Logging approaches

"Teacherjh" wrote in message ...

It can be legal VFR and be bad enough to have to fly by
instruments. The FAA allows this to count.


Where does the FAA say that this counts?


It is what the regs literally say. All they say is you have to be in instrument conditions. Doesn't
say anything about flight rules. This was affirmed in the following opinion by FAA counsel.

To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean
with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The
determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective and based in part on the sound
judgment of the pilot. Note that, under Section 61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should include
the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to
prove that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate

"Ron Natalie" wrote in
:

Yes, but immaterial. The weather can still be legal VFR, but bad
enough to cause yout to fly solely by instruments. The FAA has
affirmed this is legally logable as instrument time.


Where'd they do that?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Hilton wrote:

The FARs do not specify 'must be on an IFR flight plan', nor do they
specify that you need to be instrument rated to log actual.


But they do specify that it must be actual or simulated instrument flight
conditions.

That was exactly my point.

Hilton

But they do specify that it must be actual or simulated instrument
flight
conditions.

So what qualifies the approach as being in actual? Santa Monica (KSMO),
California, has more often than not a deck of clouds over it right on the
Pacific Coast. the circling minimum for the VOR or GPS-A approach is 1120
and the MAP is 6.7 NM from the FAF. Minimum altitude at the FAF is 2600.
(1) If on the descent course you enter the cloud deck at 3,500 feet and
drop out of it at 2700 one mile before the FAF, does the approach count?
(2) ....drop out of it at 2500 feet one mile past the FAF......?

Discussing this in another forum, one camp says yes to both, another no
to (1) and yes to (2), and still another says you have to go down to
minimums. It seems to me the third group will never have an "actual"
approach in their logbook.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:NTxTb.164149$5V2.843814@attbi_s53...

If you can't maintain level flight without reference to instruments,
because there is no discernible horizon for outside reference, you
are in actual instrument flight conditions.


How can that be? IFR conditions are weather conditions below the minimum
for flight under visual flight rules. You can easily have weather
conditions well above the minimum for flight under visual flight rules above
an undercast.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

It's what the rules literally say. Affirmed by FAA legal counsel:


The rule does not say that. The rule says, ""A person may log instrument
time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely
by reference
to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions." So,
literally, it must be below VFR minimums or you must wear a hood.

In article , "Casey Wilson"
writes:

So what qualifies the approach as being in actual?

This whole thread is missing the real point. i think that the 90% reason to
log approaches is for your own information. You can look back a few months and
"evaluate" your readyness to fly IFR. Yea, I know that there laws that are to
be met but.... If you do 12 approaches(real or other) in the 6 months you will
be better prepared and if one didn't quite count, so what. You are not
satisfying a law, you are remaining capable of a skill once learned.

Chuck

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

It's what the rules literally say. Affirmed by FAA legal counsel:


The rule does not say that. The rule says, ""A person may log instrument
time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely
by reference
to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions." So,
literally, it must be below VFR minimums or you must wear a hood.

It doesn't say anything about VFR minimums. The FAA affirms that there
are times when you can be technically above VFR minimums (not in the clouds
and sufficient visibility), but the horizon and the ground is obscured and those
qualify for actual instrument conditions, even though it's not bad enough to
require IFR.

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
...

So what qualifies the approach as being in actual? Santa Monica
(KSMO), California, has more often than not a deck of clouds over it
right on the Pacific Coast. the circling minimum for the VOR or GPS-A
approach is 1120 and the MAP is 6.7 NM from the FAF. Minimum
altitude at the FAF is 2600.
(1) If on the descent course you enter the cloud deck at 3,500 feet
and drop out of it at 2700 one mile before the FAF, does the approach
count?
(2) ....drop out of it at 2500 feet one mile past the FAF......?

Discussing this in another forum, one camp says yes to both, another
no to (1) and yes to (2), and still another says you have to go down to
minimums. It seems to me the third group will never have an "actual"
approach in their logbook.


What's the local MIA/MVA? If a descent to the minimum enroute altitude
leaves you in the clouds, then an IAP is required, even if the field is
reporting VFR conditions. If an approach is required how can it not be
logable?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

It can be legal VFR and be bad enough to have to fly by
instruments. The FAA allows this to count.


Where does the FAA say that this counts?


It is what the regs literally say. All they say is you have to be in
instrument conditions. Doesn't say anything about flight rules.


If you're in instrument conditions it's not legal VFR.