Logging Instrument time

[HiFlyChick]

... You can also encounter IFC when in VMC conditions; night was one example mentioned above, the other that comes to mind is white-out conditions. These conditions are irrelevant of weather you are VFR/IFR, flying in VMC or IMC. Those are the conditions that require you to maintain the attitude of your aircraft by sole reference of your instruments and those are the times that are supposed to be entered in the log book.

But by that token, I can be a VFR-only pilot and log actual... legally

Is the term IFC mentioned in the Aim or CARs anywhere? I can't seem to find it

[goingnowherefast]

Here's a question. Weather is good ceilings, but 2sm in drizzle and haze. I do a contact approach into a control zone. I know the area fairly well, so navigate using landmarks and looking outside the aircraft, basically not using my instruments. After I land, a VFR aircraft is granted special VFR to also enter the same control zone under the same meterological conditions and land. Since the control zone is below 3sm, do I now get to log it as instrument time, even though I completely ignored the instruments? What about the VFR plane? The control zone is below 3sm, so they must be logging instrument time too despite possibly not even having all the required instruments installed.

Alternatively, we could call it visual flight conditions, both aircraft fly visually and nobody gets to log instrument time. The control zone is legally not VMC because it's below 3sm visibility. It the difference between IFR and VFR that determines how we operate. A contact approach is a visual maneuver under instrument flight rules. Special VFR is an approval to operate below legally defined VMC and is conducted visually under visual flight rules.

[telex]

instrument flight rules
plural noun
regulations which must be followed
when weather conditions do not meet
the minima for visual flight The flight
from Manchester to Prestwick was conducted
under instrument flight rules.
Abbreviation IFR

instrument flying
noun
flying using no references
other than the flight instruments Some
conditions require instrument flying.
When in cloud, instrument flying is
required. Abbreviation IF

instrument meteorological conditions
plural noun
meteorological conditions of visibility
and distance from cloud ceiling which
are less than those for visual meteorological
conditions The basic licence
does not permit the pilot to fly in instrument
meteorological conditions. Abbreviation
IMC

visual flight rules
plural noun
rules set down by an
authority for flight in visual conditions,
regarding such things as flight visibility
and distance from cloud. Abbreviation
VFR. special VFR flight

visual meteorological conditions
plural noun
all the factors which define
the limits of flying in visual meteorological
conditions. Abbreviation VMC

Further thoughts/confusion here.

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_1 ... 352-1.html

[HiFlyChick]

Here's a question. Weather is good ceilings, but 2sm in drizzle and haze. I do a contact approach into a control zone. I know the area fairly well, so navigate using landmarks and looking outside the aircraft, basically not using my instruments. After I land, a VFR aircraft is granted special VFR to also enter the same control zone under the same meterological conditions and land. Since the control zone is below 3sm, do I now get to log it as instrument time, even though I completely ignored the instruments? What about the VFR plane? The control zone is below 3sm, so they must be logging instrument time too despite possibly not even having all the required instruments installed.

Alternatively, we could call it visual flight conditions, both aircraft fly visually and nobody gets to log instrument time. The control zone is legally not VMC because it's below 3sm visibility. It the difference between IFR and VFR that determines how we operate. A contact approach is a visual maneuver under instrument flight rules. Special VFR is an approval to operate below legally defined VMC and is conducted visually under visual flight rules.

Oh-ho! Clever twist you've introduced into the discussion, GNF!

Personally, I would say that since visual reference to the ground is a prerequisite for both of the aircraft, neither logs instrument. And actually, the converse of that fits into my argument that flight over a solid cloud layer is loggable IFR.

It's fine in theory to say that you can fly without instruments above a solid layer, but in reality, you can't. You can't navigate or pick a heading and figure out your course by looking at the ground, nor can you totally ignore the AI because you're in the clear. I've had the leans on a number of occasions when the cloud layer was ever so subtly sloped or had some weird feature of shading whereby it looked for all the world like I was in a bank, even though I was wings level. Is it easier IFR above a solid layer? Sure, but it's still IMC and requires an IFR clearance or at the very least, an IFR flight plan or itinerary.

[Outlaw58]

Never mind...

Edited to take passion out of it

58

[photofly]

It's fine in theory to say that you can fly without instruments above a solid layer, but in reality, you can't. You can't navigate or pick a heading and figure out your course by looking at the ground, nor can you totally ignore the AI because you're in the clear. I've had the leans on a number of occasions when the cloud layer was ever so subtly sloped or had some weird feature of shading whereby it looked for all the world like I was in a bank, even though I was wings level. Is it easier IFR above a solid layer? Sure, but it's still IMC and requires an IFR clearance or at the very least, an IFR flight plan or itinerary.

