So, I passed the ride two weeks ago, with about 45 hours simulated
instrument time and a precious 2.5 hours actual. I flew a couple
practice ILS's two days ago, after an "off-period" of less than two
weeks and already felt a bit rusty, though they went Ok (2nd definitely
better than the first). Oh, it was also an unfamiliar airplane, and I
was in the right seat, which I'd only done a handful of times before.

Anyway, the question I find floating around my head a lot now is just
how much instrument flying, sim or actual, do I need to do to stay
current? Of course I'm not talking about what the regs say - I know
what they say and I know that 6 approaches every 6 months is not likely
to keep me at a level of currency that I'm comfortable with.

I'm looking for input from you guys that have had your rating for awhile
and who do stay current and fly in IMC regularly. What does it take,
realistically, for you to feel proficient and safe flying and shooting
approaches in actual? If you don't get actual time, do you still
regularly practice approaches simulated with a safety pilot? As your
overall time increases, does it take somewhat less flying to maintain
that same level of comfortable currency?

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote:
> What does it take, realistically, for you to feel proficient and safe
> flying and shooting approaches in actual?

I have to practice at least once a month if I don't get any actual
"naturally." If the weather is down on the weekend, I usually take the
opportunity to fly approaches to the local airports for practice.

> If you don't get actual time, do you still regularly practice
> approaches simulated with a safety pilot?

Yes.

> As your overall time increases, does it take somewhat less flying to
> maintain that same level of comfortable currency?

Less than it did it first (5+ years ago) because I've become quite
comfortable with working the ATC IFR system. My scan and attitude
instrument flying skills still require pretty regular work, though.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
> I'm looking for input from you guys that have had your rating for awhile
> and who do stay current and fly in IMC regularly. What does it take,
> realistically, for you to feel proficient and safe flying and shooting
> approaches in actual? If you don't get actual time, do you still
> regularly practice approaches simulated with a safety pilot? As your
> overall time increases, does it take somewhat less flying to maintain
> that same level of comfortable currency?

I don't get as much actual, or stick time in general, as I'd like to
(especially in the winter). Realisticly, if I don't devote one flight a
month to hard-core instrument work (i.e 2-3 hours under the hood with 4 or
more approaches), I'm not keeping sharp enough. That's about 4x the legal
minimum. I also try to set off on longish trips sometimes, so I'm not just
flying the same approaches over and over.

I try to mix things up. One flight might be "VOR night", where I turn off
the GPS and fly everything with just 2 nav radios. My most recent flight
was devoted to exploring the new software upgrade we just got in the GPS
(LNAV/VNAV approaches, for example). I like to have my safety pilot throw
stuff at me (like inventing random holds). Train to a higher standard than
real life, so real life seems simple by comparison.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:18:02 GMT, Paul Folbrecht wrote:

Hi Paul,

> I'm looking for input from you guys that have had your rating for awhile
> and who do stay current and fly in IMC regularly. What does it take,
> realistically, for you to feel proficient and safe flying and shooting
> approaches in actual?

You will probably get answers all over the page, so responses will be
interesting! For me, if I dont' fly AT LEAST once every two weeks, I feel
rusty on approaches.

Looking at my logbook, this year, I have flown 5 flights in actual
conditions. 4 of the flights were local IFR to keep the rust off, and one
was a cross country IFR trip.

> regularly practice approaches simulated with a safety pilot?

YES, but not necessarily with a safety pilot so to speak. I know I will
maintain currency based on the regs, but I will fly practice ILS approaches
fully VFR in Class C airspace with NO hood.

I figure that tracking the localizer and glide slope VFR will keep me in
tune with the airplane so when IFR conditions come about, only difference
would be that I can't see outside. Something would be better then
nothing...

Since my own airport is uncontrolled, I would never do this without a
safety pilot since my head needs to be on a swivel OUTSIDE the cockpit
under VFR / MVFR conditions.

> overall time increases, does it take somewhat less flying to maintain
> that same level of comfortable currency?

For me, no, I need to keep practicing. and practicing. As you already
know, every approach is different with weather / winds the way it is.

In some ways, I wish I was based at an airport with an ILS, as I would love
to work my way downt to ILS minimums, but I only have a VOR alpa approach
back to my airport, so my personal minimums are 1000 foot ceilings. (100
feet above MDA).

