Real-world IFR currency

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote in message
...
I prefer to send bare replies rather than include the orig. post. I seem
to spend all of my time scrolling down to the bottom of a lengthy post.

I had no idea someone would not have the reply post in hand or right
above.

Perhaps I'll look at including the orig. post IF it's small.

The problem with relying on the 'reply post in hand or right above', is that
posts travel the net from server to server along different paths. The
order in which they arrive at your server is not necessarily the order in
which they arrive at any other server. The order in which your response,
similarly, arrives at the other servers can vary from server to server.
The order of posts is indeterminate in the general case. The message to
which you are responding may well arrive at some servers *after* the
response, might not have arrived yet, or might never arrive at all.

News clients similarly affect the observed context - some clients deal with
threads better than others, Some people prefer to display their messages in
strict chronological order (in whatever terms that means for their server),
and the message 'right-above' might be way above, or way below whereas some
attempt to do so in a thread-context. Other responses to the original post
may well intervene. Some users also (me, for instance) turn on the "don't
display messages already read" feature - which also means that if I did see
the original post, it's likely no longer visible in my client.

As you note for yourself, however, NObody wants to have to scroll down to
the end of a lengthy post to read the response. Usenet protocol is to
cite JUST those portions of the post(s) to which you are responding,
sufficient to convey the context of your response - but NOT usually the
entire previous post or thread-to-date. (There's a lively debate about
top/bottom/interspersed posting with regard to such responses, but that's
another matter.)

I think that you guys are missreading the regs big time.

I think that any IFR approach is logable, not only the IMC ones. For
example, the Contact approach is a perfect IFR approach and from legal
perspective should satisfy the requirements for a IFR approach.





"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote in message ...
That's what I do and think it is supported by the regs. I don't have anyone
in the right seat telling me otherwise.

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.



"Ron Garret"
The original question was: under what circumstances can an approach be
logged for the purposes of maintaining IFR currency? Obviously if
you're under the hood with a safety pilot or in hard IMC to minimums you
can log it, and if you're in VMC without a hood you can't. But where is
the line?


I'd log the approaches that were necessary to complete the flight. If
there's solid cloud at or below the MIA/MVA an approach is necessary to
reach the destination, even if the field is VMC.

iFly wrote:
I think that any IFR approach is logable, not only the IMC ones. For
example, the Contact approach is a perfect IFR approach and from legal
perspective should satisfy the requirements for a IFR approach.

You can certainly log contact approaches if it turns you on to keep
track of them. But, a contact approach is not an "instrument
approach", and it's not conducted under "actual or simulated
instrument conditions". Therefore, it doesn't count towards the IFR
currency requirements of 14 CFR 61.57(c)(1)(i).

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

You can certainly log contact approaches if it turns you on to keep
track of them. But, a contact approach is not an "instrument
approach", and it's not conducted under "actual or simulated
instrument conditions". Therefore, it doesn't count towards the IFR
currency requirements of 14 CFR 61.57(c)(1)(i).


Conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR are actual instrument
conditions.

(iFly) wrote

I think that any IFR approach is logable, not only the IMC ones. For
example, the Contact approach is a perfect IFR approach and from legal
perspective should satisfy the requirements for a IFR approach.

IFR is not a type of approach. Types of approaches that may be
conducted while operating under an IFR flight plan include....
Instrument, Visual, and Contact. You have your terminology
confused. The regulation requires the logging of "instrument"
approaches.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII

Bob Moore wrote in message .122...
(iFly) wrote

I think that any IFR approach is logable, not only the IMC ones. For
example, the Contact approach is a perfect IFR approach and from legal
perspective should satisfy the requirements for a IFR approach.

IFR is not a type of approach. Types of approaches that may be
conducted while operating under an IFR flight plan include....
Instrument, Visual, and Contact. You have your terminology
confused. The regulation requires the logging of "instrument"
approaches.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII

Bob Moore, please read carefully what I wrote - I did not say that IFR
is a type of instrument apporach. I used the terms IFR and
Instrument[Flight Rules] interchengeably in this context.

There are a number of defined instrument approach types - Visual and
Contact approaches are just two of these types. They are Instrument
approaches, don't get this wrong and dont get confused by the fact
that they are not nesseserily executed in IMC.

The use of these types of Instrument approaches have been discussed in
the IFR Magazine, if you guys read it - and I am not punting that
magazine here...

I think that any IFR approach is logable

While true (you can log anything you want), if you used approaches that
were completed unhooded in visual conditions (that is, not solely by
reference to instruments) to count for instrument currency, and then
flew IFR or IMC without sufficient actual instrument currency, and if I
were the FAA, I'd use the "careless or reckless" clause to charge you if
necessary. The whole point of instrument currency is to have recent
experience flying =solely= by reference to instruments.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

(iFly) wrote

Bob Moore, please read carefully what I wrote - I did not
say that IFR is a type of instrument apporach. I used the
terms IFR and Instrument[Flight Rules] interchengeably
in this context.

There are a number of defined instrument approach types - Visual and
Contact approaches are just two of these types. They are Instrument
approaches, don't get this wrong and dont get confused by the fact
that they are not nesseserily executed in IMC.

The use of these types of Instrument approaches have been discussed in
the IFR Magazine, if you guys read it - and I am not punting that
magazine here...

I have just noticed the ".za" in your address, so our terminology
might be somewhat different...however our FAA AIM does not define
"Visual" and "Contact" as types of instrument approaches. I have
quoted the appropriate AIM sections below.
In addition...you cannot use "IFR' and "Instrument" interchangeably,
you did not include the brackets [Flight Rules] in your original post.
Visual and Instrument are two different means of directing the flight
path of an aircraft.


AIM 5-4-7. Instrument Approach Procedures
d. At times ATC may not specify a particular approach procedure in
the clearance, but will state "CLEARED APPROACH." Such clearance
indicates that the pilot may execute any one of the authorized IAPs
for that airport. This clearance does not constitute approval for
the pilot to execute a contact approach or a visual approach.
------------------------------------------------------------------
5-4-21. Visual Approach
a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes
a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The
pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft
in sight.
This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate
air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have
a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater.
ATC may authorize this type approach when it will be operationally
beneficial. Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR
in visual meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of
14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation
specifications.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5-4-23. Contact Approach
c. A contact approach is an approach procedure that may be used by a
pilot (with prior authorization from ATC) in lieu of conducting a
standard or special IAP to an airport. It is not intended for use by
a pilot on an IFR flight clearance to operate to an airport not having
a published and functioning IAP. Nor is it intended for an aircraft
to conduct an instrument approach to one airport and then, when "in
the clear," discontinue that approach and proceed to another airport.
In the execution of a contact approach, the pilot assumes the
responsibility for obstruction clearance. If radar service is being
received, it will automatically terminate when the pilot is instructed
to change to advisory frequency.
------------------------------------------------------------------