Logging Instrument Hood Time

[+RA]

Hello,

I'm hoping to get some clarification as to the rules regarding logging instrument hood time, specifically as a CPL student during their hour building stage post-CPL flight and written exams but without their IFR rating.

I've been told by a number of instructors that in order to log instrument hood time without an IFR rating, an instructor is required to be onboard; however, I cannot find any reference to this in the CARs.

If I were to act as PIC on a flight with a hood on flying by reference of my instruments only, while another pilot friend were to spot for traffic, would I be allowed to log this time as instrument?

Thanks,

John

[trampbike]

If I were to act as PIC on a flight with a hood on flying by reference of my instruments only, while another pilot friend were to spot for traffic, would I be allowed to log this time as instrument?

Yes

[+RA]

Well that was simple - thanks!

[trey kule]

IIRC. , there are maybe some issues however, with crediting all or partial of this logged time towards your instrument rating.

That is there is no problem logging it, but I think the IF rating has some further requirements.
Worth checking

[Big Pistons Forever]

The minimum requirement for instruction for the IFR rating is the requirement that 15 hours must be done by an instructor or someone meeting the requirements of CAR 425.21(9). After that you can do as everything else solo if you want.

[RonReynolds]

The minimum requirement for instruction for the IFR rating is the requirement that 15 hours must be done by an instructor or someone meeting the requirements of CAR 425.21(9). After that you can do as everything else solo if you want.

I think it works out be 20 hours.....

5 hours from a flight instructor and
15 hours from an instructor or someone meeting the requirements of CAR 425.21(9)

421.46 Requirements
(b) Experience
An applicant shall have completed a minimum of:

(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:

(A) 5 hours of dual instrument flight time acquired from the holder of a flight instructor rating ,
.....
(C) Fifteen (15) hours of dual instrument flight time provided by a qualified person as specified in section 425.21(9);

[Big Pistons Forever]

You get the 5 hours with an instructor as part of your PPL.

However there is a big difference between passing the IFR flight test and actually being safe to go and fly IFR in IMC on your own.

[RonReynolds]

Sure but if the pilot was taking advantage of sub rule C and taking training from somebody meeting 421.21(9) other than an instructor then he/she would need the 15 hours plus the 5 hours as per sub rule A, and of course this can be part of PPL or even CPL.. its still going to work out to 20 hours of instruction/training.

I must say that you statement about not being safe is a bit troubling, How does one pass an IFR flight test and subsequently obtain the rating if they are not safe?

[trampbike]

I must say that you statement about not being safe is a bit troubling, How does one pass an IFR flight test and subsequently obtain the rating if they are not safe?

Just like everyone says about the PPL: it's a licence to learn. Getting the rating doesn't mean you are ready for all sorts of approach in all sorts of IMC conditions.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I must say that you statement about not being safe is a bit troubling, How does one pass an IFR flight test and subsequently obtain the rating if they are not safe?

Because you can take and pass your flight test, but have only ever seen 3 airports which you have gone to multiple times so you will have memorized every part of the approach until you can do them by rote, and while doing so; could have never seen the inside of a cloud.

Note I did not say you could not fly IFR, I said you were not safe to fly on your own. The typical IFR student will go to the right seat of a MEIFR airplane and learn the ins and outs of flying IFR in the real world under the watchful eye of the captain. A private operator, if they have any sense, will do a bunch of post flight test flying with an experienced mentor pilot to learn all the things you don't get taught in an IFR training program which is designed to pass the TC flight test, which is the industry standard.

[Colonel Sanders]

Agreed.

your statement about not being safe is a bit troubling, How does one pass an IFR flight test and subsequently obtain the rating if they are not safe?

I will assume you are not trolling, and I will
accept your statement above, at face value.

Every pilot needs to know that there is the
paper world, and the real world. The two
can be distressingly decoupled. One could
have an airplane (or a pilot) with perfect
paper that is extremely dangerous. Or one
could have an airplane (or a pilot) with no
paper that is perfectly safe (e.g. medical
or annual expired by one day).

Any pilot that does not understand the
above paragraph, should not act as PIC - ever.

A very nice young man - I helped him get
his instructor rating - came to me and said,

"Ok, I've got my instrument rating now, but
I've never seen the inside of a cloud. Will
you teach me real world IFR?"

