DaPaul -
I presume you are actually referring to having about 35 Dual Received toward your instrument rating with about 32.6 simulated/actual instrument time. That gap is also presumably due to startup, taxi, runup, etc. time...??..
Anyway, although the following interpretations are taken from the FAQ Part 141 on the FAA website, they are not legally binding. But they may illustrative.[ QUOTE ]
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
14 CFR, PART 141
ARRANGED BY SECTION
MAINTAINED BY JOHN LYNCH
GENERAL AVIATION CERTIFICATION BRANCH, AFS-840
Contact: John D. Lynch, E-mail:
John.D.Lynch@faa.gov
QUESTION: Does the 35 hrs. of instrument training in Appendix C of Part 141 all have to be under actual or simulated instrument conditions?
Excluding the provisions for use of a flight simulator or an FTD, we believe the intent of the regulations is a total of 35 hours of instrument flight training, not 35 hrs. in actual/simulated instrument conditions.
As discussed, our syllabi, which have been widely used for over 20 years throughout the U.S., all specify 35 hrs. (as a minimum) for the instrument rating.
We suggest trying to differentiate between actual/simulated instrument training and practical instrument flight training would be unnecessarily burdensome for both the FAA and flight school operators.
The subject came up previously in connection with an AGATE combined Private/Instrument Syllabus that we developed for ERAU, Daytona Beach, FL. We are raising the issue again because a Part 141 School using our syllabi has been questioned by the Fresno FSDO.
Part 141, Appendix C, para 4 (a) (1) specifies 35 hours of instrument training.
Part 61, section 61.1 (b), (10) defines instrument training as “that time in which instrument training is received from an authorized instructor under actual or simulated instrument conditions.”
Part 141 Appendix C, para. 4 (d) further requires “flight training on approved areas of operation listed in this paragraph.” Included in the paragraph for flight training are areas of operation such as Preflight Preparation, Preflight Procedures, Air Traffic Control Clearances and Procedures, Emergency Procedures, and Postflight Procedures.
ANSWER: Ref. Part 141, Appendix C, para. 4(a)(1) and § 61.1(b)(10); I think the essence of your question is that you're really asking me whether all time performed in an instrument rating course counts as “instrument training” or just that time the student has the hood on. AFS-840's policy on this kind of question has been that we've essentially said as long as a student and the instructor is adhering to that school's part 141 approved instrument rating course's lesson plan/syllabi, the time will be considered “instrument training.” We're not going to expect the student and the instructor to carry a stop watch for starting and stopping the logging of “instrument training.”
An instructor or school would not need to break down the times between taxiing out with the hood off and then the very second the student puts the hood on, the clock for logging “ instrument training “ starts and then when the hood comes off, the clock stops and back and forth and back and forth of starting and stopping the logging of “ instrument training.” That is unreasonable to expect a flight instructor to use a stop watch approach for logging “instrument training.”
There is no rule that addresses what is the “start time” and “stop time” for logging “instrument training” in an instrument rating course.
{Q&A-411}
QUESTION: Concerning interpretation of 141 appendix C and the 35 hrs instrument training. Part 141 Appendix C (instrument Rating Course) states in 4(a)(1) that the course must consist of 35 hours of instrument training if the course is for an initial rating.
The definition of “instrument training” is per § 61.1: “The time in which instrument training is received from an authorized instructor under actual or simulated instrument conditions.”
Therefore an applicant for an instrument rating would have to have logged in excess of 35 total hours to obtain an instrument rating since not all of the flight lesson could be logged as :”instrument instruction”.
Jeppesen shows an example of a suggested course layout for an instrument rating and suggests that the entire lesson time could be logged as instrument training. This seems to be in conflict with the literal language of the FAR.
When a review of § 61.51(g) is done, it is apparent that instrument flight time is defined as flight time when a person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. It is my belief that when Jeppesen presented their example for completion of the instrument rating course in a table format that is misleading to the instructor and school and used it as a sales gimmick. See the attachment of the syllabus.
My Part 141 approved school thinks that because they must use a CFII for all of the instruction in a instrument rating course that they should be allowed to count all of the flight time as instrument instruction. However, the regulations do not allow any such definition.
Example: If the pilot taxies out for takeoff and does the engine run-up this time does not count toward the 35 hour instrument time? It should not because” #1. not flight time and #2. it was not done in simulated instrument flight conditions.
ANSWER: Ref. §1.1, § 61.51(g) and Part 141, Appendix C, para. 4(a)(1); In the scenario you have given, an instructor or school would not need to break down the times between taxiing out with the hood off and then the very second the student puts the hood on the clock for logging “instrument time” starts and then when the hood comes off, the clock stops and back and forth and back and forth.
However, we would not expect to have the student logging instrument flight time if the aircraft is having to taxi for 15 minutes to the run-up area at the airport. Then wait another 10 minutes to receive the ATC clearance because of all the radio traffic on ATC clearance delivery. At this point, the student goes through the normal instrument checklist procedures spelled out in the aircraft's flight manual which takes another 5 minutes to complete. And then because of further delays in receiving a takeoff clearance, there is another 15 minutes delay. Then after the student and instructor actually do takeoff, the student only flies for 20 minutes of actual “instrument flight time” with the hood on. And then because of the lengthy delays previously, the student and instructor have to return back to the airport so the instructor can meet his/her next student. And then on the return flight back to the airport, the student is flying without a view limiting device on for another 10 minutes. And then after landing, the student and instructor have to taxi to a holding area for another 10 minutes of waiting because of more ATC delays. And then when the instructor fills out the student's logbook, he tries to log the student with 1+20 hour of “instrument flight time.” That is not reasonable, nor is it acceptable under § 61.51(g). At best, that is only 0+25 minutes of “instrument flight time” [i.e. 0+20 minutes of actual “instrument flight time” with the hood on plus the 0+05 minutes for the instrument checklist] that is creditable to be logged as “instrument flight time.”
And even though I am tempted, I won't answer how much of the time should be charged to the student in aircraft rental and instructor time in a scenario like this. Hopefully, this situation doesn't happen often!
However, minimal amounts of time where the student is not wearing the view limiting device because of safety concerns in and around the airport because of air traffic safety concerns would be acceptable. And minimal amounts of time where the instructor is discussing an instrument procedure during the flight where the student momentarily removes the hood is acceptable. But since this is the first time this kind of question has ever come up, I am not going to try to define “start time” and “stop time” of “instrument flight time.” I don't believe there is a problem of our instructors and schools understanding what is “instrument flight time” and what isn't “instrument flight time.”
However, in the example above where I gave examples of lengthy delays where the student and the instructor were doing absolutely nothing that even remotely involved “instrument flight time,” I would only consider 0+25 minutes of that time creditable to be logged as instrument flight time.
{Q&A-408}
[/ QUOTE ]