Allen

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> So, I passed the ride two weeks ago, with about 45 hours simulated
> instrument time and a precious 2.5 hours actual. I flew a couple
> practice ILS's two days ago, after an "off-period" of less than two
> weeks and already felt a bit rusty, though they went Ok (2nd definitely
> better than the first). Oh, it was also an unfamiliar airplane, and I
> was in the right seat, which I'd only done a handful of times before.
>
> Anyway, the question I find floating around my head a lot now is just
> how much instrument flying, sim or actual, do I need to do to stay
> current? Of course I'm not talking about what the regs say - I know
> what they say and I know that 6 approaches every 6 months is not likely
> to keep me at a level of currency that I'm comfortable with.
>
> I'm looking for input from you guys that have had your rating for awhile
> and who do stay current and fly in IMC regularly. What does it take,
> realistically, for you to feel proficient and safe flying and shooting
> approaches in actual? If you don't get actual time, do you still
> regularly practice approaches simulated with a safety pilot? As your
> overall time increases, does it take somewhat less flying to maintain
> that same level of comfortable currency?
>

I found that as I gained experience, I found it easier to stay current
and took less effort. After taking a 4 year hiatus and returning just
recently to flying, I'm feeling again like you are now. A month or two
between approaches makes a lot of difference. When I was flying 100
hours a year, I could take a two month break and hardly notice it.


Matt

A related question:

When can you log an approach for purposes of currency? Obviously if you
fly an approach in IMC to minimums you can log it, and if you fly it in
VFR conditions all the way you can't. But where do you draw the line?
If it's VFR the whole way except for flying through one cloud for a
second or two after the IAF, is that a loggable approach?

rg

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm looking for input from you guys that have had your rating for awhile
> and who do stay current and fly in IMC regularly. What does it take,
> realistically, for you to feel proficient and safe flying and shooting
> approaches in actual? If you don't get actual time, do you still
> regularly practice approaches simulated with a safety pilot?

It's not too much of a problem out here during winter but I do practice
during the summer with a fully rigged FlyElite simulator. Winter, though, is
the slow season for my business.

> As your
> overall time increases, does it take somewhat less flying to maintain
> that same level of comfortable currency?

Just a bit, but the lags must be consistent without to long of a gap.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm looking for input from you guys that have had your rating for awhile
> > and who do stay current and fly in IMC regularly. What does it take,
> > realistically, for you to feel proficient and safe flying and shooting
> > approaches in actual? If you don't get actual time, do you still
> > regularly practice approaches simulated with a safety pilot?
>
> It's not too much of a problem out here during winter but I do practice
> during the summer with a fully rigged FlyElite simulator. Winter, though,
is
> the slow season for my business.
>
> > As your
> > overall time increases, does it take somewhat less flying to maintain
> > that same level of comfortable currency?
>
> Just a bit, but the lags must be consistent without to long of a gap.
>

I might add that 95% of all my flight plans are IFR regardless of weather or
altitude.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I found that as I gained experience, I found it easier to stay current
> and took less effort. After taking a 4 year hiatus and returning just
> recently to flying, I'm feeling again like you are now. A month or two
> between approaches makes a lot of difference. When I was flying 100
> hours a year, I could take a two month break and hardly notice it.

Damn!! I flew nearly 400 hours last year and find I get rusty if there's a
long period without AMC thrown in. And As I mentioned, nearly all my flight
plans are IFR.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> What does it take, realistically, for you to feel proficient and safe
> flying and shooting approaches in actual? If you don't get actual time,
> do you still regularly practice approaches simulated with a safety pilot?

I dislike flying under the hood--I don't find it to be very helpful.
Instead, I use my PC flight simulator at home to maintain proficiency. Even
though it doesn't count toward official currency, I find it much more useful
than "approved flight training devices", which do count officially (with CFI
supervision).

For official currency, I fly approaches in IMC. I don't get many of those in
the course of XC flying, so at least four times a year I try to go shoot a
few approaches on a good LIFR day. Between that, and the PC simulator, and
XC IMC flying (usually just with visual approaches), and filing IFR in VMC
to stay familiar with the ATC interaction, I manage to maintain both
official currency and actual proficiency.

