Logging Simulated Instrument Time

[SkyHog]

Ok - how did you get your simulated instrument time for your instrument rating. Not after, just to get the experience required for the IR?

 

[poadeleted20]

There is no requirement for any simulated instrument time for the IR, but most foks do get the bulk if not all of the required instrument time under simulated instrument conditions.

 

[SCCutler]

Lordy, if I had waited for actual instrument time, I would have been a long time indeed getting the rating.

All of my simulated instrument time was with an instructor, which I found beneficial; my very first actual was on a stage check. I was all nervous and worried, but the stage check instructor was very cool and gave me one of the best pieces of advice I have gotten about instrument flying: "The airplane has an armrest, use it." Apparently, I was gripping the yoke a bit tightly!

When my regular instructor (who had been off that day) found out I did my stage check under actual, he was shocked. Asked, "How'd it go?" He was happier when he found out I did ok.

They're both flying jets now.

 

[SkykingC310]

You should add a Simulator to your poll. I used a sim for some of it. Most with an instructor while I was under the hood. Get another pilot to go with you and act as safety pilot. He's cheaper than a CFI.

 

[TMetzinger]

Since I was in a 141 course (so the GI bill would reimburse me) all the IR time was dual.

Depending on the sim and how it's "blessed" by the FSDO, an instructor may be REQUIRED to log sim inst time in one.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Depending on the sim and how it's "blessed" by the FSDO, an instructor may be REQUIRED to log sim inst time in one.

Every one that I know of is required to have an instructor.

 

[poadeleted20]

You should add a Simulator to your poll. I used a sim for some of it. Most with an instructor while I was under the hood. Get another pilot to go with you and act as safety pilot. He's cheaper than a CFI.

Flight simulation device (sims or FTD) time is included in simulated instrument time. See 14 CFR 61.51 paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (g)(4).

 

[poadeleted20]

Depending on the sim and how it's "blessed" by the FSDO, an instructor may be REQUIRED to log sim inst time in one.

An instrument-rated instructor (either CFI-I or IGI) is required to log time in any/every flight simulation device which is authorized for logging time -- no FSDO can authorize any flight school or other agency to do otherwise, nor does any device have any authorization to log time without an authorized instructor present.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hmmm...

I have 95.8 hours of simulated instrument time, and while I do have both CFII and with-safety-pilot (WSP? New acronym, anyone?) time, only 8.4 of it has been with a safety pilot. (Also 0.2 on my private checkride and 1.7 with my primary CFI - He was a II, does that count? haha)

It's also interesting to see where that WSP time came from: 0.5 on a DA40 demo flight (G1000! ), 4.0 with a guy who's in my club (but I wasn't yet in the club), 1.6 with two web-boarders (Moxie and Keith Caulk), and 1.6 with two guys who weren't CFI's at the time, but one ended up being the CFII I finished my instrument rating with, and the other is the CFI I'm using for my commercial. Crazy!

It was interesting to see my actual instrument time too: 1.9 actual before my private (which took a total of three months), 8.8 actual during my instrument training (two years, nine months), and 1.7 in the three weeks since I got the rating.

 

[TMetzinger]

An instrument-rated instructor (either CFI-I or IGI) is required to log time in any/every flight simulation device which is authorized for logging time -- no FSDO can authorize any flight school or other agency to do otherwise, nor does any device have any authorization to log time without an authorized instructor present.

Please quote the appropriate language from the FAR or ACs? And I assume an AGI qualifies as well.

You may well be right - however I saw a letter issued to a local FBO from the Baltimore FSDO authorizing them to use the GATT II unit (fully enclosed with three axes of motion) for various purposes. There was a table on the back saying what purposes it could be used for and what was required - and an instructor was not required for an instrument rated pilot to log time and approaches for meeting the currency requirements of part 61. I just went looking for it and can't find it at the moment - probably filed it somewhere or tossed it.

Now I was surprised to see that from the FSDO, since I had always thought things were as you described, but I asked, was told by the Chief CFI and the DE that it was correct, so I went along with it, and twice "reset my clock" by doing six approaches and a hold or two. Eventually they got rid of the unit and since then I'm using a safety pilot. I've had my logbooks reviewed a couple of times and there's never been an issue with the entries showing no dual and not having an instructor signature.

