Instrument time

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu May 12, 2005 8:47 pm

The only problems that we have with IFR versus VFR is it is usually far easier to fly IFR in Europe rather than VFR, especially in France.

The other problem is trying to understand the controllers when going from English to ,Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, German, Italian, Greek, Portuguese, Aribic, zulu, etc....Oh, I forgot in California ..Ebonics..

Cat

. . · Post by **. .** » Thu May 12, 2005 8:49 pm

if you're uncontolled ifr you still log instrument time if you're actual.

frog · Post by **frog** » Thu May 12, 2005 8:50 pm

Why is that Cat, (France)?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:02 pm

France has very complicated airspace with many military restricted and prohibited zones, it is not unusual to have four or five airspace restrictions piled on top of the other.

It is really tight for VFR corridors in Southern France , also when flying VFR you almost have to have the VFR GPS maps because you must use the GPS reporting points or you run the risk of getting violated.

Cat

frog · Post by **frog** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:12 pm

Well, a couple year ago I rented a 172 and I flew from Ales to Montpellier, than I followed the coast to Perpignan, gorgeous flight, I did find too much complicated airspaces. The weird part was to get used to the French phraseology!

But I can imagine that there is more complex airspace than this part of France...

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:16 pm

Frog :

Trust me, there is.

But France also has some awsome scenery that makes for interesting VFR.

Oh and the best food on earth.....

frog · Post by **frog** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:20 pm

The wine.....don't forget the wine Cat! Hips!

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu May 12, 2005 9:35 pm

Yeh, and all us Cats like the pussy over there.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Fri May 13, 2005 4:01 am

I dunno Cat...........They seem to like their pussy like their cheese. The stinkier the better.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Fri May 13, 2005 10:15 am

I have to agree with CD that the whole system is becoming idiotic but let's not forget the legalities. One must complete 6 hours of IFR, actual or simulated, 6 approaches to miniums every 6 months to remain current. The dreaded 6/6/6. If you log every IFR flight, log every time you shoot an approach, even if the wx is VFR and the autopilot does the flying, you are legally current. The only ones that will have a problem are those bush types who fly non IFR airplanes, but the employer should pay for sim time. Many years ago when I was a sprog pilot just starting out, a wise old American (I know that's an oxymoron) said the most dangerous thing to a pilots career are lawyers and accountants. Now if you log the time, how can a tort lawyer dispute the facts.

Wasn't Me · Post by **Wasn't Me** » Fri May 13, 2005 11:25 am

I'm sure it's been said - CARS says IMC not IFR. Having said that once you have the correct IMC time for an ATPL application why not just track the flights on IFR flight plan it's less work.

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:24 pm

Umm, actually it says neither IFR or IMC for the ATPL requirements. It says, and I quote directly from the CARs:

421.34(4)(d)
75 hours instrument flight time of which a maximum of 25 hours may have been acquired in approved instrument ground trainers and a maximum of 35 hours may have been acquired in helicopters. Instrument ground time shall not be applied toward the total 1500 hour flight time requirement.

So there you have it. No legal requirments require actual 'IMC' time. You can have an ATPL, and never have seen a cloud while in an aircraft.

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:26 pm

To further what I just said, I just found the definition of 'instrument time' in CARs 400.01(1):

"instrument time" means
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

(a) instrument ground time,

(b) actual instrument flight time, or

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

Check Pilot · Post by **Check Pilot** » Fri May 13, 2005 9:41 pm

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#400_01

Lost in Saigon · Post by **Lost in Saigon** » Fri May 13, 2005 11:33 pm

I have a few questions for you all...

When I am in the bunk sleeping, it is difficult for me to know what is going on outside the aircraft.

How do I log my "instrument" time with my eyes closed?

How much do I log with a three man crew?

How much do I log with a four man crew?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat May 14, 2005 8:21 am

and what do you do with your log when you are in the bunk with a female crew member?

split s · Post by **split s** » Sat May 14, 2005 11:25 am

I logged 1/2 of my time as IMC/IFR when flying a pressurized a/c and TC accepted it for the A license, now I could'nt care less and am to lazy to add it up anyway! What a grey area though!

fche · Post by **fche** » Mon May 16, 2005 7:38 am

endless wrote:If you're up at FL270 and ontop of a layer basking in the sun and blue sky for your entire enroute portion I still log this as actual. You don't have reference to the ground and therefore can't be legally VFR.

Never heard of VFR-over-the-top?

