![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"FAA approved" misleads a lot of people. It means that someone at FAA HQ has
evaluated the box and decided that it has training value. Each individual location, however, has to be checked out by the local FSDO and a letter of authorization issued. The FSDO came into my place with a 30-page checklist, looking into such things as VOR sensitivity, accuracy of the turn-and-bank, aerodynamic responses, etc. They flew the AST-300 for most of a day before conferring their blessing on it. The fact that the box had been "approved" by HQ meant nothing. Bob Gardner "Bartscher" wrote in message ... I also had a letter from the FSDO laying out exactly what the AST-300 could be used for...does the box you used have similar authentication? Bob Gardner Well, the Frasca web site was only partially useful here. They did a good job of reviewing what parts of what ratings the 141 can be used for, but they don't say much about how to log it. http://www.frasca.com/web_pages/info...n/logtime2.htm http://www.frasca.com/web_pages/brochures/141bro.htm They also managed to call it both a simulator and a flight training device on the same page (not helpful). They do claim the following: "FAA approved under 14 CFR parts 61 and 141. Guaranteed FAA Level 2 or 3 qualification We not only build these devices to AC120-45A Level 2 or 3 standards, but we can also guarantee that they can be qualified in conjunction with the National Simulator Program Managers office in Atlanta". Of course I'm not quite sure what that means. Sounds like it is Simulated Instrument but maybe not Total Flight Time (which seems odd, not that it has to make sense). Also, the consensus appears to be that it was neither day or night (which does make sense since there wasn't a visual system) Thanks, Eric Bartsch |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
CFI logging instrument time | Barry | Instrument Flight Rules | 21 | November 11th 03 12:23 AM |
Logging again | Doug | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | September 17th 03 02:38 AM |
Logging PIC time as student instrument pilot in IMC | Greg Esres | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | August 2nd 03 05:20 PM |
Logging instrument approaches | Slav Inger | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | July 27th 03 11:00 PM |