New IFR Currency requirements...!

[Dan[_1_]]

So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR currency
requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour of cross-
country time will be required, along with six approaches, consisting
of BOTH precision and non-precision, and two types of holds.

Some of this can be completed in a PCATD, but an instructor must be
present. (I wonder if a remote MSFS console via the Internet counts..)

Most of it sounds OK to me, however I think the 1 hour of cross-
country time is pointless. What would be considered cross-country? It
is a little vague...

Here is the link:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-1467.pdf

The interesting bit starts on page 31 of the PDF.

--Dan

[Jim Macklin]

The AOPA has a nice chart that summarizes all the changes...
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070215part61-position.pdf
Pilots: What do you think about Part 61 changes?

The FAA's proposed overhaul of the pilot certification
regulations needs some tweaking, and AOPA wants your ideas.

"We need to know how these changes would affect your
flying," said Luis Gutierrez, AOPA director of regulatory
and certification policy. "Some of the benefits and problem
areas are obvious, but others are a little more gray."

You can start by reviewing a chart that explains all of the
FAA's proposed changes - in plain English - and AOPA's
position. You can send us your feedback on the changes and
our position via e-mail. Top 10 proposed changes that would
affect GA...

(February 20)

"Dan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
| So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR
currency
| requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour of
cross-
| country time will be required, along with six approaches,
consisting
| of BOTH precision and non-precision, and two types of
holds.
|
| Some of this can be completed in a PCATD, but an
instructor must be
| present. (I wonder if a remote MSFS console via the
Internet counts..)
|
| Most of it sounds OK to me, however I think the 1 hour of
cross-
| country time is pointless. What would be considered
cross-country? It
| is a little vague...
|
| Here is the link:
|
|
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-1467.pdf
|
| The interesting bit starts on page 31 of the PDF.
|
| --Dan
|

[Travis Marlatte]

"Dan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR currency

AOPA has a comparision chart and summary. They also provide the opportunity
to respond with thoughts.

I hope that they clarify it, but my read of the sentence structure is that
it will not require 1-hour of cross-country time. Here is the text, "One
hour of simulated cross-country practice operation that involves
intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems
while performing a takeoff phase, area departure phase, enroute phase, area
arrival phase, approach phase, and a missed approach phase of flight."

They used the word "simulated" and in that same sentence refer to all the
other stuff you're supposed to do. I also don't believe that they meant to
use "cross-country" to mean flying to another airport more than 50 miles
away. Once you have done all the other stuff, there won't be much time for
cruise. It doesn't say do all that stuff plus an hour of cross-country.

I believe (and I hope that the clarification shows) that they just wanted to
have the pilot demonstrate skills in all phases of flight.

However, what does area departure and area arrival phase really mean? Is it
formal procedures? Does it mean only using airports with SIDs and STARs? Or,
did they just mean transitioning between enroute airways and the airport.

What about teakoff phase? Do I need to go under the hood shortly after
rotation? That may create unsafe situations with a pilot trying to
transition to under the hood during a busy time, close to the ground.

Does this all have to happen during the same sequence of events? Why 1-hour?
Is that a calculated time based on how long they think it will take to do
all that?

I'm all for scenario-based training. I think it makes sense. Requiring the
use of SIDs or STARs; requiring 1 hour of enroute tracking; or requiring a
cross-country (by the reg's definition) - is going too far.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Roy Smith]

"Dan" > wrote:
> So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR currency
> requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour of cross-
> country time will be required, along with six approaches, consisting
> of BOTH precision and non-precision, and two types of holds.

This all seems perfectly reasonable. The old rules (previous to what we
operate under today) required "six and six", i.e. 6 approaches and 6 hours
of flight time. Getting rid of the 6 hours of flight time was a rather
drastic reduction; this moves us back a little bit towards where it used to
be.

The way the rules are written today, you can maintain currency by getting
vectors to the same ILS at your home drome 6 times and doing one hold.
Repeat every six months. By this time, you should have the fixes and
altitudes memorized and can probably read back the vectors in your sleep.
You can do it in broad daylight, and pick a day when there's no wind, no
traffic, and the weather is CAVU. And 5 months after this pencil-whipping,
you're still current to launch into single pilot night IFR in rain and 20
kts of wind and 200 foot ceilings.