--Gary

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I found that as I gained experience, I found it easier to stay current
>>and took less effort. After taking a 4 year hiatus and returning just
>>recently to flying, I'm feeling again like you are now. A month or two
>>between approaches makes a lot of difference. When I was flying 100
>>hours a year, I could take a two month break and hardly notice it.
>
>
> Damn!! I flew nearly 400 hours last year and find I get rusty if there's a
> long period without AMC thrown in. And As I mentioned, nearly all my flight
> plans are IFR.
>
>

Yes, IFR doesn't mean IMC. I was talking about IMC (the between
approaches) comment as flying IFR in VMC is trivial.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I found that as I gained experience, I found it easier to stay current
> >>and took less effort. After taking a 4 year hiatus and returning just
> >>recently to flying, I'm feeling again like you are now. A month or two
> >>between approaches makes a lot of difference. When I was flying 100
> >>hours a year, I could take a two month break and hardly notice it.
> >
> >
> > Damn!! I flew nearly 400 hours last year and find I get rusty if there's
a
> > long period without AMC thrown in. And As I mentioned, nearly all my
flight
> > plans are IFR.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, IFR doesn't mean IMC. I was talking about IMC (the between
> approaches) comment as flying IFR in VMC is trivial.
>
I file IFR to keep those skills sharp since letting them deteriorate would
make the time gaps for IMC even harder to handle. That way all I have to
concentrate on is my claustrophobia instead of adding the mechanical skills
to the mix. :~)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I found that as I gained experience, I found it easier to stay current
>>>>and took less effort. After taking a 4 year hiatus and returning just
>>>>recently to flying, I'm feeling again like you are now. A month or two
>>>>between approaches makes a lot of difference. When I was flying 100
>>>>hours a year, I could take a two month break and hardly notice it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Damn!! I flew nearly 400 hours last year and find I get rusty if there's
>
> a
>
>>>long period without AMC thrown in. And As I mentioned, nearly all my
>
> flight
>
>>>plans are IFR.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes, IFR doesn't mean IMC. I was talking about IMC (the between
>>approaches) comment as flying IFR in VMC is trivial.
>>
>
> I file IFR to keep those skills sharp since letting them deteriorate would
> make the time gaps for IMC even harder to handle. That way all I have to
> concentrate on is my claustrophobia instead of adding the mechanical skills
> to the mix. :~)

Yes, I do likewise, but I haven't found that my skills in talking
deteriorate all that fast... :-)


Matt

I've been flying over 30 years, and I have no problem staying current by FAA
standards. The problem I have with IFR currency is that when I fly my own
plane, it is just too easy to turn on that autopilot. Even though I fly
about 500 hours a year and dozens of actual IMC approaches, my hand-flying
skills are not what they should be. I have to force myself to hand-fly
enough approaches to stay safe even though that's not required by the FAA.
This usually amounts to two or three hand-flown approaches every three
months or so. That's not really enough to stay perfect, but it is enough,
coupled with the ones flown with the autopilot, to stay safe.

Russ


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> Anyway, the question I find floating around my head a lot now is just how
> much instrument flying, sim or actual, do I need to do to stay current?
> Of course I'm not talking about what the regs say - I know what they say
> and I know that 6 approaches every 6 months is not likely to keep me at a
> level of currency that I'm comfortable with.
>
> I'm looking for input from you guys that have had your rating for awhile
> and who do stay current and fly in IMC regularly. What does it take,
> realistically, for you to feel proficient and safe flying and shooting
> approaches in actual? If you don't get actual time, do you still
> regularly practice approaches simulated with a safety pilot? As your
> overall time increases, does it take somewhat less flying to maintain that
> same level of comfortable currency?
>

The regs say no. That's why many use hoods and safety pilots to keep
current.

Here in TN, we seem to get enough actual to stay current. That's not to say
I don't do recurrent training. The Beech Proficient Pilot program is great
for me.

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

You've gotten responses all over the map, so what's one more...

I fly about 20 hours of actual IMC a year, with a an approach or two
most months. All of this is hand-flown. Because I never turn on the
A/P in IMC, any shortcomings in proficiency are immediately obvious.
Also, I don't really feel like I'm getting enough IMC time to be giving
any away to the autopilot.

I find that this is enough to feel comfortable with the routine tasks
of flying IFR, but no reasonable amount would be enough to be
comfortable with the abnormals - engine failure, GPS failure, gyro
failure, etc. For that reason, I do recurrent training every 6-8
months, and this is typically 5-10 very intense hours.

I used to do more recurrent training (more frequently) but I find that
as the years and the hours accumulate, the skills take longer to
atrophy and less time to rebuild. I'm a firm believer in training to a
higher standard than the worst likely emergency because skills WILL
atrophy some. You probably won't be able to do it right out of the
gate, but you should be aiming for being able to do a night circling
NDB without moving map assist, partial panel, to a short obstructed
poorly lit runway. And if you're in a twin, you should do it single
engine.

