Logging Instrument time

[Flight94]

For what it's worth, I log(ged) instrument time as total air time while flying an IFR flight plan. When I applied for my ATPL this would have been pretty obvious when compared to my total time. TC either didn't catch it, or they didn't have a problem with the way I logged it.

[Bajszi]

Hey all, I didn't think this topic would "explode" again.

The only thing I wanted to bring up (which was missing from the previous two pages) is that if someone planning to fly or apply for jobs outside of North America, then the full IFR times what matters. Especially if someone is not only flying the airliners.

Reference? I know TC offices where the only time is accepted for ATPL is the actual instrument time. If you use your total instrument time, you will be rejected. Also, all the Canadian-approved logbooks are pretty straightforward. Actual Instrument time, Hood (or simulated), and simulator. Nothing else.

[Outlaw58]

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?

Or "actual" for that matter. At FL370, all you care about is recency and unless you're John Travolta, the company does that for you.

58

[photofly]

\
Instrument time is like cross country time; there is no strict definition of it in the CARs.

There is a strict definition of it in the CARs. I even quoted it a few posts ago.

[tsgarp]

\
Instrument time is like cross country time; there is no strict definition of it in the CARs.

There is a strict definition of it in the CARs. I even quoted it a few posts ago.

CAR 101:

instrument time means

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

I saw the definition you quoted, it isn’t strict. It amounts to ‘Instrument time is instrument time’. Actual and ground are pretty self explanatory. For simulated, (which seems to be the bone of contention here) it doesn’t say that it has to be done with a hood, doesn’t say if you have to be on an IFR flight plan and it doesn’t say anything about being VMC above a layer.

[photofly]

It's strict. The person who wrote it thought it was strict. I think it's strict. You just refuse to understand it.

Simulated instrument time is when you're controlling the aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in circumstances where you could be controlling the aircraft by looking outside.

It doesn't say you have to be on an IFR flight plan because you absolutely don't have to be on an IFR flight plan to do achieve simulated instrument time - as every PPL in Canada will tell you. It doesn't tell you what you had to have eaten for breakfast either - an IFR flight plan, the existence of layers of cloud, and what you ate for breakfast are all equally irrelevant to the logging of simulated instrument time.

[tsgarp]

It's strict. The person who wrote it thought it was strict. I think it's strict. You just refuse to understand it.

It would appear your definition of strict is at odds with that of others.

Simulated instrument time is when you're controlling the aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in circumstances where you could be controlling the aircraft by looking outside.

Now that is a strict definition, did you find it in the CARs?

[photofly]

It's strict. The person who wrote it thought it was strict. I think it's strict. You just refuse to understand it.

It would appear your definition of strict is at odds with that of others.

Simulated instrument time is when you're controlling the aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in circumstances where you could be controlling the aircraft by looking outside.

Now that is a strict definition, did you find it in the CARs?

I did. It's in CAR 101. I quoted it earlier.

[digits_]

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.

That is -seriously- a very compelling argument, but there are few things that make me believe it is not the only way to comply with the regulations.

I think this is the core of your argument:

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.

Since 'simulated' and 'actual' instrument time are mentioned distinctly, they must mean different things.

Following the same logic, let's take a look at the instrument rating requirements: (my emphasis)

(ii) 40 hours of instrument time of which a maximum of 20 hours may be instrument ground time. The 40 hours instrument time shall include a minimum of:
[...]
(D) one dual cross-country flight under simulated or actual IMC conditions of a minimum of 100 nautical miles, the flight to be conducted in accordance with an IFR flight plan to include at, two different locations, an instrument approach to minima.

This bold part falls under the instrument time requirement, but is defined differently. The bold part is basically what your interpretation of instrument time is. But it's specified extra. This heavily implies that one could collect 'instrument time' while not in simulated or actual IMC conditions.

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.

The regulations don't define every little thing of your training. Since you are learning to fly on instruments, it makes sense that the first basic hours of IFR training would be followed, which is heavily focused on flying without outside references.

Note that the regulator specifically writes 'instrument flight time', and does not define exactly what they mean with that. Is it 'time spent in IMC' or time under IFR. From a regulator perspective, it stands to reason that when flying on instruments, instrument flight rules should be followed. And hey, that's IFR.

If that's the case, then the 'actual instrument flight time' and 'simulated instrument flight time' also make sense: simulated means you could fly IFR exercises in an airplane that does not possess the certified IFR equipment.

[digits_]

The only thing I wanted to bring up (which was missing from the previous two pages) is that if someone planning to fly or apply for jobs outside of North America, then the full IFR times what matters. Especially if someone is not only flying the airliners.