All the one hour of cross-country flying does is make you get out of the
pattern of your home airport. You might have to get a real weather
briefing before you launch instead of just sticking your head out the door
and looking up.

I like the hold requirement too. More and more, we're becoming dependent
on GPS and forgetting traditional techniques. If twice a year you need to
tune in a real VOR and play with the needles, is that going to kill you?

> Most of it sounds OK to me, however I think the 1 hour of cross-
> country time is pointless. What would be considered cross-country? It
> is a little vague...

Pointless? No. I do agree with you that's it's a little vague. I'd like
to see them define better what they mean by "cross country". There are
various definitions of cross country in the book for various purposes. I
think what makes sense here is "a full stop landing at an airport 50 miles
from your point of departure", although I suppose Alaska bush pilots might
object to having their destination limited to an airport.

[Don Poitras]

Dan > wrote:
> So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR currency
> requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour of cross-
> country time will be required, along with six approaches, consisting
> of BOTH precision and non-precision, and two types of holds.

> Some of this can be completed in a PCATD, but an instructor must be
> present. (I wonder if a remote MSFS console via the Internet counts..)

> Most of it sounds OK to me, however I think the 1 hour of cross-
> country time is pointless. What would be considered cross-country? It
> is a little vague...

> Here is the link:

> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-1467.pdf

> The interesting bit starts on page 31 of the PDF.

I've never done a takeoff under the hood. I wonder if it would be ok if
I did that just before rotating or if it needs to be done for the
entire roll. I'm glad my home airport runway is 100 feet wide...

Yes, I know we can legally take off zero zero. It's just not something
I think I need to practice every six months.

With a /G plane, the hold over the radio station and intersection are
no different. I wonder where these requirements are coming from? Has
someone been complaining that pilots aren't doing holds very well and
should practice more? An hour cross country? My last currency ride actually
did last more than an hour. We didn't cross much country though. We
did a GPS at Chapel Hill and from the hold at the missed went to the
nearby IAP for the GPS at my home airport at Sanford. They're 21 miles
apart.


> --Dan


--
Don Poitras

[Jose]

> I
> think what makes sense here is "a full stop landing at an airport 50 miles
> from your point of departure", although I suppose Alaska bush pilots might
> object to having their destination limited to an airport.

Why does that make sensse here? This is for instrument currency;
landings are not part of it, neither is a full stop, and fifty miles is
arbitrary.

What makes sense to me (that the FAA is aiming for) is that they want
you to transition from the departure mindset to a cruise mindset to an
arrival mindset, to an actual approach.

Whether this actually makes sense as a requirement for currency, or is a
waste of time that could better be spent on other things, is another
question. I would look at the accident statisitics to determine what it
is that tends to bite people, and concentrate on those items. Night
circle to land with low ceilings and visibility (a visual procedure)
seems to be such an animal, but I think that's kind of hard to practice
appropriately.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > I
> > think what makes sense here is "a full stop landing at an airport 50 miles
> > from your point of departure", although I suppose Alaska bush pilots might
> > object to having their destination limited to an airport.
>
> Why does that make sensse here? This is for instrument currency;
> landings are not part of it, neither is a full stop, and fifty miles is
> arbitrary.

A full stop landing damn well is part of instrument flying. The whole
point of an instrument flight is to get to another airport when the weather
is bad.

I can't tell you how many approaches I watch people make where they
couldn't possible land at the end. When I ask them how the approach went,
I get back, "I think it went pretty well". Then I ask them if they could
have landed, and they say something like, "Well, no, because I was still at
700 AGL over the threshold and doing 90 kts".

I suppose 50 miles is somewhat arbitrary, but it seems to me that the whole
point here is to get people away from their familiar home environment. If
taking two 50 mile flights twice a year is a hardship, I don't understand
what people are doing with their ratings.

> What makes sense to me (that the FAA is aiming for) is that they want
> you to transition from the departure mindset to a cruise mindset to an
> arrival mindset, to an actual approach.

Yeah, right. And it's kind of hard to do that in much less than 50 miles.
On any kind of real IFR flight with weather that's at all marginal, one of
the first things I do once I get settled into cruise is call up flight
watch and get an update on weather along my route. There's neither time
nor reason to do that on a 25 mile hop to the next airport over.

