Actual Time in Sacramento

That all helps too! Thanks!!!

On 12/16/2005 08:22, three-eight-hotel wrote:

If you're going to want to fly through any actual IMC you need the IFR clearance. The way I would usually
request this is "Approach, N123, on the ramp at KXYZ, request IFR clearance for multiple approaches into KXYZ".
Note there is no "practise" in there-- but even if you said " request IFR clearance for practice approaches",
it's still clear that you want the IFR clearance. He'll ask which approach you want to start with, etc, and
then your clearance will begin "N123 is cleared to KXYZ via radar vectors, climb and maintain 3000, ...".

That helps! At what point can you start logging actual (based on my
scenario)?

Personally, I would log actual anytime I'm flying in conditions that require
me to control the aircraft by instruments only. The fact that it may be less
than VFR conditions doesn't really count - in my opinion.


If I intend to stay VFR and wish "practice" handling by ATC it would be more like this: "Approach, N123, 3 S of
KXYZ, request practice approaches into KXYZ". In such a case you would not hear "cleared to" ( though you
prbably would hear "cleared approach"), but you would probably hear "maintain VFR" sprinkled in with the ATC
instructions...

That's what I am used to... I think if I want to get "actual" practice
time in, I would go with your first approach. I'm still unclear though
on the logging.

Well, not to throw a monkey wrench in there, but another question is when
do you consider your approach as one that counts toward your currency?
For example, if you're in VMC, and practice an approach (no hood, etc.)
which includes only a small layer of clouds to get through, do you count
that?

After all, if the ceiling is at 2000', and you're vectored to the FAC
at 1500', you're flying the entire IAP in VMC conditions, right? Would
you consider this an approach toward your 6-month currency?



Thanks!
Todd



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

Mark Hansen wrote:

One thing I noticed around here, is that when you're practicing
approaches, NorCal will say "Approved for the approach" rather than
"Cleared for the approach". They don't do this every time, but I was
told this was their way of making it clear that they know you're not
on an IFR flight plan.

Here in the PHX tracon, they are specific about this phraseology distinction. It's always, "practice
approach approved, maintain VFR", as distinct from "cleared for the approach" .

Interesting thread. We get so little actual IMC that this opportunity doesn't present itself very often. And
when it does, the tracon is too busy with real traffic to deal with all us GA pilots looking for a little actual.
Maybe time for a trip to California.

Mike

On 12/16/2005 08:43, three-eight-hotel wrote:

One thing I noticed around here, is that when you're practicing
approaches, NorCal will say "Approved for the approach" rather than
"Cleared for the approach". They don't do this every time, but I was
told this was their way of making it clear that they know you're not
on an IFR flight plan.

I've always received a "cleared for the approach"

In my training, I only heard "Approved for the approach" a few times.
The first time, I was confused by it, and thought it meant I couldn't
fly the approach (because I didn't hear the magic words). My CFII said
that is how they say in during VMC practice of IAPs, and that it was
strange we didn't hear it more often.

Hmmmm, I guess it's just another one of those local policies?


No. In fact, NorCal will generally remind you to maintain VFR at all
times. However, if the conditions at the field are clearly IMC, they
may "assume" what you want is an IFR clearance. I wouldn't think this
would just work without both sides being clear on what is happening,
so I would expect there to be some confusion

This is where I need to be clear... I like John's comment on simply
requesting an IFR clearance to the airport for multiple approaches.

Yes, but you can do that from the air using a pop-up as well. If you
would like to depart your home airport VFR, don't feel forced into
departing on an IFR flight plan just because you want to go IFR at
some point in the flight.

There were times when we wanted to practice air work, but there was
low-level stratus around the area. We would request an IFR clearance
to VFR on top, and once there, cancel IFR. Then, when we were ready to
come back to the airport, we would just request an IFR clearance for
the desired approach, and bang, we're back in the system.


Well, go nuts if you want. Generally, I just look back on the flight
and guestimate. If it was a 1.2 hour flight, and I was only in the
clouds during the final approach and initial missed of each approach,
then I might figure I was in IMC for .4 hours - then split my time
accordingly in my log.

Makes sense...

By the way, I plan to make my first actual instrument approaches (in
IMC) with an instructor. Do you plan to do yours single pilot? Please
don't take this as criticism - I tend to be overly cautious, and I
expect there will be folks who will argue that if you have your rating,
you're qualified to exercise it

I absolutely intend to take an instrucotr along my first time... We've
talked about this before. I tend to lean toward the cautious side as
well.

I'm utilizing the incredible resources in this group to extend my
knowledge base!

I especially enjoy discussions like these. With a green rating and little
practical experience, I've got a lot to learn as well.