My general recommendation is a 3-10 hour recurrent training cycle
(depending on the complexity of your airplane and its systems) on a
regular basis. I think every 6-8 weeks makes sense for a novice IFR
pilot. Once you accumulate your first 25 hours and 25 real approaches,
you can probably back that off to a 3 month cycle. At 50/50, a 6 month
cycle becomes reasonable. And once you pass 100, you will pretty much
know when you need it as long as you are flying IMC regularly. I find
that a year is still too long to go for me. I went 10 months once and
it was too long.

Michael

Victor J. Osborne, Jr. wrote:
> The regs say no. That's why many use hoods and safety pilots to keep
> current.

Which specific regs?

Hilton

Victor J. Osborne, Jr. wrote:
> The regs say no. That's why many use hoods and safety pilots to keep
> current.

Sure wish you'd include a little context from the posting you are replying to so
I'd have some idea what you are talking about. You can't depend on people seeing
the same sequence of postings that you see, and just backing up one posting. The
order of arrival of postings is server-dependent. Thanks.

In article <1108486843.338708@sj-nntpcache-5>, Dave Butler >
wrote:

> Victor J. Osborne, Jr. wrote:
> > The regs say no. That's why many use hoods and safety pilots to keep
> > current.
>
> Sure wish you'd include a little context from the posting you are replying to
> so
> I'd have some idea what you are talking about. You can't depend on people
> seeing
> the same sequence of postings that you see, and just backing up one posting.
> The
> order of arrival of postings is server-dependent. Thanks.

The original question was: under what circumstances can an approach be
logged for the purposes of maintaining IFR currency? Obviously if
you're under the hood with a safety pilot or in hard IMC to minimums you
can log it, and if you're in VMC without a hood you can't. But where is
the line?

rg

There is no requirement to fly an approach "in hard IMC to minimums".

The last thing I saw published by tthe FAA was that the approach had merely
to be "initiated" in IMC to be loggable.


"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1108486843.338708@sj-nntpcache-5>, Dave Butler >
> wrote:
>
> > Victor J. Osborne, Jr. wrote:
> > > The regs say no. That's why many use hoods and safety pilots to keep
> > > current.
> >
> > Sure wish you'd include a little context from the posting you are
replying to
> > so
> > I'd have some idea what you are talking about. You can't depend on
people
> > seeing
> > the same sequence of postings that you see, and just backing up one
posting.
> > The
> > order of arrival of postings is server-dependent. Thanks.
>
> The original question was: under what circumstances can an approach be
> logged for the purposes of maintaining IFR currency? Obviously if
> you're under the hood with a safety pilot or in hard IMC to minimums you
> can log it, and if you're in VMC without a hood you can't. But where is
> the line?
>
> rg

> The last thing I saw published by tthe FAA was that the approach had merely
> to be "initiated" in IMC to be loggable.

The last thing I saw (the FAQ) indicated that it had to be to minimus
(though I suppose any class of minimums would do). Where did you read
from the FAA that initiating an approach in IMC, and continuing
visually, is sufficient for legal purposes?

Jose

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:24:13 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> The last thing I saw published by tthe FAA was that the approach had merely
>> to be "initiated" in IMC to be loggable.
>
>The last thing I saw (the FAQ) indicated that it had to be to minimus
>(though I suppose any class of minimums would do). Where did you read
>from the FAA that initiating an approach in IMC, and continuing
>visually, is sufficient for legal purposes?
>
>Jose


What exactly is "the FAQ"?

I read it in a response to a question in the FAANews, a FAA
publication which may or may not still be in existence.

It was a while ago, but I have never read anything in the interim to
contradict that statement.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:38:41 GMT, wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:24:13 GMT, Jose >
>wrote:
>
>>> The last thing I saw published by tthe FAA was that the approach had merely
>>> to be "initiated" in IMC to be loggable.
>>
>>The last thing I saw (the FAQ) indicated that it had to be to minimus
>>(though I suppose any class of minimums would do). Where did you read
>>from the FAA that initiating an approach in IMC, and continuing
>>visually, is sufficient for legal purposes?
>>
>>Jose
>
>
>What exactly is "the FAQ"?
>
>I read it in a response to a question in the FAANews, a FAA
>publication which may or may not still be in existence.
>
>It was a while ago, but I have never read anything in the interim to
>contradict that statement.


That would be the FAAviation News, still around, apparently.