Of course, you could just turn on the A/P and read a magazine during the
cruise portion. You can lead a pilot to currency, but you can't make him
actually learn anything while doing it.

[Jose]

> I can't tell you how many approaches I watch people make where they
> couldn't possible land at the end.

Ok, fair enough (though in the example you cite it seems like he could
have circled to land). I'd have to ask what you think the purpose of
currency requirements is. If it is to repeatedly prove that you can
still do =all= aspects of instrument flying by actually =doing= all
aspects of instrument flying, I'd say that's overkill.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

An instrument take-off can be done under the hood, but the
FAA practice has been to put the hood on at 100-200 feet.
And then fail an engine on a twin.


"Don Poitras" > wrote in message
...
| Dan > wrote:
| > So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR
currency
| > requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour
of cross-
| > country time will be required, along with six
approaches, consisting
| > of BOTH precision and non-precision, and two types of
holds.
|
| > Some of this can be completed in a PCATD, but an
instructor must be
| > present. (I wonder if a remote MSFS console via the
Internet counts..)
|
| > Most of it sounds OK to me, however I think the 1 hour
of cross-
| > country time is pointless. What would be considered
cross-country? It
| > is a little vague...
|
| > Here is the link:
|
| >
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-1467.pdf
|
| > The interesting bit starts on page 31 of the PDF.
|
| I've never done a takeoff under the hood. I wonder if it
would be ok if
| I did that just before rotating or if it needs to be done
for the
| entire roll. I'm glad my home airport runway is 100 feet
wide...
|
| Yes, I know we can legally take off zero zero. It's just
not something
| I think I need to practice every six months.
|
| With a /G plane, the hold over the radio station and
intersection are
| no different. I wonder where these requirements are coming
from? Has
| someone been complaining that pilots aren't doing holds
very well and
| should practice more? An hour cross country? My last
currency ride actually
| did last more than an hour. We didn't cross much country
though. We
| did a GPS at Chapel Hill and from the hold at the missed
went to the
| nearby IAP for the GPS at my home airport at Sanford.
They're 21 miles
| apart.
|
|
| > --Dan
|
|
| --
| Don Poitras

[Guillermo]

On Feb 25, 8:14 am, Roy Smith > wrote:
> Pointless? No. I do agree with you that's it's a little vague. I'd like
> to see them define better what they mean by "cross country". There are
> various definitions of cross country in the book for various purposes. I
> think what makes sense here is "a full stop landing at an airport 50 miles
> from your point of departure", although I suppose Alaska bush pilots might
> object to having their destination limited to an airport.

The definition of cross-country time per FAR 61.1 (3) only requires
the flight to include a landing at a point other than the point of
departure. The 50 NM only apply for the purpose of obtaining
aeronautical experience for the obtention of a private, commercial and
ATP certificates.

(3) Cross-country time means-

(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) through (b)(3)(vi) of
this section, time acquired during flight-

(A) Conducted by a person who holds a pilot certificate;

(B) Conducted in an aircraft;

(C) That includes a landing at a point other than the point of
departure; and

(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic
navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate
to the landing point.

[Dan[_1_]]

On Feb 25, 6:14 am, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
> Pointless? No. I do agree with you that's it's a little vague....

My point here was that if I can control the plane by reference to
instruments while doing approaches, I sure as heck must be able to do
it while remaining straight and level. What additional experience am
I gaining by simply being in cruise flight for that long?

On a somewhat unrelated note, how are professional pilots going to
stay current? Their normal flying probably takes care of that today,
but I don't know of many airlines that still use non-precision
approaches.

--Dan

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Roy Smith > said:
>The way the rules are written today, you can maintain currency by getting
>vectors to the same ILS at your home drome 6 times and doing one hold.
>Repeat every six months. By this time, you should have the fixes and
>altitudes memorized and can probably read back the vectors in your sleep.

All the real world IFR flying I've done since getting my ticket has
involved flying in or over clouds en-route, and maybe once in a while
doing an ILS where I break out soon after crossing the FAF. I've never
done a real circle to land (and I hope I never have to), and I've only
once done a LOC-BC approach in the clouds (which with a HSI was pretty
much a non-event). So if all I did for currency was fly 6 ILSes at my
home airport, I would be pretty well prepared for what I'm going to
encounter in real life. I've been trying to mix it up a bit, however, but
there's only so much a safety pilot will put up with, especially since
they decommissioned our NDB approach.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"I'm starting to suspect she has a part-time job in one of the circles of
Hell and is telecommuting."

