Logging time 'on top'
 

If you were flying on top of an inversion layer/cloud layer, with negligible ground contact, IFR, but your basic flying was with reference to the visual horizon not the AI, would you log that as instrument time? After all, it's not 'by sole reference to instruments', but an airline pilot friend of mine flying IFR in various weather conditions logs every flight as instrument time regardless of whether it's in VMC and I gather this is standard practice...

I ask because if I can log such flights I'm under-recording my instrument time - I would only log time actually in IMC or simulated IMC.

The ANO is not much help (just says you must record 'instrument flight' but the latter is not defined, that I could see).

Tim

I believe the key words are "by sole reference to instruments"

Surely if it isn't VFR, it must be IFR? If you are within (whatever the distance is) of cloud, above 3,000ft on top you are legally IFR?

G

Duty Devils Advocate

Genghis,

I think I get your drift, but I'd suggest that the key is VMC/IMC not VFR/IFR, in the circumstance that you infer.

I had a co pilot who was the Base Manager (and from the USA) who logged all flights on an IFR flight plan, as IFR, regardless that he was not on the controls most of the time :*

My interpretation has always been the caveat "sole reference to instruments", and if the horizon is fully visible and provides a visual reference, how can you claim IFR?

You are not claiming "IFR time". You can be IFR on a brilliantly sunny day if you choose.

You are logging time spent in charge of the aircraft whilst flying solely by reference to instruments - "Instrument time". This implies that you were not on top of or between layers - rather, you were in the clag.

If you can still look out of the window and fly with any success, it isn't instrument time.

Instrument Time has no value in your logbook, other than that you need certain minimum amounts of it for certain licences under some regimes. It is therefore playing a role quantifying your genuine experience flying an aeroplane in soup.

If you bend the rules by claiming every IFR flight regardless of the inflight conditions, or by claiming flight in the clear, between layers, then the real loser is you.

2D

Well, you still have to pass whatever test you need those hours as a prerequisite for. If you are good enough to pass that test - well, you were presumably good enough !

G

That's a totally different argument Genghis! :D

I was attempting to play to the moral argument. If you want the legal argument, it is an offence to falsify a logbook entry, and that is what we are talking about here.


2D

It is of-course illegal to falsify a logbook entry (and, I'd argue, immoral also) - but first we need to establish what is legally allowed as hours in the IFR column? Until we know that, we don't know if it's either.

I confess that for anything except currency, I don't like minimum hours for anything - you're good enough or not. But that is a completely separate argument.

G

I agree with 2Donkeys, This seems like a fairly clear case, with no room for argument: flying 'on top' in VMC is not the same as flying on instruments, and doesn't entitle the pilot to log instrument time. Whether one is on an IFR flight plan makes no difference whatsoever.

But that is just my opinion.

I think it would be worth considering the meaning of IFR-VFR IMC-VMC. it is my understanding that you can be IFR in IMC or VMC but only VFR in VMC.

As 2D's points out, and I'll re-iterate. Instrument time is time flying "with sole reference to instruments".

That means - head in the cockpit, on the clocks, not looking outside because you can't see outside. No different when you were training and had a hood or foggles on.

Logging time on top, in VMC, as instrument time is an illegal logbook entry, and depending on which nation's licence you're flying on can be a criminal offence.

You're Only Hurting Yourself
 

I suppose one could be successfully prosecuted, but really the chances of being charged are quite remote.

IMHO, the greater deterrent is the self-knowledge that this is an entry that is at best suspect (to be very charitable), and more likely fraudulent. As such, it debases or taints your entire logbook, which can no longer be considered an accurate record.

Just don't do it! When it comes to logging time, always err on the side of conservatism.

The definition of 'instrument flight' is not a constant.

If one is under training for a PPL, the flight would typically be conducted under VFR, the instructor logging the hours as VFR, perhaps with a remark that the lesson was instrument flight. The student, however, logs the time as instrument flight and in the P.u/t column.

The logbook definition of instrument flight refers to the legal rules of flight, IFR or VFR.

I once filed an inflight IFR plan, and as soon as this was accepted called field in sight and was cleared a visual approach, managing to log 15 or 20 legal IFR minutes ; I was desperate to maintain my IFR time.

Point is, it was instrument flight conducted entirely without reference to the instruments!

Miserlou

What absolute rubbish! Read the previous posts.

