UdoR wrote:
Yes, so during training one (me) has to log total time, IFR time and “instrument time under instruction”, that is not equivalent to IMC time, but time airborne.
I learned something new. The German authority “LBA” issued NfL 2212-21 ( here in German ) where the NFL.050 is framed into german interpretation. They say that they override NFL.050 in that the EASA explicitely wanted the national authorities to issue their requirements.
In there the part of the instrument time under instruction is treated different. It is not necessary to log this time.
However, on the other side, it states explicitely on page 5 that IFR time is block time!
So….I am confused. If I could log block time as IFR time of course I would need several hours less for my training…if you can count every landing and taxi time that sums up to some hours over the course of 40 hours.
UdoR wrote:
In there the part of the instrument time under instruction is treated different. It is not necessary to log this time.However, on the other side, it states explicitely on page 5 that IFR time is block time!
So….I am confused. If I could log block time as IFR time of course I would need several hours less for my training…if you can count every landing and taxi time that sums up to some hours over the course of 40 hours.
IR training doesn’t have an IFR time requirement, it has an instrument time under instruction requirement. Indeed, part-FCL doesn’t require the student to log instrument time under instruction, but part-ORO does require the ATO to keep records of the students training time.
The short answer is: whatever the FTO (through which you are doing this) wants to see. One has to check this first. We’ve had various threads on acceptability of e.g. IMCR training towards the CB IR time.
The correct answer should be: IFR time is brakes off to brakes on, unless there are “obvious and subsequently verifiable” variations like a “Z” FP and a VFR departure and an IFR pickup after 50nm. And Instrument Time is time in IMC, or under the hood with an FI.
UdoR wrote:
So….I am confused. If I could log block time as IFR time of course I would need several hours less for my training…if you can count every landing and taxi time that sums up to some hours over the course of 40 hours.
‘Block time’ is ‘IFR time’: ask anyone who taxi C172 in LVP conditions or fly B747 for living
Once you hold an IR while flying IFR aircraft: you can log ‘Block time’ as ‘IFR time’ 
What is confusing is ‘ATO time’ or ‘NAA time’ that is accepted for ‘IFR training’? one deep reason for this is that EASA and some NAA wanted to leave some grey area: you can do ‘IFR training’ in ‘VFR aircraft’, in ‘VFR airfield’, with ‘VFR instructor’, on ‘ VFR clearance’, just put some view limiting devices in VMC
Requiring ‘IFR rules’ for ‘IFR training’ will disqualify 95% of the fleet (starting with VFR aircraft and other junk without GPS or database) and will disqualify load of instructors (many are without IRI.IRA/PBN), remember only 10h of CBIR require an IRI + IFR !
Ibra wrote:
remember only 10h of CBIR require an IRI + IFR
O.k. I’m doing all my training with an IRE, so definitely surpassing this by far
Peter wrote:
The short answer is: whatever the FTO (through which you are doing this) wants to see
Yes it boils down to this. They want the airborne time, of course.
UdoR wrote:
They want the airborne time, of course.
What you need is 40 Stunden Instrumentenflugzeit mit einem Lehrberechtigten (instrument time under instruction).
The NfL does not say that instrument time can only be airborne time. So what’s their point? What has to be logged according to the German NfL does not change the requirements for obtaining the IR as per Part-FCL.
Challenge them. With taxying, the usual briefings, nav setups, checklists and waiting for take off clearances, the difference in airborne time and block time can easily be 10 or 15%, equalling a couple thousand Euros over the course of the training. But then maybe you need more hours anyway? Which school is it?
