61.51(b)(3)(ii)

Checking, you are correct! Thanks for that.

G

Yes, in the over 40 years I have held an FAA certificate, FAA has distinguished between actual IMC and simulated IMC and has had no interest at all in time flown under IFR.

The only requirement for IFR to earn an instrument rating, or an instrument instructor rating, is the IFR cross country specified in 14 CFR 61.65 (d)(2)(ii). Everything else can be hooded VFR or simulator.

It is possible to earn an FAA instrument instructor rating without ever being in actual IMC and with only one flight under IFR.

Comparatively, an EASA FI needs 200hrs IFR to instruct for an IR, or 800hrs IFR if they are going for a standalone IRI. But, like FAA could have never flown under actual IMC.

Back to FAA again, I accept the point that there's a regulation (probably ignored by most people!) to separately log true versus simulated IMC. But, it's not clear to me that the FAA then has any use for those separate data? So, why do they want it?

G

That's an interesting question. FAA requires the distinction in time logged. However, an applicant for a new rating must complete FAA form 8710-1 which asks only for instrument time and does not distinguish between actual and simulated.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/...faa_8710-1.pdf

I don't remember if FAA has ever asked me to complete any application that did require separate entry of simulated and actual IMC.

Edit to add - I doubt the distinction is ignored by most as typical US paper logs have assigned columns for each. My most recent paper logs have "Conditions of Flight" columns DAY, NIGHT, ACTUAL INSTR., and SIMULATED INSTR. There is a separate column for GROUND TRAINER. I kept these logging fields when I created my electronic log.

I'm certain that FAA have never required of me a separation of simulated versus actual IMC. I did also find it curious when I did my FAA IR course, that the instructors and especially the examiner showed a massive aversion to any actual flight in cloud; that would not be normal in Europe.

G

14 CFR 61.65 D(2)

Mentioned separately and 61.51(b)(3)(i)(ii) tells you to log it separately.

The CFII or the DPE are PIC in IMC and (especially) for the DPE this can lead to legal liability issues.
They also don’t know the applicant and for all they know you’ll put the airplane upside down.
In addition most simple flight training aircraft are single engine, single systems.
Single alternator, single vacuum pump, single pitot heating element, no prop or wing anti icing systems etc etc etc.
So why would you want to conduct a skill based test when it’s 500’ overcast and a mile with a person whose skill level you don’t know in an aircraft you may not be very familiar with?
I fly “IFR Lite” in light SEP aircraft. For anything more serious you’re bringing the wrong tool.

I accept the point that the FARs require that recording - just the FAA so far as I know never then ask for that information.

Regarding cloud, and candidates, most examiners are flying candidates in known school aeroplanes, handed to them by instructors they also know. Few will fly a test in IFR minima. So, I don't get why European examiners are generally happy to fly through a bit of warm CU at 2000ft, whilst FAA examiners won't.

G

There are very few days in Arizona for which IMC is available and it's actually safe to fly in it. Conditions are 100 mile visibility most days and a few with severe thunderstorms. There are a few days with a benign cumulus layer and I have received pop-up clearances to play in the clouds. I don't know that DPE here refuse to fly in IMC. It's simply not available most of the time.

i was wondering if there is an ACS that the EASA Examiner will use to evaluate me for the check ride.
I probably should start getting proficient with Jeppesen charts briefing too

Why would you want to buy Jeppesen charts when the government charts can be downloaded free? I have geo-referenced charts on my Android tablet and Android phone and keep a paper backup in the airplane for the approaches I expect to fly.

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing...lane_acs_8.pdf

I recently received a FAAST notification that there are pending changes to the ACS to redefine "satisfactory". Maybe I'll learn more when/if I attend the Zoom webinar.

The whole post is regarding EASA checkrides and conversion to EASA.
And so that the ink for this post/reply is not completely wasted, If your aim in the US is to fly for a part 135 or 121, then learning Jeppesen early on will come long ways when you go for your interviews and typerating.
For Europe i have no idea what the examiner will expect me to use

Found this document for CPL check ride standards

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/132057/en

It may come as surprise to you that not all US part 121 operators use Jeppesen. One I flew flight test with uses Lido.