PDA

View Full Version : Which of these approaches is loggable?


Paul Tomblin
August 5th 03, 01:03 PM
1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw
the runway after I got established but before I started my descent,
cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed
on the green dot.

2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope,
saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on
the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).

3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at
the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above traffic
pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25.

--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer a
Rolls Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon and
explode once a year killing everybody inside. - Robert Cringley (InfoWorld)

Bill Zaleski
August 5th 03, 01:20 PM
This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although not
regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have
printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger.....



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"

The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a reader
inquiry, said:
>
> "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been cleared
> for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may log that
> approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the
> clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the
> prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to maximize the
> training benefit."







On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw
>the runway after I got established but before I started my descent,
>cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed
>on the green dot.
>
>2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope,
>saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on
>the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).
>
>3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at
>the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above traffic
>pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25.

Jim
August 5th 03, 05:46 PM
If in IMC or if flight control solely by instruments is required, once
cleared and established it's loggable. Thus becomes the question of
currency vs. proficiency.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> 1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw
> the runway after I got established but before I started my descent,
> cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed
> on the green dot.
>
> 2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope,
> saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on
> the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).
>
> 3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at
> the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above traffic
> pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
> If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer a
> Rolls Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon and
> explode once a year killing everybody inside. - Robert Cringley
(InfoWorld)

Robert M. Gary
August 6th 03, 04:18 AM
Nothing in writing or offical. The local FSDO agrees with Mr Lynch's
opinion in the FAQ that you must be IMC from the IAF to the MAP. I
wouldn't log any of the ones you mentioned. I only log them if I just
see the runway at minimums. Log what you want, fly what you need.

-Robert


(Paul Tomblin) wrote in message >...
> 1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw
> the runway after I got established but before I started my descent,
> cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed
> on the green dot.
>
> 2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope,
> saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on
> the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).
>
> 3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at
> the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above traffic
> pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25.

Robert M. Gary
August 6th 03, 04:21 AM
"Jim" > wrote in message >...
> If in IMC or if flight control solely by instruments is required, once
> cleared and established it's loggable.

That's a fine opinion but are you claiming to have something offical
from the FAA that supports it? Our local FSDO certainly would be
unhappy to see a log book like that. They want you to be IMC all the
way to the MAP to log it. Of course, its just one FSDOs opinion. Log
what you want, fly what you need.

BTW: The **ONLY** place the FARs even mention an actual approach is
for currency. Of course, they then fail to define actual approach.

Jack Cunniff
August 6th 03, 03:56 PM
(Robert M. Gary) writes:

>"Jim" > wrote in message >...
>> If in IMC or if flight control solely by instruments is required, once
>> cleared and established it's loggable.

>That's a fine opinion but are you claiming to have something offical
>from the FAA that supports it? Our local FSDO certainly would be
>unhappy to see a log book like that. They want you to be IMC all the
>way to the MAP to log it. Of course, its just one FSDOs opinion. Log
>what you want, fly what you need.

>BTW: The **ONLY** place the FARs even mention an actual approach is
>for currency. Of course, they then fail to define actual approach.

It's not defined in the FAR's, but there is an official FAA web page which
is very clear on the topic, and seems to provide the most strict
-interpretation- of the FAR's.

The document is
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
14 CFR, PART 61
ARRANGED BY SECTION

MAINTAINED BY JOHN LYNCH
GENERAL AVIATION CERTIFICATION BRANCH, AFS-840

Found at:
http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc contains this:

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.
{Q&A-291}

-----------
There you have it. It -seems- like the only loggable approach is one that
is in IMC or under a hood until DH or MDA.

-Jack Cunniff

David Brooks
August 6th 03, 05:46 PM
"Jack Cunniff" > wrote in message
...

> Found at:
> http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc contains this:
>
> 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.
> {Q&A-291}
>
> -----------
> There you have it. It -seems- like the only loggable approach is one that
> is in IMC or under a hood until DH or MDA.

I had thought that was what John Lynch meant, but now I read this extract
again I'm not so sure.

What he actually says is that you fly all the way to the conclusion of the
approach, not that you fly to the conclusion in IMC. His reference to "fly
to the FAF and break it off" seems gratuitous otherwise. I don't think
anyone is actually asking that, so he may be, in his mind, answering a
slightly different question.

-- David Brooks

Bill Zaleski
August 6th 03, 06:25 PM
I fail to understand the logic of your statement, Robert. I am not
slamming or bashing, but just trying to understand.

If you "must be IMC from the IAF to the MAP" then legally, you must
have missed on the approach, since you have stated that you are in
"IMC at the MAP". Surely, one must not miss an aproach in actual in
order to use it for legal currency. This subject should have been
addressed in a more definitive policy statement or legal opinion a
long time ago.



