Logging time 'on top'
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Yes, that's true, but I think you're missing the point
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?
2D
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,401
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Chuck - in the UK you only need an IR or an IMC rating to fly in Class A to E (IR) or Class D and E (IMCR) when compliance with IFR is mandatory - such as in IMC. If it's gin-clear VMC and you only have a plain vanilla PPL you can, if you wish, fly under IFR and are then only required to observe the min. height and quadrantal/semi-circular rules. You don't need anyflight plan at all! All UK night flying is under IFR, so if you don't have an IR or IMCR, then to fly in a Class D CTR you would have to fly under Special VFR. Same goes for any flight in Class A airspace; without an IR you'd have to fly SVFR.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
From: The Heart
MLS,
Logging IFR time just to make a visual approach is fair game when the rules one was complying to were the old Danish rules which required 20hrs IFR per year to remain current. If you don't know how much IFR time you're going to get in the next 12 months you start by taking every opportunity to log IFR. Wasn't a problem as it turned out but nevertheless a good way to begin to get comfortable with 'the system', controller relations and such like.
tmmorris
When one flies commercially there are other considerations. It is totally impractical, not to mention unrealistic, to log actual 'sole reference' time.
Also, due to the shape and size of the aircraft cockpit, flight by sole reference to the instruments is almost always what one is actually doing.
If one should choose to look out of the window and the bank angle increases to more than 30 degrees(or whatever your book says) some-one(PNF) will poke you on the shoulder. Then you'll look back at the AH and correct the situation. Same for navigational inaccuracy.
Like Chuck says, the outside world can be a distraction.
Logging IFR time just to make a visual approach is fair game when the rules one was complying to were the old Danish rules which required 20hrs IFR per year to remain current. If you don't know how much IFR time you're going to get in the next 12 months you start by taking every opportunity to log IFR. Wasn't a problem as it turned out but nevertheless a good way to begin to get comfortable with 'the system', controller relations and such like.
tmmorris
When one flies commercially there are other considerations. It is totally impractical, not to mention unrealistic, to log actual 'sole reference' time.
Also, due to the shape and size of the aircraft cockpit, flight by sole reference to the instruments is almost always what one is actually doing.
If one should choose to look out of the window and the bank angle increases to more than 30 degrees(or whatever your book says) some-one(PNF) will poke you on the shoulder. Then you'll look back at the AH and correct the situation. Same for navigational inaccuracy.
Like Chuck says, the outside world can be a distraction.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Some people still seem intent on confusing the two JAR requirements. One is to log time spent IFR, the other is to log time spent flying by sole reference to instruments.
In the UK, pre-JAR, one just needed to log the latter - the same situation prevails in the US. Post JAR, you need to log both.
Simple really...
2D
In the UK, pre-JAR, one just needed to log the latter - the same situation prevails in the US. Post JAR, you need to log both.
Simple really...
2D
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
From: The Heart
BEagle,
Thank you for digging out the books. However I would take issue at the 'lunacy' of requirement of recording of IFR as opposed to actual instrument.
Whatever one may think of IFR in VMC, the point is that it is operating an aircraft in a different, more regulated environment; some PPLs get the jitters about transiting controlled airspace and operating at large airports.
Actual or simulated instrument flight(non-IFR) is only a part of IFR flying, and not necessarily the more valuable.
IFR requires that one can both fly actual IMC and in congested airspace.
I'd prefer that only IFR time was required but then I don't really get the chance to get too rusty. I do realize there is a need to emphasize the value of actaul time for people who don't fly so often.
Thank you for digging out the books. However I would take issue at the 'lunacy' of requirement of recording of IFR as opposed to actual instrument.
Whatever one may think of IFR in VMC, the point is that it is operating an aircraft in a different, more regulated environment; some PPLs get the jitters about transiting controlled airspace and operating at large airports.
Actual or simulated instrument flight(non-IFR) is only a part of IFR flying, and not necessarily the more valuable.
IFR requires that one can both fly actual IMC and in congested airspace.
I'd prefer that only IFR time was required but then I don't really get the chance to get too rusty. I do realize there is a need to emphasize the value of actaul time for people who don't fly so often.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Miserlou
If you understood the rather more liberal approach taken to IFR in the UK, you would understand BEagle's viewpoint.
The UK has a uniquely relaxed view of who may fly IFR and where and when they can do it.
2D
If you understood the rather more liberal approach taken to IFR in the UK, you would understand BEagle's viewpoint.
The UK has a uniquely relaxed view of who may fly IFR and where and when they can do it.
2D
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
From: The Heart
2D,
I know the UK well, though usually either very IFR or very VFR.
My main points are underlining your post that the two items are instrument flying and IFR are different things.
This is why I was surprised that the UK required the 'actual' time. The rules I flew under were even more liberal in that they just kind of assume that if you had flown an IFR flight then you must have done it by sole reference.... Of course the chances of flying the 20 hours per year IFR without doing a good bit of actual time are small indeed.
I know the UK well, though usually either very IFR or very VFR.
My main points are underlining your post that the two items are instrument flying and IFR are different things.
