Logging of Instrument Flight Time open to faking
Thread Starter
Logging of Instrument Flight Time open to faking
The Australian 31 May has an ad for an RFDS management pilot. It stipulates among other things the applicant must have at least 8 instrument rating renewals, not less than 6000 hours command and 600 hours instrument flight time. Not bad qualifications for someone flying a light twin turbo-prop.
A CASA audit of a pilots claimed flying hours is a matter of going through past records. It may be time consuming of course. An audit of claimed instrument flight time is a different matter since there is no way the truth of such hours can be independently verified. It is not uncommon to see obvious discrepancies between claimed instrument flight hours in a pilot's log book compared with his total experience. For example there is anecdotal evidence that Cathay Pacific interview boards watch closely for this situation.
Once the pilot completes his initial command instrument rating course at a flying school, where CASA only has to check his progress record to verify true instrument flight time hours, there is usually no further verification of instrument flight time during a pilots career. In fact it is well known that some pilots log a set amount of instrument flight time hours for every flight; notwithstanding IMC never existed.
The RFDS would be well advised to keep in mind that dishonest logging of instrument flight time is rife in the industry and there is no way they can verify a candidate's claimed instrument flight time hours. Further still, because it is legal to log time spent on automatic pilot in IMC it is quite probable the majority of the claimed instrument flight time was spent monitoring an autopilot.
So if 600 hours instrument flight time is one criteria for getting a job as a KingAir pilot in the RFDS, it is not a reliable indication of the candidates flying experience on instruments - especially if autopilot time is included. In short, the RFDS selection board are fooling themselves since there will never be a reliable method of ensuring the 600 claimed hours are indeed verifiable and true hours. In that case, what's the point of demanding a certain qualification when there is no way of confirming its veracity?
Three experienced airline pilots with whom I have been associated with for many years and whose logged instrument flight time was hand flying only (in other words not on autopilot), the total flight time in their log books versus their instrument flight time was:
Pilot 1 15,000 hours of which 700 were hand flown in IMC.
Pilot 2 11,000 hours of which 520 were hand flown in IMC.
Pilot 3. 23,500 hours of which 1470 were hand flown in IMC.
Compare those "honest" hours with one character now safely esconsed in a major overseas airline who got his job with a total of 5200 total hours of which he claimed over 2500 hours on instruments while flying an Aussie Boeing 727 and DC9... Autopilots are wonderful things.
A CASA audit of a pilots claimed flying hours is a matter of going through past records. It may be time consuming of course. An audit of claimed instrument flight time is a different matter since there is no way the truth of such hours can be independently verified. It is not uncommon to see obvious discrepancies between claimed instrument flight hours in a pilot's log book compared with his total experience. For example there is anecdotal evidence that Cathay Pacific interview boards watch closely for this situation.
Once the pilot completes his initial command instrument rating course at a flying school, where CASA only has to check his progress record to verify true instrument flight time hours, there is usually no further verification of instrument flight time during a pilots career. In fact it is well known that some pilots log a set amount of instrument flight time hours for every flight; notwithstanding IMC never existed.
The RFDS would be well advised to keep in mind that dishonest logging of instrument flight time is rife in the industry and there is no way they can verify a candidate's claimed instrument flight time hours. Further still, because it is legal to log time spent on automatic pilot in IMC it is quite probable the majority of the claimed instrument flight time was spent monitoring an autopilot.
So if 600 hours instrument flight time is one criteria for getting a job as a KingAir pilot in the RFDS, it is not a reliable indication of the candidates flying experience on instruments - especially if autopilot time is included. In short, the RFDS selection board are fooling themselves since there will never be a reliable method of ensuring the 600 claimed hours are indeed verifiable and true hours. In that case, what's the point of demanding a certain qualification when there is no way of confirming its veracity?
Three experienced airline pilots with whom I have been associated with for many years and whose logged instrument flight time was hand flying only (in other words not on autopilot), the total flight time in their log books versus their instrument flight time was:
Pilot 1 15,000 hours of which 700 were hand flown in IMC.
Pilot 2 11,000 hours of which 520 were hand flown in IMC.
Pilot 3. 23,500 hours of which 1470 were hand flown in IMC.
Compare those "honest" hours with one character now safely esconsed in a major overseas airline who got his job with a total of 5200 total hours of which he claimed over 2500 hours on instruments while flying an Aussie Boeing 727 and DC9... Autopilots are wonderful things.
Depends how you look at it Centaurus.
Sure, most pilots spend their time in IMC on autopilot these days, but I believe you still need those instrument flying skills, to ensure that what the autopilot is doing, is what it should be doing and everything is all working out as it should be. I've seen even the most advanced autopilots, do things that they shouldn't be doing.
The thing is, where does it say that IF time should only be logged while hand flying anyway? The company I work for, recommends the use of the autopilot for as much of the flight as possible to reduce pilot workload, among other things. If I could only log IF for the times that I were handflying, then it'd take me a month to log 0.1 IF!