On 5 Aug 2003 20:18:53 -0700, (Robert M. Gary) wrote:

>Nothing in writing or offical. The local FSDO agrees with Mr Lynch's
>opinion in the FAQ that you must be IMC from the IAF to the MAP. I
>wouldn't log any of the ones you mentioned. I only log them if I just
>see the runway at minimums. Log what you want, fly what you need.
>
>-Robert
>
>
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in message >...
>> 1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw
>> the runway after I got established but before I started my descent,
>> cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed
>> on the green dot.
>>
>> 2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope,
>> saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on
>> the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).
>>
>> 3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at
>> the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above traffic
>> pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25.

Jim
August 6th 03, 10:35 PM
Hi David,
I tend to agree with your assessment.
This seems like another one of Lynch's "non" answers. Read the Part 61
FAQ's close enough and you'll find he seems to contradict himself several
times on different issues by answering a question other than the one that
was asked. I believe the question becomes "at what designated point in
space on an IAP does an instrument approach become "loggable" when the pilot
is either in IMC or conditions that require flight by sole reference to
instruments." Because the FAR's do not define this point in space precisely
it is purely a judgment call on the part of the pilot. I think that
simulated instrument flight demands that you fly to the minimums or fly the
missed to be loggable.

Let's take it to the extreme but don't judge the idiocy of any pilot that
might try this, just look at the "loggable vs non-loggable" argument. Let's
say you're solid hard core IMC hand flying a DME arc to an off field NDB in
a mountain pass with a mean crosswind correction dialed in, moderate
turbulence, pounding rain which is turning to ice, you're sweating bullets
and praying to God that you survive. Low and behold you break out either
one foot above your MDA or 1/16 mile before your MAP.

Find me a FSDO inspector that would say "Oh crap, we broke out too soon,
since we can't log it, let's go up and shoot it again, maybe next time we
won't break out before the MAP". I'd bet Lynch would log it. To think that
every IMC approach needs to be flown all the way the MAP or DH in IMC before
it is loggable is simply not practical. I believe that the FAR's state that
an instrument pilot must "complete" 6 approaches within 6 months. I would
argue that an instrument approach can not begin until you are cleared and
establish yourself on a published portion of the IAP. I would also argue
that an instrument approach has been "completed" when the pilot either
arrives at the MAP or breaks out into VMC from IMC. I would call that a
loggable event if in the pilots good judgment he feels he has completed an
approach. I personally wouldn't log a vectors to final approach from clear
on top through a thin layer to a point outside the FAF. I don't think that
constitutes being established on the approach. I would however log an
approach where I descend into IMC, establish myself outbound, fly a
procedure turn inbound, joined the localizer, captured the glideslope and
arrived at the FAF.

--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

Greg Esres
August 6th 03, 11:08 PM
<<The Chief Council (lawyers) is the only dept that can give offical
understandings.>>

And they have. They say the approach must go to MDA, unless abandoned
for safety reasons.

However, in the the preamble to the reg, there was apparently an
inclination by the FAA to make the reg specify this explicitly;
however, they dropped that provision in response to pressure from the
interest groups. including AOPA. Therefore, you can conclude that
interpretation is at variance to the final intent of the regulation.

Robert Moore
August 6th 03, 11:21 PM
"Jim" wrote
> To think that every IMC approach needs to be flown all
> the way the MAP or DH in IMC before it is loggable is
> simply not practical.

I would agree, not practical at all.

I would pose the following situations to Mr. Gary.

1. Wx is 200x1/2...I break-out of the ILS at 200',
can I log it? What if I was using CAT II mins?
Same ILS, same instruments, but I broke out 100'
above minimuns...can I log an approach?
2. Same approach except on the final vector, I engage
the autopilot and do not touch the controls again
untill minimums. Can I log it?
3. Same approach except that the Wx is reported as
visibility 1/4 in ground fog. I engage the autopilot
and auto-land and sit back and enjoy the ride. Can
I log it as an approach???...a landing????
4. Same approach except the Wx is now CAVU, I program
the autopilot the same as in number 3. Did I fly an
ILS? You bet I did. Did I log a landing? You bet!

It ain't as cut-and-dried as Mr. Gary would have it be.

Bob Moore
ATP B-727 B-707 L-188
CFII
PanAm (retired)

John T
August 6th 03, 11:27 PM
"David Brooks" > wrote in message

>
> I had thought that was what John Lynch meant, but now I read this
> extract again I'm not so sure.
>
> What he actually says is that you fly all the way to the conclusion
> of the approach, not that you fly to the conclusion in IMC. His
> reference to "fly to the FAF and break it off" seems gratuitous
> otherwise. I don't think anyone is actually asking that, so he may
> be, in his mind, answering a slightly different question.

