Logging time 'on top'
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salvation is at hand.
If we go back to the document that BEAGLE quotes, and include the FULL text, there is a small but vital additional comment, (in bold below)
JAR–FCL 1.080 Recording of flight time (See IEM FCL 1.080)
(a) Details of all flights flown as a pilot shall be kept in a reliable record in a logbook format acceptable to the Authority (see IEM FCL 1.080). Details of flights flown under JAR–OPS 1, may be recorded in an acceptable computerised format maintained by the operator. In this case an operator shall make the records of all flights operated by the pilot, including differences and familiarisation training, available on request to the flight crew member concerned. JAR-FCL 1.075(a)(1) (continued) JAR-FCL 1.080(a) (continued)
(b) The record shall contain the following information:
(1) Personal details: Name and address of the holder
(2) For each flight:
(i) Name of Pilot-in-command
(ii) Date (day, month, year) of flight
(iii) Place and time of departure and arrival (times (UTC) to be block time) (iv) Type (aeroplane make, model and variant) and registration of aeroplane (v) SE, ME (vi) Total time of flight
(vii) Accumulated total time of flight
(3) For each flight simulator or FNPT session:
(i) Type and qualification number of training device
(ii) Synthetic training device instruction (iii) Date (d/m/y) (iv) Total time of session (v) Accumulated total time
(4) Pilot function:
(i) Pilot-in-command (including solo, SPIC, PICUS time)
(ii) Co-pilot
(iii) Dual
(iv) Flight instructor / Flight examiner
(v) A remarks column will be provided to give details of specific functions e.g. SPIC, PICUS, instrument flight time*, etc.
* A pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.
(5) Operational conditions: (i) Night (ii) IFR
So there you have it. You must log instrument flight time, and, it would appear, whether you are night and/or IFR.
2D
If we go back to the document that BEAGLE quotes, and include the FULL text, there is a small but vital additional comment, (in bold below)
JAR–FCL 1.080 Recording of flight time (See IEM FCL 1.080)
(a) Details of all flights flown as a pilot shall be kept in a reliable record in a logbook format acceptable to the Authority (see IEM FCL 1.080). Details of flights flown under JAR–OPS 1, may be recorded in an acceptable computerised format maintained by the operator. In this case an operator shall make the records of all flights operated by the pilot, including differences and familiarisation training, available on request to the flight crew member concerned. JAR-FCL 1.075(a)(1) (continued) JAR-FCL 1.080(a) (continued)
(b) The record shall contain the following information:
(1) Personal details: Name and address of the holder
(2) For each flight:
(i) Name of Pilot-in-command
(ii) Date (day, month, year) of flight
(iii) Place and time of departure and arrival (times (UTC) to be block time) (iv) Type (aeroplane make, model and variant) and registration of aeroplane (v) SE, ME (vi) Total time of flight
(vii) Accumulated total time of flight
(3) For each flight simulator or FNPT session:
(i) Type and qualification number of training device
(ii) Synthetic training device instruction (iii) Date (d/m/y) (iv) Total time of session (v) Accumulated total time
(4) Pilot function:
(i) Pilot-in-command (including solo, SPIC, PICUS time)
(ii) Co-pilot
(iii) Dual
(iv) Flight instructor / Flight examiner
(v) A remarks column will be provided to give details of specific functions e.g. SPIC, PICUS, instrument flight time*, etc.
* A pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.
(5) Operational conditions: (i) Night (ii) IFR
So there you have it. You must log instrument flight time, and, it would appear, whether you are night and/or IFR.
2D
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 2nm due S EGLK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All,
Is there any reason (ratings/airspace/cloud aside) that one should not operate both IFR and "with sole reference to the instruments" in perfectly good VMC?
We all know we can fly IFR in VMC, but why shouldn't that also be "heads-in" if you are so rated?
Rgds,
TPK
Is there any reason (ratings/airspace/cloud aside) that one should not operate both IFR and "with sole reference to the instruments" in perfectly good VMC?
We all know we can fly IFR in VMC, but why shouldn't that also be "heads-in" if you are so rated?
Rgds,
TPK
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No reason at all, but
1) This would effectively be 'simulated instrument flight' due to the conditions - so would require an appropriately rated safety pilot (Rule 6)
2) Rule 17(1)(a)
Which - if you were to fly heads in would mean you would not be complying with the above
1) This would effectively be 'simulated instrument flight' due to the conditions - so would require an appropriately rated safety pilot (Rule 6)
2) Rule 17(1)(a)
Notwithstanding that the flight is being made with air traffic control clearance it
shall remain the duty of the commander of an aircraft to take all possible
measures to ensure that his aircraft does not collide with any other aircraft.
shall remain the duty of the commander of an aircraft to take all possible
measures to ensure that his aircraft does not collide with any other aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why shouldn't that also be "heads-in" if you are so rated?