Um no, it doesn't require either a clearance or an instrument rating.

It's called VFR on top, and there's a special rating for it. And no, under no circumstances can you call it or log it as instrument time.

You can get the leans with a bare PPL, and need to use the instruments, which is why PPL training includes some instrument time. But a solo PPL holder cannot log instrument time.

[455tt]

And actually, the converse of that fits into my argument that flight over a solid cloud layer is loggable IFR.

It's fine in theory to say that you can fly without instruments above a solid layer, but in reality, you can't. You can't navigate or pick a heading and figure out your course by looking at the ground, nor can you totally ignore the AI because you're in the clear. I've had the leans on a number of occasions when the cloud layer was ever so subtly sloped or had some weird feature of shading whereby it looked for all the world like I was in a bank, even though I was wings level. Is it easier IFR above a solid layer? Sure, but it's still IMC and requires an IFR clearance or at the very least, an IFR flight plan or itinerary.

Flight over a solid cloud layer is "loggable IFR"? It's "still IMC" and "requires an IFR clearance or at the very least an IFR flight plan"?

But you CAN fly VFR over a solid broken or overcast layer - it's called VFR OTT and it's not IFR, it's VFR. Additional instruments will be required along with navigation equipment and pilot qualifications (for a PPL) and weather minimums for enroute and destination, but it is still considered VFR flight. You would certainly not log a VFR OTT flight as an IFR flight under IMC, it seems to me. No IFR flight plan, no IFR clearance, no IFR rating necessary etc. applies since it is still a VFR flight.

Or have I miss-understood something?

[AuxBatOn]

It's fine in theory to say that you can fly without instruments above a solid layer, but in reality, you can't. You can't navigate or pick a heading and figure out your course by looking at the ground, nor can you totally ignore the AI because you're in the clear. I've had the leans on a number of occasions when the cloud layer was ever so subtly sloped or had some weird feature of shading whereby it looked for all the world like I was in a bank, even though I was wings level. Is it easier IFR above a solid layer? Sure, but it's still IMC and requires an IFR clearance or at the very least, an IFR flight plan or itinerary.

You are confusing IFR and IMC. IMC has a very specific definition (ie: when the flight conditions do not meet VMC criteria, and I defined those for you earlier). If you are 1,000 ft above a cloud layer with unrestricted vis and no other layers, you are VMC (and by exclusion, not IMC).

Navigation has 0 to do with IMC or VMC. It has to do with VFR.

[telex]

Here's a question. Weather is good ceilings, but 2sm in drizzle and haze. I do a contact approach into a control zone. I know the area fairly well, so navigate using landmarks and looking outside the aircraft, basically not using my instruments. After I land, a VFR aircraft is granted special VFR to also enter the same control zone under the same meterological conditions and land. Since the control zone is below 3sm, do I now get to log it as instrument time, even though I completely ignored the instruments? What about the VFR plane? The control zone is below 3sm, so they must be logging instrument time too despite possibly not even having all the required instruments installed.

Alternatively, we could call it visual flight conditions, both aircraft fly visually and nobody gets to log instrument time. The control zone is legally not VMC because it's below 3sm visibility. It the difference between IFR and VFR that determines how we operate. A contact approach is a visual maneuver under instrument flight rules. Special VFR is an approval to operate below legally defined VMC and is conducted visually under visual flight rules.

Oh-ho! Clever twist you've introduced into the discussion, GNF!

Personally, I would say that since visual reference to the ground is a prerequisite for both of the aircraft, neither logs instrument. And actually, the converse of that fits into my argument that flight over a solid cloud layer is loggable IFR.

It's fine in theory to say that you can fly without instruments above a solid layer, but in reality, you can't. You can't navigate or pick a heading and figure out your course by looking at the ground, nor can you totally ignore the AI because you're in the clear. I've had the leans on a number of occasions when the cloud layer was ever so subtly sloped or had some weird feature of shading whereby it looked for all the world like I was in a bank, even though I was wings level. Is it easier IFR above a solid layer? Sure, but it's still IMC and requires an IFR clearance or at the very least, an IFR flight plan or itinerary.

Can you define your "loggable IFR"?

[photofly]

You can log as much IFR time as you want. Also IMQ time, PZX time, and ABCDEFG time. Fill your boots. Invent some more, too. Letters for everyone, they’re free. And use as many columns in your logbook for which you have room. Use the margins, too.

