to say that a consensus has already been reached. From CAP 804, Section 1, Part E:

2 Required Information

2.1 Part-FCL.050 and the ANO require a flight crew member to keep a personal flying log in which at least the following particulars are recorded:
....
2.1.2 Operational conditions, namely if the operation takes place at night, or is conducted under instrument flight rules.

The ANO requirement to record 'instrument flying' is also retained, although there is no definition of what constitutes 'instrument flying'. This, of course, takes account of the fact that, from 17 Sep, both the ANO and Part-FCL are law in the UK although, in the case of conflict, Part-FCL takes precedence.

I suppose that it may be said, therefore, that the 'small benefit' is that one keeps within the law.

[Genghis the Engineer]

CAP 804...

Part E Personal Flying Logs and recording of Flight Time
This Part sets out the requirements and guidance for Log annotation. The Part-FCL and Air
Navigation Order requirements are listed below so that pilots have the information needed to
maintain records that meet both European and national requirements.
1 General information
Flight crew logs must be kept in accordance with the provisions of Article 79 of the
UK ANO as amended and must also conform to Part-FCL (AMC FCL.050 refers). Part-
FCL states that flight time shall be recorded in a manner specified by the Authority.
79 (1) Every member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United
Kingdom and every person who engages in flying for the purpose of
qualifying for the grant or renewal of a flight crew licence under this Order
or a flight crew licence issued by the CAA under Part-FCL must keep a
personal flying log in which the following information must be recorded:
(a) the name and address of the holder of the log;
(b) detailed information about the holder's licence (if any) to act as a
member of the flight crew of an aircraft; and
(c) the name and address of the holder's employer (if any).
(2) Detailed information about each flight during which the holder of the log
acted either as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose
of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order must be
recorded in the log as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each
flight.
(3) The information recorded in accordance with paragraph (2) must include:
(a) the date, the places at which the holder of the log embarked on and
disembarked from the aircraft and the time spent during the course of
a flight when the holder was acting in either capacity;
(b) the type and registration marks of the aircraft;
(c) the capacity in which the holder acted in flight;
(d) information about any special conditions under which the flight was
conducted, including night flying and instrument flying; and
(e) information about any test or examination undertaken by the holder of
the log whilst in flight.
(4) Information about any test or examination undertaken whilst in a flight
simulator must be recorded in the log, including:
(a) the date of the test or examination;
(b) the type of simulator;
(c) the capacity in which the holder acted; and
(d) the nature of the test or examination.

But a little later it says:-

2.1.2 Operational conditions, namely if the operation takes place at night, or is conducted under instrument flight rules.

and then a bit later:

3.5 PICUS (Pilot-in-command under supervision)
Provided that the method of supervision is acceptable to the authority, a co-pilot may
log as PIC flight time flown as PICUS, when all the duties and functions of PIC on that
flight were carried out, in such a way that the intervention of the PIC in the interest
of safety was not required.
A remarks column will be provided to give details of specific functions e.g. SPIC,
PICUS, instrument flight time* etc.
* Instrument flight time is the time when flying by sole reference to instruments.

So CAP 804 appears to contradict itself as well - switching between IF and IFR, when they are not the same thing.

Meself, I've always logged "sole reference to instruments" - which I *think* is what it says in the front of my elderly (and some distance away so I can't check) Airtour logbook.

But since different bits of the regs now seem, schitzophrenically, to refer not quite interchangeably to IFR and IF, it seems to me that I need to be logging both to be on the safe side. That would seem to be the only way, now, to be sure I'll stay legal.

G

[Tinstaafl]

That raises a point for clarification. When they specify IFR time are they referring to flight under the Instrument Flight Rules, or are they trying to refer to IF ie Instrument Flight time. There's a difference.

Over nearly 30 years I have thousands of hours if IFR time but only between 300 & 400 hours IF - and I don't count sim time in either of those.

[Whopity]

And is flight under IFR counted from chock to chock, as I am sure some bright spark in Policy will argue that you can't be flying under any rules until you are airborne!

[BillieBob]

Genghis - CAP 804 doesn't contradict itself, it simply combines the requirements of the ANO and Part-FCL, which is not unreasonable considering that both will be law in the UK after 17 Sep. Consequently, there will be legal obligation to comply with both the ANO requirement to record 'instrument flying' and the Part-FCL requirement to record flight under IFR.

The problem is that while the Part-FCL terms 'instrument time', 'instrument flight time' and 'instrument ground time' are all clearly defined, the ANO term 'instrument flying' is not. This is what led the CAA's Policy wonks to start the entirely counter-productive debate that Whopity alludes to regarding how much of an instrument training flight may be counted as 'instrument flight time'.

[RTN11]

And is flight under IFR counted from chock to chock, as I am sure some bright spark in Policy will argue that you can't be flying under any rules until you are airborne!

The CAA cleared up their stance on this back in 2010 with this training com

FCL: Aeroplane: 2/2010: Trainingcom (Aeroplane) | Publications | About the CAA

They quite clearly state that taxi time cannot be counted and instrument flight time.

[Mickey Kaye]

But if I remember correctly that only applied to the UK.

Which probably explains why UK IR schools are going bust left right and centre as not only is there no VAT of flight training in Spain but they can log taxing time as IFR.

Will we therefore fall in line with the rest of Europe?

[BillieBob]

RTN11 - You are quite right regarding the UK's attitude to the recording of instrument flight time but Whopity was referring to flight under IFR, an entirely different animal.

[mad_jock]

What do you actually need instrument time for these days apart from a very tiny bit for the ATPL?

You can log taxi times as IFR in the UK you just can't log them as instrument time.

[Whopity]

The CAA cleared up their stance on this back in 2010 with this training com

Yet back in 1999 the very same CAA, considered that with the increase from 40 hours IF in the UK (ICAO) IR, to 55 hours for the JAA IR, there was no safety case to justify increasing the time further by adding in the taxi time as an extra! Especially as the dual instruction time exceeded the ICAO minima by 550%

[porridge]

The IFR hours conundrum

As far I am aware and as it was pointed out during the Instructor Seminar that to get an an instructor rating that entitles you to teach IR you must have logged 200 hours as pilot under IFR rules under the new EASA rules that I believe come into effect on the 17th of July. So it is not with sole reference to instruments, so as I see it CTC would assume a candidate would have an IR/CPL so will already have 50 hours from the training aspect for the license.
However, this still leaves the situation that if you have 150 hours flight under IFR (presumably on an IFR flight plan) logged time you will already have a job and will not want to become and instructor or are already one thus obviating the need for sponsorship. Catch 22 of course!
As for flight by sole reference to instruments and as a IR instructor of long standing I have only managed to log around 170 hours on actual, whereas all the training flights were IFR Flight planned.
Have you seen that to become a Multi-Engine CRI you now need 200 hours on MEP in command instead of the previous 30?!

[Whopity]

to become a Multi-Engine CRI you now need 200 hours on MEP in command instead of the previous 30?!

Not according to Part FCL

FCL.915.CRI CRI — Prerequisites
An applicant for a CRI certificate shall have completed at least:
(a) for multi-engine aeroplanes:
(1) 500 hours flight time as a pilot on aeroplanes;
(2) 30 hours as PIC on the applicable class or type of aeroplane;