What makes you say that?
I've got a logbook issued by an EASA government, and it is pretty strict in what you log. It asks to log 'IMC' time, not IFR time.

[tsgarp]

It's strict. The person who wrote it thought it was strict. I think it's strict. You just refuse to understand it.

It would appear your definition of strict is at odds with that of others.

Simulated instrument time is when you're controlling the aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in circumstances where you could be controlling the aircraft by looking outside.

Now that is a strict definition, did you find it in the CARs?

I did. It's in CAR 101. I quoted it earlier.

You may want to double check that definition of Simulated Instrument time because it’s not in CAR101 (unless it’s very much out of alphabetical order). Neither is there a definition for Actual instrument time, so is that when you are in cloud or you can’t see the ground?

[photofly]

...
Following the same logic, let's take a look at the instrument rating requirements: (my emphasis)

(ii) 40 hours of instrument time of which a maximum of 20 hours may be instrument ground time. The 40 hours instrument time shall include a minimum of:
[...]
(D) one dual cross-country flight under simulated or actual IMC conditions of a minimum of 100 nautical miles, the flight to be conducted in accordance with an IFR flight plan to include at, two different locations, an instrument approach to minima.

OK, Let's!

40 hours of instrument time of which (according to you) only the cross country requirement needs to be done while controlling the aircraft by reference solely to the instruments? Nonsense.

For that matter, let's look at the PPL requirements: 17 hours dual instruction flight time, including a minimum of 3 hours cross-country flight time and 5 hours of instrument time of which a maximum of 3 hours may be instrument ground time;

Find me a single student, PPL holder, instructor, examiner or licensing officer who interprets that as meaning anything other than that a PPL candidate needs 5 hours practice at controlling an airplane by reference solely to the instruments.

It's perfectly clear what "instrument time" is - I have no idea why anyone finds it ambiguous.

[digits_]

...
Following the same logic, let's take a look at the instrument rating requirements: (my emphasis)

(ii) 40 hours of instrument time of which a maximum of 20 hours may be instrument ground time. The 40 hours instrument time shall include a minimum of:
[...]
(D) one dual cross-country flight under simulated or actual IMC conditions of a minimum of 100 nautical miles, the flight to be conducted in accordance with an IFR flight plan to include at, two different locations, an instrument approach to minima.

OK, Let's!

40 hours of instrument time of which (according to you) only the cross country requirement needs to be done while controlling the aircraft by reference solely to the instruments? Nonsense.

Of course that's nonsense. Just like your interpretation could lead to '40 hours of instrument time and they only need to do one instrument approach?'. Both might be legally correct, but are practical nonsense.

For that matter, let's look at the PPL requirements: 17 hours dual instruction flight time, including a minimum of 3 hours cross-country flight time and 5 hours of instrument time of which a maximum of 3 hours may be instrument ground time;

Find me a single student, PPL holder, instructor, examiner or licensing officer who interprets that as meaning anything other than that a PPL candidate needs 5 hours practice at controlling an airplane by reference solely to the instruments.

I'd like to wager that any IR syllabus starts with XX hours of flying under the hood. Again, it makes sense that when you need 5 hours of instrument flight, you fly the first 5 hours of an IR course. Not strictly required apparently, but it makes sense.

It's perfectly clear what "instrument time" is - I have no idea why anyone finds it ambiguous.

Yours isn't super clear either. You have mentioned 2 options in earlier posts. Are you saying instrument time = time spent only in IMC (actual or simulated), or are you saying instrument time = flying solely by instruments? It's 2 different things.

[photofly]

It's perfectly clear what "instrument time" is - I have no idea why anyone finds it ambiguous.

Yours isn't super clear either. You have mentioned 2 options in earlier posts. Are you saying instrument time = time spent only in IMC (actual or simulated), or are you saying instrument time = flying solely by instruments? It's 2 different things.

Other than trivially nit-picking about corner cases where it's formally IMC but you can still fly by looking out of the window, what's the difference?

Once again, I have no idea why you want to make this so difficult.

Of course that's nonsense. Just like your interpretation could lead to '40 hours of instrument time and they only need to do one instrument approach?'. Both might be legally correct, but are practical nonsense.

You can get 40 hours of instrument time, and do only one instrument approach (prior to your flight test), which I guess would the one on your XC - that is perfectly legal, and if you're that good, credit to you, and you deserve the rating. As long as you pass your flight test. Because there's no requirement for any specific number of instrument approaches in the experience requirements for the rating. However there is a specific number of hours of instrument flight required per the experience requirements, and those hours are not met by flying other than controlling the airplane solely by reference to the instruments. Nobody disagrees with that.


