Have you ever "made up" an approach to a nonexistent airport for the
purposes of training or currency? I mean, to pick a space in the
boonies, and then use nearby navaids to fashion a homemade approach to
an imaginary runway. Some instructors will do this.

Now, I was wondering, is there any way flying such an "approach" could
be loggable towards instrument currency?

(obviously, under the hood, VFR, with a safety pilot. You'd be insane
and illegal to try this with real IMC)

The advantages this could provide are mostly convenience (not having to
deal with the traffic-related delays associated with an approach to a
real airport with real controllers) and also variety -- you could fly
flavors of approaches that aren't available near where you live.

What do you guys thing?

-- dave j



61.57(c)(1):

(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
category for the instrument privileges sought-

(i) At least six instrument approaches;

(ii) Holding procedures; and

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems.

Only got nine hits when I searched my Summit Aviation CD of all FAA pubs,
and every hit implied a published approach. I doubt that the regulations
writers ever contemplated that someone would consider an unpublished
approach to have any legal standing. How would you comply with 61.51(g),
which requires that the location and type of each approach be logged?
Logging "PAE ILS 16" looks a lot better than "Podunk VOR approach" when
Podunk doesn't have any approaches at all.

If these home-made approaches were based on a navaid that is a part of a
published approach, I would be concerned about IFR traffic using the same
airspace...although "out in the boonies" makes that unlikely. IOW, I do not
consider the practice to be practical.

Bob Gardner
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Have you ever "made up" an approach to a nonexistent airport for the
> purposes of training or currency? I mean, to pick a space in the
> boonies, and then use nearby navaids to fashion a homemade approach to
> an imaginary runway. Some instructors will do this.
>
> Now, I was wondering, is there any way flying such an "approach" could
> be loggable towards instrument currency?
>
> (obviously, under the hood, VFR, with a safety pilot. You'd be insane
> and illegal to try this with real IMC)
>
> The advantages this could provide are mostly convenience (not having to
> deal with the traffic-related delays associated with an approach to a
> real airport with real controllers) and also variety -- you could fly
> flavors of approaches that aren't available near where you live.
>
> What do you guys thing?
>
> -- dave j
>
>
>
> 61.57(c)(1):
>
> (c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
> section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
> conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
> preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
>
> (1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
> (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
> instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
> aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
> or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
> category for the instrument privileges sought-
>
> (i) At least six instrument approaches;
>
> (ii) Holding procedures; and
>
> (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
> systems.
>

wrote:
> Have you ever "made up" an approach to a nonexistent airport for the
> purposes of training or currency? I mean, to pick a space in the
> boonies, and then use nearby navaids to fashion a homemade approach to
> an imaginary runway. Some instructors will do this.

I could see doing something like this during the early stages of instrument
training to get the student up to speed on the kinds of skills needed to
fly an approach without having to worry about reading a complex approach
plate and mixing it up with other traffic near an airport. But that's
about it.

> Now, I was wondering, is there any way flying such an "approach" could
> be loggable towards instrument currency?

Not in my book.

Thanks Bob and Roy, this is what I figured, but it was worth a try. I
assume that this also applies to airways and holds, then. That is, real
victor airways and real holds (which I guess would be holds published
on charts or approach plates, or designed and assigned on the fly by a
real controller.)

-- dave j

In article om>,
wrote:

> Thanks Bob and Roy, this is what I figured, but it was worth a try. I
> assume that this also applies to airways and holds, then. That is, real
> victor airways and real holds (which I guess would be holds published
> on charts or approach plates, or designed and assigned on the fly by a
> real controller.)

Well, oddly enough, I don't see any reason why the "holding procedures"
portion of the currency requirement can't be met with a made-up hold.
Controller's can assign en-route holds pretty much anywhere, so I don't see
any reason why you can't do the same.

On the other hand, by the time you've flown your six approaches, you've had
so many opportunities to fly a "real" hold, it's not really much of a
practical issue.

Ooh, I'm going to follow up my own post. Obviously, intercepting
courses does not mean V airways, so anywhere you're going is fine as
long as you use a "navigation system."

And holding procedures is probably the same.

-- dave j

> wrote:
>The advantages this could provide are mostly convenience (not having to
>deal with the traffic-related delays associated with an approach to a
>real airport with real controllers) and also variety -- you could fly
>flavors of approaches that aren't available near where you live.


