Logging approaches

"Ross Oliver" wrote in message
...
Ron Garrison wrote:
I could see the ground below
just fine the whole time, but looking forward there was no visible
horizon.

I considered the approach loggable because:
1) navigation aids were required to find the airport
2) There was no visible horizon so the attitude indicator was
required
to identify and maintain the desired aircraft attitude.

Any differing opinions on this one?

Well, I believe the FARs differ:

FAR 61.51(g) Logging instrument flight time
(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when
the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments
under actual or simulated instrument conditions.

IMHO, the key word is "solely." Since you say: "I could see the ground
below just fine the whole time," you were not operating solely by
reference
to instruments, and therefore the flight time and approach cannot legally
be counted toward instrument currency.

Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the aircraft by
reference to the ground at all. You could fly an approach with visibility
of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in IMC), and still see be able to
the ground the whole time. But you wouldn't necessarily be using that view
to aviate or navigate.

--Gary

Setting aside the legalities, from a practical standpoint:

Roy Smith wrote:
Do you honestly feel the experience of flying the approach was such that
it helped keep your instrument skills sharp? If the answer is "yes",
then go ahead and log it with a clear conscience.

I would apply a more stringent test: if you flew six approaches ONLY
in these conditions, would you feel your instrument skills would be
sufficiently current to fly in your personal IMC minimums?


Ross Oliver

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:K0sSb.143265$5V2.761500@attbi_s53

Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the
aircraft by reference to the ground at all. You could fly an
approach with visibility of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in
IMC), and still see be able to the ground the whole time. But you
wouldn't necessarily be using that view to aviate or navigate.

Not to mention that this thread is about logging approaches - not IMC time.
There is a difference.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Gary Drescher ) wrote:

Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the aircraft by
reference to the ground at all. You could fly an approach with visibility
of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in IMC), and still see be able to
the ground the whole time. But you wouldn't necessarily be using that view
to aviate or navigate.

I agree. Last week I was practicing approaches in moderate lake effect
snow where the RVR fluctuated between 1800 and 5000, yet I could see the
ground directly below the aircraft.

Not sure how seeing the ground below is relevant to logging an approach,
unless, of course, I am flying in that direction.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I believe the requirement for logging the time is conditional upon the
following phrase. "...maneuvering the aircraft solely by reference to
instruments..." If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in
the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a
reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering
soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as
actual.
"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher ) wrote:

Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the aircraft
by
reference to the ground at all. You could fly an approach with
visibility
of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in IMC), and still see be able
to
the ground the whole time. But you wouldn't necessarily be using that
view
to aviate or navigate.

I agree. Last week I was practicing approaches in moderate lake effect
snow where the RVR fluctuated between 1800 and 5000, yet I could see the
ground directly below the aircraft.

Not sure how seeing the ground below is relevant to logging an approach,
unless, of course, I am flying in that direction.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"sn" wrote in message ...

I believe the requirement for logging the time is conditional upon the
following phrase. "...maneuvering the aircraft solely by reference to
instruments..." If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in
the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a
reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering
soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as
actual.


Fine, but the complete phrase is "A person may log instrument time only for
that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference
to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions." If
you're not in actual instrument flight conditions or using a vision
restricting device, how can you log any instrument time?

If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in
the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a
reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering
soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as
actual.


Even if you are on a VFR flight plan and are not instrument rated?

Jose


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

Teacherjh wrote:

If you have ever had an experience flying over water or in
the mountains with a high overcast, moonless night, there might be a
reported visibility from stations of 50 miles. Trust me, your maneuvering
soley by reference to your instruments, and every bit of it is loggable as
actual.


Even if you are on a VFR flight plan and are not instrument rated?

The FARs do not specify 'must be on an IFR flight plan', nor do they specify
that you need to be instrument rated to log actual.

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote...
Even if you are on a VFR flight plan and are not instrument rated?

The FARs do not specify 'must be on an IFR flight plan', nor do they specify
that you need to be instrument rated to log actual.

Indeed, you can legally fly under VFR (even without any flight plan at all) as
long as the weather is as prescribed in 91.155. There is no mention of a
visible horizon...

OTOH, you may find yourself at odds with 91.13(a) or 91.113(b) if you have not
sufficiently prepared for the flight or don't have enough experience to safely
fly in the conditions...

Similarly if you are in uncontrolled airspace.
There's less of that than there used to be, though.
---JRC---

"John R Weiss" wrote in message =
news:OxbTb.72923$U%5.402002@attbi_s03...
=20
=20
Indeed, you can legally fly under VFR (even without any flight plan at =
all) as
long as the weather is as prescribed in 91.155. =20
=20

John,

The important point to note is that we should not try 'mix' FARs. If you
want to know about logging, go look in the logging FAR. All others such as
91.155, 91.13, etc are completely irrelavent.

The FAR says: "A person may log instrument time only for that flight time
when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments
under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions."

For example, let's say that a Private non-IR pilot is flying over an
undercast. His/her engine fails completely and he/she glides through the
clouds to a safe landing. The pilot should log that actual time because the
'logging' FAR says the pilot can. IFR, VFR, reckless, cloud distances etc
etc etc has absolutely no bearing on the issue.

Hilton


John R Weiss wrote:
"Hilton" wrote...
Even if you are on a VFR flight plan and are not instrument rated?

The FARs do not specify 'must be on an IFR flight plan', nor do they
specify
that you need to be instrument rated to log actual.

Indeed, you can legally fly under VFR (even without any flight plan at
all) as
long as the weather is as prescribed in 91.155. There is no mention of a
visible horizon...

OTOH, you may find yourself at odds with 91.13(a) or 91.113(b) if you have
not
sufficiently prepared for the flight or don't have enough experience to
safely
fly in the conditions...