[Travis Marlatte]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>
> A full stop landing damn well is part of instrument flying. The whole
> point of an instrument flight is to get to another airport when the
> weather
> is bad.
>
>
> I suppose 50 miles is somewhat arbitrary, but it seems to me that the
> whole
> point here is to get people away from their familiar home environment. If
> taking two 50 mile flights twice a year is a hardship, I don't understand
> what people are doing with their ratings.
>
> Yeah, right. And it's kind of hard to do that in much less than 50 miles.
> On any kind of real IFR flight with weather that's at all marginal, one of
> the first things I do once I get settled into cruise is call up flight
> watch and get an update on weather along my route. There's neither time
> nor reason to do that on a 25 mile hop to the next airport over.
>

This is for currency. If one doesn't fly any real IFR over a six-month
period, then requiring a little enroute flying with the appropriate
transitions at the ends seems reasonable. It is the wording that bothers me.
It seems to imply that currency would include a single flight that entails
all the transitions and enroute time. What if I had an hour of real IFR and
an approach or two and just needed to fill in the gaps?


-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Travis Marlatte]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> An instrument take-off can be done under the hood, but the
> FAA practice has been to put the hood on at 100-200 feet.
> And then fail an engine on a twin.
>
>
> "Don Poitras" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Dan > wrote:
> | > So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR
> currency
> | > requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour
> of cross-
> | > country time will be required, along with six
> approaches, consisting
> | > of BOTH precision and non-precision, and two types of
> holds.
> |
> | > Some of this can be completed in a PCATD, but an
> instructor must be
> | > present. (I wonder if a remote MSFS console via the
> Internet counts..)
> |
> | > Most of it sounds OK to me, however I think the 1 hour
> of cross-
> | > country time is pointless. What would be considered
> cross-country? It
> | > is a little vague...
> |
> | > Here is the link:
> |
> | >
> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-1467.pdf
> |
> | > The interesting bit starts on page 31 of the PDF.
> |
> | I've never done a takeoff under the hood. I wonder if it
> would be ok if
> | I did that just before rotating or if it needs to be done
> for the
> | entire roll. I'm glad my home airport runway is 100 feet
> wide...
> |
> | Yes, I know we can legally take off zero zero. It's just
> not something
> | I think I need to practice every six months.
> |
> | With a /G plane, the hold over the radio station and
> intersection are
> | no different. I wonder where these requirements are coming
> from? Has
> | someone been complaining that pilots aren't doing holds
> very well and
> | should practice more? An hour cross country? My last
> currency ride actually
> | did last more than an hour. We didn't cross much country
> though. We
> | did a GPS at Chapel Hill and from the hold at the missed
> went to the
> | nearby IAP for the GPS at my home airport at Sanford.
> They're 21 miles
> | apart.
> |
> |
> | > --Dan
> |
> |
> | --
> | Don Poitras
>
>
That's nice with an instructor. I'm not sure that I would trust that flight
scenario with the typical safety pilots I recruit. Most are non-instrument
rated and maybe even unfamiliar with my plane. Transitioning to the hood
just after rotation (which I find more difficult than transition to IMC),
close to the ground, in a climb, following a departure procedure, in a busy
airspace sounds like a tough scenario to require every six months.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Roy Smith]

In article . com>,
"Dan" > wrote:

> On Feb 25, 6:14 am, Roy Smith > wrote:
> >
> > Pointless? No. I do agree with you that's it's a little vague....
>
> My point here was that if I can control the plane by reference to
> instruments while doing approaches, I sure as heck must be able to do
> it while remaining straight and level. What additional experience am
> I gaining by simply being in cruise flight for that long?

You get the experience of going someplace that's outside of your familiar
area, where you actually have to think about how to get where you're going,
look things up because you don't already have them memorized.

You can spend the cruise time (if you can count 15 minutes as "cruise
time") doing things like getting a weather update, reviewing your fuel
status, planning your descent profile, etc. These are all things you
should be doing on normal IFR flights anyway.

Even better, put your safety pilot to good use and have him give you a
diversion to someplace you haven't planned. Pull out the charts, figure
out a route, air-file a flight plan, pick up your clearance, and program
the GPS with the new route. That'll keep you busy during the en-route
segment.

