Is it IFR or Instrument time? One senior examiner had a fair amount of time in Night VFR in a Tiger Moth, logged when UK night flying was under IFR, even though VFR. I think it went into his Applied IF Instructor Examiner ticket application form.
IMCR or IRR time can be in controlled airspace (D) and IFR, so requesting an extended hold at Norwich, or other quite D airspace, would apply, and save on approach fees. Even OCAS, if under IFR, and presumably on instruments, would qualify.
I tend to fill in instrument hours in the logbook on an IFR plan where I am actually in IMC. Also keep my ILS and Holds recorded for Uncle Sam. Unusually got a hold recently going into LEBL as another aircraft had declared a medical emergency. Spanish ATC scattered a bunch of arrivals into Holds, which surprised me – we were the first, which I get, but why half a dozen more?
AnthonyQ wrote:
however I asked the question because it was indicated in a subsequent post (Martin post #32) that he needed to log actual IMC time (10 more hours) as part of the requirement to step up to the full IR.
It’s up to 15 hours (25 out of 40 has to be dual hence up to 15) and it’s not a requirement – you can do e.g. 3 hours this way and that’s fine, it would count (there is a 30 hour cap for crediting).
Peter wrote:
I don’t think you can do that, Europe or USA
I’m fairly certain you can do it in the FAA-land. Even FAA had something about it, I might look around a bit.
Yes the FAA time logging option is kind of well known (btw I think the SIC scenario is for multi pilot aircraft, or for single pilot aircraft in circumstances requiring two pilots e.g. carriage of paying passengers in a turbojet aircraft) but the key Q is whether you can log PIC time required towards the issue of a license or a rating via the use of a “safety pilot” who isn’t an FI.
Peter wrote:
because in a single pilot aircraft there can be only one PIC
That is not true. Both in EASA and FAA lands it is possible to operate a single-pilot certified aeroplane as multi-pilot. And it appears that in FAA-land one such case where regulations require two pilots to operate an aircraft is during simulated instrument conditions. The safety pilot is required by law which makes it multi-pilot.
And even in EASA-land, it is possible for two pilots to log PIC, even in a single-pilot aeroplane. Those are SPIC and PICUS. AFAIK SPIC relates to integrated training (AIUI they need PIC time but can’t fly alone) and PICUS is a co-pilot acting as PIC being supervised – AFAIK the rule is that you can only log it as PIC time if you complete the flight without the supervisor having to intervene (that should go for both SPIC and PICUS).
Peter wrote:
But what is IFR?
In EASA-land, if the flight is entirely IFR (I flight plan), it’s block time of the flight. Generally, it’s the IFR portion of the flight (Y or Z flight plan). This is quite clear. And this is what EASA is generally interested in. However, there are exceptions where they’re interested in instrument flight time. Of course you could lie about it and they wouldn’t be able to verify it.
The issue is that different authorities require you to log it differently. I remember Australians getting wound up by people logging instrument flight time when George (the AP) did the flying saying only hand-flying counts. From what I gather, EASA is an exception in wanting IFR time, not instrument flight time. So when someone comes in, his logbook might contain useless numbers. Which might lead to some approximations for conversions (which doesn’t really seem right to me).
@RobertL18C It turns out that SERA allows simulated instrument flight conditions and a safety pilot is required by the regulation. It doesn’t answer the question of how would an NAA look at those hours, or how exactly is one supposed to log it (definitions in the aircrew regulation are a bit of a mess so it would require some clarification from EASA I think). But it seems this could work.
Martin wrote:
And this is what EASA is generally interested in. However, there are exceptions where they’re interested in instrument flight time
Which ones?
Airborne_Again wrote:
Which ones?
Outside of IR training where the required dual is instrument flight time, it would be crediting for CB-IR, experience for IRI(H), IRE(H), IRI(As) and IRE(As) and validation of foreign IR.
PS: I think they did crediting for CB-IR that way because the IR training is specified in IFT. It makes no sense to count IFR time at 1:1. Conversion is a different beast because that person went through training and got IR. They just forgot to update requirement for validation, they’re not proportionate at all.
I think all flight time required for the initial award of any “IR” has to be instrument time, not IFR time. It just so happens that mostly this is flown under the hood. But the instructor could choose to do it in IMC without a hood (which would be unusual in the industry, in some segments).
Martin wrote:
They just forgot to update requirement for validation, they’re not proportionate at all.
They also forgot to update the AMC defining the logbook format, which only has a column for logging “IFR” time, not “IMC”. Unless, of course, I have again only found an outdated version on the EASA website (which seems to be rather the norm than the exception). Otherwise I can only say hats off to EASA for sneaking in the requirement to log IMC time in such an inconspicuous manner. Here is the AMC defining the logbook:
Rwy20 wrote:
They also forgot to update the AMC defining the logbook format, which only has a column for logging “IFR” time, not “IMC”.
AIUI it’s missing by design (on purpose). You’re supposed to note it in the remarks column when appropriate AFAIK. However, that predates the CB-IR. So, perhaps they did forget. It can certainly catch someone out.
PS: That logbook certainly isn’t perfect. The SE/ ME columns should be used just to indicate which one (it says so in the instructions and it’s shown in the example), not to write time, yet there is a total row and the column in named SP Time. And the MP Time should also be used to indicate as per instructions, but the example has time in it (and the layout splits into two columns, presumably for hours and minutes, and it’s named MP Time). Who did this? I know they took it over from JAA (it used to be I think FCL 1.080), perhaps they made no adjustments, it’s still poor.