Simulators have all these advantages, in addition to recording and plotting
your flight path, instant restarts, ability to realistically simulate
failures, no dependency on actual weather, no need to watch for
conflicting traffic, and are usually less expensive per hour than aircraft.
The disadvantage is you must use a CFI, not just a safety pilot.

When I was an instrument student, I made up an approach to an airport
that did not have any approaches. It was a circle to land. I even made
an approach plate on the same size paper as the govt charts and put
every little number and detail on it. It was an interesting exercise. I
then went out and flew it (in VFR conditions), and flew the missed.

I see no reason to use it for currency, might as well use a real
approach as these familiarize you with an approach you might use in IMC
someday. Familiar approaches are easier for me to fly.

I have drawn up a approach that I use for instrument training that includes
a DME arc because no such approach is conveniently available. I have also
used published approaches but added 1000 feet to minimums for training
purposes when the destination airport was busy. In both cases, I consider
them training exercises but do not include for currency purposes.



> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Have you ever "made up" an approach to a nonexistent airport for the
> purposes of training or currency? I mean, to pick a space in the
> boonies, and then use nearby navaids to fashion a homemade approach to
> an imaginary runway. Some instructors will do this.
>
> Now, I was wondering, is there any way flying such an "approach" could
> be loggable towards instrument currency?
>
> (obviously, under the hood, VFR, with a safety pilot. You'd be insane
> and illegal to try this with real IMC)
>
> The advantages this could provide are mostly convenience (not having to
> deal with the traffic-related delays associated with an approach to a
> real airport with real controllers) and also variety -- you could fly
> flavors of approaches that aren't available near where you live.
>
> What do you guys thing?
>
> -- dave j
>
>
>
> 61.57(c)(1):
>
> (c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
> section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
> conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
> preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
>
> (1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
> (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
> instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
> aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
> or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
> category for the instrument privileges sought-
>
> (i) At least six instrument approaches;
>
> (ii) Holding procedures; and
>
> (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
> systems.
>

wrote:
> Have you ever "made up" an approach to a nonexistent airport for the
> purposes of training or currency? I mean, to pick a space in the
> boonies, and then use nearby navaids to fashion a homemade approach to
> an imaginary runway. Some instructors will do this.

Yes, as my local airport didn't have an NDB approach, but it did have an
AM radio station about 5 miles away. This was only for training
purposes with an instructor, however.


> Now, I was wondering, is there any way flying such an "approach" could
> be loggable towards instrument currency?

I don't know the answer, but I'd be surprised if the FAA would consider
that to be a loggable approach for currency.


> (obviously, under the hood, VFR, with a safety pilot. You'd be insane
> and illegal to try this with real IMC)
>
> The advantages this could provide are mostly convenience (not having to
> deal with the traffic-related delays associated with an approach to a
> real airport with real controllers) and also variety -- you could fly
> flavors of approaches that aren't available near where you live.
>
> What do you guys thing?

I live in a fairly rural area and have uncontrolled airports within 30
miles or so that have published approaches. And my current home field
is controlled, but isn't busy so flying practice approaches there seldom
uses any significant additional time.

Matt

Why would you want to? Part of doing approaches is working
within the existing system. Which, in my opinion is more challenging
than the flying part.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Have you ever "made up" an approach to a nonexistent airport for the
> purposes of training or currency? I mean, to pick a space in the
> boonies, and then use nearby navaids to fashion a homemade approach to
> an imaginary runway. Some instructors will do this.
>
> Now, I was wondering, is there any way flying such an "approach" could
> be loggable towards instrument currency?
>
> (obviously, under the hood, VFR, with a safety pilot. You'd be insane
> and illegal to try this with real IMC)
>
> The advantages this could provide are mostly convenience (not having to
> deal with the traffic-related delays associated with an approach to a
> real airport with real controllers) and also variety -- you could fly
> flavors of approaches that aren't available near where you live.
>
> What do you guys thing?
>
> -- dave j
>
>
>
> 61.57(c)(1):
>
> (c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
> section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
> conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
> preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
>
> (1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
> (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
> instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
> aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
> or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
> category for the instrument privileges sought-
>
> (i) At least six instrument approaches;
>
> (ii) Holding procedures; and
>
> (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
> systems.
>

Look at it this way. The question of your currency will only come up
when you are involved in an accident. How do you think your insurance
company or FAA will react when they see these made-up approaches in your
logbook? Even if they are not illegal, they can nail you on not using
proper procedures and cite them as reckless conduct.

