Exactly justwork, only two groups worry about logging time.
TC for the issuance of a rating and or license.
Those who still find flying in cloud to be uncomfortable, difficult and intimidating.
Logging Instrument time real world
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Logging Instrument time real world
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Logging Instrument time real world
I have to add a comment here
This has to be one of the most misunderstood terms in navigation. "dead" reckoning derives from the term ded reckoning, referiing to deduced. It involves calculating the wind and true airspeed ,heading, groundspeed,, and ETA, and then flying it with the intention that you will arrive where you are supposed to. It was originally complemented with celestial navigation and some references to landmarks,
But a map on your knee and using landmarks is NOT dead reckoning. And using radio aids to navigate (including INS and GPS) is not dead reckoning. Without really thinking to hard about it , it has been many many years since we operated IFR using dead reckoned on routes between places like Yellowknife and Baker Lake, and even then we would use radio aid part way out, and the last way in, and had celsetial instruments for backup. Now , even small planes use GPS,I have a hard time believing anyone is using ded reckoning anywhere in Canada anymore, except as an inflight calculated backup.
Just being picky here, but so many want to post examples that are not relevant.
f you're filed, and not dead reckoning
This has to be one of the most misunderstood terms in navigation. "dead" reckoning derives from the term ded reckoning, referiing to deduced. It involves calculating the wind and true airspeed ,heading, groundspeed,, and ETA, and then flying it with the intention that you will arrive where you are supposed to. It was originally complemented with celestial navigation and some references to landmarks,
But a map on your knee and using landmarks is NOT dead reckoning. And using radio aids to navigate (including INS and GPS) is not dead reckoning. Without really thinking to hard about it , it has been many many years since we operated IFR using dead reckoned on routes between places like Yellowknife and Baker Lake, and even then we would use radio aid part way out, and the last way in, and had celsetial instruments for backup. Now , even small planes use GPS,I have a hard time believing anyone is using ded reckoning anywhere in Canada anymore, except as an inflight calculated backup.
Just being picky here, but so many want to post examples that are not relevant.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Re: Logging Instrument time real world
Well absolutely .! Everybody knows that once you enter cloud all bets are off - it's really just the true aviators that can make it safely to the ground...Cat Driver wrote:Can someone explain to me what the difference is between flying IFR in cloud and flying IFR outside of cloud?
This subject has always interested me especially when I read so much fixating on the logging flying in cloud thing.
Is there a danger involved in IFR in cloud that does not exist outside of cloud?
If you file IFR, log it. If TC has a problem with it, ask them why...IFR is IFR regardless of what's outside the windows... Why does everyone make it so complicated?
Re: Logging Instrument time real world
They make it complicated because, for the most part, they are trying to upgrade licenses to the "eh" license with the bare minimums. As a resut people are trying to both log PIC on the same flight by splitting hairs, logging ride arounds..You name it..Lets face it. If you are trying to upgrade and have 500 hours of filed time, I dont think TC is going to be to concerned. On the other hand, if you are trying to upgrade with .1 over the minimum, they might just want to have a closer look. In all fairness to TC, it has got to be a bit of a challange for them sometimes. I expect some of their inspectors would have some great stories if they could post here.
the whole license scam thing in India might result in a great deal of tightening up on some of the creative ways pilots are logging time.
the whole license scam thing in India might result in a great deal of tightening up on some of the creative ways pilots are logging time.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Re: Logging Instrument time real world
trey kule wrote:I have to add a comment here
f you're filed, and not dead reckoning
This has to be one of the most misunderstood terms in navigation. "dead" reckoning derives from the term ded reckoning, referiing to deduced. It involves calculating the wind and true airspeed ,heading, groundspeed,, and ETA, and then flying it with the intention that you will arrive where you are supposed to. It was originally complemented with celestial navigation and some references to landmarks,
But a map on your knee and using landmarks is NOT dead reckoning. And using radio aids to navigate (including INS and GPS) is not dead reckoning. Without really thinking to hard about it , it has been many many years since we operated IFR using dead reckoned on routes between places like Yellowknife and Baker Lake, and even then we would use radio aid part way out, and the last way in, and had celsetial instruments for backup. Now , even small planes use GPS,I have a hard time believing anyone is using ded reckoning anywhere in Canada anymore, except as an inflight calculated backup.
Just being picky here, but so many want to post examples that are not relevant.
Did you understand the gist of my post?
