Which of these approaches is loggable?

(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

"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

"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
_______________

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

"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)

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)