The question he's answering is not whether the approach can be logged at
all, but whether it can be logged as an approach in actual conditions (see
the phrase ["actual" approach]).

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

Teacherjh
August 7th 03, 12:14 AM
>> I would pose the following situations to Mr. Gary.

To add to that, I fly in solid IMC until shortly before the IAP, whereupon I
break out inbetween layers. I fly the approach, able to see the horizon and
200 feet above minimums go into the next layer. I break out at minimums and
land. (Or don't break out at minimums and execute a missed).

Loggable? If not, shorten the visual time until it is. How short is it?

I figure if I pretty much have to be on the gauges pretty much most of the way
(to some applicable minimum), I can pretty much log it.

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Mark Kolber
August 7th 03, 01:01 AM
Time to pull out my handy-dandy personal FAQ on the issue. You'll note
that it gives a bit of history surrounding this stupid controversy,
but leaves the decision to you.

Me? I agree with Bob Gardner.

When can I log the approach? A historical perspective:


If you look at 61.57(c) (instrument currency) you'll see that the 6
instrument approaches that have to have been done in the prior 6
months must be "performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions..." Some of the other requirements have changed
through the years, but this one has been with us for a while.

Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? Except some idiot thought to ask,
"How much actual is actual?" What if you pass through a single
scattered cloud on the way down for a total of 5 seconds of "actual"?
Can you count the approach?

Sometime in 1989 or 1990, it seems FAAviation News ran an article that
said that you had to fly the approach to minimums in IMC in order for
it to count. Someone wrote in pointing out the illogic of a rule that
meant that a very experienced pilot who flew hard IMC all the time
would probably not be able to log the approaches, since most
approaches don't involve breaking out at minimums.

In the July/August 1990 issue, FAAAviation News replied to the writer:

==============================
"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"
==============================

Problem is that this answer doesn't work either. Now, you're on a
feeder route to the IAF above the cloud deck when you're cleared for
the approach. You fly the full approach, enter the clouds just below
glideslope intercept and break out at 200 AGL with 1/4 mile
visibility. Oops! Sorry! You were not "cleared for and have initiated
an approach in IMC".

(You're starting to see why I called the person who asked the "How
much" question for the first time an idiot.)

In 1992, the FAA legal counsel chimed in:

==============================
"Second, you questioned how low a pilot must descend (i.e., minimum
descent altitude or decision height or full stop landing) on the six
instrument approaches he must log to meet the recent IFR experience
requirements specified in FAR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) (14 CFR Sec.
61.57 (e)(1)(i)). You also asked if an instrument approach "counts" if
only part of the approach is conducted in actual IFR conditions.
Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) states that:

No pilot may act as pilot in command under IFR, nor in weather
conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless he has,
within the past 6 calendar months - (i) In the case of an aircraft
other than a glider, logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under
actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight
in the category of aircraft involved, including at least six
instrument approaches, or passed an instrument competency check in the
category of aircraft involved.

For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)
(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions.
Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned
for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument
approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height."
==============================

Uh-oh! If you take the opinion at face value, there's that reasoning
again that essentially says that if you don't go missed, you can't log
it.

There is a strong school of thought out there that says that what it
"looks like" the FAA Counsel said is not what they meant. Note that
despite the question, although the answer says that you have to follow
the =procedure= all the way (unless it's not safe), it does not say
that you have to follow the procedure all the way "in actual IFR
conditions."

(You can see where this is much better fodder for arguments than
anything else in the logging arena.)

The camp that says that the legal counsel didn't mean all the way in
IMC (call them the "Rule of Reason" school) are essentially saying
that "How much" is one of those undefined terms. Not everything is
susceptible to precise definition. Try to think of all of the
scenarios and come out with a rule that covers every probable (let
alone possible) approach scenario. How many pages did you use?

When Part 61 was revised in 1997, there was a proposal to write the
rule to specifically say that approaches had to be flown to MDA or DA
to count. They got a lot of comments, including one that said,

==============================
"One commenter suggests revising the definition to permit the pilot to
terminate the approach prior to DH or MDA for safety reasons. Another
commenter proposes to define "instrument approach" as " * * * an
approach procedure defined in part 97 and conducted in accordance with
that procedure or as directed by ATC to a point beyond an initial
approach fix defined for that procedure." The commenter explains that
this definition would allow for logging instrument approaches that
require some portion of the published approach procedure to be
followed in order for the pilot to establish visual references to the
runway"
==============================

The FAA decided against the new requirement.

Some point to the fact that the FAA posted this comment as support for
the rule of reason approach.

Whew!



Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

Hendrik G. Seliger
August 7th 03, 10:34 AM
Hi!

