ATPL IMC time

smallplane · Post by **smallplane** » Sun May 09, 2004 11:23 am

anyone have any idea how sticky TC is when you submit your logbook regarding imc time i know you need 50hrs hood/imc plus 25 sim but do trhey really check the weather of you flight eg. 1.2 imc on a 2 hour flight when it was really only lime .5hrs

Panama Jack · Post by **Panama Jack** » Sun May 09, 2004 11:59 am

Conscience starting to keep you up at night?

"a little water clears us of this deed"

"Out damned spot! out, I say!"

smallplane · Post by **smallplane** » Sun May 09, 2004 12:33 pm

not yet, it will be a while before my logbook goes in but i am wondering for the future

snapped · Post by **snapped** » Sun May 09, 2004 12:45 pm

Flying over the tundra @ night with no moon. Is all IMC for me ( I think)

.

smallplane · Post by **smallplane** » Sun May 09, 2004 2:01 pm

i actually had a tc inspector look into it for me and only time actually in cloud is counted as IMC and just night doesn't count it's gotta be in the cloud

jimmyjazz · Post by **jimmyjazz** » Sun May 09, 2004 2:30 pm

I disagree with most people on this and have never had a tc person willing to agree or disagree. In the cars both the standards and the regulations it states Instrument Flight time NOT Instrument Meteorlogical Conditions, so if you have filed IFR it is instrument flight time. In no logbook or anywhere in the AIP or CARS does it say actuall IMC but only Instrument Flight time.If you are filed IFR and deviate from an instruction or an altitude, heading or whatever saying but it wasn't "real" IFR wont get you of because if you are filed IFR then that time is actual IFR maybe not IMC but there isn't a requirement for IMC.

smallplane · Post by **smallplane** » Sun May 09, 2004 2:56 pm

that's what i thought too but when the tc guy actually look into it ie called someone else, he told me it had to be "in cloud" so i'm going to go with it, the only thing i want to know is how much is too much fudging of the #, i've never fudged a single # in my book but with the summer coming and not much IMC time to have well you get the picture

codfish · Post by **codfish** » Sun May 09, 2004 3:23 pm

I know when I submitted my log book for my ATPL they were quite sticky about the time and even called some of my former employers to confirm my time. They called me a couple of times and asked questions regarding my actual IMC time.

Take it for what it's worth but make sure there is no Bic/Parker pen time in the book because they will find out.

Stinky Codfish.

Flyin' Hack · Post by **Flyin' Hack** » Sun May 09, 2004 4:45 pm

Well, I'm currently working on my IFR rating, so by no means an expert, just have some comments to add.

My logbook under INSTRUMENT has a column saying IMC (ACTUAL). Couldn't find one that said HOURS ON AN IFR FLIGHT PLAN.

So what is IMC (ACTUAL)? I have no idea. Does it mean "in cloud"? Do you have to be "in cloud"? Or can you be above the cloud deck and not in cloud? Or is that just counted as VFROTT? Do jet pilots only count the time spent passing through the cloud for IMC (ACTUAL)? How about transatlantic flight? Sure, you might be able to see the water, but you can't navigate using it. You're on the instruments.

Well, here's my 2.2 cents as a VFR pilot, so far.

VFR is flying when "the aircraft must be operated at all times with visual reference to the surface." (FTGU page #108) So then VFROTT could be counted as IFR (as long as you hold the rating) since you can't see the earth. Correct? Likewise should be for the example that snapped gave

over the tundra @ night with no moon

cause he probably can't see the surface either without any lighting on the surface in remote areas. How about this example? You're givin' er in uncontrolled airspace at 5000', the clouds more than 500' vertically and 2000' horizontally from your head (moon blocked out by them completely), on an IFR flight plan, at night, can't see any visual reference to the ground... but flight vis is LESS than the 3 mile requirement to be VFR. Can that be counted as IFR?

Shouldn't it just be that if you aren't within the VFR criteria, you're automatically considered to be flying in IFR even if you aren't in cloud? (SVFR in controlled airspace aside.)

