Incorrectly logging instrument time

[Adam Oke]

We have previously agreed that if a plane is hopping over from Hamilton to Kitchener on a VFR itinerary and joining the circuit for landing on a clear day and just eyeballing it, that's not valid instrument time.

But! If you are the aircraft behind them and you have the ILS dialed in and you are using the pointers and the autopilot is on and you have done your approach briefing and you have the minimums set in and you are doing all the approach callouts, that is valid instrument time. Because you are flying the plane with sole reference to the flight instruments. It doesn't matter if you can see outside until you hit your DH/MDA.

Now here's the extreme case. A pilot can be on a VFR flight plan and shoot a bullshit ILS into an airport where the weather is lousy and log the instrument time. It's loggable because they were flying the plane with sole reference to the instruments. They would likely face enforcement action for flying below VFR weather limits and being a general doorknob, but the actual instrument time would be loggable. That's obviously just a troll-like situation that no smart person would put themselves in, but the definition allows it. The sustainable and smart practice would be to file IFR

What about descending through 12 500 into VMC, on an IFR flight plan, into Class E airspace inbound to Kitchener.

With respect to Class E, services shall provide separation between IFR aircraft, but you must maintain visual separation from VFR aircraft. As an IFR aircraft you must have visual reference outside to provide visual separation from VFR aircraft and can not be solely focused inside.

Now what?

My logbook had a 10% default for actual. I log instrument time on all IFR filed flights. Good enough. I have yet to have a license or job turned down over actual vs instrument.

[Sulako]

What about descending through 12 500 into VMC, on an IFR flight plan, into Class E airspace inbound to Kitchener.

With respect to Class E, services shall provide separation between IFR aircraft, but you must maintain visual separation from VFR aircraft. As an IFR aircraft you must have visual reference outside to provide visual separation from VFR aircraft and can not be solely focused inside.

Now what?

Heh no worries, the definition is still clear Are you piloting the aircraft with sole reference to the instruments? In this case, the answer is no, because in Class E you presumably are looking outside the plane to pilot it. That being said, if a pilot did not look ouside while on the descent, they could log the time as instrument time but they'd be opening themselves up to be violated for not following proper procedure in Class E airspace. Heh I'm taking nitpicking to the next level with this and as we both have said, it matters zero in real life after a person gets their ATPL signed off - but that's the definition. In real life I also used the 10% figure in my logbook and it was never questioned

[brain_u/s]

Thanks everyone for the input, made me a little less anxious haha. To everyone saying log 10% as IFR though my main issue is that I have all these flights written in my logbook and I feel having 3 years worth of IFR times crossed out and rewritten would wave red flags in the sense of how could I justify claiming to remember 3 years worth of weather? I guess only filing IFR when it was necessary to (vfr otherwise) could be some sort of justification for at least a .1 every flight

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you have a spare blank column in your log book just label it IMC and put 10% of every flight you already logged as IFR. Use that total for the actual IMC declaration.

[mantogasrsrwy]

Different road I guess. By the time I went for my ATP I was tired of flying in cloud.

[airway]

This is from a recent TSB Accident report I just read. Got me thinking about this thread.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... c0027.html

Night visual flight
Flying VFR at night involves numerous risks owing to poor visual cues. The fact that there are few or no visual references at night can lead to various illusions causing spatial disorientation due to the lack of discernible horizon. A night VFR flight that is conducted beneath an overcast ceiling, without moonlight, over areas with featureless terrain, such as bodies of water or forest, and away from cultural lighting provides inadequate ambient illumination for visual reference to the surface. These areas are referred to as black holes; flying over them is difficult.

In addition, estimating distance from cloud and adverse weather at night or in darkness is difficult for pilots and increases the risk of inadvertent VFR flight into IMC, which can quickly result in spatial disorientation and a loss of control.

Simply put, night VFR flight inherently offers the pilot limited visual cues to be able to see and avoid worsening weather conditions. Flight planning is especially important for night flights, specifically: a review of weather conditions and their corresponding impact on the intended aircraft track, the available moonlight, the estimated flight time over large bodies of water or areas with little or no cultural lighting, and the intended flight track’s proximity to rising terrain and significant obstacles.

The principle behind VFR flight is that the pilot uses visual cues (e.g., visual horizon, ground references) outside the aircraft to determine the aircraft’s attitude. Therefore, some basic requirements must be met when conducting VFR flight—day or night.