> within the past 6 calendar months - (i) In the case of an aircraft
> other than a glider, logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under
> actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight
> in the category of aircraft involved, including at least six
> instrument approaches, or passed an instrument competency check in the
> category of aircraft involved.

Actually, when I read this it says "IFR conditions", not IMC. IFR conditions
means less than VFR conditions. So if I shoot a non-precision approach (MDA
is 500ft AGL) on a field (assume E airspace) with a ceiling of 900ft AGL,
when I break out I will be 400ft above MDA but still in IFR conditions (less
than 500ft. below the ceiling). With this reasoning, I anything where I
break out less than 500ft. above MDA/DH would be in IFR conditions, hence
loggable.

Any comments on that spin?

Cheers,
Hendrik

Barry
August 9th 03, 06:44 PM
While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some precedent- please
read the following FAA Chief
Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA Chief
Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on
the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally binding as
to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional contrary
leads anyone may provide in that regard.

"January 28, 1992
(no name given)
....
For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i)
may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless
the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we
believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum
descent altitude or decision height.

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel"
(Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section)

Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion. It is
not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge about it.
However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the
Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot whose IFR
currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief Counsel
Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes a
"useable" approach for currency
purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule contrary
to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion.

I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official legal
opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its existence
when doing my approaches for currency purposes..
Tailwinds.

"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...
> This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although not
> regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have
> printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger.....
>
>
>
> 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"
>
> The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a reader
> inquiry, said:
> >
> > "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been cleared
> > for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may log that
> > approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the
> > clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the
> > prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to maximize the
> > training benefit."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
> Tomblin) wrote:
>
> >1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw
> >the runway after I got established but before I started my descent,
> >cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed
> >on the green dot.
> >
> >2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope,
> >saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on
> >the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).
> >
> >3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at
> >the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above
traffic
> >pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25.
>

Ray Andraka
August 10th 03, 01:14 AM
This says that the approach procedure must be followed to the MAP, it does not
say anything about the conditions, since you can follow the approach procedure
in visual as well as instrument conditions. I find it easier just to schedule
an IPC every 6 months, that way I get an instructor checking me for any bad
habits I might be picking up, and I get to practice stuff I might not do on my
own. The instructor I fly with puts me partial panel most of the flight, for
example.


Barry wrote:

> While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some precedent- please
> read the following FAA Chief
> Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA Chief
> Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on
> the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally binding as
> to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional contrary
> leads anyone may provide in that regard.
>
> "January 28, 1992
> (no name given)
> ...
> For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i)
> may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless
> the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we
> believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum
> descent altitude or decision height.
>
> Donald P. Byrne
> Assistant Chief Counsel"
> (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section)
>
> Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion. It is
> not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge about it.
> However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the
> Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot whose IFR
> currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief Counsel
> Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes a
> "useable" approach for currency
> purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule contrary
> to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion.
>
> I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official legal
> opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its existence
> when doing my approaches for currency purposes..
> Tailwinds.
>
> "Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although not
> > regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have
> > printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger.....
> >
> >
> >
> > 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"
> >
> > The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a reader
> > inquiry, said:
> > >
> > > "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been cleared
> > > for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may log that
> > > approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the
> > > clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the
> > > prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to maximize the
> > > training benefit."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
> > Tomblin) wrote:
> >
> > >1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw
> > >the runway after I got established but before I started my descent,
> > >cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed
> > >on the green dot.
> > >
> > >2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope,
> > >saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on
> > >the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).
> > >
> > >3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at
> > >the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above
> traffic
> > >pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25.
> >

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Matthew Waugh
August 10th 03, 02:31 AM
It says "actual or simulated" conditions - visual is neither.

Mat

--
Matthew Waugh
Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> This says that the approach procedure must be followed to the MAP, it does
not
> say anything about the conditions, since you can follow the approach
procedure
> in visual as well as instrument conditions. I find it easier just to
schedule
> an IPC every 6 months, that way I get an instructor checking me for any
bad
> habits I might be picking up, and I get to practice stuff I might not do
on my
> own. The instructor I fly with puts me partial panel most of the flight,
for
> example.
>
>
> Barry wrote:
>
> > While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some precedent-
please
> > read the following FAA Chief
> > Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA
Chief
> > Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on
> > the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally binding
as
> > to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional
contrary
> > leads anyone may provide in that regard.
> >
> > "January 28, 1992
> > (no name given)
> > ...
> > For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section
61.57(e)(1)(i)
> > may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further,
unless
> > the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons,
we
> > believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to
minimum
> > descent altitude or decision height.
> >
> > Donald P. Byrne
> > Assistant Chief Counsel"
> > (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section)
> >
> > Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion. It
is
> > not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge about
it.
> > However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the
> > Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot whose
IFR
> > currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief Counsel
> > Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes a
> > "useable" approach for currency
> > purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule
contrary
> > to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion.
> >
> > I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official legal
> > opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its
existence
> > when doing my approaches for currency purposes..
> > Tailwinds.
> >
> > "Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although not
> > > regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have
> > > printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger.....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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"
> > >
> > > The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a reader
> > > inquiry, said:
> > > >
> > > > "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been cleared
> > > > for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may log
that
> > > > approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the
> > > > clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the
> > > > prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to maximize
the
> > > > training benefit."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
> > > Tomblin) wrote:
> > >
> > > >1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and
saw
> > > >the runway after I got established but before I started my descent,
> > > >cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and
landed
> > > >on the green dot.
> > > >
> > > >2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide
slope,
> > > >saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the
ILS on
> > > >the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).
> > > >
> > > >3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet
at
> > > >the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above
> > traffic
> > > >pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway
25.
> > >
>
> --
> --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> email
> http://www.andraka.com
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>

