Logging approaches

"Gary Drescher" wrote...

The real solution here would be not to publicize the official
interpretation, but rather to rewrite the FARs to make them more sensible.
The problem is that here (as elsewhere), the FAA confusingly uses a key term
to designate two different things: the phrase "instrument conditions",
although it refers to meteorological conditions, means something different
from the phrase "instrument meteorological conditions"!

Unfortunately, the NPRM process is so political when it comes to major changes
in the FARs that it takes WAY too long to effect any change -- of course, unless
the TSA decides it needs the authority to force the FAA to revoke Pilot
Certificates, with little or no reason or recourse available to the affected
Pilot...

In this case, it seems to me that there are already two clearly separate
terms used, and all they need to add to the FARs is a definition of
"Instrument Conditions".


"Gary Drescher" wrote in
news:h%pVb.205324$nt4.976461@attbi_s51:

"Judah" wrote in message
...
The bottom line is that I am still looking for any specific, official
document that supports the case for being able to log instrument
flight time (either in Actual or Simulated instrument conditions)
while solo in VFR conditions under any circumstances. While you have
provided me with some great contact information, you still have not
identified the actual source of your quoted statements, and I just
don't get that.

It's a continuing travesty that the FAA manufactures "interpretations"
of the FARs that supersede the FARs and cannot rationally be derived
from the FARs, yet are not readily accessible to pilots.

On the other hand, although the FAA's FAR FAQs are not officially
binding, I imagine it would be difficult for the FAA to penalize a
pilot for conduct consistent with the FAQs' interpretation (doing so
would arguably constitute entrapment: inducing someone to commit a
violation and then prosecuting them for it). Does anyone know if the
imposition of such a penalty has ever been documented?

The real solution here would be not to publicize the official
interpretation, but rather to rewrite the FARs to make them more
sensible. The problem is that here (as elsewhere), the FAA confusingly
uses a key term to designate two different things: the phrase
"instrument conditions", although it refers to meteorological
conditions, means something different from the phrase "instrument
meteorological conditions"!

The two conflated concepts should be called Instrument Separation
Conditions and Instrument Aviation Conditions. Instrument Separation
Conditions (which the FAA calls "IFR conditions" or "IMC") are
meteorological conditions that don't meet the VFR requirements for
visual separation. Instrument Aviation Conditions (which the FARs
refer to as "instrument conditions" or "instrument flight conditions",
but without ever defining those terms) are meteorological conditions
that require flight by reference to instruments. You can be in ISC
without being in IAC (for instance, flying in unlimited visibility 400'
below a layer) or vice versa (for instance, flying on a clear, dark
night over water).

--Gary

I do appreciate that. And yes, you are right. Before I go logging time
for IFR currency that seems to conflict with the Regs and the FAQ, I want
a copy of the document that supports me when the FAA comes-a-knockin' at
my door... I suspect a copy of your post on Google.Com will not hold
up...

But I am still trying to figure out how to identify the document in my
request to the FAA, though. Is there a docket number or some other
identifying code? I suspect there were many legal opinions written by the
Chief Counsel in 1984. I am not a lawyer, so perhaps I am asking an
obvious or stupid question. But I would love to have a copy of this
document for my files... An on-line reference would be most convenient if
available...

I have done a search on faa.gov, but that has turned up empty because it
seems they only go back to 1995...

Thanks!


Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:48:17 GMT, Judah wrote:

The bottom line is that I am still looking for any specific, official
document that supports the case for being able to log instrument flight
time (either in Actual or Simulated instrument conditions) while solo
in VFR conditions under any circumstances.

It seemed as if you wanted a copy of the original document. I gave you
the government source for that information. Under FOIA, you should be
able to contact them to obtain the document, knowing also that it was
written in 1984.

If you wish to pay for the document, Summit Aviation publishes a fully
searchable database of vital aviation publications, updated bi-weekly,
which should include this legal interpretation. I believe you can
purchase a single CD, but you'd have to check their web site for more
information.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Judah" wrote in message
...
In this case, it seems to me that there are already two clearly separate
terms used, and all they need to add to the FARs is a definition of
"Instrument Conditions".