> That would be the FAAviation News, still around, apparently.

Do you recall what issue it is? Online it only goes back to 2000 or so.

> What exactly is "the FAQ"?

The FAA part 61 Faqs are located here (as a Word document):

http://www.firstgov.gov/fgsearch/resultstrack.jsp?sid=160386707&url=http://www.faa.gov/AVR/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc

The question about logging instrument approaches is answered on page
123, or you can search for the string:

QUESTION: As far as logging an approach in actual

Jose

In article >,
wrote:

> It's definitely there, but I want to research this further. It was
> exactly this interpretation that was initially given, and the
> FAAviation News Q&A response contradicted this interpretation, as it
> would mean that the only approaches that could be logged would be
> those where the pilot went missed. (If you are in hard actual at DA
> or MDA, after all, you probably aren't going to land.) However, thes
> FAQ is later than the issue if the FAAviation News that I read, I am
> almost certain.
>
> Yet, if my memory serves me correctly (it's been a while) this FAQ
> was issued right after a major revision to Part 61, and there were so
> many misinterpretations and errors in the FAQ that the FAQ was pretty
> much discredited as an authoritative source.
>
> Somebody correct me if I am wrong about this.

Well, at the top of the FAQ it gives this URL:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc

where there is a copy of what appears to be the same document with
actual revision data on it: REVISION #21, DATE: October 12, 2004.

Given that this document comes from the FAA web site and has a recent
date that seems to make it reasonably authoritative. Here's what it
says:

---

QUESTION: As far as logging an approach in actual, is there any
requirement (i.e. must it be in actual conditions beyond the final
approach fix)? Assume that the pilot was flying single-pilot IFR so he
couldn't simply put on the hood if he broke out?

ANSWER: 61.51(g)(1) and 61.57(c)(1)(i); Again the only place where it
defines logging "instrument flight time" means ". . . a person may log
instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the
aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . . ." As for logging an
"actual" approach, it would presume the approach to be to the conclusion
of the approach which would mean the pilot go down to the decision
height or to the minimum decent altitude, as appropriate. If what
you're asking is whether it is okay to fly to the FAF and break it off
and then log it as accomplishing an approach, the answer is no.

----

This sure sounds to me like you have to fly to minimums and still be in
IMC (and therefore fly the missed as well) before it's loggable.

Geez. If this is really true then I suspect there are an awful lot of
pilots out there who think they're current but really aren't.

rg

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> Well, at the top of the FAQ it gives this URL:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc
>
> where there is a copy of what appears to be the same document with
> actual revision data on it: REVISION #21, DATE: October 12, 2004.
>
> Given that this document comes from the FAA web site and has a recent
> date that seems to make it reasonably authoritative. Here's what it
> says:
>
> ---
>
> QUESTION: As far as logging an approach in actual, is there any
> requirement (i.e. must it be in actual conditions beyond the final
> approach fix)? Assume that the pilot was flying single-pilot IFR so he
> couldn't simply put on the hood if he broke out?
>
> ANSWER: 61.51(g)(1) and 61.57(c)(1)(i); Again the only place where it
> defines logging "instrument flight time" means ". . . a person may log
> instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the
> aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . . ." As for logging an
> "actual" approach, it would presume the approach to be to the conclusion
> of the approach which would mean the pilot go down to the decision
> height or to the minimum decent altitude, as appropriate. If what
> you're asking is whether it is okay to fly to the FAF and break it off
> and then log it as accomplishing an approach, the answer is no.
>
> ----
>
> This sure sounds to me like you have to fly to minimums and still be in
> IMC (and therefore fly the missed as well) before it's loggable.
>
> Geez. If this is really true then I suspect there are an awful lot of
> pilots out there who think they're current but really aren't.

Except notice that the answer doesn't actually address the question. The
answer says that a logged approach has to be flown to the DA or MDA. It does
not say whether the approach has to be in instrument conditions past the
FAF, which is what the question asked.

--Gary

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> That would be the FAAviation News, still around, apparently.
>
> Do you recall what issue it is? Online it only goes back to 2000 or so.
>

I haven't followed this entire thread, so pardon me if this is redundant:

> FAAviation News , July-Aug 1990.
>
> "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC,
> you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the
> altitude at which you break out of the clouds"

Someone posted that a few years ago. I don't have the original document.