Anybody who's flying real IFR on a regular basis will meet these
requirements as part of his or her normal flying. Even if you need to go
out and fly a bunch of approaches just to get current, going to someplace
that's 50 miles away just shouldn't be a hardship. Most places, there's
enough approaches around that without much effort, you can put together a
loop where the missed approach from one puts you to the general vicinity of
the IAF of the next.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > I can't tell you how many approaches I watch people make where they
> > couldn't possible land at the end.
>
> Ok, fair enough (though in the example you cite it seems like he could
> have circled to land). I'd have to ask what you think the purpose of
> currency requirements is. If it is to repeatedly prove that you can
> still do =all= aspects of instrument flying by actually =doing= all
> aspects of instrument flying, I'd say that's overkill.
>
> Jose

Proving that you can land the airplane at the end of the flight doesn't
seem like a lot to ask.

BTW, if you're reached the straight-in MDA and find you can't land, it's
too late to be planning a circling maneuver.

[Jose]

> Even if you need to go
> out and fly a bunch of approaches just to get current, going to someplace
> that's 50 miles away just shouldn't be a hardship.

It's an added expense which may well be pointless. That same time and
money could be better spent doing more approaches under different
circumstances (including failed instruments)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Proving that you can land the airplane at the end of the flight doesn't
> seem like a lot to ask.

Well, I'm not sure I agree. There are lots of things that pilots need
to be able to do that they don't have to prove repeatedly.

> BTW, if you're reached the straight-in MDA and find you can't land, it's
> too late to be planning a circling maneuver.

True. But in that case (and your example) I'd say the approach was
botched, and the pilot's evaluation of his own approach is flawed.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:49:03 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>I suppose 50 miles is somewhat arbitrary, but it seems to me that the whole
>point here is to get people away from their familiar home environment. If
>taking two 50 mile flights twice a year is a hardship, I don't understand
>what people are doing with their ratings.

You'd think actually using the rating would at least meet the minimum
currency requirements.

I'm not so sure I'd want to fly with someone who continually was
worried about flying just enough to stay legally current.

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/25/07 08:52, Travis Marlatte wrote:
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> Jose > wrote:
>>
>>
>> A full stop landing damn well is part of instrument flying. The whole
>> point of an instrument flight is to get to another airport when the
>> weather
>> is bad.
>>
>>
>> I suppose 50 miles is somewhat arbitrary, but it seems to me that the
>> whole
>> point here is to get people away from their familiar home environment. If
>> taking two 50 mile flights twice a year is a hardship, I don't understand
>> what people are doing with their ratings.
>>
>> Yeah, right. And it's kind of hard to do that in much less than 50 miles.
>> On any kind of real IFR flight with weather that's at all marginal, one of
>> the first things I do once I get settled into cruise is call up flight
>> watch and get an update on weather along my route. There's neither time
>> nor reason to do that on a 25 mile hop to the next airport over.
>>
>
> This is for currency. If one doesn't fly any real IFR over a six-month

Uhhh, let's not get IFR and IMC confused. You can fly all the IFR you
want over the six month period, including approaches, holding, etc.
yet still need to do the currency.

> period, then requiring a little enroute flying with the appropriate
> transitions at the ends seems reasonable. It is the wording that bothers me.
> It seems to imply that currency would include a single flight that entails
> all the transitions and enroute time. What if I had an hour of real IFR and
> an approach or two and just needed to fill in the gaps?
>
>
> -------------------------------
> Travis
> Lake N3094P
> PWK
>
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/25/07 11:18, Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:49:03 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:
>>
>>I suppose 50 miles is somewhat arbitrary, but it seems to me that the whole
>>point here is to get people away from their familiar home environment. If
>>taking two 50 mile flights twice a year is a hardship, I don't understand
>>what people are doing with their ratings.
>
> You'd think actually using the rating would at least meet the minimum
> currency requirements.

The currency requires actual or simulated IMC. Actual IMC may be hard to
come by in some areas, so you're left with simulated (and the safety
pilot which that requires).

You could fly IFR every day, yet still need to get a safety pilot and
do the currency every six months.