I have never seen, on any form of licence or rating application, a column that says "IFR time". Nobody wants to know, nobody's interested

There often is a column, however, that says "Instrument time"

The two are totally different - or are you another 'logging miscreant'?

Well, Chilli Monster, Miserlou is absolutely correct. Because unfortunately, JAA Eurocratic lunacy requires flights conducted under IFR rather than 'flown with sole reference to instruments' to be recorded:

"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 1.080/2.080).

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.

Required information

The record shall contain the following information:
1. Personal details:
a. Name and address of the holder;
b. Particulars of each flight during which the
holder of the logbook acted as either a
member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for
the purpose of qualifying for the grant or
renewal of a licence under the Air Navigation
Order.
2. For each flight:
a. Name of Pilot-in-command.
b. Date (day, month, year) of flight.
c. Place and time of departure and arrival (times
(UTC) to be block time).
d. Type (aeroplane make, model and variant)
and registration of aeroplane.
e. SE, ME.
f. Total time of flight.
g. Accumulated total time of flight.
3. Operational conditions:
a. Night
b. IFR
4. Particulars of any test or examination undertaken whilst in flight.

So, in theory, if you comply with Instrument Flight Rules when in VMC, then that time must be recorded, totally meaningless though it might be! The JAA doesn't seem to understand that flight under IFR outside RAS is perfectly legal in the UK!

Beagle.

The relevant part of your post is "Flights conducted under JAR-OPS 1"

The flights being discussed here are not Commercial flights under JAR-OPS 1 and that definition does not apply. For the definition of "instrument flight time" check the definitions section of JAR-FCL.

2D

2Donkeys, no it is purely the ambiguity of the wording that makes it seem so:

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.

merely states that JAR-OPS 1 flights may be recorded in a compterised format. Whereas:

Particulars of each flight during which the
holder of the logbook acted as either a
member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for
the purpose of qualifying for the grant or
renewal of a licence under the Air Navigation
Order.


refers to all flights.

I think we can safely say that the wording of the FCL quote is in error.

The two factors which we are asked to log, Night and "IFR", are listed as "Operational Conditions". This is just one of many such misuses of IFR (when refering to IMC) in JAR documentation.

2D

So - who's going to phone FCL Gatwick and tell 'em ;)

Well, the ANO states:

28 (1) Every member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom and
every person who engages in flying for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or
renewal of a licence under this Order shall keep a personal flying log book in which
the following particulars shall be recorded:
(a) the name and address of the holder of the log book;
(b) particulars of the holder’s licence (if any) to act as a member of the flight crew of
an aircraft; and
(c) the name and address of his employer (if any).
(2) Particulars of each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a
member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order, as the case may be, shall be recorded in the
log book at the end of each flight or as soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable,
including:
(a) the date, the places at which the holder embarked on and disembarked from the
aircraft and the time spent during the course of a flight when he was acting in
either capacity;
(b) the type and registration marks of the aircraft;
(c) the capacity in which the holder acted in flight;
(d) particulars of any special conditions under which the flight was conducted,
including night flying and instrument flying; and
(e) particulars of any test or examination undertaken whilst in flight.

Whereas there are definitions in LASORS concerning 'instrument flight', there is nothing which defines 'instrument flying' in the ANO unless I've missed it. Mind you, I would certainly agree that 'actual' and 'simulated' IF (as used in the RAF) is the only IF time which is worth logging; time merely under IFR is meaningless!

Incidentally, Miserlou, there is NO NEED to file an airborne flight plan in the UK to fly under IFR outside RAS - the ANO spells that out quite clearly.

This whole thing is a typical CAA/JAA botch up where the wording is different and misleading between JAR-FCL and the ANO. Just one of many instances of such!

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

I'm running out of columns in my logbook !

G

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:ok:

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

Because, you have a general duty to "see and avoid" when operating in VMC, regardless of the flight rules you claim to be operating under.

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!

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

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

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.

Key phrase. If the instruments are simply referenced from time to time to confirm the picture that you are seeing outside, then you are not flying "by sole reference to instruments".


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

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 :D)

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

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!

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
--------------

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.

My wife doesn't allow me to log time on top :confused:

I let her manipulate the controls when ontop. I am the sole manipulator of the controls during the transition though ;)

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 .:ouch:

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
-------------

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. :ok:

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.