Stan

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:09:26 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote:
>
>>Except notice that the answer doesn't actually address the question. The
>>answer says that a logged approach has to be flown to the DA or MDA. It
>>does
>>not say whether the approach has to be in instrument conditions past the
>>FAF, which is what the question asked.
>>
>>--Gary
>
> Except we are talking "actual" approaches, so the implication is
> that's it's actual all the way.

Hm, I don't see how that can be the implication when the question explicitly
*asks* if it has to be actual all the way ("must it be in actual conditions
beyond the final approach fix?"), and the FAA's response is "If what you're
asking is whether it is okay to fly to the FAF and break it off...", which
is not at all what was asked.

--Gary

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> The original question was: under what circumstances can an approach be
> logged for the purposes of maintaining IFR currency? Obviously if
> you're under the hood with a safety pilot or in hard IMC to minimums you
> can log it, and if you're in VMC without a hood you can't. But where is
> the line?
>

I'd log the approaches that were necessary to complete the flight. If
there's solid cloud at or below the MIA/MVA an approach is necessary to
reach the destination, even if the field is VMC.

I'd agree. This pretty much follows the "FAAviation News" rule.

If you initiate an approach in IMC, it's loggable.

Once I pass the IAF, or receive the first approach vector, if I am
IMC, it gets logged.


On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:08:10 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The original question was: under what circumstances can an approach be
>> logged for the purposes of maintaining IFR currency? Obviously if
>> you're under the hood with a safety pilot or in hard IMC to minimums you
>> can log it, and if you're in VMC without a hood you can't. But where is
>> the line?
>>
>
>I'd log the approaches that were necessary to complete the flight. If
>there's solid cloud at or below the MIA/MVA an approach is necessary to
>reach the destination, even if the field is VMC.
>

>> FAAviation News , July-Aug 1990.
>>
>> "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC,
>> you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the
>> altitude at which you break out of the clouds"

Yes, I remember seeing that quote. The FAQ is more recent and appears
to contradict it. But as noted further down thread, the FAA didn't
answer the question directly. It seems it never does. A question seems
to be just an opportunity for the FAA to talk, sort of randomly. :/

Jose

Jose > wrote:
> the FAA didn't answer the question directly. It seems it never
> does. A question seems to be just an opportunity for the FAA to
> talk, sort of randomly. :/

Sounds like some of the people who hang out on this newsgroup. :-)

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>>> FAAviation News , July-Aug 1990.
>>>
>>> "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC,
>>> you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the
>>> altitude at which you break out of the clouds"
>
> Yes, I remember seeing that quote. The FAQ is more recent and appears to
> contradict it. But as noted further down thread, the FAA didn't answer
> the question directly. It seems it never does. A question seems to be
> just an opportunity for the FAA to talk, sort of randomly. :/

It may not be entirely random in this case. If you look at the wording, it
appears that the FAA may simply have confused "breaking out" at the FAF
(which is what the question addressed) with "breaking off" at the FAF (which
is what the answer addressed).

--Gary

> If you look at the wording, it
> appears that the FAA may simply have confused "breaking out" at the FAF
> (which is what the question addressed) with "breaking off" at the FAF (which
> is what the answer addressed).

Well, that's a pretty big oversight considering they are flying a desk
while they are doing it.

Jose

Confusion?

FAA?

In the same sentence?

Come on...


On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:59:29 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>>>> FAAviation News , July-Aug 1990.
>>>>
>>>> "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC,
>>>> you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the
>>>> altitude at which you break out of the clouds"
>>
>> Yes, I remember seeing that quote. The FAQ is more recent and appears to
>> contradict it. But as noted further down thread, the FAA didn't answer
>> the question directly. It seems it never does. A question seems to be
>> just an opportunity for the FAA to talk, sort of randomly. :/
>
>It may not be entirely random in this case. If you look at the wording, it
>appears that the FAA may simply have confused "breaking out" at the FAF
>(which is what the question addressed) with "breaking off" at the FAF (which
>is what the answer addressed).
>
>--Gary
>

Just joking here, and immediate apologies to the several FAA guys who
respond to the multitude of questions in this group, and to whom I
feel personally indebted for enlightening me on many and sundry
issues.

(This even goes for Steve...)




