Actual IMC hours experience

[BorealOne]

Mostly because I can. Logten Pro is feature rich, so I simply set up a smart group to track it. As in the US, actual and simulated time plus approaches are what count for currency.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

I don't necessarily think that the FAF to MAP is more deserving as such....it just seemed less subject to question in terms of meeting currency...and I definitely agree that the skill level required to make a PT or a DME arc in IMC is much more than going straight down the hill.... so in future I probably will count such IMC in the approach but before the FAF as counting towards recency! Thanks for making me think more about it...

 

Sure. The FAA has been less than definitive on this issue so, for better or for worse, we're all left with some subjective interpretation. Personally I follow a "some portion of the published approach in a significant (whatever the heck that means) amount of actual"  rule of thumb for logging approaches in actual. 

[JohnB]

I am similar to Don Muncy.  1075 hours and 80 actual.  I tend to default to not looging time as actual, unless it actuallly is actual. 

I have experienced "night over the sea" conditions, and I logged it.  I am sure others have also.  I find it to be the most disorienting type of IMC there is.  In normal IMC there is at least the sense of movement through the clouds, as cloud material goes by.  In "night over sea" conditions there is nothing, absolutely nothing to relate to.  Nothing but inky, nonmoving black.

Totally agree, That inky non moving black you describe should be classified as Hard IMC, irrespective of weather. It is something I experienced in a rich, bowel enhancing event when flying over the desert within a year after I got my vfr ticket, (totally vfr legal, night CAVU.. then high clouds formed above with no stars, and gradually no lights below due to sparse population), this is what absolutely convinced me that I must immediately begin to get my IFR ticket to fly safely. Now, if that were to occur, no problem.

[yvesg]

Mostly because I can. Logten Pro is feature rich, so I simply set up a smart group to track it. As in the US, actual and simulated time plus approaches are what count for currency.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Please let me know about this: In USA, the currency requirement is that you need to have done 6 approaches in the last 6 months right?I do not believe that you have the requirement to have done 6 hours of instrument time (actual or simulated) in the last 6 months right?

Yves

[midlifeflyer]

Please let me know about this: In USA, the currency requirement is that you need to have done 6 approaches in the last 6 months right?I do not believe that you have the requirement to have done 6 hours of instrument time (actual or simulated) in the last 6 months right?

Yves

That is correct Yves. 6 approaches plus unspecified holds and a specific requirement to intercept and track courses based on navigation systems (don't ask) within the prior 6 calendar months. No requirement for a specific number of hours.

[yvesg]

Up here we have the six hours requirement which is a pain in the butt specially since we cannot fly in clouds 6 months per year. My Transport Canada delegated examiner tells me that all hours under IFR flight plan counts towards the 6 even if the regulations are not that clear and opinions I find around vary...I wish the regulations we have here would be aligned with you guys...if COPA could get off their duff and do something about this!

Yves

[midlifeflyer]

Up here we have the six hours requirement which is a pain in the butt specially since we cannot fly in clouds 6 months per year. My Transport Canada delegated examiner tells me that all hours under IFR flight plan counts towards the 6 even if the regulations are not that clear and opinions I find around vary...I wish the regulations we have here would be aligned with you guys...if COPA could get off their duff and do something about this!

Yves

Interesting. I took a quick look at the Canada regs and they don't look that different than the US ones before we dropped the 6 hours:

 

six hours of instrument time and completed six instrument approaches to the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions

 

And "instrument time" is defined as:

 

(a) instrument ground time,

(b ) actual instrument flight time, or

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

 

So, if those 6 hours need to be flight time, it sure sounds like it has to be in actual or simulated conditions.

 

Edit: Ah well, looks like there's no way to disable those stupid emoticons. Well, sort of is

[yvesg]

Interesting. I took a quick look at the Canada regs and they don't look that different than the US ones before we dropped the 6 hours:

 

six hours of instrument time and completed six instrument approaches to the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions

 

And "instrument time" is defined as:

 

(a) instrument ground time,

( actual instrument flight time, or

© simulated instrument flight time; (temps aux instrument)

 

So, if those 6 hours need to be flight time, it sure sounds like it has to be in actual or simulated conditions.

Do you guy recall the reason why the 6 hours was dropped in USA, and when? (I am looking for arguments here)

Yves

[carusoam]

There is definitely a sliding scale being used... From fresh out of the IFR check ride at one end, pros using these skills every work day, to PPs that can go weeks without flying in the IFR system....

I believe...

The logging of six hours of instrument time in a modern Mooney with a KAP150 doesn't maintain any valuable skill related to IFR decision making. Even in an M20C with an inop wing leveler.....?

It does make IFR currency financially outside the realm of many private pilots, even Mooney pilots. (This the part I remember)

Some skills rust pretty quickly, but that is probably not one of them. Maintaining the currency at high cost adding little value. Ultimately making IR flight too much of a burden.