The only reason I can see for arguing about this is lazy people who don't want to meet the "75 hours instrument flight time" requirement for the ATPL even though that's not even double the 40 hours of instrument time for the instrument rating itself, a requirement they seem to find uncontroversial and comply with without difficulty. After that - who cares?

[digits_]

However there is a specific number of hours of instrument flight required per the experience requirements, and those hours are not met by flying other than controlling the airplane solely by reference to the instruments. Nobody disagrees with that.

I agree that's a good idea, but who says the experience requirements don't allow that?
You've mentioned the 'solely by reference to the isntruments' phrase a couple of times now. Are you quoting a TC document? I couldn't find it in the CARs or the standards.

The only reason I can see for arguing about this is lazy people who don't want to meet the "75 hours instrument flight time" requirement for the ATPL even though that's not even double the 40 hours of instrument time for the instrument rating itself, a requirement they seem to find uncontroversial and comply with without difficulty. After that - who cares?

Come on. Calling people on the other side of the argument 'lazy' because they want to get their ATPL as soon as possible is not fair. They might never fly IFR again, just want an ATPL to command a multi crew VFR airplane.


A more significnat reason is that the same 'instrument time' requirements are there in the IFR recency requirements. 6 hours of IFR vs 6 hours of IMC vs 6 hours on instruments vs [...] is a significant difference for people flying privately.

(3.1) No holder of a Canadian pilot licence endorsed with an instrument rating or to which is attached instrument rating privileges shall exercise the privileges of the instrument rating unless, following the first day of the 13th month after the completion date of a test referred to in subsection (3) and within six months before the flight, the holder has

(a) acquired six hours of instrument time; and

(b) completed six instrument approaches in an aircraft in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions, or in a Level B, C or D simulator or an approved flight training device configured for the same category as the aircraft

And here, again, note the explicit difference in requirements of instrument time vs "in actual or simulated IMC"

[photofly]

A more significnat reason is that the same 'instrument time' requirements are there in the IFR recency requirements. 6 hours of IFR vs 6 hours of IMC vs 6 hours on instruments vs [...] is a significant difference for people flying privately.

Agreed - that's why it says instrument time, not "IFR Flight" nor "Flight in IMC". It says "instrument time", and there's no arguing about what that means. Just like nobody argues about what it means when it uses the same phrase in the PPL requirements and the instrument rating requirements.

[digits_]

A more significnat reason is that the same 'instrument time' requirements are there in the IFR recency requirements. 6 hours of IFR vs 6 hours of IMC vs 6 hours on instruments vs [...] is a significant difference for people flying privately.

Agreed - that's why it says instrument time, not "IFR Flight" nor "Flight in IMC". It says "instrument time", and there's no arguing about what that means. Just like nobody argues about what it means when it uses the same phrase in the PPL requirements and the instrument rating requirements.

That's likely because those students don't know the full effect of the definition, and also because it doesn't matter at that point. Assuming you're their instructor, up to a point, only your definition of those things matter. Just because you choose to fly under the hood or in actual IMC in that part of their training, doesn't mean it is the only way to fulfil the definition.

I don't see anything wrong (legally or morally) with someone flying 6 hours on an IFR flight plan witout a hood above the clouds to satisfy the 6 hour recency requirement.

[photofly]

A more significnat reason is that the same 'instrument time' requirements are there in the IFR recency requirements. 6 hours of IFR vs 6 hours of IMC vs 6 hours on instruments vs [...] is a significant difference for people flying privately.

Agreed - that's why it says instrument time, not "IFR Flight" nor "Flight in IMC". It says "instrument time", and there's no arguing about what that means. Just like nobody argues about what it means when it uses the same phrase in the PPL requirements and the instrument rating requirements.

That's likely because those students don't know the full effect of the definition, and also because it doesn't matter at that point. Assuming you're their instructor, up to a point, only your definition of those things matter. Just because you choose to fly under the hood or in actual IMC in that part of their training, doesn't mean it is the only way to fulfil the definition.

So are you seriously suggesting that you can lawfully get a PPL with fewer than five hours practice at controlling an airplane solely by reference to the instruments?

You're saying it's always done that way only because no instructor - because of the well known global and united concern of all instructors for their student's instrument skills - or student - because of their well known utter ignorance of the rules - has ever thought to skip wearing a hood and get their "instrument time" by looking out the windows, and if they did, that would be fine with TC, and with the TATC?

Really?

[digits_]

Agreed - that's why it says instrument time, not "IFR Flight" nor "Flight in IMC". It says "instrument time", and there's no arguing about what that means. Just like nobody argues about what it means when it uses the same phrase in the PPL requirements and the instrument rating requirements.