Ray Andraka
August 10th 03, 05:04 AM
But it doesn't say that it has to be flown *TO* the MAP in IMC or simulated IMC.

Matthew Waugh wrote:

> It says "actual or simulated" conditions - visual is neither.
>
> Mat
>
> --
> Matthew Waugh
> Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
> http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm
>
> "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This says that the approach procedure must be followed to the MAP, it does
> not
> > say anything about the conditions, since you can follow the approach
> procedure
> > in visual as well as instrument conditions. I find it easier just to
> schedule
> > an IPC every 6 months, that way I get an instructor checking me for any
> bad
> > habits I might be picking up, and I get to practice stuff I might not do
> on my
> > own. The instructor I fly with puts me partial panel most of the flight,
> for
> > example.
> >
> >
> > Barry wrote:
> >
> > > While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some precedent-
> please
> > > read the following FAA Chief
> > > Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA
> Chief
> > > Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on
> > > the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally binding
> as
> > > to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional
> contrary
> > > leads anyone may provide in that regard.
> > >
> > > "January 28, 1992
> > > (no name given)
> > > ...
> > > For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section
> 61.57(e)(1)(i)
> > > may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further,
> unless
> > > the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons,
> we
> > > believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to
> minimum
> > > descent altitude or decision height.
> > >
> > > Donald P. Byrne
> > > Assistant Chief Counsel"
> > > (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section)
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion. It
> is
> > > not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge about
> it.
> > > However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the
> > > Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot whose
> IFR
> > > currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief Counsel
> > > Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes a
> > > "useable" approach for currency
> > > purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule
> contrary
> > > to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion.
> > >
> > > I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official legal
> > > opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its
> existence
> > > when doing my approaches for currency purposes..
> > > Tailwinds.
> > >
> > > "Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although not
> > > > regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have
> > > > printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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"
> > > >
> > > > The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a reader
> > > > inquiry, said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been cleared
> > > > > for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may log
> that
> > > > > approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the
> > > > > clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the
> > > > > prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to maximize
> the
> > > > > training benefit."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
> > > > Tomblin) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and
> saw
> > > > >the runway after I got established but before I started my descent,
> > > > >cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and
> landed
> > > > >on the green dot.
> > > > >
> > > > >2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide
> slope,
> > > > >saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the
> ILS on
> > > > >the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).
> > > > >
> > > > >3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet
> at
> > > > >the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above
> > > traffic
> > > > >pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway
> 25.
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> > President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> > 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> > email
> > http://www.andraka.com
> >
> > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> >
> >

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Matthew Waugh
August 10th 03, 11:34 AM
You don't believe the 2 sentences are related? One says the instrument
approach must be actual or simulated and the other says it must be flown to
the MAP? I guess I don't get your reasoning, but it wouldn't be the first
time I've been confused.

