I logged my 1032 hours of actual instrument when I was in the clouds. I did not log any of my 2028 hours of night as actual instrument (unless I was in a cloud at night), even if it was moonless, on top, no horizon, etc. I guess it is true that you have to fly on instruments in that case, but since I was using an autopilot anyway, I don't feel like I should. I've always used clouds/IMC as my actual instrument time. I'm IFR all of the time.

Side note: It was VMC today flying over Greenland. It was a beautiful site. Normally, I don't get to see it.

And what does it get you? If you fudge total time or multi engine time, maybe it'll get you a job. What good does fudging IFR time do? For the record, I've never fudged my logs for anything. I just can't see what having 98 hours of IFR time does when you only really have 85 hours of IFR time. The only thing it is good for is making you look rediculous when you are pathetic on the instruments.

more time looks better on a resume. hey, I'm not condoning it(and ALL of my time is clean), but I have learned that idealism just DOESN"T CUT IT in this society. i.e. do whatever it takes to get ahead

that 15 minutes to the airport and 15 minutes home again in your car in the fog, of course.

I think at my American Eagle (Wings West) interview in the '80's they were looking for about 10% of your total time to be your instrument time. This has already been mentioned and is probably a good guideline. Some will have less flying in VMC conditions in fair weather states or jobs (Grand Canyon tours, etc). Others will have more such as flying jobs in the Seattle area or NE U.S. I would not fudge your time if you have less than 10%. They (potential employer) will mainly see if you can fly on instruments in a simulator, so you better be able to do it no matter what actual time you have logged.

Right, I understand that part, but in order to fudge enough to actually look better on a resume, you have to make a SIGNIFICANT increase. 100 hrs vs. 85 hrs isn't enough to look much better on a resume. 500 hrs vs. 85 hrs does look better on a resume, but if you claim 500 hours of actual, you'd better fly like you have 500 hrs. of actual.

i see your point; my question is to the guy who logs .1 for every cloud? So, if you are going through a scattered layer on a hot summer day, you could easily have a one hour flight with 2 hours of IMC. That makes no sense. I think you meant .1 minimum if you go through a cloud period. right?

Not to change the subject, but I seriously know an individual who jumpseats on great lakes twice a week and logs that time(from the back seats). The kicker is that he is NOT even typed in the craft, nor has he ever flown a 1900. He justifies it that if an emergency ever happend and both pilots were incapacitated, he would be called on to save the ship. no joke!

In that case, I soloed a 747 when I was 12 years old!

That's the norm in the military, but it's a little over the top in the airline biz.