IFR time
 

Hi All,

How would you log IFR times? off block to on block, or just airborne time.
Having an argument with my line trainer :=

Thanks

From Part-FCL Definitions:

Therefore, from those two definitions (and assuming the entire flight is operated under IFR), then it should be block time that is logged.

Not to be confused with Instrument Flight Time, which I believe is only used under EASA for the purposes of granting a licence or rating (e.g. logged as part of an IR course).

HTH

The EASA requirements for an IR refer to Instrument time under instruction, which implies you would only log Instrument Flight Time or Instrument Ground time on a training course. For all other experience requirements you log time under IFR (chock to chock).

We use to substract 10 minutes of the block time.
If the flight lasts 2:30, we put 2:20 IFR on the logbook.

for our school....

I'm not sure how legit this is, but nobody's ever contradicted me.

If an entire flight is IFR, I log the entire flight as IFR.

If (say) I fly the departure and arrival VFR and the route IFR, I make a rough note of the start and end times of the IFR period, and log that time in a column in my logbook as IFR.

Similarly "sole reference to instruments" which personally I choose to log separately, but is of course much more clearcut. All time by sole reference I take as IFR, but obviously some IFR time can be VMC.

G

Its your logbook you can do what you like. There is no requirement to log IFR so who cares. The ANO only requires that you log Which most would regard as Actual IF, All IFR time can be in VMC as IFR has nothing whatsoever to do with the weather.

Thanks for your input. We are still puzzling whether you can log it off to on chocks. When I did my training from integrated school it was off to on chocks. Now my line trainer says it's wrong! Saying how can you taxi prior to takeoff is ifr time, its Vfr. I argued that when you set up the navaids it's part of ifr. Anyway, I think this is a grey area that nobody knows the definite answer to it.

This came up at an EASA meeting some years ago. The decision was that, if a flight is conducted under IFR, then the time from chocks-to-chocks is all IFR flight time.

Since everything is somehow regulated, either by EASA directly or by the training manuals of your FTO or by the OM-D of the company you are flying for (which is probably what "line trainer" means) your line trainer can say what he wants. It doesn't matter in the least. When in doubt, within an ATO ask the head of training about it and within an AOC ask the training manager (now called "designated postholder training" or something in that style). And like others have already written, from the days of JAR-FCL/OPS through EU-OPS and now EASA-FCL/OPS I have never recorded IFR time other than off-block to on-block. Not as trainee, not as instructor and not as commercial pilot. No authority ever complained.

Exactly that. It's the rules you're flying under that count. Filed a flightplan for an IFR flight? It's chox IFR time.

Do an IMC training detail from a small airfieldwith no FPL and it's time under the goggles/hood, or time in IMC if you encounter it en-route.

Nope, that's just an example of a personal logbook provided in the AMC. The regulation (FCL.050) simply says, "The pilot shall keep a record of the details of all flights flown in a form and manner established by the competent authority". In the case of the UK, that is in accordance with Article 228 of the ANO.

If the flights in your log book were flown IFR then the requisite number of hours will sufice. For airline flying that is easy, for non airline flying its whatever you claim. As the requirement has no real meaning in safety terms what does it matter if its a few hours out.

How things change from the original intent. For those interested, here is some historical background . For example I started my first log book in 1951 where both civilian and RAF log books had a column for instrument flying. Under the heading "Instrument Flight" were two columns. One was called "In Flight" and the other "Ground Training." Published instructions on logging stated: "Time spent at the controls while in flight under actual or properly simulated instrument flight conditions, will be recorded` in the "in-flight" column as well as being recorded in the appropriate column 1 to 10.
Time recorded in the column headed "Ground Training" will be that time which is spent in "Link Trainers or other approved ground training devices for instrument flying
. "At the controls" was deemed to be manual flying. Monitoring an autopilot (assuming one was fitted) while in cloud, was never a consideration since there was no specific skill involved.

Pre-war RAF log books were similar, except under the heading "Instrument/Cloud" there were two columns. One was called Dual and the other called Pilot.
In both examples (civilian or military), the proviso being instrument flying was required to be manually flown to be legally logged. Instrument flying on automatic pilot was not counted for purposes of logging instrument time. That was understandable, since the original purpose of including instrument flight time in a log book was meant to be a measure of physical piloting skill on instruments.
Over the years, State regulators have gone away from the original concept of logging of instrument flying (which was in cloud experience manually flown) and thus worth something in terms of survivability, to a watering down of the original stringent rules. Logging of time on automatic pilot is an example of this. The situation is laughable nowadays where some States even authorise logging of any IFR flight plan and that includes taxiing!

As most simulator instructors will attest, thousands of hours monitoring an autopilot mean very little in terms of equivalent manual instrument flying skills,.

I think this illustrates the role of the EU "Apparatchicks" who produce endless rules in the naive belief that rules make for "standardisation" and "safety" but have no meaning in the real World because they are so badly conceived and not understood by those producing and administering them.

Couldn't agree more - hence that I have columns for IFR and "Instrument Reference" - clearly the second column is never going to have a bigger number in it than the first. But, as one day I might like to teach instrument flying, I need the first as well even if the second is a far more honest indicator of my real experience levels.

G

But to teach IF you need 200 hours IFR even if on autopilot in 100% VMC including taxi time according to the rules or 800 as a stand alone IRI. IFT counts for nothing.

Several columns in my logbook count for nothing in licencing terms, but mean something to me - hence I record them.

CAA, FAA and EASA so far as I know don't care how many hundreds of hours tailwheel I have either - but I elect to record it. That is the privilege of it being a personal record.

G