Imagine the consequences because of lack of recency.
It depends on what that pilots experience is. It could be 6,000hrs of airline flying, which could be difficult to prove 600hrs of instrument flying time. However, if it were say 6,000hrs of previous turbo-prop experience, then there's a fair chance that they could well have near 600hrs IF time (sitting right in the weather a lot of the time). That said, I believe that as a rough proportion, IF time shouldn't exceed anymore than 10-12% of someone's total time.
I'll give you an example. Last week, I did a 7.8hr day. Of that 7.8hrs, which was in a turbo-prop, I only saw the ground during take off and landing, plus a bit more on descent into one of my destinations. Therefore I thought it quite legitimate, to log 6hrs IF.
The other thing, and this'll really open a can of worms. It's a dark, black, outback night. No visible horizon, very little ground lighting, you're completely reliant on your instruments. IF time? I can't see why not....
morno
Sure, most pilots spend their time in IMC on autopilot these days, but I believe you still need those instrument flying skills, to ensure that what the autopilot is doing, is what it should be doing and everything is all working out as it should be. I've seen even the most advanced autopilots, do things that they shouldn't be doing.
The thing is, where does it say that IF time should only be logged while hand flying anyway? The company I work for, recommends the use of the autopilot for as much of the flight as possible to reduce pilot workload, among other things. If I could only log IF for the times that I were handflying, then it'd take me a month to log 0.1 IF!
Imagine the consequences because of lack of recency.
It depends on what that pilots experience is. It could be 6,000hrs of airline flying, which could be difficult to prove 600hrs of instrument flying time. However, if it were say 6,000hrs of previous turbo-prop experience, then there's a fair chance that they could well have near 600hrs IF time (sitting right in the weather a lot of the time). That said, I believe that as a rough proportion, IF time shouldn't exceed anymore than 10-12% of someone's total time.
I'll give you an example. Last week, I did a 7.8hr day. Of that 7.8hrs, which was in a turbo-prop, I only saw the ground during take off and landing, plus a bit more on descent into one of my destinations. Therefore I thought it quite legitimate, to log 6hrs IF.
The other thing, and this'll really open a can of worms. It's a dark, black, outback night. No visible horizon, very little ground lighting, you're completely reliant on your instruments. IF time? I can't see why not....
morno
Last edited by morno; 31st May 2013 at 11:52.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im sure a pretender with falsified IFR time in actual IMC will be found out quite rapidly on their first flight into a dirt strip lit by burning barrels with cloud just on LSALT and a stiff crosswind at 3 am.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logging of Instrument Flight Time open to faking
Isn't this the reason why most Aussie operators require number of renewals instead of instrument time. If they need 3 renewals that means that pilot would have been checked to be competent 3 times thus will have good instrument skills.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is, where does it say that IF time should only be logged while hand flying anyway? The company I work for, recommends the use of the autopilot for as much of the flight as possible to reduce pilot workload, among other things. If I could only log IF for the times that I were handflying, then it'd take me a month to log 0.1 IF
Watching an autopilot fly the aircraft in cloud or at night in IMC takes another set of skills, particularly if you are having your lunch on your knee, and admiring the attractive FA when she brings in the coffee.
Obviously there is a world of difference. Decades back, both in civil aviation and the military, it was considered cheating yourself if you logged autopilot time on the clocks. In fact, the RAAF log books issued in those times specifically directed that instrument time could only be logged if hand flying. This recognised the fact that experience with hand flying on instruments was considered valuable and a vital part of assesssment of a pilots flying experience. Not so nowadays, as seen above where watching the autopilot becomes a boring exercise so much that pilots have been known to fall asleep.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they need 3 renewals that means that pilot would have been checked to be competent 3 times thus will have good instrument skills
Interestingly, in the US an instrument instructor may log IF in IMC while the student flies. And some places (JAR-la-la land, for one) specify IF*R* time, not IF, for various things.
Seasonally Adjusted
It's a dark, black, outback night. No visible horizon, very little ground lighting, you're completely reliant on your instruments. IF time? I can't see why not....
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Asia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well 600 is 10% of 6000 which is about right as a ball park figure of what u should have if u fly under the ifr on a regular basis.
It is hard to start and stop a stopwatch every time you get in or out of cloud. Personally i find it unfair that an ifr instructor can't log any if other than what he is hand flying although he could be in the poo with a student for 3 h, which is what they do in the states, which is more aligned with ICAO regulation, what Australia used to do ! !
It is hard to start and stop a stopwatch every time you get in or out of cloud. Personally i find it unfair that an ifr instructor can't log any if other than what he is hand flying although he could be in the poo with a student for 3 h, which is what they do in the states, which is more aligned with ICAO regulation, what Australia used to do ! !