And I helped the kid out. Actually by sending
him on to a retired airline pilot friend of mine,
who hand-flies his private aircraft (no auto-pilot)
and files IFR everywhere.

These cases of "paper pilots" are distressingly
common. As Trampbike points out, every licence
and rating is a licence to learn. Slowly.

But some people don't do that. Local to
me there is a notorious case of a doctor
with a Cessna, with a fresh instrument
rating, that was vectored to an ILS in IMC
and couldn't hack it. Lost control, killed
himself and his passenger. He had a perfectly
valid instrument rating. If that little lesson
doesn't illustrate the difference between
the paper world and the real world, I
don't know what will.

Flight training is often pretty rudimentary
and inefficient and often fails the student badly.

You're a CFI. What do you think about the
endless hours of training wasted on ab initio
students, teaching them simulated soft/short
field landings?

99% of newly minted PPL's have never flown
on grass or gravel. If they wish to venture
from a certified, paved runway, AFTER their
PPL they will require additional "real world"
training. I do a lot of that. I take great pleasure
in teaching new PPL's about landing on short
grass runways, some with obstacles, in both
nosewheel and tailwheel aircraft. They enjoy
it tremendously - no simulation.



All that time practicing soft/short field landings,
aimed at the flight test, wasted. Hell, I'm happy
if a fresh PPL can fly a normal and crosswind
approach, keeping the airspeed under control,
somewhere near the runway centerline.

Same thing with the instrument rating. I used
to teach them back in the '90's. A hold and two
approaches. That's the flight test. That gets you
the paper.

But in no way does it prepare you for the real
world. For those that are going to climb into
the right seat, it's not a big deal - the guy on
the left will teach them instrument flying.

Personally I think it's criminal for someone
to get an instrument rating without ever seeing
the inside of a cloud - and learning about icing
and Cb's - but I'm afraid what I think isn't very
important.

[RonReynolds]

You're a CFI. What do you think about the endless hours of training wasted on ab initio students, teaching them simulated soft/short field landings?

99% of newly minted PPL's have never flown on grass or gravel. If they wish to venture from a certified, paved runway, AFTER their PPL they will require additional "real world" training. I do a lot of that. I take great pleasure in teaching new PPL's about landing on short grass runways, some with obstacles, in both nosewheel and tailwheel aircraft. They enjoy it tremendously - no simulation.

All that time practicing soft/short field landings, aimed at the flight test, wasted. Hell, I'm happy if a fresh PPL can fly a normal and crosswind approach, keeping the airspeed under control, somewhere near the runway centerline.

Agreed, I'm with you it.....

is always best to give students the best real world training that you can. Although I can't speak to the training other schools provide, I guess I could but I'll refrain from specifics.....I've definitely seen poor training, incomplete training and of course over training (hard to thinks that even possible)

We are fortunate in Langley we have a grass runway which we use, its fairly small (both in width and length), and our main runway is also quite small at 2100'x75' which by necessity gives the students (and instructors) some great experience.

Some of long ago graduates have expanded those initial skills taught them and routinely land on the sand bars on the river, beaches, and local gravel strips. Not in our aircraft of course!

That being said I know some of the other local schools don't allow students to come into Langley, I suppose they will argue that it too risky.. risk over reward I guess.

[photofly]

Is that the same Langley where you're the CFI? And Pilot Examiner? It's not really clear from your post.

[RonReynolds]

Yes, The same Langley - CYNJ

[trampbike]

So you are the CFI, and you are an examiner for the same school?

I'm not familiar with the way the civilian FTUs operate, so feel free to explain like I was 5, but how can that work?

[RonReynolds]

So you are the CFI, and you are an examiner for the same school?

I'm not familiar with the way the civilian FTUs operate, so feel free to explain like I was 5, but how can that work?

Sure no problem, its not really all that uncommon many FTU's will have one or more P.E.'s on staff, depending on their size. The training staff will train the students, the senior instructor(s) will conduct a pre-flight test evaluation when required. Based on the outcome of the evaluation the student will receive a recommendation for a flight test or sent back for further training. When ready the candidate will then attempt the flight test with the PE.

The recommendation letter will be issued by the training instructor, if the recommending instructor is a class IV then that recommend will be counter signed by the supervising instructor (class I or class II). The supervising instructor would usually be the evaluationing instructor as well.