I'm amazed at how little I feel like I know, yet I was
able to achieve the rating.

Well, if you saw my write-up on my instrument check ride, you'll know
that I almost felt cheated-out of any real testing. The examiner (who
is also the chief flight instructor and owner of the FBO) did a really
terrible job of evaluating my abilities. But, I got my rating, and I
figured that I can continue to learn.

I tend to underestimate myself, but am
always driven to keep learning! I'm very comfortable with my aviation
skills at the point where I am, but I have no desire to go jump into an
overly-risky situation without some real world experience, with an
instructor (there was an entire thread on risk at one point!).

Yeah, that was what I was hinting at. On the other side of the coin,
when you flew your first solo, you did that without an instructor. At
the time, you may have thought less about your skills, but when you
took-off, that all dropped away, and you began to realize that you
were indeed adequately prepared for the task.

Still, I plan to take a CFII with me the first time ;-)

I don't
see shooting approaches at MHR overly-risky, with clear to the East as
an out, but I would feel much better if my first attempt was with
someone that could watch my back and critique my experience when it was
all over.

Amen to that! The good thing about the approach at MHR (at least the
approaches to 22) is they are so bloody long. You have plenty of time
to keep things together.

By the way, today would be perfect for it. limited vis and 500' ceilings!


Best Regards,
Todd



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

No. When I take off from O61 (in the clear) I ask for "multiple ILS's
into MHR". I don't usually state "IFR" when its foggy but I probably
should. The controller will then say "Cleared to the Mather Airport via
radar vectors blah blah blah". You **MUST** hear the words "Cleared to
Mather Airport" or you are NOT IFR.

-Robert

The FAA's FAQ says you can log actual anytime you can only fly the
aircraft by reference to the instruments. At one point someone smartly
ask, "What about a dark moonless night over the water when its CAVU".
The FAA came back with "That's good enough, you can log actual
instrument then too".

-Robert

The other strange thing ATC does when you are doing "practice" (i.e.
VFR) approachs is say "maintain VFR". I laugh everytime. You are always
VFR unless ATC gives you a clearance otherwise. VFR is flight rules,
not flight conditions. They probably should say "Maintain VFR
conditions" (i.e. "I'm not letting you go in the clouds").

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
The other strange thing ATC does when you are doing "practice" (i.e.
VFR) approachs is say "maintain VFR". I laugh everytime. You are always
VFR unless ATC gives you a clearance otherwise. VFR is flight rules,
not flight conditions. They probably should say "Maintain VFR
conditions" (i.e. "I'm not letting you go in the clouds").

You could be right. I prefer to think they say that to provide a redundant
reminder that you're not on a clearance, just to avoid a possible misunderstanding.

"maintain VFR" seems to be used redundantly that way in other contexts, too. For
example:

VFR pilot: "N12345 is leaving 3000 for 2000.
ATC: "Maintain VFR"

I interpret that as ATC's way of saying "you're not on a clearance, so you don't
need my permission to descend, and just in case you thought you were on a
clearance, you're not."

Well, not to throw a monkey wrench in there, but another question is when
do you consider your approach as one that counts toward your currency?
For example, if you're in VMC, and practice an approach (no hood, etc.)
which includes only a small layer of clouds to get through, do you count
that?

This is another "forever discussion" with no coherent guidance from the
FAA, despite letters back and forth. Each approach is different, one
can be solid for a part, in and out for the whole approach, just lowish
vis for the approach, many different variations. If I "felt like" I
flew an instrument approach, I log it. This usually means "most of the
time from the FAF to the MAP I was IMC", and if I break out a little
early, so be it. If I break out a lot early, especially on an ILS, I
didn't fly much of an approach and I don't log it (though I may note it
in my comments).

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dave Butler wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
The other strange thing ATC does when you are doing "practice" (i.e.
VFR) approachs is say "maintain VFR". I laugh everytime. You are always
VFR unless ATC gives you a clearance otherwise. VFR is flight rules,
not flight conditions. They probably should say "Maintain VFR
conditions" (i.e. "I'm not letting you go in the clouds").

You could be right. I prefer to think they say that to provide a
redundant reminder that you're not on a clearance, just to avoid a
possible misunderstanding.

"maintain VFR" seems to be used redundantly that way in other contexts,
too. For example:

VFR pilot: "N12345 is leaving 3000 for 2000.
ATC: "Maintain VFR"

I interpret that as ATC's way of saying "you're not on a clearance, so
you don't need my permission to descend, and just in case you thought
you were on a clearance, you're not."

Actually you are on a clearance, an approach clearance, and are given
standard IFR separation except for vertical where only 500 feet need be
provided. The maintain VFR part is a reminder that you are to remain
VMC for whatever airspace you happen to be in.