The only thing that TC cares about is “instrument time” which is time when you’re in a cloud, wearing a hood, or ground instrument time, in a simulator.

[HiFlyChick]

Um no, it doesn't require either a clearance or an instrument rating.

It's called VFR on top, and there's a special rating for it. And no, under no circumstances can you call it or log it as instrument time.

You can get the leans with a bare PPL, and need to use the instruments, which is why PPL training includes some instrument time. But a solo PPL holder cannot log instrument time.

OK,I said somewhere back a few posts ago, that apart from VFR OTT, but I guess I should restate that in every following post...

It's only called VFR OTT when you have taken off in VMC and are going to a destination that is forecast to be VMC:

VFR Over-the-Top
602.116 Notwithstanding paragraphs 602.114(a) and 602.115(a), an aircraft may be operated in VFR OTT flight during the cruise portion of the flight during the day if

(a) the aircraft is operated at a vertical distance from cloud of at least 1,000 feet;
(b) where the aircraft is operated between two cloud layers, the vertical distance between the layers is at least 5,000 feet;
(c) flight visibility at the cruising altitude of the aircraft is at least five miles; and
(d) the weather at the aerodrome of destination is forecast to have a sky condition of scattered cloud or clear and a ground visibility of five miles or greater with no forecast of precipitation, fog, thunderstorms or blowing snow, and those conditions are forecast to exist
(i) where the forecast is an aerodrome forecast (TAF), for the period from one hour before to two hours after the estimated time of arrival; and
(ii) where an aerodrome forecast (TAF) is not available and the forecast is an area forecast (FA), for the period from one hour before to three hours after the estimated time of arrival.


If you are not landing in VMC (with the restrictions of CAR 602.116), or you are less than 1000 ft above the layer, or the two layers are say, only 4000 ft apart, etc etc then you need to be IFR rated, file an IFR flight plan/itinerary, and if in controlled airspace, need an IFR clearance. If you take off in crap weather, land in crap weather, and just because you see the sun for an hour enroute you're supposed to not log instrument time?

And the leans in VMC? Illusions, like at night with no horizon and irregular lines of light, sure, but the leans? Never experienced it, never talked to anyone else who said they'd experienced it...

[HiFlyChick]

I suppose ultimately it comes down to being able to justify what you've logged when using the logged time towards something. Two points that other posters have made (here or in another thread, I forget) - don't be quick to apply for your ATPL when you're exactly on the minimums, and once you have the ATPL, no one really cares about loggable IFR anyway (other than if you need to prove the 6-6-6 rule, which is irrelevant if you have an annual PPC/PCC anyway)

[Outlaw58]

I suppose ultimately it comes down to being able to justify what you've logged when using the logged time towards something. Two points that other posters have made (here or in another thread, I forget) - don't be quick to apply for your ATPL when you're exactly on the minimums, and once you have the ATPL, no one really cares about loggable IFR anyway (other than if you need to prove the 6-6-6 rule, which is irrelevant if you have an annual PPC/PCC anyway)

Took a while but you got there!!!



58

[HiFlyChick]

Took a while but you got there!!!



58

Hahaha - I was always there, just enjoying some sport arguing....
Gave me something to do while lying around the house recovering from a rotten head cold
(PS Not to say I still don't disagree )

[Bajszi]

This is a great topic, this question comes up many times in the "flight lounge" so I thought I would leave my two cents here just in case. As long as you are working in Canada, yes you can only log Actual IMC or Hood time as Instrument time. If you ask me, it doesn't make sense, but it is what it is in Canada.

BUT! If you are planning to fly anywhere else other than North America, it's better if you have a column where you log ALL your IFR hours. Yes, this is when you file an IFR Flight Plan. As far as I know, most European and Asian countries want to see your total IFR and not the Canadian instrument time. So if you apply with an ATPL license with 2000 total hours, and let's say you only have 100 hours of instrument time, they will look at you weird.

I've been using the LogTenPro digital logbook, and this handles it really well. I log Instrument, Hood, and IFR times separately. During the Logbook report, the software knows which country uses what, and generates it based on that.

I hope this info helps.

[tsgarp]

If you are flying by looking at the instruments and not out the window it’s instrument time.

[Bajszi]

Yes, I agree with you, that's how it should be, but that's not how it is here in Canada. Flying IFR in VMC up at FL370 is not instrument time by TC. It is Instrument time by many other countries...