This is why I was surprised that the UK required the 'actual' time. The rules I flew under were even more liberal in that they just kind of assume that if you had flown an IFR flight then you must have done it by sole reference.... Of course the chances of flying the 20 hours per year IFR without doing a good bit of actual time are small indeed.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
What's worrying me, though, Miserlou, is that my friend appears to agree with you, i.e. all time spent IFR is heads-in. The problem is that he is making approaches in VMC in class G airspace where he needs to 'see and avoid'. In classes A and D (which I concede is the majority of his approaches) he will be separated from VFR traffic, but not in class G. Hence the prevalence of airproxes under those conditions; and the calls from BALPA for yet more CAS as they aren't prepared to make their members look out of the window from time to time...
Tim
Tim
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
From: The Heart
I understand your point but it is only a question of definition.
Perhaps one could look at it like this. I fly a commercial, two crew aircraft. on a visual approach I actually control the path of the aircraft by looking out but the actual control of the aircraft is by reference to the instruments; very often you just establish yourself visually onto the ILS.
When one does this one can still maintain lookout for other aircraft and there is also another crew member who should also be looking out. Often a clearance will be "with visual reference to the mentioned traffic you are cleared visual approach as number 2".
Another interesting point is that trying to fly accurately with sole reference... in VMC is harder than in IMC. Very often people fly better on a partial panel than they do otherwise; a matter of distraction again and concentration.
As you can see it is very difficult to define what one is actually doing in minute to minute terms for logbook purposes and it is not practical to deduct one minute from one's instrument time to cover the take-off run and the last flare and landing.
Perhaps one could look at it like this. I fly a commercial, two crew aircraft. on a visual approach I actually control the path of the aircraft by looking out but the actual control of the aircraft is by reference to the instruments; very often you just establish yourself visually onto the ILS.
When one does this one can still maintain lookout for other aircraft and there is also another crew member who should also be looking out. Often a clearance will be "with visual reference to the mentioned traffic you are cleared visual approach as number 2".
Another interesting point is that trying to fly accurately with sole reference... in VMC is harder than in IMC. Very often people fly better on a partial panel than they do otherwise; a matter of distraction again and concentration.
As you can see it is very difficult to define what one is actually doing in minute to minute terms for logbook purposes and it is not practical to deduct one minute from one's instrument time to cover the take-off run and the last flare and landing.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: UK
If you are flying on top or in between you can maintain your attitude and heading relative to cloud. All other functions of flying and navigation rely on instruments. Using clouds to maintain heading and attitude is like using sheep to navigate by on a Scottish hillside (compass heading means going that way towards that sheep - follow that sheep). Hence I maintain that when flying ontop/in between, you still have to fly by sole use to instruments.
And by the way, I am not saying this because I need IF hours.
And by the way, I am not saying this because I need IF hours.
Last edited by Droopystop; 7th January 2005 at 09:21.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
Droopystop - that's what I was thinking when I started this discussion, but clearly 2donkeys' quote from JAR-FCL contradicts you, unfortunately. I guess you'd call that 'flying by primary reference to instruments...
Tim
Tim
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Basically there are two systems of recording time under IFR and/or time flown by sole reference to instruments.
Whichever one that is used depends on how one operates and how easily one can record the actual amount on sole reference time actually done on an IFR flight.
For anyone inspecting a logbook, the system used becomes obvious from the records. If a flight of 1 hour has 1 hour instrument time then that pilot is simply recording all IFR flights as instrument flights. If the instrument time is less than the total flight time then one can take it that thye are only recording actual instrument time.
The CAA will give the IR pilot who records flight by sole reference to instruments some credit for the hours required to instruct.......and they use a factor of 4...........which seems resonable for UK/ round Europe operators i.e. you will on average spend 1/4 of the flight time in IMC on IFR flights.
Using the CAA's system one can easily inspect a logbook and decode which system the pilot is using and then factor if required. Anyone with experience can easily detect significant amounts of Parker Pen flight hours.
If one was being pedantic then the experienced PPL with night qualification would have lots of instrument hours no matter which system one uses because ther are periods of visual night flight when the instruments are the sole reference.
Overall what we want in an IR pilot is ability to operate in the airspace and naviagte to the required accuracy and make approaches safely to the specified minima regardless of the flight conditions............lots of IFR IMC bimbling in Class G acheives none of that regardless of how it is logged.
----
Tim,
Very important point - IFR flights are not separated from VFR flights in Class D.
Regards,
DFC
Whichever one that is used depends on how one operates and how easily one can record the actual amount on sole reference time actually done on an IFR flight.
For anyone inspecting a logbook, the system used becomes obvious from the records. If a flight of 1 hour has 1 hour instrument time then that pilot is simply recording all IFR flights as instrument flights. If the instrument time is less than the total flight time then one can take it that thye are only recording actual instrument time.
The CAA will give the IR pilot who records flight by sole reference to instruments some credit for the hours required to instruct.......and they use a factor of 4...........which seems resonable for UK/ round Europe operators i.e. you will on average spend 1/4 of the flight time in IMC on IFR flights.
Using the CAA's system one can easily inspect a logbook and decode which system the pilot is using and then factor if required. Anyone with experience can easily detect significant amounts of Parker Pen flight hours.
If one was being pedantic then the experienced PPL with night qualification would have lots of instrument hours no matter which system one uses because ther are periods of visual night flight when the instruments are the sole reference.
Overall what we want in an IR pilot is ability to operate in the airspace and naviagte to the required accuracy and make approaches safely to the specified minima regardless of the flight conditions............lots of IFR IMC bimbling in Class G acheives none of that regardless of how it is logged.
----
Tim,
Very important point - IFR flights are not separated from VFR flights in Class D.
Regards,
DFC
