Incorrectly logging 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.

[digits_]

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.

He's got a valid point though.

The CARs definition:

instrument time means

(a) instrument ground time,

(b) actual instrument flight time, or

(c) simulated instrument flight time; (temps aux instruments)

The RAIM or TCCA policy documents might be more or less restrictive, and might work in a lot of cases, but in the end it's the CARs that are legally binding. So unless the definition is exactly the same (which it isn't), there will always be edge cases where the interpretation will be different.

[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.

He's got a valid point though.

The CARs definition:

instrument time means

(a) instrument ground time,

(b) actual instrument flight time, or

(c) simulated instrument flight time; (temps aux instruments)

The RAIM or TCCA policy documents might be more or less restrictive, and might work in a lot of cases, but in the end it's the CARs that are legally binding. So unless the definition is exactly the same (which it isn't), there will always be edge cases where the interpretation will be different.

ok we've seen that already, where is the TC definition of

"(b) actual instrument flight time".... where it says it has to be in IMC?

nowhere.

Sulako already went over this, why are pilots still confused?

On IFR flights in VMC, you should be tracking your route looking inside and using instruments, not by looking outside using landmarks and a VNC Chart.

That is actual instrument flight time.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you are IFR in IMC than you are unambiguously logging “actual instrument flight time”

If you are IFR in VFR conditions in low level busy airspace then you had better be looking out the window, so obviously you can’t do the whole flying solely by reference to the instruments.

It logically impossible for every minute of every IFR flight to be conducted flying solely by reference to the instrument.

The problem is the CAR is ambiguous, an issue that is sadly prevalent in the regulations. This ambiguity requires that the person evaluating your ATPL application is going to have to make some level of judgment call. The cleanest way for everyone is to just report IFR time in IMC conditions. Nobody is going to question this if it is about 10% of your IFR total.

You only need the CAR minimums, you don’t get any credit for any extra time

Bottom line IMO is it is reasonable that someone who is applying for the highest license available should have at least 75 hours inside a cloud.

[CaptDukeNukem]

I love how riled up we can get about obtaining 75 hours of instrument time In order to obtain an ATPL, then never logging instrument time again. Let’s Keep it going. I suggest buying a super expensive pilot watch that can co-reference your location in 3 dimensional space with actual weather in order to accurately depict how much TC cares whether you’re staring at your 6 pack instrument set and tachometer in actual IMC or flying under IFR rules.

[Turbofanprop]

I did that once at a company, frankly you logged it correctly, they worded it poorly

IFR is about flying on instrument flight rules, you can do that in clear blue and 22

Should have said actual or IMC

Probably the coder who wrote the software, or office worker who made the sheet didn’t know a olio from an elevator

Per flight safety international the average working instrument pilot has about 10% of their flight time IMC


Some more, some less depending on location, but if you’re at about 10% doubt it will raise any eyebrows

[OneYonge]

If you are IFR in IMC than you are unambiguously logging “actual instrument flight time”

If you are IFR in VFR conditions in low level busy airspace then you had better be looking out the window, so obviously you can’t do the whole flying solely by reference to the instruments.

It logically impossible for every minute of every IFR flight to be conducted flying solely by reference to the instrument.

The problem is the CAR is ambiguous, an issue that is sadly prevalent in the regulations. This ambiguity requires that the person evaluating your ATPL application is going to have to make some level of judgment call. The cleanest way for everyone is to just report IFR time in IMC conditions. Nobody is going to question this if it is about 10% of your IFR total.

You only need the CAR minimums, you don’t get any credit for any extra time

Bottom line IMO is it is reasonable that someone who is applying for the highest license available should have at least 75 hours inside a cloud.

Bro we already covered that exemption approaching at a busy airspace in VMC.

You're splitting hairs my friend! How many hours of your IFR flying would that situation be? Most of your IFR time is in cruise, therefore loggable.

Subtract the .1 or .2 for these busy VMC days if you want to be a dork....but TC does not care about this nit-picking.

[OneYonge]

I love how riled up we can get about obtaining 75 hours of instrument time In order to obtain an ATPL, then never logging instrument time again. Let’s Keep it going. I suggest buying a super expensive pilot watch that can co-reference your location in 3 dimensional space with actual weather in order to accurately depict how much TC cares whether you’re staring at your 6 pack instrument set and tachometer in actual IMC or flying under IFR rules.

Lol! If these dorks want the weather to dictate whether they are gaining experience flying by instruments or not, they can do so.

If someone wants to fly 750 hours of IFR in order to get 10% of 75 hrs. be my guest! Go ahead throw common sense out the window.

[ruffdeezy]

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.

Hi sulako
the AP manual has a typo
the correct definition is in the AIM

https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/file ... cess_e.pdf
page 364


to summarize - in IMC conditions while IFR, while practicing simulated instrument conditions hood in VMC conditions, on a simulator, FTSD

[digits_]

As a little addendum: for people flying privately, or those who are responsible for their own IFR currency, the 6/6/6 rule also requires you to gain 6 hour of 'instrument time'. The exact definition (or interpretation of the definition) might have a significant effect in those situations.

[BeetleClock27]

went into the TC office on a turn today and had a chat with a licensed officer, his words exactly were: if you fly for one of the major regionals then you spend most of your flying in class "A" which requires you to follow your instruments, a good estimate would be 90% of your AIR time" he was very specific to use the term AIR time which made sense cause ur not in IFR during taxi. so there ya have it folks official TC word is 90% air time. now it would be great if it said somewhere in the CARs which i brought up to him and he said yeah there's a huge grey area regarding this... i said a good amount of the CARs is in the grey area haha. ANYWAY SO 90% AIR TIME IS LOGGABLE