According to sections 602.114 and 602.115 of the CARs, the aircraft must be “operated with visual reference to the surface,”Footnote6 regardless of whether it is operated in controlled or uncontrolled airspace. The CARs define surface as “any ground or water, including the frozen surface thereof.”Footnote7 However, the term “visual reference to the surface” is open to interpretation, because it is not defined in the regulations. Industry has widely interpreted it to mean visual meteorological conditions (VMC).Footnote8,Footnote9 Following a TSB investigationFootnote10 into a helicopter accident in May 2013, the Board recommended that

[t]he Department of Transport amend the regulations to clearly define the visual references (including lighting considerations and/or alternate means) required to reduce the risks associated with night visual flight rules flight.
TSB Recommendation A16-08Footnote11

The conditions experienced during the occurrence flight were such that visual reference to the surface likely was difficult to maintain, and therefore the flight would not have met the requirements for operation under night VFR. Instead, such a flight would require pilots to rely on their flight instruments to ensure safe operation of the aircraft. Neither the pilot nor the passenger seated in the front right seat, who both held a commercial pilot licence, was certified for IFR flight.


So,if you are on a IFR flight plan flying over an area where you can see little or no lighting on the ground and/or can't see the horizon, you can log instrument time.

Or how about any time you are flying above an undercast layer, day or night, because you can't rely on that undercast layer being parallel with the real horizon.



.

[digits_]

Hehe that would mean you can log instrument time VFR (OTT), VMC and without a hood or instrument rating or safety pilot.

[CaptDukeNukem]

I think the point of this entire topic is that no one actually knows exactly how much instrument time they have. Log whatever instrument time you need. Tc doesn’t know, you don’t know, and the minute you get an ATPL you stop logging it.

[OneYonge]

The reason for this confusion is those hardcopy logbooks.

Some logbooks have a column for "actual IMC" under your Instrument time.

While others have a column for "actual IFR" under the Instrument time.

While TC may not care which one it is... Obviously, you are not supposed to be in "actual IMC "on VFR flights.


If you log too many of these on your VFR flights... this should really raise a lot of eyebrows.

[OneYonge]

Being a bit of a keener I estimated the actual IMC time for every IFR flight and logged that. Over 30 years it is almost exactly 10 %.

I have as well.

Counting all IFR filed flight time as “Instrument time” is only fooling oneself.

IMC is IMC. Everything else is VFR

Requirements don't care if your instrument time was done during IMC or VMC.

All IFR flights are instrument time.

[CaptDukeNukem]

Has anyone tried calling transport and actually ask what the hell they mean by this. It’s 75 hours. Fly for a 703 for a year and you’ll have it.

[OneYonge]

Has anyone tried calling transport and actually ask what the hell they mean by this. It’s 75 hours. Fly for a 703 for a year and you’ll have it.

what even would you ask them?

they never required any time in IMC.

other than hood or SIM time, all your instrument time would be filed in IFR plans.

if you are doing intrument flying on VFR flights that aren't even hood training....

do you really want to admit to TC that you haven't been looking outside like you are supposed to during VFR?

[ruffdeezy]

logging instrument time is meant to be done in 3 columns
actual IMC / Hood / Simulator

[OneYonge]

logging instrument time is meant to be done in 3 columns
actual IMC / Hood / Simulator

not all logbooks have "actual IMC" column.

some have "actual IFR". thus the confusion.

TC doesnt care about your "flying in IMC" hours.

[digits_]

logging instrument time is meant to be done in 3 columns
actual IMC / Hood / Simulator

Says who? Source? Also please define 'instrument time'. That's the essence of the discussion

[OneYonge]

ignore "actual imc" on the logbook.

replace it or just get a logbook that has these columns.

[ruffdeezy]

logging IFR time is a useless stat
it is IMC, hood, sim
that is what the inspectors i talked to said, they said it is missing the point logging 1000 hours of being on an IFR flight plan

[OneYonge]

logging IFR time is a useless stat
it is IMC, hood, sim
that is what the inspectors i talked to said, they said it is missing the point logging 1000 hours of being on an IFR flight plan

your inspector might be talkin about personal opinions.

there are also inspectors you can talk to who would disagree with duty time regs and even lifevest regs in floatplanes.

TC standard already covered.

see prev post by Sulako

viewtopic.php?p=1279841#p1279841

[ruffdeezy]

this is the definititon - the explanation in the linked post is based on a typo

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.

[Sulako]

this is the definititon - the explanation in the linked post is based on a typo

Well hello there - ruffdeezy is it? I'm Sully. Pleased to make your acquaintance. I wrote the linked post in order to educate. Unfortunately, your responses are the definition of 'confidently incorrect', and sadder than that - you deliberately edited and removed literal TC text in order to try to prove it. Why would you even do that? And your edit doesn't even make sense. When you remove the comma, it breaks the grammar. I weep for humanity sometimes.

Me: "Here's the link to the literal published TC definition"
you: "I heard from some guys that was a typo. Here's some edits I made to the regs cause I think it's better that way". With zero actual supporting evidence.

Nah, we ain't gonna let that stand.

Anyways, here we go again. Here's the basis for my argument:

https://publications.gc.ca/collections/ ... 19-eng.pdf

Here is the link to the official TC publication, approved by TC. Let's go over to the Definitions section, specifically on page 13.

