A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Which of these approaches is loggable?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 5th 03, 01:03 PM
Paul Tomblin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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)
Ads
  #2  
Old August 5th 03, 01:20 PM
Bill Zaleski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #5  
Old August 6th 03, 04:21 AM
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #6  
Old August 6th 03, 03:56 PM
Jack Cunniff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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

  #7  
Old August 6th 03, 05:46 PM
David Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #8  
Old August 6th 03, 06:25 PM
Bill Zaleski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. This subject should have been
addressed in a more definitive policy statement or legal opinion a
long time ago.



On 5 Aug 2003 20:18:53 -0700, (Robert M. Gary) wrote:

Nothing in writing or offical. The local FSDO agrees with Mr Lynch's
opinion in the FAQ that you must be IMC from the IAF to the MAP. I
wouldn't log any of the ones you mentioned. I only log them if I just
see the runway at minimums. Log what you want, fly what you need.

-Robert


(Paul Tomblin) wrote in message ...
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.


  #9  
Old August 6th 03, 10:35 PM
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi David,
I tend to agree with your assessment.
This seems like another one of Lynch's "non" answers. Read the Part 61
FAQ's close enough and you'll find he seems to contradict himself several
times on different issues by answering a question other than the one that
was asked. I believe the question becomes "at what designated point in
space on an IAP does an instrument approach become "loggable" when the pilot
is either in IMC or conditions that require flight by sole reference to
instruments." Because the FAR's do not define this point in space precisely
it is purely a judgment call on the part of the pilot. I think that
simulated instrument flight demands that you fly to the minimums or fly the
missed to be loggable.

Let's take it to the extreme but don't judge the idiocy of any pilot that
might try this, just look at the "loggable vs non-loggable" argument. Let's
say you're solid hard core IMC hand flying a DME arc to an off field NDB in
a mountain pass with a mean crosswind correction dialed in, moderate
turbulence, pounding rain which is turning to ice, you're sweating bullets
and praying to God that you survive. Low and behold you break out either
one foot above your MDA or 1/16 mile before your MAP.

Find me a FSDO inspector that would say "Oh crap, we broke out too soon,
since we can't log it, let's go up and shoot it again, maybe next time we
won't break out before the MAP". I'd bet Lynch would log it. To think that
every IMC approach needs to be flown all the way the MAP or DH in IMC before
it is loggable is simply not practical. I believe that the FAR's state that
an instrument pilot must "complete" 6 approaches within 6 months. I would
argue that an instrument approach can not begin until you are cleared and
establish yourself on a published portion of the IAP. I would also argue
that an instrument approach has been "completed" when the pilot either
arrives at the MAP or breaks out into VMC from IMC. I would call that a
loggable event if in the pilots good judgment he feels he has completed an
approach. I personally wouldn't log a vectors to final approach from clear
on top through a thin layer to a point outside the FAF. I don't think that
constitutes being established on the approach. I would however log an
approach where I descend into IMC, establish myself outbound, fly a
procedure turn inbound, joined the localizer, captured the glideslope and
arrived at the FAF.

--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


  #10  
Old August 6th 03, 11:08 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The Chief Council (lawyers) is the only dept that can give offical
understandings.

And they have. They say the approach must go to MDA, unless abandoned
for safety reasons.

However, in the the preamble to the reg, there was apparently an
inclination by the FAA to make the reg specify this explicitly;
however, they dropped that provision in response to pressure from the
interest groups. including AOPA. Therefore, you can conclude that
interpretation is at variance to the final intent of the regulation.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.