On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:26:16 GMT, wrote:

>Confusion?
>
>FAA?
>
>In the same sentence?
>
>Come on...
>
>
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:59:29 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:
>
>>"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> FAAviation News , July-Aug 1990.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC,
>>>>> you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the
>>>>> altitude at which you break out of the clouds"
>>>
>>> Yes, I remember seeing that quote. The FAQ is more recent and appears to
>>> contradict it. But as noted further down thread, the FAA didn't answer
>>> the question directly. It seems it never does. A question seems to be
>>> just an opportunity for the FAA to talk, sort of randomly. :/
>>
>>It may not be entirely random in this case. If you look at the wording, it
>>appears that the FAA may simply have confused "breaking out" at the FAF
>>(which is what the question addressed) with "breaking off" at the FAF (which
>>is what the answer addressed).
>>
>>--Gary
>>

> wrote in message
...
>
> Just joking here, and immediate apologies to the several FAA guys who
> respond to the multitude of questions in this group, and to whom I
> feel personally indebted for enlightening me on many and sundry
> issues.
>

There are many in the FAA confused about aviation matters.

Jose > wrote in
:

> Well, that's a pretty big oversight considering they are flying a desk
> while they are doing it.

Yes, but not an unusual one. Any competence in FAA management causes
surprise, if not shock.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

I prefer to send bare replies rather than include the orig. post. I seem to
spend all of my time scrolling down to the bottom of a lengthy post.

I had no idea someone would not have the reply post in hand or right above.

Perhaps I'll look at including the orig. post IF it's small.

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

That's what I do and think it is supported by the regs. I don't have anyone
in the right seat telling me otherwise.

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.



> "Ron Garret"
>> The original question was: under what circumstances can an approach be
>> logged for the purposes of maintaining IFR currency? Obviously if
>> you're under the hood with a safety pilot or in hard IMC to minimums you
>> can log it, and if you're in VMC without a hood you can't. But where is
>> the line?
>>

>I'd log the approaches that were necessary to complete the flight. If
>there's solid cloud at or below the MIA/MVA an approach is necessary to
>reach the destination, even if the field is VMC.

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." > wrote in message
...
>I prefer to send bare replies rather than include the orig. post. I seem
>to spend all of my time scrolling down to the bottom of a lengthy post.
>
> I had no idea someone would not have the reply post in hand or right
> above.
>
> Perhaps I'll look at including the orig. post IF it's small.

The problem with relying on the 'reply post in hand or right above', is that
posts travel the net from server to server along different paths. The
order in which they arrive at your server is not necessarily the order in
which they arrive at any other server. The order in which your response,
similarly, arrives at the other servers can vary from server to server.
The order of posts is indeterminate in the general case. The message to
which you are responding may well arrive at some servers *after* the
response, might not have arrived yet, or might never arrive at all.

News clients similarly affect the observed context - some clients deal with
threads better than others, Some people prefer to display their messages in
strict chronological order (in whatever terms that means for their server),
and the message 'right-above' might be way above, or way below whereas some
attempt to do so in a thread-context. Other responses to the original post
may well intervene. Some users also (me, for instance) turn on the "don't
display messages already read" feature - which also means that if I did see
the original post, it's likely no longer visible in my client.

As you note for yourself, however, NObody wants to have to scroll down to
the end of a lengthy post to read the response. Usenet protocol is to
cite JUST those portions of the post(s) to which you are responding,
sufficient to convey the context of your response - but NOT usually the
entire previous post or thread-to-date. (There's a lively debate about
top/bottom/interspersed posting with regard to such responses, but that's
another matter.)

I think that you guys are missreading the regs big time.

I think that any IFR approach is logable, not only the IMC ones. For
example, the Contact approach is a perfect IFR approach and from legal
perspective should satisfy the requirements for a IFR approach.





"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." > wrote in message >...
> That's what I do and think it is supported by the regs. I don't have anyone
> in the right seat telling me otherwise.
>
> Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
>
>
>
> > "Ron Garret"
> >> The original question was: under what circumstances can an approach be
> >> logged for the purposes of maintaining IFR currency? Obviously if
> >> you're under the hood with a safety pilot or in hard IMC to minimums you
> >> can log it, and if you're in VMC without a hood you can't. But where is
> >> the line?
> >>
>
> >I'd log the approaches that were necessary to complete the flight. If
> >there's solid cloud at or below the MIA/MVA an approach is necessary to
> >reach the destination, even if the field is VMC.

iFly > wrote:
>I think that any IFR approach is logable, not only the IMC ones. For
>example, the Contact approach is a perfect IFR approach and from legal
>perspective should satisfy the requirements for a IFR approach.

You can certainly log contact approaches if it turns you on to keep
track of them. But, a contact approach is not an "instrument
approach", and it's not conducted under "actual or simulated
instrument conditions". Therefore, it doesn't count towards the IFR
currency requirements of 14 CFR 61.57(c)(1)(i).