>
> I'm not so sure I'd want to fly with someone who continually was
> worried about flying just enough to stay legally current.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:55:27 -0800, Mark Hansen
> wrote:

>
>The currency requires actual or simulated IMC. Actual IMC may be hard to
>come by in some areas, so you're left with simulated (and the safety
>pilot which that requires).

I know.

Have you ever been to an FBO that isn't full of pilots looking to
build hours (often working for peanuts as line people) willing to log
safety pilot time? I haven't, the flyers are all over the board.

Now if you're talking multi, or stuff that needs a type rating, that's
one thing, but most safety pilots simply need to be a private pilot,
possibly with a complex endorsement. The multi's and type rated stuff
probably sees enough actual that currency comes easily.

[Alan Gerber]

Guillermo > wrote:
> (D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic
> navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate
> to the landing point.

I'm having trouble understanding why this part is in the regulation. Is
it merely stating the obvious, or is there some other way of navigating
that isn't covered by this?

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Alan Gerber > wrote:

> Guillermo > wrote:
> > (D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic
> > navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate
> > to the landing point.
>
> I'm having trouble understanding why this part is in the regulation. Is
> it merely stating the obvious, or is there some other way of navigating
> that isn't covered by this?
>
> ... Alan

Vectors.

Also, a strict reading of the regulation would say that if you just take
off in a random direction, wander around totally lost for an hour, happen
to find an airport by pure luck and land, it shouldn't count as X/C time.

I suppose if you're flying formation, only the lead would get to log X/C
time.

[Roger[_4_]]

On 24 Feb 2007 22:14:22 -0800, "Dan" > wrote:

>So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR currency
>requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour of cross-
>country time will be required, along with six approaches, consisting
>of BOTH precision and non-precision, and two types of holds.
>
>Some of this can be completed in a PCATD, but an instructor must be
>present. (I wonder if a remote MSFS console via the Internet counts..)

I make no guarantee for the accuracy of my interpretation of what I
think they said or what they meant.

It would still need to be approved and as MS emphatically states MSFS
is a game I seriously doubt it'd be accepted.<:-))

OTOH it's supposed to represent the plane, or class of plane the pilot
flies. I think there is going to be a fair amount of rewording
between now and the final document.

We are not going to be doing unusual attitude recoveries at Vne in my
plane VFR or IFR! There is a very fine line between staying safe and
breaking something when moving at Vne. I'm pretty sure what they meant
and I don't think it's quite what they said.


>
>Most of it sounds OK to me, however I think the 1 hour of cross-
>country time is pointless. What would be considered cross-country? It
>is a little vague...

The way it is phrased I read it as just flying between to points that
are far enough apart require using departure and approach at each
airport and fit in the tracking and interception part for a total of
one hour. IOW it's a pretty short cross county<:-)) As it requires
flying a missed a lot of the requirements could be combined. They
probably intend it to be "more than" 50 miles between airports, but
who knows.

To me, that amounts to nothing more than following a course, airway,
radials, or vectors and I don't think it'd add much of anything to
experience. If a pilot can do the approaches and holds they certainly
can fly from point A to point B. About the only thing the cross
country would do that's not in an approach the way it's phrased
*might* include being handed off to a center some where. Otherwise you
get the same thing flying approaches.

>
>Here is the link:
>
>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-1467.pdf
>
>The interesting bit starts on page 31 of the PDF.

Other than the PCATD it sounds much like it was before then went to
the current requirements. That and changing the definitions from "at
least" to "More than" which seems kinda needless and could cause some
problems in some cases.
>
> --Dan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bill Zaleski]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:48:24 -0500, Roger >
wrote:

