Logging Instrument time

[CpnCrunch]

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.

Yes, you're right. The AIM says:

"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."

In practice TC seems fine with the definition given in the COPA article. Anyone interested could ask TC to sort out this ambiguity, but I'm guessing you might be waiting a long time. I asked Nav Canada about an ambiguity on some approach plates in May last year and I'm still waiting for a response. I gave up waiting and just assume I'm allowed to fly the approaches in question in my plane (and no, it's not the RCAP).

[Bajszi]

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.

Just to clarify; the sim is not simulated, it's simulator ground time.

As I stated previously, UK and many other countries only want to see instrument time, not actual time. That's why your UK logbook has only instrument time.

[Outlaw58]

So I log both separately, Actual IMC time for Canada, and IFR time for the rest of the World.

There you have it. If queried, you'd never get challenged.

58

[complexintentions]

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.

Just to clarify; the sim is not simulated, it's simulator ground time.

As I stated previously, UK and many other countries only want to see instrument time, not actual time. That's why your UK logbook has only instrument time.

Not exactly why. I can assure you that all EASA member states and the UK require documented proof of training time "on instruments", not just "on an IFR flight plan" before allowing an attempt at a proficiency check or issuing an IR. Different regulators may record things a bit differently but the principles are the same, logbook semantics aside.

Not sure why everyone is complicating things so greatly. Perhaps a simpler approach would be to consider "instrument" time (flight with sole reference to instruments) as something practiced and logged towards an instrument rating, while "instrument flight rules" time as something logged once you have the rating and are um...flying IFR. But no, simply being on an IFR flight plan is of course absolutely not the same thing as being "on instruments" for regulatory purposes - photofly is 100% correct.

[TailwheelPilot]

A good rule of thumb is that if you’re flying IFR on someone else’s schedule (ie. for work) then your IMC time should be about 10% of your flight time.

A bit late, but you could be shooting yourself in the foot earlier in your career if you only log 10% of flight time versus actual IMC. For example, Pacific Sky just put up a job posting requiring 3000 TT, 1500 floats (unlikely IMC), and 500 instrument. Assuming all of your flying was done IFR, to get 500 instrument at 10% of IFR flight, you would need 5000 hours IFR time to log 500 actual/IMC...plus the float experience and training, so closer to 6700 hours just to meet the instrument and float requirements (assuming the float time was not done IFR).

I recall seeing other job positions where the required instrument time is also well above 10% of the total time requirements.

[digits_]

A good rule of thumb is that if you’re flying IFR on someone else’s schedule (ie. for work) then your IMC time should be about 10% of your flight time.

A bit late, but you could be shooting yourself in the foot earlier in your career if you only log 10% of flight time versus actual IMC. For example, Pacific Sky just put up a job posting requiring 3000 TT, 1500 floats (unlikely IMC), and 500 instrument. Assuming all of your flying was done IFR, to get 500 instrument at 10% of IFR flight, you would need 5000 hours IFR time to log 500 actual/IMC...plus the float experience and training, so closer to 6700 hours just to meet the instrument and float requirements (assuming the float time was not done IFR).

I recall seeing other job positions where the required instrument time is also well above 10% of the total time requirements.

In what job is your actual imc time going to exceed 10% of ifr flight time?

Unless the job ad defines instrument time, I'd be applying with XXX IFR time (and mention it as such). They can always ask for clarification if they have questions.

[photofly]

A bit late, but you could be shooting yourself in the foot earlier in your career if you only log 10% of flight time versus actual IMC.

Instrument time isn't something you have discretion about how much to log, so I don't understand why you would be "shooting yourself in the foot" if you "only" log the correct amount of instrument time, which is the time you're flying solely by reference to the instruments.

[lownslow]

A good rule of thumb is that if you’re flying IFR on someone else’s schedule (ie. for work) then your IMC time should be about 10% of your flight time.

A bit late, but you could be shooting yourself in the foot earlier in your career if you only log 10% of flight time versus actual IMC.

I’m not going back to see if I originally wrote more but it’s highly unlikely I advised anyone to log 10% of their TT as instrument. What I said was to expect about that amount if you logged actual IMC time as instrument, as I do and have seen in my own logbook. Others note about the same and if TC audits your logbook (for example when you apply for your ATPL) they will start taking notice if your instrument time significantly exceeds 10% of total.

[EPR]

Safe to say .2 for every IFR departure and IFR approach (in actual cloud), every thing else is VFR "on top".

[TailwheelPilot]

I’m not going back to see if I originally wrote more but it’s highly unlikely I advised anyone to log 10% of their TT as instrument. What I said was to expect about that amount if you logged actual IMC time as instrument, as I do and have seen in my own logbook.

Sorry, I was skimming for a 10% reference to quote, and should have left out that part of my post anyways, but I was actually recalling TG's post:

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 actually did start a timer every time I entered cloud/IMC at one point...

My intended point was actually the continuing confusion over terms with job posts that list a requirement for x instrument time - not IFR time - but have other hour requirements that do not make sense with realistically logging instrument time. Such as 3000TT - 1500 Float (unlikely IFR) - 150 hours (approximately, from training) = 1350 hours TT to log 500 hours of Instrument (37% of the non-Float, non-training hours).

Should one assume they actually mean IFR experience, as digits suggests, since the instrument hourly requirement seems excessive given the TT and Float requirements, or do they actually want someone who has closer 2500-5000 hours of IFR experience, in which one logged around 500 hours of instrument time, plus the required float time?

Unless the job ad defines instrument time, I'd be applying with XXX IFR time (and mention it as such). They can always ask for clarification if they have questions.

Why would they define Instrument time? It is reasonably clear from the CARs that Instrument Time is not likely to equal IFR time. If they require/ask for Instrument time, why would they care about your IFR time? Huge difference between 500 hours IFR and approximately 50-100 instrument and 2500-5000 hours IFR to have approximately 500 instrument.

[digits_]

Why would they define Instrument time? It is reasonably clear from the CARs that Instrument Time is not likely to equal IFR time. If they require/ask for Instrument time, why would they care about your IFR time? Huge difference between 500 hours IFR and approximately 50-100 instrument and 2500-5000 hours IFR to have approximately 500 instrument.

110 posts in a span of 4 years over this topic. Copa who has posted their 3rd revision of their interpretation of the rules. Are those really indications of a clear definition?

I understand you might interpret it differently, but claiming it's a clear definition is just simply wrong.

The CARs definition follows the structure:

"
XXX time means

(a) XXX ground time,

(b) actual XXX flight time, or

(c) simulated XXX flight time;
"

Does this help you understand what XXX means? It could be aerobatic time, 737 time, tailwheel time, IFR time, IMC time, instrument or whatever you want. The definition doesn't tell you much about what it is.

Then you go to the AIM, which tells you it's by sole reference of instruments. And it gives you 2 examples. Still doesn't clarify if 737 time IFR in VMC counts. what about an autopilot? Does autopilot in IMC count? If so, why does it not count in VMC?

It's a shitty definition.

If we have all these different definitions in this topic, chances are that every chief pilot or every HR person who seea your resume has their own definition as well. In that case you might as well mention the number that makes you look best, it is a resume after all.

If that means you apply with 2000 hours, of which 1500 IFR, then you'd be more attractive than someone who applies with 2000 hours and 150 hours instrument time. Resumes aren't looked at in detail, initially. There is also no requirement for your resume to match exactly what the job ad asks for.

They ask for:
A pic
B multi
C instrument

Your resume offers:
D total time
E multi pic
F IFR time

It's up to the company to accept or decline what you offer.