Anyway, I'm aware of the requirement for an instructor to log time spent in a sim for instruction or for a rating, but I'd love it if you could show me where it speaks about currency/proficiency.

 

[markb5900]

My simulated time was about 80% with with a CFII and 20% with a safety pilot while I was getting my rating. Since then it has been about 95% with a safety pilot and 5% with a CFI.
Since I didn't have the necessary 50 PIC XC time when I started training, me and my CFII would make every training flight at least 51 nm with an approach and landing there so I could get the most "bang for the buck".

Mark B.

 

[ScottM]

Ok - how did you get your simulated instrument time for your instrument rating. Not after, just to get the experience required for the IR?

Most of it was with the CFII while under the hood at night, I even did my check ride at night. I got very little actual during training since I never could fly when there were good IMC days to fly. I got all of my actual later and some of it with a CFII then as well.

Another question is how many people used a simulator when trying to get their IR? I still have zero sim time.

 

[poadeleted20]

Please quote the appropriate language from the FAR or ACs?

14 CFR 61.51(g)(4) A flight simulator or approved flight training device may be used by a person to log instrument time, provided an authorized instructor is present during the simulated flight.

And I assume an AGI qualifies as well.

For the moment, until the FAA fixes the error in 14 CFR 61.215(b) giving AGI's instrument training privileges without having been trained or certified in instrument areas.

You may well be right - however I saw a letter issued to a local FBO from the Baltimore FSDO authorizing them to use the GATT II unit (fully enclosed with three axes of motion) for various purposes. There was a table on the back saying what purposes it could be used for and what was required - and an instructor was not required for an instrument rated pilot to log time and approaches for meeting the currency requirements of part 61. I just went looking for it and can't find it at the moment - probably filed it somewhere or tossed it.

The Baltimore FSDO can't authorize waivers to 14 CFR 61.51, so I suspect you either misread it or the letter assumes compliance with 14 CFR 61.51(g)(4).

Now I was surprised to see that from the FSDO, since I had always thought things were as you described, but I asked, was told by the Chief CFI and the DE that it was correct, so I went along with it, and twice "reset my clock" by doing six approaches and a hold or two. Eventually they got rid of the unit and since then I'm using a safety pilot. I've had my logbooks reviewed a couple of times and there's never been an issue with the entries showing no dual and not having an instructor signature.

I'm checking on this with the Baltimore FSDO -- they ops guys are in a meeting, but I'll get this answered today.

Anyway, I'm aware of the requirement for an instructor to log time spent in a sim for instruction or for a rating, but I'd love it if you could show me where it speaks about currency/proficiency.

As you can see above, 14 CFR 61.51(g)(4) makes no distinction between instrument time logged for training and that for currency/proficiency. Also, I'd appreciate a note off-line with the name of the operation doing it this way so I can contact them and find out more about what the letter says.

 

[poadeleted20]

And now...the rest of the story...

Just got off the phone with AFS-800. Yes, you can log approaches, holding and tracking in an approved flight simulation device for the purpose of meeting instrument currency without an instructor present. However, you cannot log the time. IOW, all the time colums should be blank -- you fill in only the date, location, device type, approaches and remarks. The reason is that they consider the approaches to be "experience," and there is no longer a requirement for "time" in 61.57(c), so approaches in the FSD without an instructor are experience enough to meet that section, but 61.51(g)(4) prohibits logging instrument time in an FSD without an instructor present. This is documented in FAQ #649 in the no-longer-available-on-line Part 61 FAQ file which AFS-800 still uses internally to answer questions from FSDO's. Caveat: They have not run this past the Chief Counsel, so if someone asks the question of the legal eagles, the answer is subject to change.

Here's the full Q&A. Note that they do not say it's OK to log the time -- they confirmed verbally that it's not OK.