Mat

--
Matthew Waugh
Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> But it doesn't say that it has to be flown *TO* the MAP in IMC or
simulated IMC.
>
> Matthew Waugh wrote:
>
> > It says "actual or simulated" conditions - visual is neither.
> >
> > Mat
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Waugh
> > Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
> > http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm
> >
> > "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > This says that the approach procedure must be followed to the MAP, it
does
> > not
> > > say anything about the conditions, since you can follow the approach
> > procedure
> > > in visual as well as instrument conditions. I find it easier just to
> > schedule
> > > an IPC every 6 months, that way I get an instructor checking me for
any
> > bad
> > > habits I might be picking up, and I get to practice stuff I might not
do
> > on my
> > > own. The instructor I fly with puts me partial panel most of the
flight,
> > for
> > > example.
> > >
> > >
> > > Barry wrote:
> > >
> > > > While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some
precedent-
> > please
> > > > read the following FAA Chief
> > > > Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA
> > Chief
> > > > Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on
> > > > the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally
binding
> > as
> > > > to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional
> > contrary
> > > > leads anyone may provide in that regard.
> > > >
> > > > "January 28, 1992
> > > > (no name given)
> > > > ...
> > > > For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section
> > 61.57(e)(1)(i)
> > > > may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further,
> > unless
> > > > the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety
reasons,
> > we
> > > > believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to
> > minimum
> > > > descent altitude or decision height.
> > > >
> > > > Donald P. Byrne
> > > > Assistant Chief Counsel"
> > > > (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section)
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion.
It
> > is
> > > > not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge
about
> > it.
> > > > However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the
> > > > Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot
whose
> > IFR
> > > > currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief
Counsel
> > > > Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes
a
> > > > "useable" approach for currency
> > > > purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule
> > contrary
> > > > to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion.
> > > >
> > > > I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official
legal
> > > > opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its
> > existence
> > > > when doing my approaches for currency purposes..
> > > > Tailwinds.
> > > >
> > > > "Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although
not
> > > > > regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have
> > > > > printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger.....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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"
> > > > >
> > > > > The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a
reader
> > > > > inquiry, said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been
cleared
> > > > > > for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may
log
> > that
> > > > > > approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of
the
> > > > > > clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the
> > > > > > prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to
maximize
> > the
> > > > > > training benefit."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
> > > > > Tomblin) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out
and
> > saw
> > > > > >the runway after I got established but before I started my
descent,
> > > > > >cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and
> > landed
> > > > > >on the green dot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the
glide
> > slope,
> > > > > >saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did
the
> > ILS on
> > > > > >the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500
feet
> > at
> > > > > >the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just
above
> > > > traffic
> > > > > >pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to
runway
> > 25.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> > > President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> > > 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> > > email
> > > http://www.andraka.com
> > >
> > > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> > > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > > -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> email
> http://www.andraka.com
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>

Ray Andraka
August 10th 03, 10:33 PM
Yes they are related in that part of the approach has to be in IMC or under the
hood, and the approach needs to be flown to the MAP. It doesn't say how much of
the approach has to be in IMC. The how much simply is not quantified in those
two sentences. In my IFR training, I was told by three different instructors in
different schools, as well as by a two different PIC instructors during
recurrent training that as long as I was in IMC sometime after the FAF, I could
log the approach. Nevertheless, I cover myself by getting an IPC every 6
months. Insurance co. likes it, and I get the benefit of a trained observer to
drill me on areas I might gotten rusty and to point out any bad habits I might
have developed.

Matthew Waugh wrote:

> You don't believe the 2 sentences are related? One says the instrument
> approach must be actual or simulated and the other says it must be flown to
> the MAP? I guess I don't get your reasoning, but it wouldn't be the first
> time I've been confused.
>
> Mat
>
> --
> Matthew Waugh
> Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
> http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm
>
> "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> ...
> > But it doesn't say that it has to be flown *TO* the MAP in IMC or
> simulated IMC.
> >
> > Matthew Waugh wrote:
> >
> > > It says "actual or simulated" conditions - visual is neither.
> > >
> > > Mat
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthew Waugh
> > > Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
> > > http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm
> > >
> > > "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > This says that the approach procedure must be followed to the MAP, it
> does
> > > not
> > > > say anything about the conditions, since you can follow the approach
> > > procedure
> > > > in visual as well as instrument conditions. I find it easier just to
> > > schedule
> > > > an IPC every 6 months, that way I get an instructor checking me for
> any
> > > bad
> > > > habits I might be picking up, and I get to practice stuff I might not
> do
> > > on my
> > > > own. The instructor I fly with puts me partial panel most of the
> flight,
> > > for
> > > > example.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Barry wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some
> precedent-
> > > please
> > > > > read the following FAA Chief
> > > > > Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA
> > > Chief
> > > > > Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on
> > > > > the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally
> binding
> > > as
> > > > > to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional
> > > contrary
> > > > > leads anyone may provide in that regard.
> > > > >
> > > > > "January 28, 1992
> > > > > (no name given)
> > > > > ...
> > > > > For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section
> > > 61.57(e)(1)(i)
> > > > > may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further,
> > > unless
> > > > > the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety
> reasons,
> > > we
> > > > > believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to
> > > minimum
> > > > > descent altitude or decision height.
> > > > >
> > > > > Donald P. Byrne
> > > > > Assistant Chief Counsel"
> > > > > (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section)
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion.
> It
> > > is
> > > > > not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge
> about
> > > it.
> > > > > However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the
> > > > > Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot
> whose
> > > IFR
> > > > > currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief
> Counsel
> > > > > Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes
> a
> > > > > "useable" approach for currency
> > > > > purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule
> > > contrary
> > > > > to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official
> legal
> > > > > opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its
> > > existence
> > > > > when doing my approaches for currency purposes..
> > > > > Tailwinds.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although
> not
> > > > > > regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have
> > > > > > printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a
> reader
> > > > > > inquiry, said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been
> cleared
> > > > > > > for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may
> log
> > > that
> > > > > > > approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of
> the
> > > > > > > clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the
> > > > > > > prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to
> maximize
> > > the
> > > > > > > training benefit."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
> > > > > > Tomblin) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out
> and
> > > saw
> > > > > > >the runway after I got established but before I started my
> descent,
> > > > > > >cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and
> > > landed
> > > > > > >on the green dot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the
> glide
> > > slope,
> > > > > > >saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did
> the
> > > ILS on
> > > > > > >the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500
> feet
> > > at
> > > > > > >the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just
> above
> > > > > traffic
> > > > > > >pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to
> runway
> > > 25.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> > > > President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> > > > 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> > > > email
> > > > http://www.andraka.com
> > > >
> > > > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> > > > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > > > -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> > President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> > 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> > email
> > http://www.andraka.com
> >
> > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> >
> >