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're only fooling yourself if you fudge your IF hours. Personally I didn't allow coupled approaches or the over use of the A/P on a renewal. One must learn to hand fly in IMC and handle the workload on his own. The time may come when you will be on your own and the A/P F/D has gone U/S. You can judge how the candidate handles him/herself within the first five minutes if they are capable of handling an aircraft in IMC. Falsifying hours only falsifys oneself.
Anything more than about 10% of total time will be looked on dubiously, no matter how legitimate. Keep the IF ticking over in the log book to satisfy requirements but even if it is justified, I wouldn't recommend filling the book with what may seem excessive IF hours to others.
This pops its head up every couple of years.
Yes you can log IF on a dark horizon less night clear of cloud.
When flown by George, however, it has the same value as when George flying IMC. Legal, but pointless.
Yes you can log IF on a dark horizon less night clear of cloud.
When flown by George, however, it has the same value as when George flying IMC. Legal, but pointless.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the most pointless column in the log book. Where I work we simply log a fixed amount per sector as PF. In NZ the rules state to log time as IF if it is spent "navigating solely by reference to instruments" or something similar. Which is from takeoff to shortly before touch down on every flight. There is no reference to cloud. So should we be logging the whole flight? But then there is this 10% rule of thumb. Where did that come from? I think a more accurate column would be a "IFR flight plan" one.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you can log IF on a dark horizon less night clear of cloud.
If you fake IF time you'll get caught at a interview as most people will expect IF time to be within a specific ratio of total time. You will have a hard time explaining 1500 total and 1000 IF unless you were doing night freight in Tasmania or New Zealand.
It's people who fake twin time and shaft everybody to the decent jobs are the guys who should be hung drawn and quartered and I believe a few have over the years.
Well I am George, by George, and my IF time is only 5% of my total. 10% would be maximum in my book. Meaningless really, a simulator ride will always tell the real truth. I still only log 'hands on' and not autopilot because that's the way I started and I can see no point in logging the mechanical George.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where I work we simply log a fixed amount per sector as PF
Ga-Trojan. Please show me the regs to support that statement. Start with the beginning of the CARs
Last edited by compressor stall; 1st Jun 2013 at 08:19.
CS,
We have been down this argument before but unless you are prepared to test the regulators interpretation of the regulations in court it is a very brave individual to argue against their stance, especially at an audit.
We have been down this argument before but unless you are prepared to test the regulators interpretation of the regulations in court it is a very brave individual to argue against their stance, especially at an audit.
Last edited by 404 Titan; 1st Jun 2013 at 08:46.
Centaurus does raise some valid points however having been through the selection process of the operator being referred to recently, any shortcomings in one's claimed IF time become immediately apparent. There are a number of members of staff involved in the recruitment process who are very astute at getting to know how a candidate's performance aligns with his/her logbook and are very good at weeding out those who are not so aligned...
On one hand Australia still has a number of Commuter category turbo props in service in which an autopilot would be a well recieved part of the avionics (such as most Metros, some Jetstreams etc). It is usually found that these people have a very good manipulative skill set while they are current on these machines. While no-one can truly say for certain that the claimed IF hours on these aircraft are true in all senses of the word, what IF they are actually doing is old school IF being hand flown. Most other multi crew turbo prop operators have a column in their paperwork for the recording of IF time. Those who tend to round up "significantly" are usually soon identified and a quiet word sought...
I must admit I have seen some interesting interpretations of IF, even from one well known FSM from another section of the organisation being discussed in an "informal chat" one day.
My IF? A quick look shows a bit below average it seems at around 7% of my Total Time. I must try harder it seems but I will say one thing - the way my new employer lists IF experience on their website you'd need well above the minimum specified total time hours for a look in at a position.
What percentage of pilots are deliberately over logging IF? I wouldn't know, but reckon they'd get found out fairly quickly if they did so in any of the operations I've been involved in to date.
Regards,
OpsN.
On one hand Australia still has a number of Commuter category turbo props in service in which an autopilot would be a well recieved part of the avionics (such as most Metros, some Jetstreams etc). It is usually found that these people have a very good manipulative skill set while they are current on these machines. While no-one can truly say for certain that the claimed IF hours on these aircraft are true in all senses of the word, what IF they are actually doing is old school IF being hand flown. Most other multi crew turbo prop operators have a column in their paperwork for the recording of IF time. Those who tend to round up "significantly" are usually soon identified and a quiet word sought...
I must admit I have seen some interesting interpretations of IF, even from one well known FSM from another section of the organisation being discussed in an "informal chat" one day.
My IF? A quick look shows a bit below average it seems at around 7% of my Total Time. I must try harder it seems but I will say one thing - the way my new employer lists IF experience on their website you'd need well above the minimum specified total time hours for a look in at a position.
What percentage of pilots are deliberately over logging IF? I wouldn't know, but reckon they'd get found out fairly quickly if they did so in any of the operations I've been involved in to date.
Regards,
OpsN.