IFR in VMC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 34
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR in VMC
G'day guys, I have a question that seems no one at my school can answer.
I have command instrument rating single engine, and wish to keep my approach recencies current by conducting practise approaches in VMC under IFR, do I need to take a safety pilot to look out for me, and does that safety pilot have to have some sort of rating or endorsement? If so, is there a reference on CAR, CAO or the AIPs?
Thanks guys
Tom
I have command instrument rating single engine, and wish to keep my approach recencies current by conducting practise approaches in VMC under IFR, do I need to take a safety pilot to look out for me, and does that safety pilot have to have some sort of rating or endorsement? If so, is there a reference on CAR, CAO or the AIPs?
Thanks guys
Tom
I don't know about references but to me common sense would dictate that if you are operating OCTA doing the approaches "under the hood" it would be an excellent idea to have someone on board to look out for other aircraft (ie another pilot).
I thought there was a requirement to have a safety pilot who was rated on the aircraft type but I can't recall the regs. I might have a look and see if I can beat everyone else.
I thought there was a requirement to have a safety pilot who was rated on the aircraft type but I can't recall the regs. I might have a look and see if I can beat everyone else.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Honkie
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If by VMC you mean 'flying under the hood' then yes you need a safety pilot. Your safety pilot needs to be instrument rated (either CIR or PIFR) as he is flying under IFR (CAR 5.80 (1)(a)). He should also be rated on the aircraft type because he is part of the flight crew on board and all crew must be appropriately rated for the aircraft type that he is flying. (CAR 5.79 (1)(a))
I have command instrument rating single engine, and wish to keep my approach recencies current by conducting practise approaches in VMC under IFR, do I need to take a safety pilot to look out for me
Dr
Capt787
You don't need to be under the IFR to practice approaches in VMC. All it becomes is 'airwork on the navigation aid'. Broadcast your intentions and operate VFR following tracks and distances etc to and from the aid. I think you'll also find he doesn't need to be endorsed on aircraft type, he just needs a flight crew licence. He's not part of flight crew -he's a safety pilot.
You don't need to be under the IFR to practice approaches in VMC. All it becomes is 'airwork on the navigation aid'. Broadcast your intentions and operate VFR following tracks and distances etc to and from the aid. I think you'll also find he doesn't need to be endorsed on aircraft type, he just needs a flight crew licence. He's not part of flight crew -he's a safety pilot.
You do not need to be under the hood, to fly IFR, either!
If you are flying in VMC, the responsibility to see and avoid rests with you, the pilot. There is nothing to stop you flying an instrument approach in VMC.
Instrument approaches, for the purposes of approach recency, can be flown under the IFR or VFR.
If you are flying in VMC, the responsibility to see and avoid rests with you, the pilot. There is nothing to stop you flying an instrument approach in VMC.
Instrument approaches, for the purposes of approach recency, can be flown under the IFR or VFR.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about logging instrument time in VMC? If you don't have an instructor, but say a CPL & IFR pilot who is rated on the aircraft, can you fly under the hood and log IF time?
When you live....
Shimmer,
If you're under the hood then you can log the IF time.
If you're VMC whilst under the hood then you need a safety pilot only - that person doesn't need to be either IFR (you're VMC!) or a CPL - just rated for the aircraft.
UTR
If you're under the hood then you can log the IF time.
If you're VMC whilst under the hood then you need a safety pilot only - that person doesn't need to be either IFR (you're VMC!) or a CPL - just rated for the aircraft.
UTR
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're on an IFR flight plan then just request the full approach due training, instead of the visual approach..you might get a hold..but thats good practice too.
You have to log simulated IF only, not actual.
If you're in an aeroplane then is IF regardless of you being under the hood or in 400' overcast. Simulated IF is for synthetic trainers
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the definition of Instrument Flight Time is something along the lines of the time logged while controlling the aircraft soley by reference to the aircraft instruments. Doesnt say anything about whether you are under the hood or not. And only the pilot manipulating the controls or providing input into the autopilot may log the Instrument Flight time.
