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
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |