A Reddit thread from r/flying highlights a recurring point of confusion among instrument students using ForeFlight's electronic logbook: how to correctly categorize simulated instrument time logged in an Approved Aviation Training Device (AATD) such as a Frasca RTD. The original poster, training under an AATD covered by an FAA Letter of Authorization (LOA), correctly configured a simulator profile in ForeFlight identifying the device as an AATD. Despite this, the logged time was not appearing in the app's simulated instrument time report—a discrepancy that, if unresolved, could create problems when compiling logbook totals for a checkride or an insurance/currency review. The issue is almost certainly a data-entry or field-mapping problem rather than a regulatory one: ForeFlight requires that instrument time entered for a simulator be placed specifically in the "Simulated Instrument" field tied to that device profile, separate from generic "Ground Training Device" or "Actual Instrument" fields, and any mismatch between how the device is classified versus how the time is entered will cause it to be excluded from automated reports.
For working and student pilots alike, this kind of granular logbook accuracy matters far more than it might initially seem. FAR 61.51 and 61.65/61.129 governing instrument time and currency draw sharp distinctions between actual instrument time, simulated instrument time in an aircraft, and simulated instrument time in an AATD/BATD/FTD, each with different caps and applicability toward the instrument rating and IFR currency (61.57(c)). An electronic logbook that miscategorizes or fails to capture AATD time can understate a pilot's progress toward the 20-hour simulated/actual instrument time requirement for the instrument rating, or worse, create a paper trail that doesn't match what a DPE or FAA inspector expects to see during a practical test or ramp check. Flight schools and CFIIs increasingly rely on students self-logging in apps like ForeFlight as a secondary or even primary record, so software quirks that silently drop time from summary reports—while still technically present in the raw logbook entry—can lead to real confusion during stage checks or checkride prep if not caught early.
This also reflects a broader trend in aviation training: the proliferation of AATDs, BATDs, and FTDs as cost-effective alternatives to full aircraft time for instrument training, paired with growing reliance on app-based logbooks rather than paper. As flight schools deploy devices like the Frasca RTD, Redbird, and various FAA-approved simulators under LOAs, pilots need to understand not just the regulatory time limits associated with each device category, but also how their chosen logbook software translates device type, approach count, and instrument time into compliant totals. ForeFlight, Logbook Pro, and similar platforms have iterated their simulator/device profile logic over the years, but user error in field selection remains common, particularly for students who are simultaneously learning IFR procedures and logbook mechanics for the first time.
For CFIIs and DPEs, this underscores the value of periodically auditing student electronic logbooks against paper or instructor-endorsed records rather than assuming automated totals are correct. For students and low-time pilots, the practical takeaway is to cross-check that AATD time appears in the correct summary category before it accumulates over dozens of sim sessions, and to reach out to ForeFlight support or the flight school's chief instructor if totals don't reconcile—since discovering a systemic logging error only at the 40-hour mark, close to a checkride, is far more disruptive than catching it in the first few sessions.