Just read the latest IAOPA email and under the heading “Licence conversion delay?” there are the following words:
“….EASA has made a subtle changeItalic in its requirements for credits towards the new instrument flying qualifications – instead of IFR time, applicants are required to log ‘instrument flight time’, the time spent flying solely with reference to instruments. But over the years they have not been logging every minute they flew through a cloud. The difficulties of addressing this are compounded by the fact that in the UK, thousands of IMC rating holders log only ‘instrument flight time’ and cannot log any IFR time. So a simple reversion to IFR time is meaningless….”
And here i have been diligently logging IFR time as a new category in my logbook…(in addition the normal Instrument time) in preparation for the FAA to EASA IR…or does the “subtle rule change” only apply to ab initio IR applicants?
I only log ACTUAL or SIMULATED, not IFR time. So I guestimated the IFR time based on Actual and simulated x fudge factor. Anyway if actual or simulated > requirements then there should be no issue.
Anyway if actual or simulated > requirements then there should be no issue.
True…but I only got my FAA IR earlier this year. Since that time I have managed 67 hours “under the IFR” (not including any previous hours accumulated from flying with my IMC Rating) but only 10 hours of actual IMC in that time ….
If I count instrument time accumulated with my IMC rating then I’m OK…if that’s allowed…
So what about an non instrument qualified pilot, flying under VFR, using foggles/hood, with a safety pilot on board.
Does this simulated instrument time count? It would be quite ironic (and all too common) if in trying to close off what they believed to be a loophole, they opened a much bigger one :)
“….EASA has made a subtle changeItalic in its requirements for credits towards the new instrument flying qualifications – instead of IFR time, applicants are required to log ‘instrument flight time’, the time spent flying solely with reference to instruments.
This change, at this point in time would be laughable. It’s also worrisome for pilots from countries like Germany, where pilots tend to log only IFR time…
in the UK, thousands of IMC rating holders log only ‘instrument flight time’ and cannot log any IFR time.
Huh? Why not? IFR time means time flown under instrument flight rules, nothing more. Why can’t they do that?
I have some doubt that this news item about a “change” is correct.
I can find no other reference to it anywhere.
What I can find is the story posted here some while ago, and also shown on the PPL/IR web site, that said that there may be a delay in the requirement to have the EASA licences for 3rd Country Aircraft operation due to the possiblility of a Bilateral Agreement with the FAA on crew licensing.
‘instrument flight time’, the time spent flying solely with reference to instruments
I would assume that includes simulated time under a hood or foggles!? In 25 years of flying I have more time under the hood than actual IMC time (77 hours actual IMC). Actual IMC time is relatively rare in real world flying; typically it’s five minutes climbing through a layer and 5-10 minutes being vectored for the approach.
typically it’s five minutes climbing through a layer and 5-10 minutes being vectored for the approach.
Unless you live in Scotland! 
instead of IFR time, applicants are required to log ‘instrument flight time’, the time spent flying solely with reference to instruments
Is that’s true (no idea if it is) it would not surprise me, because it has for a long time been known that a UK JAR-FCL plain PPL holder could simply fly in accordance with instrument flight rules in VMC (in Class G, etc) and log it as IFR time.
It would then be up to the FTO training the CB IR to raise the obvious question about how he could have logged that IFR time, but the said pilot could bring a lawyer with him and (if he doesn’t mind shi**ing on his doorstep) enforce EASA FCL as it is written. It would certainly be financially worthwhile for somebody to try that; a lot cheaper than flying those hours under IFR.
I’ve wondered how “IFR time” could have got past the EASA committee. Reportedly it was the delegate from a certain country which prohibits IFR in Class G (and where the above procedure would be impossible) who went along with it.
IMHO, the original “instrument time” requirement was put in to prevent a lot of people doing a PPL/IR in the USA and then coming over here to convert, demolishing the European ATPL training machinery.
But what matters is Part-FCL as it has been passed into regulation, and that says hours under IFR, NOT “instrument flight time”. To change it would require a change in Part-FCL with all the Comitology, NPA, and consultation that went with the original review of Instrument Ratings.
I do not believe there has been such a change.