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> You can certainly log contact approaches if it turns you on to keep
> track of them. But, a contact approach is not an "instrument
> approach", and it's not conducted under "actual or simulated
> instrument conditions". Therefore, it doesn't count towards the IFR
> currency requirements of 14 CFR 61.57(c)(1)(i).
>

Conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR are actual instrument
conditions.

(iFly) wrote

> I think that any IFR approach is logable, not only the IMC ones. For
> example, the Contact approach is a perfect IFR approach and from legal
> perspective should satisfy the requirements for a IFR approach.

IFR is not a type of approach. Types of approaches that may be
conducted while operating under an IFR flight plan include....
Instrument, Visual, and Contact. You have your terminology
confused. The regulation requires the logging of "instrument"
approaches.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII

Bob Moore > wrote in message >...
> (iFly) wrote
>
> > I think that any IFR approach is logable, not only the IMC ones. For
> > example, the Contact approach is a perfect IFR approach and from legal
> > perspective should satisfy the requirements for a IFR approach.
>
> IFR is not a type of approach. Types of approaches that may be
> conducted while operating under an IFR flight plan include....
> Instrument, Visual, and Contact. You have your terminology
> confused. The regulation requires the logging of "instrument"
> approaches.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP CFII

Bob Moore, please read carefully what I wrote - I did not say that IFR
is a type of instrument apporach. I used the terms IFR and
Instrument[Flight Rules] interchengeably in this context.

There are a number of defined instrument approach types - Visual and
Contact approaches are just two of these types. They are Instrument
approaches, don't get this wrong and dont get confused by the fact
that they are not nesseserily executed in IMC.

The use of these types of Instrument approaches have been discussed in
the IFR Magazine, if you guys read it - and I am not punting that
magazine here...

> I think that any IFR approach is logable

While true (you can log anything you want), if you used approaches that
were completed unhooded in visual conditions (that is, not solely by
reference to instruments) to count for instrument currency, and then
flew IFR or IMC without sufficient actual instrument currency, and if I
were the FAA, I'd use the "careless or reckless" clause to charge you if
necessary. The whole point of instrument currency is to have recent
experience flying =solely= by reference to instruments.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

(iFly) wrote

> Bob Moore, please read carefully what I wrote - I did not
> say that IFR is a type of instrument apporach. I used the
> terms IFR and Instrument[Flight Rules] interchengeably
> in this context.
>
> There are a number of defined instrument approach types - Visual and
> Contact approaches are just two of these types. They are Instrument
> approaches, don't get this wrong and dont get confused by the fact
> that they are not nesseserily executed in IMC.
>
> The use of these types of Instrument approaches have been discussed in
> the IFR Magazine, if you guys read it - and I am not punting that
> magazine here...

I have just noticed the ".za" in your address, so our terminology
might be somewhat different...however our FAA AIM does not define
"Visual" and "Contact" as types of instrument approaches. I have
quoted the appropriate AIM sections below.
In addition...you cannot use "IFR' and "Instrument" interchangeably,
you did not include the brackets [Flight Rules] in your original post.
Visual and Instrument are two different means of directing the flight
path of an aircraft.


AIM 5-4-7. Instrument Approach Procedures
d. At times ATC may not specify a particular approach procedure in
the clearance, but will state "CLEARED APPROACH." Such clearance
indicates that the pilot may execute any one of the authorized IAPs
for that airport. This clearance does not constitute approval for
the pilot to execute a contact approach or a visual approach.
------------------------------------------------------------------
5-4-21. Visual Approach
a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes
a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The
pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft
in sight.
This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate
air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have
a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater.
ATC may authorize this type approach when it will be operationally
beneficial. Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR
in visual meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of
14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation
specifications.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5-4-23. Contact Approach
c. A contact approach is an approach procedure that may be used by a
pilot (with prior authorization from ATC) in lieu of conducting a
standard or special IAP to an airport. It is not intended for use by
a pilot on an IFR flight clearance to operate to an airport not having
a published and functioning IAP. Nor is it intended for an aircraft
to conduct an instrument approach to one airport and then, when "in
the clear," discontinue that approach and proceed to another airport.
In the execution of a contact approach, the pilot assumes the
responsibility for obstruction clearance. If radar service is being
received, it will automatically terminate when the pilot is instructed
to change to advisory frequency.
------------------------------------------------------------------