Graham wrote:
The problem is that (a) most people have never recorded the flight rules against the entries in their logbook, and (b) IFR OCAS in the UK is nothing but a state of mind. I’m flying along and suddenly I decide I’m IFR, and I am. 20 minutes later I decide to be VFR, and I am.
I actually DID record IFR time for precisely that reason. :)
Graham wrote:
All it requires is that my IR(R) was valid on the date of the flight and that the aircraft was approved for IFR (the TB10 which makes up at least half my logbook is approved), then I can declare any flight I like to have been IFR since there are no default flight rules, no rule that a logged flight is VFR unless noted otherwise at the time.
Plus you must have flown under IFR rules (MSA or above) and you should have squawked 2000 instead of 7000.
Graham wrote:
In reality if I’m showing this evidence to an ATO then they are going to raise their eyebrows at ‘IFR’ flights lasting 30-60 minutes, possibly between two small fields without instrument approaches on a summer weekend…
I showed that to an ATO and they said “OK”. I think that would be a problem that is (as Peter calls them) an ATPL/CPL “sausage machine”, any other CBIR shop would just confirm that the conditions were met (see above).
This topic has been much discussed over the years (any UK PPL can log IFR time in VMC just by flying at whole number FLs) but AFAIK nobody has reported getting this accepted by any FTO. If it had been accepted and somebody got their IR on the back of it, I would expect having heard about it.
and you should have squawked 2000 instead of 7000.
That is not written anywhere, and anyway even if it were thus it would not help because you will not get the radar data.
Peter wrote:
and you should have squawked 2000 instead of 7000.That is not written anywhere, and anyway even if it were thus it would not help because you will not get the radar data.
It is written in AIP, ENR 1.6:
2.2.1 Some Mode A codes are reserved internationally for special purposes and should be selected as follows:
…
e. Code 2000. When:
i. entering United Kingdom airspace from an adjacent region where the operation of transponders has not been required; or
ii. when operating within United Kingdom airspace in accordance with IFR and is either not receiving an ATS or has not received a specific instruction from ATS
concerning the setting of the transponder; or
iii. unless instructed otherwise by ATS, Mode S transponder equipped aircraft on the aerodrome surface when under tow, or parked and prior to selecting Off or
STBDY.
Also, 2.2.2 (Mode A Conspicuity Codes) says:
2.2.2.1.3 Types:
*7000 – VFR conspicuity code: when operating within United Kingdom airspace in accordance with VFR and have not received a specific instruction from ATS concerning the setting of the transponder.
*2000 – IFR conspicuity code: when operating within United Kingdom airspace in accordance with IFR and have not received a specific instruction from ATS concerning the setting of the transponder.
It is still pure conjecture because not setting 2000 does not mean you are not IFR.
You can also fly IFR in G non-TXP.
“should be selected”, not “must”
To Peter’s point about any PPL, I think to get it accepted for this purpose you realistically need to have an IR(R). Otherwise it is clearly an exploitation of a loophole.
arj1 wrote:
Plus you must have flown under IFR rules (MSA or above) and you should have squawked 2000 instead of 7000.
Sure, but there’s (realistically) no evidence of that and it won’t be in the log book entry. The parts I mentioned (having an IR(R) and the aircraft being IFR capable) can be checked up on, to a greater or lesser degree.
Graham wrote:
“should be selected”, not “must”
True, but that is an extra thing that can be challenged.
Graham wrote:
arj1 wrote: Plus you must have flown under IFR rules (MSA or above) and you should have squawked 2000 instead of 7000.Sure, but there’s (realistically) no evidence of that and it won’t be in the log book entry. The parts I mentioned (having an IR(R) and the aircraft being IFR capable) can be checked up on, to a greater or lesser degree.
Well, if you get a REALLY a$%l employee at CAA, they could check the radar logs.
Yes, I know it is a stretch, but do you want to risk it AFTER you have flown you skills test? :)
Graham wrote:
In reality if I’m showing this evidence to an ATO…
Once again, there is no requirement for an ATO to become involved. It is between the candidate, the examiner, and the CAA.
The BIR has a whole lot of weather restrictions. They seem unnecessarily complicated which is probably because they are a political compromise. Obviously, no one can enforce these rules outside of large airports for which there is a METAR service. Who in his right mind in EASA can honestly state yes, we did a good job by giving this set of rules to the GA pilot community?
Clipperstorch wrote:
Who in his right mind in EASA can honestly state yes, we did a good job by giving this set of rules to the GA pilot community?
It is not a bad rating but I agree with many here that if it was shifted from ATO + xAA examiner to DTO+school examiner, that would have actually made much more difference.
Quote
Once again, there is no requirement for an ATO to become involved. It is between the candidate, the examiner, and the CAA.
Where is this written? If true, surely many ATO websites are lying.
