@Airborne_Again
gold plating: true indeed. but still French CAA requirement. So no need to fight it! accept it and move on.
You are correct: it could be done during an PC. but until then, can’t fly RNAV. If I want to enjoy the PBN privilege right now, i have to do a full IR check ride because outside the 3 months of renewal. It is not coming from me, but from the DGAC. common sense is no longer part of the French / European vocabulary.
Emmanuel
To update this thread:
Has anyone recently managed to use IMCR time towards the 50hrs requirement of the ICAO IR → “Euro” (UK or EASA) IR conversion?
@Noe posted above a few years ago that he did so successfully.
Also what evidence was asked for that it was IFR? Various claims float around that it required an IFR flight plan, which leads to the bizzare act of filing IFR FPs in UK Class G, at 2000/3000/4000/5000ft (IFR levels, hey) which generally validate anywhere.
Last I heard it is possible. As for the evidence – some create an extra column in the electronic logbook call “IFR XC” or just “IFR”, others just rename a column in the paper logbook. Or put it into the comments “IFR XC P1 – 2.3hr”.
Peter wrote:
Also what evidence was asked for that it was IFR? Various claims float around that it required an IFR flight plan
As I wrote in detail on my post regarding my IR conversion, the Dutch CAA indeed required flight plans to substantiate my hours. However this requirement was part of a document issued by the CAA to give guidance on how to resolve the discrepancy between the FAA and EASA methods of logging IFR time (“actual” & “simulated” vs time on an IFR flight plan). They allow either “actual” time or time on an IFR flight plan, but the latter must be substantiated by providing flight plans.
The original intention was to clear up what had previously (as far as I am told) been a bit of a luck of the draw, where the method for deciding how to apply credit would vary depending on who was doing the evaluation. The got it right for the most part, except for the flight plan bit. This created a bit of a headache for me, but I ultimately sorted it by submitting a combination of FAA flight plan forms and ForeFlight screen shots along with lots of explanation over email and phone.
My understanding is there are other CAAs (the Danish for example) who do not apply the flight plan requirement. But I don’t have first-hand experience with this.
As we have said here before, flying under instrument flight rules (THAT is the actual requirement, not being “under an IFR flightplan”) does not require a flightplan in the UK, but that is indeed an exception.
But even if the CAA insisted that “under instrument flight rules” equates to “under an IFR flightplan”, then the requirement to show flightplans for all these flights is still over the top. The official standard way of documenting and “proving” flights is the pilots logbook.
The Dutch CAA flight plan requirement was mentioned around here.
My son (UK PPL + 61.75 FAA PPL) is following the route of IMCR → FAA IR → EASA+UK IR and this is all very applicable. There are credits available at each step. The details of these are very complicated e.g. the IMCR credit towards the FAA IR depends on whether Part 61 or Part 141. The 50hrs IFR pic can be logged in the UK only using the IMCR, or outside the UK only using the FAA IR (because you don’t yet comply with the “dual papers” requirement at that point; see around here). The dual Euro IR is achieved by going to a dual approved FTO which knocks off a checkride in France.
I guess there is not going to be much input from the UK on UK CAA requirements for the 50hr IFR PIC acceptance, but I will suggest he chucks in an “I” flight plan for every solo post-IMCR flight, and flies it IAW IFR rules, and then it cannot be disputed.
The official standard way of documenting and “proving” flights is the pilots logbook.
I agree, but also logbook forgery is hardly unknown, where there is a strong incentive to do it to qualify for some license or rating. So protecting oneself from a CAA rearguard action on this, seems wise. Unfortunately SD cannot file “I” FPs but there is e.g. EuroFPL (which funnily enough SD uses for its FP filing). Or one could even use the Autorouter although that won’t file an FP which doesn’t validate via IFPS, and some UK Class G routes will not validate, or even be auto-routable (that last bit can be hacked by a manual route edit).
dutch_flyer wrote:
As I wrote in detail on my post regarding my IR conversion, the Dutch CAA indeed required flight plans to substantiate my hours. However this requirement was part of a document issued by the CAA to give guidance on how to resolve the discrepancy between the FAA and EASA methods of logging IFR time (“actual” & “simulated” vs time on an IFR flight plan). They allow either “actual” time or time on an IFR flight plan, but the latter must be substantiated by providing flight plans.
Does that also mean that Dutch authorities require an EASA license holder to show flight plans or equivalent documentation in order to act as IRI (800 hours of IFR). Or is the “IFR” column in EASA IR holders’ logbooks trusted at face value?
boscomantico wrote:
But even if the CAA insisted that “under instrument flight rules” equates to “under an IFR flightplan”, then the requirement to show flightplans for all these flights is still over the top. The official standard way of documenting and “proving” flights is the pilots logbook.
100% agree, which I also argued after they disputed my FAA flight plans. But as we all know, the rules don’t have to make sense to be applied nonetheless. So for anyone who actually plans to go down this route (I personally had no idea 20 years ago I’d be converting my license), it’s a good idea to know what documentation may be needed.
Peter wrote:
the IMCR credit towards the FAA IR depends on whether Part 61 or Part 141
I surprises me that one would even qualify for any kind of credit under 141, as the whole point of 141 is following a standardised curriculum—usually as part of a full ATP program. Part 61 exists to accommodate at-your-own-pace training, and I would assume this would be the route to take for obtaining a credit.
Peter wrote:
I will suggest he chucks in an “I” flight plan for every solo post-IMCR flight, and flies it IAW IFR rules, and then it cannot be disputed.
100% based on my experience! Then he’s covered.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Does that also mean that Dutch authorities require an EASA license holder to show flight plans or equivalent documentation in order to act as IRI (800 hours of IFR). Or is the “IFR” column in EASA IR holders’ logbooks trusted at face value?
Really good question! My guess is the two rule sets are not congruent.
Side question for UK, anyone knows why taxi time under IFR is never included in IFT time when talking about what counts for IMCR & CBIR in the eyes of UK IRE/CAA?
Some people tend to do IFT = airborne time – 10min (5min for departure & 5min for arrival) from VFR airfields, which probably make sense: it’s dodgy to fly in clouds or hood in ATZ with visual circuit or log IFR on ground taxi without clearance over there but I was really puzzled when that trick was pulled on me during re-validation Lydd/Southend/Lydd, it was not the entire block time ? I did not have a good explanation but I felt the examiner was referring to IFR time as BSRFI time, anyway I passed…
Meanwhile in France, I can log a large chunk of IFR time on ground while taxying, I personally got a record this summer of “IFR idle time”
Somebody might argue that the 50hrs IFR PIC probably needs to be airborne time, but I think that’s daft because the taxi was “with the intention of flying [IFR]”.
I’ve come across that before when I had a prop strike, in 2002, with an instructor in the RHS doing differences training. He claimed afterwards he was not “in charge” because it was just a taxi, while the insurance company argued that the taxi was for the purpose of a flight which I could not have legally done as PIC.
I surprises me that one would even qualify for any kind of credit under 141
This suggests up to 8:45 hrs can be credited. Not a lot.
The problem is that you can’t do Part 61 in the US as a visitor with the usual Visa and TSA stuff. That has to be done Part 141. However you could do training in Europe and then “finish off” in the US; that’s been done by many over the years. It’s a tricky area.