If you intend to simulate instrument conditions, either by wearing foggles, putting up screens, or simply by looking hard at the panel (not a great way to pick up experience BTW), then you are required by law to carry a lookout.
2D
2D - thanks for that! The quote I gave was from LASORS 2005 and was obviously incomplete; the quote you provided was from JAR-FCL 1 which I've just re-checked.
Fully concur with the 'simulated IF under VMC conditions' replies, by the way!
I'm glad that I may continue to log IF the way I've been doing it since 1968 without bungling Eurocratic interference!
Fully concur with the 'simulated IF under VMC conditions' replies, by the way!
I'm glad that I may continue to log IF the way I've been doing it since 1968 without bungling Eurocratic interference!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: London,UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a slight aside, if you are on a cross country for a couple of hours in and out of VMC/IMC -
How do people tally up the Instrument Flying and the Visual? Do you assess it on the leg you are doing and mark it on the plog or just assess the %age at the end of the trip - Just curious...
GV
How do people tally up the Instrument Flying and the Visual? Do you assess it on the leg you are doing and mark it on the plog or just assess the %age at the end of the trip - Just curious...
GV
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't a "right" answer to the question.
I guess that most people take a rough estimate at the end of each flight. If you are in and out of the odd wisp of cloud, it is hardly worth counting.
2D
I guess that most people take a rough estimate at the end of each flight. If you are in and out of the odd wisp of cloud, it is hardly worth counting.
2D
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are flying in a layer, you do not have a real horizon to look at, so how can you fly by reference to anything other than the instruments? Yes you can assume that the layer is parallel to the horizon, but only by using you instruments can you confirm this.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but only by using you instruments can you confirm this
It is easy to miss the point with a discussion like this. Nobody is going to police you on this, so you log what your conscience tells you having read the rules.
Then, when you turn up for your instrument rating course with 150 hours "instrument time" logged, it hopefully won't be a suprise to you if you are not as good as the hours suggest...
2D
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its pretty straight forward (under the FARs of course).
Simulated instrument time in VMC can only be logged using a "view limiting device" so if flying on a nice sunny day and you decide to keep your head in the cockpit, you cannot log Simulated Instrument Time....and not forgetting the need for a safety pilot.
Its equally clear regarding Actual Instrument Time. If you are flying along in IMC and are flying with sole reference to the insturments (...and if you didn't, you'd die) then you may log actual instrument time.
Flight plans or flight rules don't come into it from a logging point of view. I have often flown IFR on an IFR flight plan on sunny days, but don't log actual instrument. Equally in the UK I have flown in accordance with IFR, in IMC on no flight plan and have logged Actual.
The AA 777 pilot flying from LAX to Heathrow will not log Actual for probably 99% of his flight, as he is not flying by sole reference to the instruments (he has a horizon....at least until the approach into Heathrow
)
Simulated instrument time in VMC can only be logged using a "view limiting device" so if flying on a nice sunny day and you decide to keep your head in the cockpit, you cannot log Simulated Instrument Time....and not forgetting the need for a safety pilot.
Its equally clear regarding Actual Instrument Time. If you are flying along in IMC and are flying with sole reference to the insturments (...and if you didn't, you'd die) then you may log actual instrument time.
Flight plans or flight rules don't come into it from a logging point of view. I have often flown IFR on an IFR flight plan on sunny days, but don't log actual instrument. Equally in the UK I have flown in accordance with IFR, in IMC on no flight plan and have logged Actual.
The AA 777 pilot flying from LAX to Heathrow will not log Actual for probably 99% of his flight, as he is not flying by sole reference to the instruments (he has a horizon....at least until the approach into Heathrow
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I do seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest. Sounds like I've been doing it right (NO thanks to those who assumed I was fiddling the books!) as I only log actual clag or simulated IF.
Thanks to 2donks for finding the relevant JAR quote, as I couldn't find any definition of instrument flight. I'd noticed the JAR requirement to log IFR but had equally assumed that this was a typical JAR mistake, apparently rightly so. Like BEagle I'd looked in LASORS and was therefore confused.
Two interesting questions emerge from this:
1. the said airline pilot insisted this was the common practice amongst his colleagues (in a major airline), even though he freely admits to making visual approaches;
2. the said airline pilot also seemed not to have noticed his requirement to see and avoid in VMC (unless in class A, one assumes), and he goes in and out of Newcastle amongst others...
I'll chase this up further as he and his colleagues appear to be breaking the law.
Tim
Thanks to 2donks for finding the relevant JAR quote, as I couldn't find any definition of instrument flight. I'd noticed the JAR requirement to log IFR but had equally assumed that this was a typical JAR mistake, apparently rightly so. Like BEagle I'd looked in LASORS and was therefore confused.
Two interesting questions emerge from this:
1. the said airline pilot insisted this was the common practice amongst his colleagues (in a major airline), even though he freely admits to making visual approaches;
2. the said airline pilot also seemed not to have noticed his requirement to see and avoid in VMC (unless in class A, one assumes), and he goes in and out of Newcastle amongst others...