QUESTION: If I use an approved flight training device or flight simulator to accomplish the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks of § 61.57(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), do I need to have a Flight Instructor-Instrument or Instrument Ground Instructor present to sign off the instrument experience? I ask this question because of how § 61.1(b)(10) reads.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61,.51(g)(3)(ii) and § 61.57(c)(1); Provided the person is instrument current or is within the second 6‑month period [See § 61.57(d) for currency], the answer is no a person would not need to have a flight instructor or ground instructor present when accomplishing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/ tracking tasks of § 61.57(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) in an approved flight training device or flight simulator. Only when a person is required to submit to an instrument proficiency check must a flight instructor or ground instructor be present.

The rationale in my answer is that a person is not required to have a flight instructor or ground instructor present when performing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks in an aircraft. If the person is using a view limiting device (i.e. hood device) when performing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks in an aircraft, only a safety pilot is required to be present. If a person is performing approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks in an aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), it is permissible to log the tasks without a flight instructor being present.

Therefore, a person who is instrument current or is within the second 6‑month period [See § 61.57(d) for currency] need not have a flight instructor or ground instructor present when accomplishing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/ tracking tasks of § 61.57(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) in an approved flight training device or flight simulator.

 

[SkyHog]

Heh - funny. As soon as I posted this, I knew someone would point out that there is no requirement for "Simulated" instrument time.

I'm surprised to see that most people did all their time with a CFII. I haven't met anyone around here that has yet, unless I'm misunderstanding them.

 

[TMetzinger]

And now...the rest of the story...

<SNIP>

Therefore, a person who is instrument current or is within the second 6‑month period [See § 61.57(d) for currency] need not have a flight instructor or ground instructor present when accomplishing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/ tracking tasks of § 61.57(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) in an approved flight training device or flight simulator.

Wow.... It makes sense in a way, but also makes my head hurt wrapping it around the logic.

I can't remember if I logged the sim inst time or not, have to go look. Taking it out won't hurt anything, except I HATE changing logbook data in the paper logs.

The operation in question doesn't have the sim anymore, so they can remain anonymous - especially since they were right. The letter in question spoke about logging the approaches without an instructor, logging the sim time was my assumption, since I always logged time in past sim sessions, and couldn't figure out how you could log approaches without the sim time.

Thanks for looking deeper into this, Ron.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Another question is how many people used a simulator when trying to get their IR? I still have zero sim time.

I have a few sessions in a Frasca 141. It's tough. The saying "If you can do it in the sim, you can do it in the airplane" is very true. Without any tactile feedback, you've got to scan like mad.

Sims are also the only way you can get semi-realistic failed instrument indications without having an actual failure. Of course, when my CFII failed the HSI, I had to exclaim "That was subtle!" after a big honkin' orange "FAIL" (or might have been "VAC") flag dropped into view.

It's also very educational to be able to see your actual track and glideslope after an approach.

 

[TMetzinger]

A good sim is the best way to catch subtle instrument failures - like the flight director doesn't agree with the raw data, or a frozen static port, or a gyro going bad. Also good for practicing other emergencies (like engine-out right after rotation), assuming the sim is up to the task.

The GATTII had a motion base, and an instructor could put in motion cues that were not congruent with your flight path, inducing vertigo. I found it really helped me to develop the discipline to trust the scan, even when it dramatically disagreed with my internal gyros. I credit this experience with probably saving my life when I had an AI roll over on me in IMC in the middle of some strong mountain wave activity one day - I was sweating bullets keeping wings level using the TC and trying to maintain a reasonable closeness to assigned altitude with the airspeed varying as much as 50 knots as we passed through the up and downdrafts. I _really_ wanted to puke, but told ATC my situation, got a 2000' block of airspace, and focused on keeping the wings level and the airspeed under control, and was able to keep within 500' of my target. This lasted for the longest 5 minutes of my life until the cloud tops lowered and I was able to fly visually.

If you fly high-end GA airplanes, you can find folks who have good simulators and good curriculum to go with it - and this kind of training really increases your confidence and makes your insurance company happy as well.

 

[Steve]

When I got my instrument rating a group of us at the airport got with the CFII and rented an approved FTD and got our requisite 15 hrs (max. allowed with a simulator at the time) simulated instrument with the instructor present. Cheaper than renting the C152. I think we had the device on the field for a month and a half before we sent it back.