That's likely because those students don't know the full effect of the definition, and also because it doesn't matter at that point. Assuming you're their instructor, up to a point, only your definition of those things matter. Just because you choose to fly under the hood or in actual IMC in that part of their training, doesn't mean it is the only way to fulfil the definition.

So are you seriously suggesting that you can lawfully get a PPL with fewer than five hours practice at controlling an airplane solely by reference to the instruments?

You're saying it's always done that way only because no instructor - because of the well known global and united concern of all instructors for their student's instrument skills - or student - because of their well known utter ignorance of the rules - has ever thought to skip wearing a hood and get their "instrument time" by looking out the windows, and if they did, that would be fine?

Really?

I doubt an FTU lesson plan would get approved if they allowed students to look outside during instrument training. You're still supposed to train them new skills, and without a hood during the first few instrument flight lessons that would be difficult.


Consider this situation:
Private pilot P lands after an IFR flight, in IMC, did an ILS and everything. TC inspector T is at the field and asks to see P's logbook and license. Notices it's been over 12 months since his last instrument test. T asks P how he has met his IFR recency. P shows him some pages, tells about the flights. T discovers 4 of the required hours were flown IFR in VMC without a hood.
T: "Why do you consider these 4 hours instrument flight time?"
P: - Because I was flying according to the instrument flight rules.

Would it be that unreasonable to expect that P would be fine in a TC tribunal?

Lacking a clearer definition from TC, defining instrument flight as 'a flight following instrument flight rules' does really not seem that farfetched to me.

[Squaretail]

T discovers 4 of the required hours were flown IFR in VMC without a hood.

How would “T” discover this?

[digits_]

T discovers 4 of the required hours were flown IFR in VMC without a hood.

How would “T” discover this?

Let's say that P was very chatty and he just mentioned it. Or maybe T checked some weather reports from that day. Or T saw some youtube movies online that P made during the flight.

[Squaretail]

T discovers 4 of the required hours were flown IFR in VMC without a hood.

How would “T” discover this?

Let's say that P was very chatty and he just mentioned it. Or maybe T checked some weather reports from that day. Or T saw some youtube movies online that P made during the flight.

None of those are evidence that the past hours flown weren’t actually instrument time. It would also beg the question why “T” saw fit to question the PPL’s proficiency. I mean he just conducted a successful instrument approach. Arguably the pilot’s proficiency has just been proven. However the hours logged were interpreted on paper must have counted. What would the weather reports that day have to do with past instrument time logged? You’re telling me a T has such a knowledge of dates and times of some YouTube videos that they could correlate them on the spot with a log book they are inspecting? I’m sorry, but try a little bit better. How in actuality if this going to go down? Your proposed scenario involves a T who seems more like a stalker.

The whole log book thing runs on the honor system. T only gets involved when there is some dead people, and has the time to go searching through historical information. The rest of the time, whether the time in your logbook counts, is when it translates into actual being able to do.

[photofly]

.

Would it be that unreasonable to expect that P would be fine in a TC tribunal?

Yes. Entirely unreasonable. P would have no chance whatever to remit whatever administrative penalty TC imposed.

[digits_]

Well I guess we/I should have looked into the AIM a bit sooner:

page 360

(c) Instrument flight time is any flight time in an aircraft
while piloting the aircraft by sole reference to the flight
instruments. This flight time can be accumulated while
operating under instrument flight rules (IFR) in instrument
meteorological conditions (IMC), or in visual meteorological
conditions (VMC) during flight training by means which
limit a pilot’s ability to see outside the cockpit environment
such as while under a hood or wearing limited vision goggles.

It implies that you can't do the 'under the hood' thing to establish your IFR recency 'under the hood' though (during 'normal' flying)

[thepoors]

If we can step away from the PPL requirement stuff for a moment...

Say I'm departing YYZ on an IFR flight plan and I'm flying a published SID but it's VMC. Is that not "instrument" time? Sure I can look out the window, but that isn't going to help me stay on the SID.

How about if I'm returning to YYZ and I fly a full STAR and ILS approach in VMC? Does that not count either?

Since my flight training days I was always told - if you're on an IFR flight plan, you can log the all the air time as instrument. Recently I've been flying with a guy who disagrees and only logs instrument when he can't see out the window. Down to "oh we spent half our time in cruise in IMC, so that was 0.8 there, then it was VMC for a while, then we shot the approach in IMC, so that was another 0.3. I frankly think this is ridiculous and when asked how about when you don't have ground reference, he didn't have a good answer for that either.