PEs are typically not permitted to test their own students, with two exceptions, 1. the student is evaluated by another instructor and that instructor actually becomes the recommending instructor... this method is somewhat common. and 2. by Special Permission of TC. this is rarely permitted.. If never heard of permission being granted.

The issue of the CFI being PE being a concern, from a conflict of interest point of view. I can see were this might be abused. But I'm not sure to what end somebody would do that for. You would have to be short sighted and very unprofessional..

hope that was helpful ? advise if I can be clearer

[Colonel Sanders]

No one can seriously argue that having a PE
with a financial conflict of interest is ethical.

You might argue that it is legal - "Hey, everyone
is doing it, so it's ok!" - but you might call up
Mike Duffy and ask him that question. He's
currently in serious trouble for some pretty
unethical behaviour.

Perhaps I am being quaint and idealistic, but
a PE must NOT be an owner or employee of
an FTU that he does flight tests at.

I don't see "conflict of interest" as being that
really a complicated concept.

With fewer "Santa Claus" examiners around,
we might see an improvement in the quality
of pilots in Canada, and that's pretty important.

The FAA watches it's designated pilot examiners
very, very closely.

At a small school, you get people wearing multiple
hats. Someone that is both CFI and PRM, for example
already has a built-in conflict of interest. But a pet PE
on staff is ludicrous.

[photofly]

Independent PE's have a more obvious and immediate conflict: if they don't pass enough students they're unlikely to top the list for future flight tests. At least if the PE is full time on staff, it's rather more burdensome for the school management to indicate its displeasure at the pass rate. Not impossible - granted - but in practice I think an on-staff PE can maintain standards much more easily than a pool of four or five freelance "independent" PEs who know that a reputation for easy passes are more likely to see them selected by candidates.

[Colonel Sanders]

PF: I think the logical extension of your position
is that everyone who has authority, shouldn't

I agree with you, though, that PE's should NOT
be allowed to charge for flight tests. Again, conflict
of interest. And they should NOT be on staff.

This might be a little idealistic, but I have a very
similar system with renewing my airshow card
every year. There are similar accusations of
"Santa Claus" and conflict of interest in this
arena, as you might imagine.

The guy that signed off my SAC card this year,
in addition to being the best aerobatic pilot in
the world (IMHO), also refuses to accept any
compensation for his evaluation services. No
conflict of interest.

That's what it's like, when you're dealing with
the finest.

[photofly]

PF: I think the logical extension of your position
is that everyone who has authority, shouldn't

I think the logical extension of your position is actually Communism! That nobody with a financial interest should make any kind of determination, and therefore only the state can be trusted to make the right decisions on behalf of its citizens. (All PEs must be TC employees.)

Secret left-wing leanings, Colonel? I'm shocked!

[Colonel Sanders]

I like to quote from Mao's "Little Red Book".

Such as: "The wise willow bends with the strong wind".

All PEs must be TC employees

I think you're onto something there. Here's a
suggestion:

PE's must be independent, and may not accept
any financial compensation for doing tests. In
return, TC pays them $50k contract per year.
No pension, no benefits, renewable on a yearly
basis. Candidates pay TC for the flight test.

That would make their loyalties pretty clear.

Examiners would get paid regardless. Tough
examiners would get more time off. Santa
Claus examiners would work more, for the
same pay.

[76Guy]

So, getting back to the original point of this thread.

You can theoretically log instrument Hood time while flying solo?

I am asking as this would be a groundbreaking way for guys and gals to gain instrument time when moving aircraft around solo, safely of course, and not having to spend $$$$ on the 20 ish hours of sim time to write the INRAT

[MOAB]

Hope I'm not cutting in here.

What if you are currently flying for a living. Strictly VFR but in aircraft with suitable instruments, can you then log hood time on an empty leg while solo and as long as its safe to do so (WX and terrain) and you are commiting 100% to flying on instruments?

[Colonel Sanders]

No.

Solo instrument time in VFR is a CAR 602.01 contravention.
You might also have a mid-air collision, which is terribly
loud, I am told.

Yeah, I know all about moonless night VFR with no horizon.
And flying over water. And haze. And snow.

You're VFR, not IFR, so you can't log instrument time solo.

[Pop n Fresh]

What's VFR, is it the "supposed to be looking outside one?"