I'll chase this up further as he and his colleagues appear to be breaking the law.
Tim
A very useful professional debate amongst fellow fliers! Thanks to all who've contributed - apart from the mud slingers!
Final note:
Hunter Rules:- See a cloud = 5 min actual IF. Fly through a cloud = 10 min actual IF!
Final note:
Hunter Rules:- See a cloud = 5 min actual IF. Fly through a cloud = 10 min actual IF!
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, to add to the debate, there's this quote from LASORS, section H2.1, which describes the requirements for an Instructor to be able to instruct for an Instrument rating:
FFF
--------------
Have completed at least 800 hours of flight time under IFR of which at least 400 shall be in aeroplanes. Where pilots have recorded flight by sole reference to instruments and not under IFR, then 1 hour sole reference to instruments may be counted as 4 hours flight by IFR.
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet another example of complete jibberish. It clearly comes from LASORS' editor simply adopting quotes from JAR-FCL, which are themselves badly phrased translations into English.
What it really means is that time spent under screens is factored for the purposes of assessing total instrument time.
What it really means is that time spent under screens is factored for the purposes of assessing total instrument time.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great posts, 2Donkeys. Glad to see that common sense and your knowledge of the regs prevailed at last.
Unfortunately, having read some of the other posts in this thread (Miserlou, for shame!!!), it will now be difficult for me to take "instrument time" claimed by any UK pilot at face value. That's the unpleasant consequence of people willfully misreading the regulations ... everyone gets tarred with the same brush .
Unfortunately, having read some of the other posts in this thread (Miserlou, for shame!!!), it will now be difficult for me to take "instrument time" claimed by any UK pilot at face value. That's the unpleasant consequence of people willfully misreading the regulations ... everyone gets tarred with the same brush .
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2Donks said (with regard to my quote from LASORS):
Yes, that's true, but I think you're missing the point.
What my quote says is that flight by sole reference to instruments and not under IFR (in other words, simulated instrument time) is more valuable than IFR time. 1 hour under the foggles counts as 4 hours of actual IFR time.
Therefore, there can be no ambiguity - so far as the requirements for instructing for an IR are concerned, the 800 hours which are needed are IFR, not necessarily IMC. It is precisely because so much IFR flying is done in VMC that simulated instrument time is considered more valuable than actual instrument time.
Although my quote relates purely to instructing for the IR, and not to anything else, is it not reasonable, in the absence of anything else defnitive, to assume that this logging of IFR time might apply in other circumstances too?
I don't know the answer, by the way - I'm just trying to stir things up a little.....
FFF
-------------
What it really means is that time spent under screens is factored for the purposes of assessing total instrument time
What my quote says is that flight by sole reference to instruments and not under IFR (in other words, simulated instrument time) is more valuable than IFR time. 1 hour under the foggles counts as 4 hours of actual IFR time.
Therefore, there can be no ambiguity - so far as the requirements for instructing for an IR are concerned, the 800 hours which are needed are IFR, not necessarily IMC. It is precisely because so much IFR flying is done in VMC that simulated instrument time is considered more valuable than actual instrument time.
Although my quote relates purely to instructing for the IR, and not to anything else, is it not reasonable, in the absence of anything else defnitive, to assume that this logging of IFR time might apply in other circumstances too?
I don't know the answer, by the way - I'm just trying to stir things up a little.....
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning troops.
From my perspective the discussion is acedemic and fun to read, however the reality is quite simple.
There are two legal methods to fly an aircraft, VFR or IFR only two factors determine which rules you fly under "must " be complied with and those are being the holder of an instrument rating and current to legaly fly under the IFR rules.
If I were considering a pilot for employment and said pilot went into how he / she has bla, bla, bla hours of in cloud time logged I would know that that person would be quite fine as a first officer.
However I would not even consider that person for a PIC position due to the obvious fact that they are thought flying in cloud to be of any consequence as to skills.
There troops that is my slant on it.
By the way as soon as I enter cloud I feel comfortable and secure and the work load is way lower than scanning the whole damn sky looking for other aircraft, thus detracting me from the simple act of flying.
Chuck E.
From my perspective the discussion is acedemic and fun to read, however the reality is quite simple.
There are two legal methods to fly an aircraft, VFR or IFR only two factors determine which rules you fly under "must " be complied with and those are being the holder of an instrument rating and current to legaly fly under the IFR rules.
If I were considering a pilot for employment and said pilot went into how he / she has bla, bla, bla hours of in cloud time logged I would know that that person would be quite fine as a first officer.
However I would not even consider that person for a PIC position due to the obvious fact that they are thought flying in cloud to be of any consequence as to skills.
There troops that is my slant on it.
By the way as soon as I enter cloud I feel comfortable and secure and the work load is way lower than scanning the whole damn sky looking for other aircraft, thus detracting me from the simple act of flying.
Chuck E.