300
300
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Honkie
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dragun, i know you can practice your approach in VMC without a safety pilot. however i thought tom was asking whether he need a safety pilot if he flies 'under the hood' in VMC...
but if tom is operating in IFR then why doesn't his safety pilot (if tom flies under the hood) needs to be instrument rated? i thought safety pilot is part of the flight crew in this case.
but if tom is operating in IFR then why doesn't his safety pilot (if tom flies under the hood) needs to be instrument rated? i thought safety pilot is part of the flight crew in this case.
I think you need to think of the approach and IF recency seperatly,
As PIC you can conduct an approach in VMC at any time, there is no requirement for it to be under simulated IF conditions (under the hood), however you must comply with normal rules and procedure regarding low flying and circuit operations especially if there's traffic. In IMC you must be current on the approach.
If you wish to practice instrument flying in VMC for recency then it requires you referrence fully to aircraft instruments. This then requires a safety pilot to maintain an adequate lookout,
As PIC you can conduct an approach in VMC at any time, there is no requirement for it to be under simulated IF conditions (under the hood), however you must comply with normal rules and procedure regarding low flying and circuit operations especially if there's traffic. In IMC you must be current on the approach.
If you wish to practice instrument flying in VMC for recency then it requires you referrence fully to aircraft instruments. This then requires a safety pilot to maintain an adequate lookout,
153 Flight under simulated instrument flying conditions
(1) The pilot must not fly an aircraft under simulated instrument flying
conditions if each of the following requirements is not satisfied:
(a) fully functioning dual controls are installed in the aircraft;
(b) a competent pilot occupies a control seat to act as safety pilot for
the person who is flying under simulated instrument conditions
and:
(i) the safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each
side of the aircraft; or
(ii) if the safety pilot’s field of vision is limited, a competent
observer in communication with the safety pilot occupies a
position in the aircraft from which his or her field of vision
supplements that of the safety pilot.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
(1) The pilot must not fly an aircraft under simulated instrument flying
conditions if each of the following requirements is not satisfied:
(a) fully functioning dual controls are installed in the aircraft;
(b) a competent pilot occupies a control seat to act as safety pilot for
the person who is flying under simulated instrument conditions
and:
(i) the safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each
side of the aircraft; or
(ii) if the safety pilot’s field of vision is limited, a competent
observer in communication with the safety pilot occupies a
position in the aircraft from which his or her field of vision
supplements that of the safety pilot.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're in an aeroplane then is IF regardless of you being under the hood or in 400' overcast. Simulated IF is for synthetic trainers
Straight from the definitions in the front of the log book
"Actual: Actual instrument flying is all flying in conditions where the aircraft CANNOT be controlled by reference to external visual aids and all maneouvres are carried out solely by reference to instruments."
"Simulated: Simulated instrument flying is all flying conducted WHEN ARTIFICALLY CREATED CONDITIONS demand that the aircraft cannot be controlled by reference to to external visual aids and all maneouvres are carried out solely by reference to instruments."
My bolding. I would suggest that wearing a hood is an artifically created condition and therefore is logged as simulated. For simulator time, you should have a separate section in your log book for synthetic trainers.
Gundog,
Neville is correct in legal point that CASA does not differentiate simulated instrument flight time (under hood or blinds etc) from actual IMC instrument flight time when it comes to satisfying recency/currency. The time is all logged as instrument flight time, you may separate them if you so wish.
Do not confuse synthetic trainers with simulators as they are two separate certifications. You can log both visual and instrument ground time in either if facilities permit.
Simulator being a near exact replica of a particular aircraft type both in flight deck and handling.
Synthetic trainer being anything else that simulates flight from basic PC based procedure trainers to replicas of actual flight decks not quite approved to simulator standard.
Both have to be certified by CASA and will have an instrument approving what can be done in the machine (training/recency).
Neville is correct in legal point that CASA does not differentiate simulated instrument flight time (under hood or blinds etc) from actual IMC instrument flight time when it comes to satisfying recency/currency. The time is all logged as instrument flight time, you may separate them if you so wish.
Do not confuse synthetic trainers with simulators as they are two separate certifications. You can log both visual and instrument ground time in either if facilities permit.
Simulator being a near exact replica of a particular aircraft type both in flight deck and handling.