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

C J Campbell
August 10th 03, 10:37 PM
There are too many contradictory opinions on what it means to perform or log
approaches under actual or simulated instrument conditions. John Lynch
carefully avoids the issue in the FAQs, saying only that in order to log
instrument flight time you must fly the aircraft solely by reference to the
instruments and that if you want to log an approach you must fly it at least
beyond the FAF; you can't just fly to the FAF and call it an approach.

Well, fine. If you fly an approach solely by reference to the instruments
until you are at least beyond the FAF, then it seems to me that you should
be able to log it as an instrument approach.

Requiring the flight to be IMC all the way to the MAP seems to have too many
problems. For one thing, the vast majority of approaches are not flown all
the way to the MAP. You have to take over visually at some point and land or
go missed. If you are flying a typical non-precision approach and can't see
the runway until you reach the MAP, then odds are you don't have the
visibility minimums to land. Also, flying all the way to the MAP is
discouraged at many airports. Similarly, it is rare to fly the full approach
before the FAF. You frequently get vectors to final, omit the procedure
turn, etc.

The regulations should be interpreted in such a way as to make it possible
to comply with them; otherwise there is no point in even having the
regulation.

I tend to be rather conservative and don't log all the approaches I probably
could.

Gary L. Drescher
August 12th 03, 04:05 PM
"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> Gary L. Drescher wrote:
>
> > It would be odd to require IMC to the MAP, since that would effectively
> > preclude almost all precision non-missed IMC approaches from being
> > loggable (since it's rare for the ceiling to be exactly at DH, rather
than
> > a little
> > higher or lower).
>
> Assuming controlled airspace, isn't 499' below a ceiling still IMC?

Yes, I spoke imprecisely. The requirement set forth in 61.57c1 is for not
instrument meteorological conditions, but rather for instrument conditions.
You'd think the two terms would be synonymous, but in one of the more
spectacular examples of FAR incomprehensibility, they are not. The term
"instrument conditions" is not even defined in the FARs or the AIM, but
apparently it refers to conditions that require flight by reference to
instruments. Similarly for the undefined term "instrument flight
conditions" in 61.51g1. You can have IMC without IC/IFC (as in your
example), and you can have IC/IFC without IMC (e.g. flying over water on a
clear, moonless night).

IMC pertains to separation; IC/IFC pertains to control of the aircraft. So
if the terminology were rational, the FAA would refer to instrument
separation conditions (ISC) and instrument control conditions (ICC).
Instead, the FAA refers to instrument meteorological conditions vs.
instrument flight conditions (the latter without even giving a definition),
even though both are meteorological conditions and both are flight
conditions, so the names give no clue as to the difference in meaning.

--Gary

>
> - Andrew
>

Roger Halstead
August 13th 03, 09:53 PM
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:23:09 GMT, "Matthew Waugh"
> wrote:

>"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
et...
>> The two sentences are related, but the question is how. Without using a
>> hood, the approach has to be flown in actual IMC.

Only started.

> But does that mean that
>> some, most, or all of that flying has to be in IMC? The flying must
>> continue to the MAP, but that doesn't tell us how much of the flying has
>to
>> be in the clouds.

The approach only has to start in IMC.

>
>Ah - my mistake. I thought the definition of actual IMC was pretty clear,
>but apparently not.

The definition is, but it is being applied where it is not necessary.
IMC only need apply at the beginning of the approach.
I have never flown an approach that was all IMC where I could land.
Any instrument approach in normal category aircraft to a landing will
be at least partially flown in VMC.

