Logging Instrument time

[photofly]

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?

No.

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

No.

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.

Then you were told wrong. Sorry. But why would you care?

[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?

No.

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

No.

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.

Then you were told wrong. Sorry. But why would you care?

Care to explain? How does flying published instrument procedures not count as instrument time? What exactly is your reasoning to counter that?

I don't really care because I've always done it that way and no one at Transport, in an interview, or otherwise has ever questioned my logbook. So why do you care?

[photofly]

Care to explain? How does flying published instrument procedures not count as instrument time?

Because it doesn’t meet the definition of “instrument time” in CAR 101.

I don't really care because I've always done it that way and no one at Transport, in an interview, or otherwise has ever questioned my logbook. So why do you care?

I care what the definition of instrument time is. I don’t care how much instrument time I log. I certainly don’t care how much instrument time you log.

We note your contribution to this thread is to tell everyone you made up your own definition of instrument time and record the hours of it that you fly.

[digits_]

A definition that refers to itself can hardly be called a good, clear definition...

It only tells you that you can simulate it, but not what it is.

[Outlaw58]

It's about demonstrating the experience you have acquired towards a particular skill, in this case, maintaining aircraft control by solely referencing your instruments.

Navigating with your face in the dash in VMC is hardly a skill. Heck, wouldn't it be nice if the VFR Foreflight flyers out there took a peek out the window every once in a while? And those hours don't count as instrument time

Doing all of that, while physically maneuvering your aircraft, without a visible horizon (in cloud, under the hood, or even at night) is the skill towards which experience needs to be demonstrated. As long as TC agrees with what you log, this discussion is moot.

58

[digits_]

It's about demonstrating the experience you have acquired towards a particular skill, in this case, maintaining aircraft control by solely referencing your instruments.

Navigating with your face in the dash in VMC is hardly a skill. Heck, wouldn't it be nice if the VFR Foreflight flyers out there took a peek out the window every once in a while? And those hours don't count as instrument time

Doing all of that, while physically maneuvering your aircraft, without a visible horizon (in cloud, under the hood, or even at night) is the skill towards which experience needs to be demonstrated. As long as TC agrees with what you log, this discussion is moot.

58

You're talking about pysical skill. Is there anything that prohibits you from using an autopilot during your instrument time? It isn't referenced anywhere. And it is an aircraft system. It might not be relevant for 5 hours of instrument time during PPL trainnig, but it would be for the ATPL requirement and IFR recency requirements. Since it's not prohibited, I think it is allowed, which makes the skill argument a bit moot.

[thepoors]

Care to explain? How does flying published instrument procedures not count as instrument time?

Because it doesn’t meet the definition of “instrument time” in CAR 101.

I don't really care because I've always done it that way and no one at Transport, in an interview, or otherwise has ever questioned my logbook. So why do you care?

I care what the definition of instrument time is. I don’t care how much instrument time I log. I certainly don’t care how much instrument time you log.

We note your contribution to this thread is to tell everyone you made up your own definition of instrument time and record the hours of it that you fly.

CARs 101:
instrument time means
(a) instrument ground time,
(b) actual instrument flight time, or
(c) simulated instrument flight time;

Can you tell me where you see anything about IMC in there? Instrument time is when you are operating the aircraft with primary reference to the instruments - when you are IMC this is done by necessity. It's also undeniable that it's necessary when flying IFR procedures, whether you can see outside or not doesn't matter, you still have to fly the procedure according to the instruments. There's nothing in 101 that contradicts this. It's obviously a poorly written definition which as digits_ pointed out doesn't actually define anything and is open to interpretation. I haven't made up a definition any more than you have. I've simply interpreted the regulation in a logical manner. If you care about the definition then come up with an interpretation that makes sense.

I'll again ask the question you dodged before: how does being able to see out the window help me fly a SID, STAR, or IFR approach?

[photofly]

If you want more guidance about the correct interpretation of "instrument time" it's in the AIM. Digits quoted it earlier, and it's exactly what I said it is.

how does being able to see out the window help me fly a SID, STAR, or IFR approach?

It's not a relevant question. If you want to log time flying SIDs, STARs and IFR approaches - fill your boots. But it's not "instrument time" and therefore it doesn't contribute towards meeting the requirements for "instrument time" which is explicitly specified in the experience requirements for a PPL, a night rating, an instrument rating, an ATPL, and instrument recency, in whatever section of the regulations specify them.

None of those ratings requires any specific amount of time flying SIDs, STARs or IFR approaches, so logging the amount of time you spent flying SIDs, STARs, or IFR approaches en-clair simply isn't relevant to meeting the requirements to gain any of those ratings. Even the six month recency requirement, which says six approach to minimums, says they have to do be done in real or simulated IMC, so flying them visually in VMC unambiguously doesn't count towards that either.

