Which of these approaches is loggable?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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