>On 24 Feb 2007 22:14:22 -0800, "Dan" > wrote:
>
>>So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR currency
>>requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour of cross-
>>country time will be required, along with six approaches, consisting
>>of BOTH precision and non-precision, and two types of holds.
>>
>>Some of this can be completed in a PCATD, but an instructor must be
>>present. (I wonder if a remote MSFS console via the Internet counts..)
>
>I make no guarantee for the accuracy of my interpretation of what I
>think they said or what they meant.
>
>It would still need to be approved and as MS emphatically states MSFS
>is a game I seriously doubt it'd be accepted.<:-))
>
>OTOH it's supposed to represent the plane, or class of plane the pilot
>flies. I think there is going to be a fair amount of rewording
>between now and the final document.
>
>We are not going to be doing unusual attitude recoveries at Vne in my
>plane VFR or IFR! There is a very fine line between staying safe and
>breaking something when moving at Vne. I'm pretty sure what they meant
>and I don't think it's quite what they said.
>
>
>>
>>Most of it sounds OK to me, however I think the 1 hour of cross-
>>country time is pointless. What would be considered cross-country? It
>>is a little vague...
>
>The way it is phrased I read it as just flying between to points that
>are far enough apart require using departure and approach at each
>airport and fit in the tracking and interception part for a total of
>one hour. IOW it's a pretty short cross county<:-)) As it requires
>flying a missed a lot of the requirements could be combined. They
>probably intend it to be "more than" 50 miles between airports, but
>who knows.
>
>To me, that amounts to nothing more than following a course, airway,
>radials, or vectors and I don't think it'd add much of anything to
>experience. If a pilot can do the approaches and holds they certainly
>can fly from point A to point B. About the only thing the cross
>country would do that's not in an approach the way it's phrased
>*might* include being handed off to a center some where. Otherwise you
>get the same thing flying approaches.
>
>>
>>Here is the link:
>>
>>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-1467.pdf
>>
>>The interesting bit starts on page 31 of the PDF.
>
>Other than the PCATD it sounds much like it was before then went to
>the current requirements. That and changing the definitions from "at
>least" to "More than" which seems kinda needless and could cause some
>problems in some cases.
>>
>> --Dan
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

Nowhere in the proposal is unusual attitudes mentioned where it is
required they be done in an aircraft.

[Sam Spade]

Travis Marlatte wrote:

> This is for currency. If one doesn't fly any real IFR over a six-month
> period, then requiring a little enroute flying with the appropriate
> transitions at the ends seems reasonable. It is the wording that bothers me.
> It seems to imply that currency would include a single flight that entails
> all the transitions and enroute time. What if I had an hour of real IFR and
> an approach or two and just needed to fill in the gaps?
>

Those of us who make a living flying (past tense for me ;-) get a whole
lot of actual IFR. Yet, we find ourselves in the sim doing the whole
drill once or twice a year.

I think it is not unreasonable to have a non-commercial pilot show he
can do the full drill on a periodic basis, even though he has a fair
amount of actual IMC time logged recently.

After I retired I did a few ICCs in an approved training device rather
than in an airplane. Those ATD ICCs were done by a couple of very good
CFI-Is. We did the full drill, departure, short en route (tower to
tower Los Angeles Basin routes), hold, arrival, transitions; all of it.

Based on my experience as a commercial pilot and former CFI-I I feel the
benefit to both me and the CFI-I's evaluation of me, was done far bettr
in the ATD.

The real point, though, is successful accomplishment of the full, but
short, "X-Country."

[Jose]

> The real point, though, is successful accomplishment of the full, but short, "X-Country."

But what's the point of that, if it can be shown through other means
that it is likely that one could accomplish a full cross country?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> The real point, though, is successful accomplishment of the full, but
>> short, "X-Country."
>
>
> But what's the point of that, if it can be shown through other means
> that it is likely that one could accomplish a full cross country?
>
> Jose

There is no means quite as good as having a CFI-I work through the
flight with the pilot.

[Jose]

> There is no means quite as good as having a CFI-I work through the flight with the pilot.

Well, then why not have the CFI-I work through every flight? After all,
even after demonstrating takeoff, holds, cruise, and an ILS approach to
minimums at night in a driving rainstorm ending in a successful landing
with an obligatory full stop before taking off again does not prove that
the pilot is capable of doing an NDB during the day in calm winds, or
landing on a short runway after a VOR approach, or successfully
executing a go-around if a spotted deer is spotted on the runway after
an otherwise uneventful GPS approach (which has not been demonstrated
either).

There are reasonable limits as to what we have to prove all the time,
and there are cost/benefit judgements to be made.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Alan Gerber]

Roy Smith > wrote:
> Vectors.

Aha, I hadn't thought of that.

Wait, I got vectors from NY Approach on my first solo cross-country. Does
this mean that the flight doesn't count?

> Also, a strict reading of the regulation would say that if you just take
> off in a random direction, wander around totally lost for an hour, happen
> to find an airport by pure luck and land, it shouldn't count as X/C time.