What happens without instrument ratings? PP flights VFR into IMC....

This was probably one of the smarter government decisions related to private flying...

Let me know what value you all see in that part of the currency requirement?

Best regards,

-a-

[Andy95W]

Interesting. I took a quick look at the Canada regs and they don't look that different than the US ones before we dropped the 6 hours:

 

six hours of instrument time and completed six instrument approaches to the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions

 

And "instrument time" is defined as:

 

(a) instrument ground time,

(b ) actual instrument flight time, or

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

 

So, if those 6 hours need to be flight time, it sure sounds like it has to be in actual or simulated conditions.

 

Edit: Ah well, looks like there's no way to disable those stupid emoticons. Well, sort of is

What the heck is "Instrument ground time"? Is that some metric thing?

[yvesg]

What the heck is "Instrument ground time"? Is that some metric thing?

It is IFR in an approved flight simulator.

Simulators stay on the ground. ;-)

Yves

[phecksel]

Some skills rust pretty quickly, but that is probably not one of them. Maintaining the currency at high cost adding little value. Ultimately making IR flight too much of a burden.

 

I will respectively disagree with that statement.  I went from being able to sleep through an approach without leaving the doughnut to getting significant needle deflection in a few short months.

[carusoam]

PH,

I'm still on the side of less regulation is better...

If you can practice approaches and holds, then you probably have the six hours in a straight line covered?

Otherwise, the government will be able to demonstrate that the human brain is imperfect and we should no longer be able to fly in IMC.

Let me know if you can't hold the donut in a straight line for six hours after being able to do the more critical approaches.

Or, did I just misunderstand your logic?

Respectfully, I'm interested in your logic, I just don't understand demonstrating every possible IFR skill for hours, quarterly.

For me, (when current) I only flew between two airports... The same two non-precision approaches, over and over again... Mostly in daylight and dry weather. The approaches can be challenging with altitude requirements, but straight lines between VORs, not so much. Turn when you get to the VOR...

For the modern plane, the GPSS seems to cover most of what us pilots want to have as a skill set. The government doesn't say hand fly between VORs for hours. Or, does it?

The victor airway is pretty wide compared to my manual skill of holding the donut.

Maybe it's just my plane has electric rudder trim and a wing leveler,

-a-

[midlifeflyer]

Do you guy recall the reason why the 6 hours was dropped in USA, and when? (I am looking for arguments here)

Yves

 

It was dropped in the extensive Part 61 and 141 revision that went into effect in 1997. This is from the original 1995 FAA Proposed Rule in the Federal Register:

 

The revision in instrument currency requirements proposed here for aircraft other than gliders is based on a petition for rulemaking from Newton W. Miller, who advocates changing the requirements to emphasize instrument approaches and reduce the number of hours flown under simulated or actual instrument conditions to meet recency of experience requirements. The petition, summarized in the Federal Register on October 25, 1984 (49 FR 42943; Docket No. 24247), advocates decreasing the required flight hours to 2 or 3 hours (including at least 1 hour in the category of aircraft involved) and increasing the number of required approaches to 10 or 12. The petitioner argues that the 6 hours of simulated instrument flight may be flown largely in straight and level flight, which probably is relatively unchallenging to most instrument-rated pilots and does not significantly contribute to maintaining instrument proficiency. The petitioner also states that 6 hours is an economic burden to many pilots and encourages pilots ‘‘to fly while not legally current.'' The petitioner states that aircraft control combined with the complex demands of following approach plates and communicating with ATC are much more germane to IFR proficiency. Therefore, the petitioner states, the number of required approaches should be increased. The petitioner states that 10 or 12 approaches could be conducted in 2 hours of flight time. 

 

***

 

The petitioner raises an important issue in focusing on the quality of the time spent in instrument flight, especially simulated instrument flight although the FAA disagrees that the current regulation encourages pilots to disregard the FAR and fly illegally.  Therefore, the FAA proposes to revise the instrument recency of experience requirements.

 

 

[1964-M20E]

Well for me some of this is answered I  flew actual IMC for a portion of my flight to and from Orlando this weekend.

[phecksel]

C,

 

Maybe I misunderstood your post.  I personally experienced how fast approach skills would deteriorate.  If you're specifically referring to enroute skill, one shouldn't be flying IFR if they can't handle staying on an airway

[carusoam]

PH,

The discussion was for the enroute currency portion....

The US dropped it while keeping an updated version of approaches and holds.

Our European partners didn't get the luxury and were asking when and how the US could make so much sense...

As John points out above, logging some hours in flight will usually cover it. Especially if you fly weekly.

There are times because of seasonality and work schedule, pilots were forced to fly the additional hours just to maintain IFR currency.

This lead to many PP with IFR tickets that have not maintained currency going through extra hoops to get it back... It just gets more costly again followed by dropping out.

As a community, we can't afford to lose qualified pilots due to outdated regulations.

Best regards,

-a-