[digits_]

Yes, I agree with you, that's how it should be, but that's not how it is here in Canada. Flying IFR in VMC up at FL370 is not instrument time by TC. It is Instrument time by many other countries...

Says who? Reference?

[photofly]

Yes, I agree with you, that's how it should be, but that's not how it is here in Canada. Flying IFR in VMC up at FL370 is not instrument time by TC. It is Instrument time by many other countries...

Says who? Reference?

CAR 101:

instrument time means

(a) instrument ground time,
(b) actual instrument flight time, or
(c) simulated instrument flight time; (temps aux instruments)

If you want to put a hood on, as you troll along in VMC with the autopilot on, then it becomes simulated instrument time. The flight rules you're flying under are irrelevant.

[digits_]

Yes, I agree with you, that's how it should be, but that's not how it is here in Canada. Flying IFR in VMC up at FL370 is not instrument time by TC. It is Instrument time by many other countries...

Says who? Reference?

CAR 101:

instrument time means

(a) instrument ground time,
(b) actual instrument flight time, or
(c) simulated instrument flight time; (temps aux instruments)

If you want to put a hood on, as you troll along in VMC with the autopilot on, then it becomes simulated instrument time. The flight rules you're flying under are irrelevant.

Thanks, but I was hoping the poster had some other reference. I'm aware of the CAR definition you quoted, but that just changes the question to what 'actual instrument flight time' is.

We've had that discussion before, and we came to different conclusions. I was hoping to get an additional piece of info.

[CpnCrunch]

You don't need a hood if you are VMC on an IFR flight plan:

https://copanational.org/maintaining-ifr-recency/

Hood is needed if VMC and not flying IFR. Any time I've done an IFR flight test or IPC in recent years, the examiner hasn't required me to wear a hood. You just look at the instruments the whole time and that's fine with them. They are supposed to make you wear a hood when doing the required unusual attitude work during the IPC.

[photofly]

There isn't another reference.

We've had that discussion before, and we came to different conclusions. I was hoping to get an additional piece of info.

If there are two distinct things as "simulated" instrument time, and "actual" instrument time - and if, as you claim, "actual" instrument time can be logged when flying IFR in VMC looking out of the windows, then what are you going to simulate, to get "simulated" instrument time? Are you going to fly in VMC looking out of the windows while "simulating" IFR? Like, pretending to accept and fly a clearance? That makes no sense.

The only way to interpret "simulated" and "actual" instrument time as two different kinds of "instrument time" is that one is while unable to look out of the windows due to IMC, and the other is in VMC but wearing a hood so you can't (or don't) look out of the windows. Nothing else makes any sense.

Why on earth would counting your hours under IFR be of any use at all? Why would 20 hours of clearances accepted and followed in VMC contribute to any kind of instrument proficiency? Is it expected that the five hours of dual instrument time for a PPL are done flying visually while having pretend clearances barked at them by an instructor? Of course not. Likewise, it's plain upon its face that the 40 hours of instrument time I need for an instrument rating are all to be gained by flying looking only at the instruments - actual or simulated instrument time - while none of it need be (according to regulation) under instrument flight rules.

You just look at the instruments the whole time and that's fine with them. They are supposed to make you wear a hood when doing the required unusual attitude work during the IPC.

Wearing a hood, wearing foggles, or a ball cap pulled down, or simply lower your seat and don't look up - they're all equivalent to and classed as "wearing a hood". The means you use to achieve the end of flying by reference to instruments are irrelevant. "Wearing a hood" simply means not looking out of the window to control the plane.

[tsgarp]

Yes, I agree with you, that's how it should be, but that's not how it is here in Canada. Flying IFR in VMC up at FL370 is not instrument time by TC. It is Instrument time by many other countries...

Instrument time is like cross country time; there is no strict definition of it in the CARs. Not sure if it's in the FIG or the FTM. If you call TC and ask someone there to define cross country or instrument time, the answer you get is very likely to depend on which inspector answers the phone.

In answer to the situation you described above: VMC at 370; it depends. If you are looking out the window at the horizon, then it's not instrument time. If you are looking only at the instruments, then it's instrument time; log it under the 'Simulated' column.

[photofly]

Here's a question: why would anyone likely to be in either front seat of anything that flies at FL370 give a toss about logging "simulated" instrument time?

[tsgarp]

Here's a question: why would anyone likely to be in either front seat of anything that flies at FL370 give a toss about logging "simulated" instrument time?

They wouldn't. Just using Bajszi's example for consistency.