On an ILS, it matters not whether you break out right at DH, half way
down, or just past the OM. the whole ILS is loggable as an approach.

>

Terms can be a real problem at times.

Logging the approach and logging the time are, or should be, two
different issues.
I was told by my instructors that to log the approach assuming I'm not
under the hood, I only have to be in IMC when I start the approach
from the IAF. This has been in some of the aviation mags as well over
the years.

One given, the entire approach is *never* going to be flown to
completion (with the exception of a missed) in IMC or you couldn't
land. So, no mater how one looks at it is only a matter of degree.

Breaking out right at the MAP in most cases is a glimpse of the
ground prior to going missed and rarely followed by an actual landing.
If it were followed by an actual landing then there are some unusual
weather conditions (which I have seen), or the pilot is dropping down
with the glimpse and busting minimums. You are supposed to be within
30 degrees of the desired runway heading before descending below MDA
in the case of non precision approaches.

At this point you have three choices. You break out far enough prior
to the MAP to see well enough and land, you break out and initiate a
missed at the MAP, or you don't break out and go missed at the MAP.

All three are loggable approaches.
Technically if you break out just past the IAF then the time past the
IAF is not loggable as IMC, but the approach can still be logged.
Otherwise the FAA would have to set some kind of standard that says so
many percent of the course between the IAF and the MAP would have to
be IMC to be logable and I've never seen such a definition.

The flying the approach to the MAP does not mean it has to be IMC all
the way to the MAP. Only that if you are doing approaches, you can
not fly the IAF to FAF, break off and still count it. You fly the
whole approach and either land, or go missed at the MAP if you want to
count it. It's an entirely different matter that has nothing to do
with how much of the approach is IMC.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>Mat

Teacherjh
August 14th 03, 04:26 AM
>> The flying must
>> continue to the MAP, but that doesn't tell us
>> how much of the flying has
>> to be in the clouds.
[...]
> The approach only has to start in IMC.

Source?

While we're at it, what about an approach that does not start in IMC, but
continues to just above the MAP in IMC. Loggable? (of course). Source?
(beats me.)

Jose





(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Robert M. Gary
August 14th 03, 05:58 PM
Bill Zaleski > wrote in message >...
> I fail to understand the logic of your statement, Robert. I am not
> slamming or bashing, but just trying to understand.
>
> If you "must be IMC from the IAF to the MAP" then legally, you must
> have missed on the approach, since you have stated that you are in
> "IMC at the MAP". Surely, one must not miss an aproach in actual in
> order to use it for legal currency.

Well, you could break at at the MAP (I actually have) but it is true
that you could have to get pretty lucky to get that weather. However,
that is what the Sacramento FSDO says and Mr. Lynch as well. So you
are correct, a successful approach in actual conditions would almost
never be loggable in their view. For me personally, I log the approach
if I encounter any IMC between the IAP and MAP. However, since I'm a
CFI and I'm flying around with students (sometimes in the clouds) and
often with my wife and small kids, I do an IPC with our local DE every
6 months.

Roger Halstead
August 16th 03, 05:22 PM
On 14 Aug 2003 09:58:16 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

>Bill Zaleski > wrote in message >...
>> I fail to understand the logic of your statement, Robert. I am not
>> slamming or bashing, but just trying to understand.
>>
>> If you "must be IMC from the IAF to the MAP" then legally, you must
>> have missed on the approach, since you have stated that you are in
>> "IMC at the MAP". Surely, one must not miss an aproach in actual in
>> order to use it for legal currency.
>
>Well, you could break at at the MAP (I actually have) but it is true
>that you could have to get pretty lucky to get that weather. However,
>that is what the Sacramento FSDO says and Mr. Lynch as well. So you

OTOH Ask the FAA, or one of the columns in one of the magazines
sometime in the last couple of years did a clarification as the way it
was written virtually no real approach that could result in a landing
could have been counted for currency.

>are correct, a successful approach in actual conditions would almost
>never be loggable in their view. For me personally, I log the approach
>if I encounter any IMC between the IAP and MAP. However, since I'm a

That was a general interpretation in the magazine. If you ended up in
actual for any part of the approach then the approach counted.

As to practice approaches they had to be flown to the MAP, or to a
landing and you could take the foggles off once close enough to make a
landing.

>CFI and I'm flying around with students (sometimes in the clouds) and
>often with my wife and small kids, I do an IPC with our local DE every
>6 months.

As I recall the IPC a number of the instructors use here is a cross
country to an ILS with a miss and the published hold, then to a
second airport for a VOR and circle to land (depending on the runway)
with a missed. Then on north to an NDB that is also an LOM with a
circle to land...then back home with the VOR and circle to land, or a
GPS approach if you got it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Google