Made-up approaches are fine to build proficiency, but don't count those
towards your currency.







wrote in news:1117416053.779249.260660
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Have you ever "made up" an approach to a nonexistent airport for the
> purposes of training or currency? I mean, to pick a space in the
> boonies, and then use nearby navaids to fashion a homemade approach to
> an imaginary runway. Some instructors will do this.
>
> Now, I was wondering, is there any way flying such an "approach" could
> be loggable towards instrument currency?
>
> (obviously, under the hood, VFR, with a safety pilot. You'd be insane
> and illegal to try this with real IMC)
>
> The advantages this could provide are mostly convenience (not having
to
> deal with the traffic-related delays associated with an approach to a
> real airport with real controllers) and also variety -- you could fly
> flavors of approaches that aren't available near where you live.
>
> What do you guys thing?
>
> -- dave j
>
>
>
> 61.57(c)(1):
>
> (c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of
this
> section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
> conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within
the
> preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
>
> (1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
> (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
> instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
> aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
> or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
> category for the instrument privileges sought-
>
> (i) At least six instrument approaches;
>
> (ii) Holding procedures; and
>
> (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
> systems.
>

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Look at it this way. The question of your currency will only come up
> when you are involved in an accident.

Or you bust some other reg or otherwise come to the FAA's attention.
Then they'll dig for anything they can smack you with.

> Why would you want to [make up an approach]?

because sometimes it's hard to get an actual practice approach to
minimums. This is especially true of ILSs at busy airports in the
NorthEast (though I'll admit the nature of an ILS precludes a made-up one).

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ross Oliver wrote:

> The disadvantage is you must use a CFI, not just a safety pilot.
>
>

I believe you may also use an IGI (instrument ground instructor) in a
sim in lieu of a CFI. CFI's cost more !

Antonio

"dancingstarcreations" > wrote
in message ...

> I believe you may also use an IGI (instrument ground instructor) in a sim
> in lieu of a CFI. CFI's cost more !
>

So IGI's make...oh what, about $2.00 an hour?

andrew m. boardman wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>>Now, I was wondering, is there any way flying such an "approach" could
>>be loggable towards instrument currency?
>
>
> Legitimately, I don't think so. Despite that, made-up NDB approaches
> based on a local commercial transmitter have turned up on local
> instrument checkrides, and a Cape TRACON controller once told me of
> getting grief from management for inventing a VOR approach into
> Provicetown for pilots who wanted practice VOR approaches in the area,
> Cape Cod only having one VOR approach, and that at the other end of it in
> a busy bit of airspace.

Funny about using AM radio stations as NDBs. That's why the CONELRAD
alert system was invented -- to thwart the evil enemies' navigation! Of
course, NDBs are going away but we still fund improvement to the
Emergency Alert System. So why can't they be used to log approaches?

Stubby wrote:

> Funny about using AM radio stations as NDBs. That's why the CONELRAD
> alert system was invented -- to thwart the evil enemies' navigation! Of
> course, NDBs are going away but we still fund improvement to the
> Emergency Alert System. So why can't they be used to log approaches?


Conelrad hasn't been around since the Kennedy administration.
The EBS (which was never voluntary despite what the stupid announcement
that we were forced to read over the air) replaced it. Rather than
people popping up on 640 or 1240.

Anyhow, I've had the ADF ripped out of my plane. I replaced it
with XM Satellite radio so I can still listen to baseball games
in flight.

dancingstarcreations > wrote
in :

> Ross Oliver wrote:
> I believe you may also use an IGI (instrument ground instructor) in a
> sim in lieu of a CFI. CFI's cost more !

Not true. I'm both IGI and CFII. Currency or other required training, if
done in a sim, requires the CFII endorsement. IGI won't do it.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:14:20 GMT, "L. R. Du Broff"
> wrote:

>dancingstarcreations > wrote
>in :
>
>> Ross Oliver wrote:
>> I believe you may also use an IGI (instrument ground instructor) in a
>> sim in lieu of a CFI. CFI's cost more !
>
>Not true. I'm both IGI and CFII. Currency or other required training, if
>done in a sim, requires the CFII endorsement. IGI won't do it.


An IGI MAY provide the training and sign off the requirements of
currency for 61.57 (c) in a simulator or approved training device. He
may not, however, sign off an IPC, although he may provide the
training required for an IPC. Sim and training device training is
considered ground training. FAR 61.215 (c)