Food for thought.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Sun May 09, 2004 6:19 pm

Jimmy's right on this subject; the requirement for the ATPL is 75 hrs IFR, not IMC. TC can try to split hairs if they want but i'd call em on it; as long as you're filed IFR it counts. That being said, mine went through unquestioned but maybe I got lucky.

Flyin' Hack · Post by **Flyin' Hack** » Sun May 09, 2004 11:33 pm

I'm going to ask you to clarify this, since I have no idea whatsoever.

jimmyjazz wrote:In the cars both the standards and the regulations it states Instrument Flight time NOT Instrument Meteorlogical Conditions, so if you have filed IFR it is instrument flight time. In no logbook or anywhere in the AIP or CARS does it say actuall IMC but only Instrument Flight time.

As I said, I'm doing my IFR rating right now. I go in, file an IFR flight plan, hop in the plane, when airborne, go under the hood. In what column do I log my instrument time? IMC (ACTUAL)? SIMULATED? FLIGHT SIMULATOR? Those are my choices. Obviously, it's not the last one. My instructor says SIMULATED, because of the hood. Well, once I'm working and on an IFR flight plan, no hood and no clouds. Then what? (or in which column do I enter the number of instrument hours?)

Also, do employers see IMC (ACTUAL) numbers as holding more value/weight than SIMULATED numbers? As you said before, clouds or not, you still have to fly by the instruments and hold your course/altitude.

Thanks.

groundtoflightdeck · Post by **groundtoflightdeck** » Sun May 09, 2004 11:43 pm

Actual IMC: less than 1sm visibilty or not clear of cloud.

Hood= hood

Sim = approved simulator with an instructor

While on an IFR flight plan there is no special way to log it should be the same as VFR except different altitude and a little more radio.

Flyin' Hack · Post by **Flyin' Hack** » Mon May 10, 2004 12:11 am

So the number of instrument hours you'll get is like getting a job. Be in the right place at the right time. Roger that.

"Attention passengers of Flight 353 to Calgary. Your flight is currently delayed due to existing weather conditions. The pilots would like to wait until conditions get worse so they can log some more instrument time. We appreciate your patience. Have a nice day!"

pinkus · Post by **pinkus** » Mon May 10, 2004 12:33 am

Heres my take,

They asked me if my time was IMC. That is what they are looking for. CARS or no CARS...so save yourself the hassel. If you break a deck, count .1. Log a little extra when you can. It will add up quickly.If you are loggin IMC more than 20 percent of the time, then they may get suspicious. Log the IMC now, so you do not run into head aches afterwards. TRUST ME! They can not go back and argue it,unless you were not flying IFR and were punching clouds for fun.

Good Luck,

Pinkus

Panama Jack · Post by **Panama Jack** » Mon May 10, 2004 3:11 am

To understand this issue better, we have to go into the roots of the CAR's. The CAR's take much of their origins from the US Federal Aviation Regulations.

FAR Part 61.159 states very clearly that an applicant must have at least "75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions, . . . "

Back here in Canada, CAR 400.1 states:

"instrument time" means
(amended 2001/03/01; previous version)

(a) instrument ground time,

(b) actual instrument flight time, or

(c) simulated instrument flight time; (temps aux instruments)

Some people will live to fight the moot points of the interpretation with TC. I don't think they have the upper hand on the self-serving interpretation of what instrument flight time means.

Then I also know of CP's who when they see lots of Instrument time it raises a red flag, and I doubt they will be less indulging in debating the finer points of interpretation on your interview.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Mon May 10, 2004 1:49 pm

As Panama Jack stated there is little room to dispute the interpretation of instrument time. Time spent under IFR rather than VFR counts for nothing. Actual instrument flight time means in cloud. No visible ground or horizon. Simulated means flight with an instructor or safety pilot and outside references blocked by a view limiting device. You can only log instrument time with a safety pilot rather than an instructor if you already have an instrument rating.