What if it's the airport you meant to go to in the first place? :-)

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 24, 10:14 pm, "Dan" > wrote:
> So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR currency
> requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour of cross-
> country time will be required, along with six approaches, consisting


To the cynical it appears the FAA is trying to encourage more people
to do their proficiency flights in a simulator and making it harder to
do them in an airplane.

-Robert

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> There is no means quite as good as having a CFI-I work through the
>> flight with the pilot.
>
>
> Well, then why not have the CFI-I work through every flight? After all,
> even after demonstrating takeoff, holds, cruise, and an ILS approach to
> minimums at night in a driving rainstorm ending in a successful landing
> with an obligatory full stop before taking off again does not prove that
> the pilot is capable of doing an NDB during the day in calm winds, or
> landing on a short runway after a VOR approach, or successfully
> executing a go-around if a spotted deer is spotted on the runway after
> an otherwise uneventful GPS approach (which has not been demonstrated
> either).
>
> There are reasonable limits as to what we have to prove all the time,
> and there are cost/benefit judgements to be made.
>
> Jose
It's not worth debating. You always have your mind made up.

[Jose]

> It's not worth debating. You always have your mind made up.

Actually, I don't know how I feel about the proposed rules. I don't
however think that a knee-jerk "more rules are good rules" reaction is
the correct one. It seems to me that the purpose of instrument currency
rules is to ensure that the rust stays off the IFR abilities, not to
"prove" to the FAA that one is capable of everything (although one
=should= be capable of everything the license reasonably lets one do).

What I am unconvinced of is that flying in cruise knocks any rust off
that flying an approach hasn't already disloged. Your point about good
approaches to unlandable configurations is well taken; but while one
might need to demonstrate competence to an examiner when an examination
is warranted, I'm not convinced that the same holds true for currency rules.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ray Andraka]

Jose wrote:

>> It's not worth debating. You always have your mind made up.
>
>
> Actually, I don't know how I feel about the proposed rules. I don't
> however think that a knee-jerk "more rules are good rules" reaction is
> the correct one. It seems to me that the purpose of instrument currency
> rules is to ensure that the rust stays off the IFR abilities, not to
> "prove" to the FAA that one is capable of everything (although one
> =should= be capable of everything the license reasonably lets one do).
>
> What I am unconvinced of is that flying in cruise knocks any rust off
> that flying an approach hasn't already disloged. Your point about good
> approaches to unlandable configurations is well taken; but while one
> might need to demonstrate competence to an examiner when an examination
> is warranted, I'm not convinced that the same holds true for currency
> rules.
>
> Jose

I'm with you on this Jose, I find that the approach phase when it gets
busy is where any rust shows up in spades. Flying IFR in cruise helps
to knock rust off the scan, but doesn't do it the way flying a few
approaches and having to manage quick changes in the navigation etc
does. When I am a little rusty, flying IMC in cruise to high ceilings
so I don't have a challenging approach at the end is a great way to ease
back into the groove. I don't think it is great for keeping a sharp
edge though.

[Gregory Kryspin]

Ditto.

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
>
>>> It's not worth debating. You always have your mind made up.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I don't know how I feel about the proposed rules. I don't
>> however think that a knee-jerk "more rules are good rules" reaction is
>> the correct one. It seems to me that the purpose of instrument currency
>> rules is to ensure that the rust stays off the IFR abilities, not to
>> "prove" to the FAA that one is capable of everything (although one
>> =should= be capable of everything the license reasonably lets one do).
>>
>> What I am unconvinced of is that flying in cruise knocks any rust off
>> that flying an approach hasn't already disloged. Your point about good
>> approaches to unlandable configurations is well taken; but while one
>> might need to demonstrate competence to an examiner when an examination
>> is warranted, I'm not convinced that the same holds true for currency
>> rules.
>>
>> Jose
>
> I'm with you on this Jose, I find that the approach phase when it gets
> busy is where any rust shows up in spades. Flying IFR in cruise helps to
> knock rust off the scan, but doesn't do it the way flying a few approaches
> and having to manage quick changes in the navigation etc does. When I am
> a little rusty, flying IMC in cruise to high ceilings so I don't have a
> challenging approach at the end is a great way to ease back into the
> groove. I don't think it is great for keeping a sharp edge though.