Garmin 530 question

Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
hood.

Anyone heard of this?

Chuck

Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
hood.

Anyone heard of this?

Nope. And it doesn't make sense.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Chuck wrote:
Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
hood.

Unless you can show me something official from the FAA, I say your
friend has no idea what he's talking about.

On 04/24/06 08:36, Chuck wrote:
Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
hood.

Anyone heard of this?

Chuck


Hello, Chuck.

I think your friend is wrong. Have a look at CFR 61.57 (c), wherein
it states:

Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section,
no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions
less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6
calendar months, that person has:

1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category
of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight
simulator or flight training device that is representative of the
aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought—

(i) At least six instrument approaches;

(ii) Holding procedures; and

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems.

There are some exceptions in paragraph (e) which probably don't apply to
you or your friend, but you can look them up to make sure.

Can your friend show you the basis on which he makes this claim?

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

Chuck wrote:
Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
hood.

Anyone heard of this?

No. Without some evidence of this, I think your friend is
hallucinating. :-)

Matt

On 4/24/06 5:32 PM, in article , "Matt
Whiting" wrote:

Chuck wrote:
Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
hood.

Anyone heard of this?

No. Without some evidence of this, I think your friend is
hallucinating. :-)

Matt

....And probably not safe to fly with.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Chuck" wrote in message ups.com...

Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
hood.

Anyone heard of this?

Chuck


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.

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.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message om...
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.

Jose

No, I have no link, and yes, your response is similar to many others.

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