Oh and the rules changed a while ago on logging simulator time. You cannot log simulator time anymore without an intructor being present.

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Mon May 10, 2004 2:11 pm

You can also log hood time (and approaches) when your student is under the hood - if you are training them towards an instrument rating.

Very easy way to get your 75 hrs.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Mon May 10, 2004 2:19 pm

You can also log hood time (and approaches) when your student is under the hood - if you are training them towards an instrument rating.

? How can that be? Can you log simulator time if you are instructing on a simulator too?

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Mon May 10, 2004 2:28 pm

(3) No holder of an instrument rating shall exercise the privileges referred to in Section 401.47 unless the holder has

(a) within the 12 months preceding the flight, successfully completed an instrument rating flight test in an aircraft or in a Level B, C or D simulator of the same group as the aircraft;

(b) within the six months preceding the flight, acquired six hours of instrument time and completed six instrument approaches to the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions, or in a Level B, C or D simulator of the same category as the aircraft or in a flight training device under the supervision of a person who holds the qualifications referred to in subsection 425.21(9) of the personnel licensing standards;
(amended 2001/03/01; previous version)

(c) within the six months preceding the flight, acquired six hours of instrument time and completed six instrument approaches to the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions, while acting as a flight instructor conducting training in respect of the endorsement of a flight crew licence or permit with an instrument rating; or
(amended 2001/03/01; previous version)

.....

Notice the highlighted section. If you can use it for recency, you have to be able to log it. No mention of simulator however.....

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Mon May 10, 2004 2:34 pm

Works for me. Never noticed that before.

Anyone ever run into a problem logging IMC time when PNF?

Aeros · Post by **Aeros** » Mon May 10, 2004 4:18 pm

Sakism,

If I were you I would be a little hesitant to log the time that the intrument rating student is under the hood. I agree that the time would count towards maintaining your own currency in respect of the 6 -6 -6 requirements. I have used this expereince in the past. THe time does need to get logged. What I have done is added an extra column to my personal log titled 'instrument teaching'. I would imagine that TC would deny your application for the ATPL if you were using the time spent teaching instrument ratings to students towards your 75 hours.

That being said, time spent with a student in cloud counts as actual for both student and instructor.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon May 10, 2004 5:20 pm

The stupidity of this discussion is mind boggling.

IFR means that you are flying under the rules of instrument flight and conforming to your clearances for a given flight.

Being in or out of cloud is irrevalant, as you are flying the airplane by use of the flight instruments to maintain your alloted position in space.

Only a total moron would attempt to figure out actual time in cloud, if that is even possible anyhow.

The answer is clear, you meet the requirement of recency by flying either actual or simulated............and actual is far easier. Therefore IFR is met when flying under IFR regulations.

How in f.ck did aviation get so dummed down?

Cat

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Mon May 10, 2004 5:48 pm

Right on the money Cat; unfortunately there are some TC clowns out there that actually expect you to keep track of actual IMC. Show me where it says I have to do that and i'll consider it, otherwise i'll continue to log IFR time by the exact definition you just gave!

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Mon May 10, 2004 5:56 pm

Cat,

I know that I, and I suspect that almost all pilots would, agree with your assessment of Instrument Flight. Since we're flying using the instruments, it shouldn't matter what the weather is.

Unfortunately, and this is the point I thought you would appreciate, the ambiguity and randomness applied by TC necessitates discussions such as these.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon May 10, 2004 6:13 pm

Sakism :

Yes of course we all are aware of the black hole mentality within the halls of the regulator.

Where our industry falls down is we do not have the time nor energy to demand some sane oversite from the regulator, so we just meekly bend and suffer the pain.

However I really hope to live long enough to see the day that everyone just tells them to go to hell with their stupid enforcement of such policies as they insist on maintaining.

NOTE :

I said policies.....because there is a very big difference between law. regulation and ...policies.

Anyhow as long as I have the ability to get out of bed in the morning I will work toward bringing some sembalance of fairness for all you guys and girls who earn your living flying and fixing these things.

Cat