I'll copy and paste the actual content without editing it - like you did in your previous post . Did you know that trust is the fundamental basis for any relationship? Anyways, here we go:

(16) INSTRUMENT FLIGHT TIME: 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's listed right there, and it's one simple sentence. Take your time to fully digest it though.

INSTRUMENT FLIGHT TIME: any flight time in an aircraft while piloting the aircraft by sole reference
to the flight instruments

That's the entire definition. Notice how it doesn't mention weather conditions.

AFTER the definition is posted, TC includes SOME ways of achieving compliance as examples.

"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."

Some ways you can accumulate Instrument Flight Time are:

a) while operating IFR,
b) in IMC, or
c) in VMC during flight training while under the hood or foggles.

What have we learned?

1. Instrument time can be accumulated any time you are flying with sole reference to the instruments. The weather can be IFR or VFR, it doesn't matter. In order to be legal, you'd want to be on some sort of IFR flight plan or itinerary and have an appopriate clearance though.

2. Please don't deliberately edit actual approved TC documents in order to try to make your argument. I know better, and I get my Irish up when I see this sort of thing.

3. I'm happy to further debate this, but first you'll need actual evidence or something more than "I heard it from someone" before you get taken seriously. Safe flights, and perhaps you can do better going forward when it comes to editing stuff that you say is unadulterated fact.

[PropDog]

this is the definititon - the explanation in the linked post is based on a typo

Well hello there - ruffdeezy is it? I'm Sully. Pleased to make your acquaintance. I wrote the linked post in order to educate. Unfortunately, your responses are the definition of 'confidently incorrect', and sadder than that - you deliberately edited and removed literal TC text in order to try to prove it. Why would you even do that? And your edit doesn't even make sense. When you remove the comma, it breaks the grammar. I weep for humanity sometimes.

Me: "Here's the link to the literal published TC definition"
you: "I heard from some guys that was a typo. Here's some edits I made to the regs cause I think it's better that way". With zero actual supporting evidence.

Nah, we ain't gonna let that stand.

Anyways, here we go again. Here's the basis for my argument:

https://publications.gc.ca/collections/ ... 19-eng.pdf

Here is the link to the official TC publication, approved by TC. Let's go over to the Definitions section, specifically on page 13.

I'll copy and paste the actual content without editing it - like you did in your previous post . Did you know that trust is the fundamental basis for any relationship? Anyways, here we go:

(16) INSTRUMENT FLIGHT TIME: 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's listed right there, and it's one simple sentence. Take your time to fully digest it though.

INSTRUMENT FLIGHT TIME: any flight time in an aircraft while piloting the aircraft by sole reference
to the flight instruments

That's the entire definition. Notice how it doesn't mention weather conditions.

AFTER the definition is posted, TC includes SOME ways of achieving compliance as examples.

"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."

Some ways you can accumulate Instrument Flight Time are:

a) while operating IFR,
b) in IMC, or
c) in VMC during flight training while under the hood or foggles.

What have we learned?

1. Instrument time can be accumulated any time you are flying with sole reference to the instruments. The weather can be IFR or VFR, it doesn't matter. In order to be legal, you'd want to be on some sort of IFR flight plan or itinerary and have an appopriate clearance though.

2. Please don't deliberately edit actual approved TC documents in order to try to make your argument. I know better, and I get my Irish up when I see this sort of thing.

3. I'm happy to further debate this, but first you'll need actual evidence or something more than "I heard it from someone" before you get taken seriously. Safe flights, and perhaps you can do better going forward when it comes to editing stuff that you say is unadulterated fact.

Thanks for doing the leg work for finding this source. Nice to actually have something in writing!

[OneYonge]

i thought Sulako's first post was perfectly clear as a matter of basic reading comprehension.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The OP asked the question of logging instrument flight time with respect to the requirements for the ATPL. Since the AP manual referenced above specifically notes that AP’s are not authorized to grant ATPL’s, I would suggest that what it says is irrelevant to this discussion.

Only a TC person will evaluate an ATPL application. What they will accept is all that matters.

[Hornblower]

For clarity:
Much of this thread appears to be based on a definition of “instrument time” gleaned from a TCCA policy document/ manual. When attempting to acquire a CAD, such as an atpl, the only definitions which matter are those in the CARs or the Act. Many TCCA docs such as the AP manual referenced, and many others, contain made-up definitions and processes, often made up by a TCCA desk officer who inserts their own understanding, and which undergoes no legal scrutiny prior to publication.

… just sayin’

[OneYonge]

For clarity:
Much of this thread appears to be based on a definition of “instrument time” gleaned from a TCCA policy document/ manual. When attempting to acquire a CAD, such as an atpl, the only definitions which matter are those in the CARs or the Act. Many TCCA docs such as the AP manual referenced, and many others, contain made-up definitions and processes, often made up by a TCCA desk officer who inserts their own understanding, and which undergoes no legal scrutiny prior to publication.

… just sayin’

This is useless opinion if you can't point out where the definition on the document disagrees with CARs.