If you want to make a claim that "IFR time" or time flying SIDs, STARs and instrument approaches (regardless of whether they are flown solely by reference to the instruments) should be logged, and there should be some minimum requirement for that time towards some rating, or some recency standard - go ahead and make that claim. I would probably agree with you. Perhaps we can call it "IFR time", to distinguish it from "instrument time" which is already a well-defined thing, that thing being a different thing from those other things.

If you prefer to log those things that are not "instrument time" as "instrument time" then, as I said, you are using your own made up definition of instrument time, which is not the definition in the CARs.

[rookiepilot]

I'll again ask the question you dodged before: how does being able to see out the window help me fly a SID, STAR, or IFR approach?

You, or the autopilot?

As a light AC pilot, i’ve flown lots of IFR flights under VMC conditions…..approaches have been “cleared for the visual”.

Never logged any of that as “instrument time”……..cause its VFR……only in IMC or simulated with a hood counts. And whenever training under a hood, i’ve refused to use the AP……forces proficiency.

I’ve probably logged a handful of night hours as IMC, technically it was VMC but conditions were so poor (think of the accidents near Algonquin park) in haze that it was effectively IMC.

If the discussion is about a safe level of proficiency, any other way of logging it is just fooling yourself, IMO.

[digits_]

we can call it "IFR time"

And we can define it as:

IFR time means
(a) IFR ground time,
(b) actual IFR flight time, or
(c) simulated IFR flight time;

Which will be super clear!

[digits_]

If the discussion is about a safe level of proficiency, any other way of logging it is just fooling yourself, IMO.

It's not, it's about legal requirements and the legal definition of 'instrument time'

[rookiepilot]

If the discussion is about a safe level of proficiency, any other way of logging it is just fooling yourself, IMO.

It's not, it's about legal requirements and the legal definition of 'instrument time'

Ah. Far more important….

[Big Pistons Forever]

And whenever training under a hood, i’ve refused to use the AP……forces proficiency.

A bit off the topic but this is, negative training. Effective use of the autopilot is IMO essential to safely fly single pilot IFR. Yes recurrent training should have a dedicated portion of hands on maneuvering but that should be upper air-work patterns (eg up-down figure eights) where you work on control precision. You should also practice unusual attitude recovery so that when the autopilot fails and leaves you a shit sandwich you can quickly recover from the UAS.

When practicing IFR procedures you should fly exactly the way you fly for real. I would also suggest that it be evidence based. That is work on things you actually messed up in your previous year of flying.

Finally IMO the least useful IFR recurrent training is a bunch of back to back approaches at your home airport. Personally my less than stellar IFR flights have had a consistent theme with less than desirable performance in 2 areas

1) Not paying enough attention to the "how will I get there from here", where I end up high and fast and close in, or dragging my self through the nasty icy bumpy clouds because I descended too early. The common problem was not enough time spent planning and considering the "what ifs" before TOD, and

2) GPS button pushing errors or lack of familiarity for less commonly used functions

My favorite IFR recurrent training flight plan is CYYJ SID departure to the LNAV VYPW missed to a LPV or ILS full stop at CYBL. Then CYBL departure back to CYYJ for a LPV or ILS (whichever we did not do at YBL) with a simulated system emergency on route. The legs are long enough and require a high enough minimum altitude that proper realistic flight path management decisions have to be made. The flight provides experience operating IFR at a airports with a ATF, MF, and control tower, and all the approach types you are going to see in the real world.

[Bajszi]

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.

I'm not sure what kind of logbook you got then. All my non-Canadian logbooks have IFR fields.

[Bajszi]

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)

Unfortunately, this proves even more that Canada does not accept IFR operation as instrument time. This says you can log instrument time in an aircraft in two ways:
1.) IFR in IMC aka actual cloud flying
2.) VMC during flight training aka Hood time

I think this is pretty clear.

The interesting thing is that this topic is as confusing for TC as it is for us. I've heard about pilots applying for ATPL with all IFR hours (successfully), and I know pilots who were rejected because they didn't have enough actual+hood for ATPL. Unfortunately, it seems it greatly depends on where you send in your application.

[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)

Unfortunately, this proves even more that Canada does not accept IFR operation as instrument time. This says you can log instrument time in an aircraft in two ways:
1.) IFR in IMC aka actual cloud flying
2.) VMC during flight training aka Hood time

I think this is pretty clear.

The interesting thing is that this topic is as confusing for TC as it is for us. I've heard about pilots applying for ATPL with all IFR hours (successfully), and I know pilots who were rejected because they didn't have enough actual+hood for ATPL. Unfortunately, it seems it greatly depends on where you send in your application.

Yes, I agree this seems to support photofly's point of view. Only addition there is that the core of the definition there is the 'sole reference to the flight instruments'. The IFR in IMC or VMC with a hood seem to be examples. It does not say that the filght time can *only* be accumulated during those activities.

And that the AIM is not part of the CARs of course.