It's funny just what sort of contortions people are doing to log a little bit of extra instrument time. Of course, you can log whatever figures wiggle your wangle, as long as you don't try to claim those numbers to someone else who cares (like an insurance company, or a higher license/currency regulation).

I log actual in IMC; simulated if hooded or equivalent, neither in vanilla VMC. Having an IFR flight plan or clearance doesn't enter into it. This seems consistent with AIP LRA 3.7 and all the references in training books to "view-limiting devices".

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon May 16, 2005 8:14 am

" I log actual in IMC; simulated if hooded or equivalent, neither in vanilla VMC. Having an IFR flight plan or clearance doesn't enter into it. This seems consistent with AIP LRA 3.7 and all the references in training books to "view-limiting devices". "

There is no way I will wear a view limiting device on an instrument check ride.

Any check pilot who demands that I wear such an unorthodox device will not be flying with me on any check ride.

Cat

fche · Post by **fche** » Mon May 16, 2005 8:23 am

Cat Driver wrote:Any check pilot who demands that I wear such an unorthodox device will not be flying with me on any check ride.

I sympathize, and consider occasionally sufficient self-discipline as "equivalent" for logging purposes. However, these devices are hardly unorthodox (having been used for probably five decades), and their use is mandated for non-IMC IFR flight tests.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon May 16, 2005 8:42 am

" I sympathize, and consider occasionally sufficient self-discipline as "equivalent" for logging purposes. However, these devices are hardly unorthodox (having been used for probably five decades), and their use is mandated for non-IMC IFR flight tests. "

fche :

No need to sympathize with me fche, you may consider wearing a view limiting device as orthodox, but I personally do not wear one while flying in IMC for the simple reason that I am not a draft horse or some other animal that you have to limit their field of vision.

So in that I don't wear one when flying in IMC why in hell would I need one just because some check pilot wants me to?

and their use is mandated for non-IMC IFR flight tests. "

This must be a new rule because I did not wear one when doing my last type/ inst. check ride in the Toronto region with the TC Air Carrier Inspector ( or Business and whatever new flavour of the month they call themselves now. )

I have not used one of these beginner training devices so loved by the training industry for a long long time and consider them to be unorthodox and have every right to refuse to wear one because I will not be insulted by some wannabe check pilot..

But hey fill your boots and proudly wear one if you so desire.

Maybe, just maybe they would be handy in thunderstorms to shade your eyes from lightening.

Cat

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Mon May 16, 2005 9:44 am

fche wrote:
endless wrote:If you're up at FL270 and ontop of a layer basking in the sun and blue sky for your entire enroute portion I still log this as actual. You don't have reference to the ground and therefore can't be legally VFR.
Never heard of VFR-over-the-top?

I don't think you can go VFR OTT above FL180...It must be IFR. Why? Insufficient visual references and traffic separation requirement.

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Mon May 16, 2005 9:49 am

fche wrote: I sympathize, and consider occasionally sufficient self-discipline as "equivalent" for logging purposes. However, these devices are hardly unorthodox (having been used for probably five decades), and their use is mandated for non-IMC IFR flight tests.

I'm not sure if this is true. If you mean this line in the flight test standards:

The candiate will provide...
(d) an effective means of excluding outside visual reference to simulate instrument flight conditions, while maintaining a safe level of visibility for the examiner or safety pilot.

It doesn't specifically requiest a hood. By remaining on the instruments can be considered sufficient by some examiners. Although it does differ from examiner to examiner. It'd be quite hard to fly an accurate hold while looking outside, as well stay on any glideslope.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon May 16, 2005 10:06 am

R.S.C. as usual you are a voice of reason and sane thinking in these discussions.

I believe what you mean to say is there is a very big chasm between those who think in the ab-initio mindset as trainers and the reality of how these things really work in the real world of flying. This failure to grasp the issue is due either to inexperience or just plain incompetence and an inability to fly with reference to instruments with no outside clues, resulting in the fear complex. So naturally these pilots will think it is difficult.

You are correct that the use of a vision limiting device is at the whim of the pilot giving the check ride.

If a check pilot insisted that I wear one I would refuse to fly with him and just to make sure he did not lose the device I would shove it up his ass.

Cat

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Mon May 16, 2005 8:42 pm

Cat Driver wrote:R.S.C. as usual you are a voice of reason and sane thinking in these discussions.

Thanks that meansa a lot to me.

Instrument time

Here's the Link