Synthetic trainer being anything else that simulates flight from basic PC based procedure trainers to replicas of actual flight decks not quite approved to simulator standard.
Both have to be certified by CASA and will have an instrument approving what can be done in the machine (training/recency).
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In VMC, whether VFR or IFR, you can practice as many instrument approaches as you like, with no hood and no safety pilot.
VFR in simulated IMC (hood), you need a 'competent' safety pilot. No definition for 'competent'. They're only watching for planes and clouds, and nothing stops you from looking out the window.
In actual IMC you need to be current.
VFR in simulated IMC (hood), you need a 'competent' safety pilot. No definition for 'competent'. They're only watching for planes and clouds, and nothing stops you from looking out the window.
In actual IMC you need to be current.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no shortage of pilots who log instrument flight time purely because they are on an IFR flight plan and they are looking outside in sunny weather and twiddling the autopilot knobs.
Wasn't long ago when a Virgin Blue captain realised he was out of currency and after landing instructed his first officer who was completing the legal paperwork on the ground, to "put me down for two hours instrument flying" even though the flight was not only autopilot most of the time but in clear weather. Makes a complete mockery of the principle of the whole idea of logging time.
Of course CASA aren't interested. On another occasion the log book of an Ansett first officer revealed a grand total of 5200 hours of which 2800 hours was logged as instrument flight time on the 727. Just imagine having a nice egg and bacon breakfast on a tray in the cruise (Ansett crews ate very well - none of this low cost carrier stuff) and its your leg and its clear weather and the autopilot engaged and he logged the whole bloody trip as instrument flight time... Wonder what the captain logged...
Logging of instrument flight time in airliners is such a rort that you wonder what is the point.
It paid off though as he soon after got a job with Dragonair in Hong Kong.
Wasn't long ago when a Virgin Blue captain realised he was out of currency and after landing instructed his first officer who was completing the legal paperwork on the ground, to "put me down for two hours instrument flying" even though the flight was not only autopilot most of the time but in clear weather. Makes a complete mockery of the principle of the whole idea of logging time.
Of course CASA aren't interested. On another occasion the log book of an Ansett first officer revealed a grand total of 5200 hours of which 2800 hours was logged as instrument flight time on the 727. Just imagine having a nice egg and bacon breakfast on a tray in the cruise (Ansett crews ate very well - none of this low cost carrier stuff) and its your leg and its clear weather and the autopilot engaged and he logged the whole bloody trip as instrument flight time... Wonder what the captain logged...
Logging of instrument flight time in airliners is such a rort that you wonder what is the point.
It paid off though as he soon after got a job with Dragonair in Hong Kong.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
43 Inches
All i know is that my log book under Instrument flying has
Simulated / Actual / App Type and No.
By the definitions of my log book if it isn't actual i.e. IMC, then it is simulated. Flying under the hood is not actual IMC. Satisfying recency and currency requirements is totally different to legally logging actual IMC time. Dont be suprised if the airlines raise an eyebrow to some one with 50% of the total time as actual IF tome.
Similar story to 'Tee Emm' a bloke i know had 900 hours total with CPL and an instrument rating. He had 500 ACTUAL because he logged every minute under an IFR flight plan as actual. The regionals had big issues with the legitimacy of his logbook for obviuos reasons.
I dont disagree that for recency/currency VMC/IMC/VFR/IFR makes no difference as long as the approach is flown.
All i know is that my log book under Instrument flying has
Simulated / Actual / App Type and No.
By the definitions of my log book if it isn't actual i.e. IMC, then it is simulated. Flying under the hood is not actual IMC. Satisfying recency and currency requirements is totally different to legally logging actual IMC time. Dont be suprised if the airlines raise an eyebrow to some one with 50% of the total time as actual IF tome.
Similar story to 'Tee Emm' a bloke i know had 900 hours total with CPL and an instrument rating. He had 500 ACTUAL because he logged every minute under an IFR flight plan as actual. The regionals had big issues with the legitimacy of his logbook for obviuos reasons.
I dont disagree that for recency/currency VMC/IMC/VFR/IFR makes no difference as long as the approach is flown.