[photofly]

If you want to add another confusion, review the regulation regarding the keeping of a personal log for the holder to demonstrate they meet the recency requirements and licencing standards (401.08):

(2) A personal log that is maintained for the purposes referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) shall contain the holder’s name and the following information in respect of each flight:
.
.
(d) the flight conditions with respect to day, night, VFR and IFR;

Nothing about logging instrument time there - merely the flight conditions (VFR and IFR) - not even "the flight rules under which the flight was conducted with respect to VFR and IFR", nosiree.

Nevertheless, and regardless of all these niceties and nit-picking, it is very clear that instrument time is, and is only, flight time while flying by sole reference to the instruments.

[TG]

Sleep the dummy comments on Youtube below the video but right from "Rotate" done at 12'46" to 15'09" Only half a second glance outside from the PF! That's 2 minutes 23 seconds instruments time for you right there!

Joke aside, I think I have pretty much the same interpretation regarding instruments flying as thepoors.

One example that might trigger a few here is logging 0.3 as instruments any complete IFR approaches flown in VFR conditions. Another example (Unless total Cavok from A to B) Is roughly logging a 10 to 20% off an IFR flight as instruments. Do you start a timer every time you enter a cloud!? No!
Right or wrong, I'm not going to debate that or change it and I was never ever bothered about it for the last....25 years!? Or know anybody doing the same who was.



I do know some people who are logging instruments time all their IFR flights from brakes off to brakes on! That's pushing it though

[Squaretail]

I do know some people who are logging instruments time all their IFR flights from brakes off to brakes on! That's pushing it though

Have seen instructors try to do that a lot with students because they can't figure out how to fill the time with students under the hood. However, its been TC's constant opinion that instrument time can't be greater than air time at least.

[Bajszi]

Joke aside, I think I have pretty much the same interpretation regarding instruments flying as thepoors.

One example that might trigger a few here is logging 0.3 as instruments any complete IFR approaches flown in VFR conditions. Another example (Unless total Cavok from A to B) Is roughly logging a 10 to 20% off an IFR flight as instruments. Do you start a timer every time you enter a cloud!? No!
Right or wrong, I'm not going to debate that or change it and I was never ever bothered about it for the last....25 years!? Or know anybody doing the same who was.



I do know some people who are logging instruments time all their IFR flights from brakes off to brakes on! That's pushing it though

Great video! Yes, that's exactly what I mean. When flying under IFR, you fly on instruments. Aka it should be instrument time, but in Canada, we cannot log it. The only reason I brought this topic up is to inform people in case someone is planning to work overseas and doesn't have years and years of experience on airlines. Many counties want to know your IFR experience if you are a sub-2000-3000 hr pilot, and not your cloud flying total time. So I log both separately, Actual IMC time for Canada, and IFR time for the rest of the World.

[CpnCrunch]

Aka it should be instrument time, but in Canada, we cannot log it. The only reason I brought this topic up is to inform people in case someone is planning to work overseas and doesn't have years and years of experience on airlines. Many counties want to know your IFR experience if you are a sub-2000-3000 hr pilot, and not your cloud flying total time. So I log both separately, Actual IMC time for Canada, and IFR time for the rest of the World.

As mentioned above you can log it. It's instrument time, not IFR time. My Canadian logbook has "actual, hood, sim" columns under instrument time. My previous UK logbook just had instrument time. But it doesn't matter...all 3 count in Canada. Note that if you're on an IFR flight plan you can log instrument time without wearing a hood in VMC, according to TC. I just put this in the Hood column of my logbook.

[digits_]

Note that if you're on an IFR flight plan you can log instrument time without wearing a hood in VMC, according to TC.

Do you have a source or reference for this?

[photofly]

You can log instrument time in VMC without wearing a hood for sure: use a ball cap, or foggles, or lower your seat and don’t look up. No need for an instrument flight plan at all.

You can’t log instrument time while flying looking out of the window to control the airplane, though, regardless of what kind of flight plan you’re on.

[CpnCrunch]

Note that if you're on an IFR flight plan you can log instrument time without wearing a hood in VMC, according to TC.

Do you have a source or reference for this?

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

"VFR in VMC: this is the simulated instrument time scenario. TCCA interprets this as ‘’with the use of Vision Limiting Devices (VLD)’’. Then, you definitely need a safety pilot;"

I'm not sure how accurate that is. I would tend to agree with photofly, and if TC ever queries your hood VFR instrument time you can tell them you logged it all wearing a VLD.

[photofly]

That webpage include the following statement:

The astute reader will notice and question a peculiar aspect in all of this. If you fly on an IFR flight plan in VMC, you do not need a VLD to satisfy you 6-6-6 currency.

I don't believe that complies with the regulations, because such time doesn't meet the definition of instrument time.

TC can in its infinite wisdom issue a circular clarifying how it interprets "instrument time" or how it considers that "instrument time" towards the recency requirement is to be interpreted differently from "instrument time" towards a licence or rating, but until they do I wouldn't put a lot of faith in a webpage from COPA vs. something published in the AIM.