Jose wrote:
The FAA actually proposed that change, perhaps a decade or so ago,
but it was scorned by pilots, and the proposal was withdrawn.
I believe the FAA thinking was that practicing the procedures per se
was the important thing, more so than simply demonstrating
the elemental ability to fly an airplane by reference only to instruments.

Got a link to the proposal? I cannot imagine that the FAA, despite what
I think of them, would ever entertain this.

I'd have to dig out a bunch of old AVSIG archives. Basically it
started when someone asked the definition of "approach in actual" -
i.e. at what point can you break out and still count it as an approach
for currency purposes. Went to the chief counsel for a ruling. They
came back and said that the ONLY approaches you could count was those
in which you went all the way to minimums in IMC.

Well, everyone yelled -- what do you mean I can't count the approach if
I break out at 201 feet AGL!!! So back it went. The *new*
interpretation that came out was "Any instrument approach on an IFR
flight plan counts for currency, no clouds required." That one was
also laughed off the table - You could fly for 20 years, never see
either a hood or a cloud or a simulator, and still be instrument
current. But officially that interpretation did exist for several
years, until the latest re-write (which would seem to clarify the
requirement for clouds or hood or simulator).

Ironically, it STILL doesn't tell you how much "clouds" you have to
have to count the approach. G