If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Which of these approaches is loggable?
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. -- Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer a Rolls Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon and explode once a year killing everybody inside. - Robert Cringley (InfoWorld) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 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 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
(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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logging instrument approaches | Slav Inger | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | July 27th 03 11:00 PM |
Suppose We Really Do Have Only GPS Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | July 20th 03 05:10 PM |
Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 18th 03 01:43 PM |
NDB approaches -- what are they good for? | Dylan Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | July 10th 03 09:15 PM |