Which of these approaches is loggable?

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

There are too many contradictory opinions on what it means to perform or log
approaches under actual or simulated instrument conditions. John Lynch
carefully avoids the issue in the FAQs, saying only that in order to log
instrument flight time you must fly the aircraft solely by reference to the
instruments and that if you want to log an approach you must fly it at least
beyond the FAF; you can't just fly to the FAF and call it an approach.

Well, fine. If you fly an approach solely by reference to the instruments
until you are at least beyond the FAF, then it seems to me that you should
be able to log it as an instrument approach.

Requiring the flight to be IMC all the way to the MAP seems to have too many
problems. For one thing, the vast majority of approaches are not flown all
the way to the MAP. You have to take over visually at some point and land or
go missed. If you are flying a typical non-precision approach and can't see
the runway until you reach the MAP, then odds are you don't have the
visibility minimums to land. Also, flying all the way to the MAP is
discouraged at many airports. Similarly, it is rare to fly the full approach
before the FAF. You frequently get vectors to final, omit the procedure
turn, etc.

The regulations should be interpreted in such a way as to make it possible
to comply with them; otherwise there is no point in even having the
regulation.

I tend to be rather conservative and don't log all the approaches I probably
could.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
...
Gary L. Drescher wrote:

It would be odd to require IMC to the MAP, since that would effectively
preclude almost all precision non-missed IMC approaches from being
loggable (since it's rare for the ceiling to be exactly at DH, rather
than
a little
higher or lower).

Assuming controlled airspace, isn't 499' below a ceiling still IMC?

Yes, I spoke imprecisely. The requirement set forth in 61.57c1 is for not
instrument meteorological conditions, but rather for instrument conditions.
You'd think the two terms would be synonymous, but in one of the more
spectacular examples of FAR incomprehensibility, they are not. The term
"instrument conditions" is not even defined in the FARs or the AIM, but
apparently it refers to conditions that require flight by reference to
instruments. Similarly for the undefined term "instrument flight
conditions" in 61.51g1. You can have IMC without IC/IFC (as in your
example), and you can have IC/IFC without IMC (e.g. flying over water on a
clear, moonless night).

IMC pertains to separation; IC/IFC pertains to control of the aircraft. So
if the terminology were rational, the FAA would refer to instrument
separation conditions (ISC) and instrument control conditions (ICC).
Instead, the FAA refers to instrument meteorological conditions vs.
instrument flight conditions (the latter without even giving a definition),
even though both are meteorological conditions and both are flight
conditions, so the names give no clue as to the difference in meaning.

--Gary


- Andrew

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:23:09 GMT, "Matthew Waugh"
wrote:

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
. net...
The two sentences are related, but the question is how. Without using a
hood, the approach has to be flown in actual IMC.

Only started.

But does that mean that
some, most, or all of that flying has to be in IMC? The flying must
continue to the MAP, but that doesn't tell us how much of the flying has
to
be in the clouds.

The approach only has to start in IMC.


Ah - my mistake. I thought the definition of actual IMC was pretty clear,
but apparently not.

The definition is, but it is being applied where it is not necessary.
IMC only need apply at the beginning of the approach.
I have never flown an approach that was all IMC where I could land.
Any instrument approach in normal category aircraft to a landing will
be at least partially flown in VMC.

On an ILS, it matters not whether you break out right at DH, half way
down, or just past the OM. the whole ILS is loggable as an approach.



Terms can be a real problem at times.

Logging the approach and logging the time are, or should be, two
different issues.
I was told by my instructors that to log the approach assuming I'm not
under the hood, I only have to be in IMC when I start the approach
from the IAF. This has been in some of the aviation mags as well over
the years.

One given, the entire approach is *never* going to be flown to
completion (with the exception of a missed) in IMC or you couldn't
land. So, no mater how one looks at it is only a matter of degree.

Breaking out right at the MAP in most cases is a glimpse of the
ground prior to going missed and rarely followed by an actual landing.
If it were followed by an actual landing then there are some unusual
weather conditions (which I have seen), or the pilot is dropping down
with the glimpse and busting minimums. You are supposed to be within
30 degrees of the desired runway heading before descending below MDA
in the case of non precision approaches.

At this point you have three choices. You break out far enough prior
to the MAP to see well enough and land, you break out and initiate a
missed at the MAP, or you don't break out and go missed at the MAP.

All three are loggable approaches.
Technically if you break out just past the IAF then the time past the
IAF is not loggable as IMC, but the approach can still be logged.
Otherwise the FAA would have to set some kind of standard that says so
many percent of the course between the IAF and the MAP would have to
be IMC to be logable and I've never seen such a definition.

The flying the approach to the MAP does not mean it has to be IMC all
the way to the MAP. Only that if you are doing approaches, you can
not fly the IAF to FAF, break off and still count it. You fly the
whole approach and either land, or go missed at the MAP if you want to
count it. It's an entirely different matter that has nothing to do
with how much of the approach is IMC.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Mat

The flying must
continue to the MAP, but that doesn't tell us
how much of the flying has
to be in the clouds.
[...]
The approach only has to start in IMC.

Source?

While we're at it, what about an approach that does not start in IMC, but
continues to just above the MAP in IMC. Loggable? (of course). Source?
(beats me.)

Jose





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

Bill Zaleski wrote in message . ..
I fail to understand the logic of your statement, Robert. I am not
slamming or bashing, but just trying to understand.

If you "must be IMC from the IAF to the MAP" then legally, you must
have missed on the approach, since you have stated that you are in
"IMC at the MAP". Surely, one must not miss an aproach in actual in
order to use it for legal currency.

Well, you could break at at the MAP (I actually have) but it is true
that you could have to get pretty lucky to get that weather. However,
that is what the Sacramento FSDO says and Mr. Lynch as well. So you
are correct, a successful approach in actual conditions would almost
never be loggable in their view. For me personally, I log the approach
if I encounter any IMC between the IAP and MAP. However, since I'm a
CFI and I'm flying around with students (sometimes in the clouds) and
often with my wife and small kids, I do an IPC with our local DE every
6 months.

On 14 Aug 2003 09:58:16 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

Bill Zaleski wrote in message . ..
I fail to understand the logic of your statement, Robert. I am not
slamming or bashing, but just trying to understand.

If you "must be IMC from the IAF to the MAP" then legally, you must
have missed on the approach, since you have stated that you are in
"IMC at the MAP". Surely, one must not miss an aproach in actual in
order to use it for legal currency.

Well, you could break at at the MAP (I actually have) but it is true
that you could have to get pretty lucky to get that weather. However,
that is what the Sacramento FSDO says and Mr. Lynch as well. So you

OTOH Ask the FAA, or one of the columns in one of the magazines
sometime in the last couple of years did a clarification as the way it
was written virtually no real approach that could result in a landing
could have been counted for currency.

are correct, a successful approach in actual conditions would almost
never be loggable in their view. For me personally, I log the approach
if I encounter any IMC between the IAP and MAP. However, since I'm a

That was a general interpretation in the magazine. If you ended up in
actual for any part of the approach then the approach counted.

As to practice approaches they had to be flown to the MAP, or to a
landing and you could take the foggles off once close enough to make a
landing.

CFI and I'm flying around with students (sometimes in the clouds) and
often with my wife and small kids, I do an IPC with our local DE every
6 months.

As I recall the IPC a number of the instructors use here is a cross
country to an ILS with a miss and the published hold, then to a
second airport for a VOR and circle to land (depending on the runway)
with a missed. Then on north to an NDB that is also an LOM with a
circle to land...then back home with the VOR and circle to land, or a
GPS approach if you got it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)