Defining two separate terms would be a good start. But for the choice of
terminology to be competent, the words need to be chosen to reflect their
meaning. It is nonsensical for the FAA to use the phrase "instrument
conditions", in reference to meteorological conditions, to mean something
different from the phrase "instrument meteorological conditions". There's
nothing in that wording to suggest that there's even a difference, let alone
suggesting what the difference *is*. In contrast, defining the terms
"Instrument Separation Conditions" and "Instrument Aviation Conditions"
would make the intended distinction immediately obvious.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
news:h%pVb.205324$nt4.976461@attbi_s51:

"Judah" wrote in message
...
The bottom line is that I am still looking for any specific, official
document that supports the case for being able to log instrument
flight time (either in Actual or Simulated instrument conditions)
while solo in VFR conditions under any circumstances. While you have
provided me with some great contact information, you still have not
identified the actual source of your quoted statements, and I just
don't get that.

It's a continuing travesty that the FAA manufactures "interpretations"
of the FARs that supersede the FARs and cannot rationally be derived
from the FARs, yet are not readily accessible to pilots.

On the other hand, although the FAA's FAR FAQs are not officially
binding, I imagine it would be difficult for the FAA to penalize a
pilot for conduct consistent with the FAQs' interpretation (doing so
would arguably constitute entrapment: inducing someone to commit a
violation and then prosecuting them for it). Does anyone know if the
imposition of such a penalty has ever been documented?

The real solution here would be not to publicize the official
interpretation, but rather to rewrite the FARs to make them more
sensible. The problem is that here (as elsewhere), the FAA confusingly
uses a key term to designate two different things: the phrase
"instrument conditions", although it refers to meteorological
conditions, means something different from the phrase "instrument
meteorological conditions"!

The two conflated concepts should be called Instrument Separation
Conditions and Instrument Aviation Conditions. Instrument Separation
Conditions (which the FAA calls "IFR conditions" or "IMC") are
meteorological conditions that don't meet the VFR requirements for
visual separation. Instrument Aviation Conditions (which the FARs
refer to as "instrument conditions" or "instrument flight conditions",
but without ever defining those terms) are meteorological conditions
that require flight by reference to instruments. You can be in ISC
without being in IAC (for instance, flying in unlimited visibility 400'
below a layer) or vice versa (for instance, flying on a clear, dark
night over water).

--Gary

OK. I found what I was looking for...

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...UTF-8&threadm=
32E55577.5B0B%40waid.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%
3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26q%3D1984%2B61.51%2Bifr%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg

Said post references "Legal Interpretation #84-29" written Nov 7, 1984,
and quotes it in its entirety. Interestingly enough, it does indeed
contradict the FAQ almost directly...

"Simulated" instrument conditions occur when
the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally
restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument
flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it
necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order
to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these
conditions involve adverse weather conditions.

In my hunting, I also found the following thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&threadm=a6mhrr%249pg%241%40slb3.atl.mindspring.ne t&rnum=28&prev=/groups%
3Fq%3D61.57%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%
26sa%3DN

Which references a more recent opinion from January 28, 1992 (and is not
quoted in its entirety, nor does it reference a document number - so I
will be hunting for that later...). While it does not contradict the
above opinion, it reads as follows:

For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section
61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR
conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must
be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow
the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or
decision height.

The poster in that thread interprets that to mean that the entire
approach down to minimums must be in IFR conditions. I'm not 100% sure I
agree that it must be interpreted this way. But what is interesting is
that the Assistant Chief Counsel who authored this document referred
specifically to "actual or simulated IFR conditions" not "actual or
simulated IMC conditions"...


At the end of the day, I think I'm just gonna make sure to have some
foggle time with a buddy or an instructor every 6 months and be done with
it.

I hate lawyers!



Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:48:17 GMT, Judah wrote:

The bottom line is that I am still looking for any specific, official
document that supports the case for being able to log instrument flight
time (either in Actual or Simulated instrument conditions) while solo
in VFR conditions under any circumstances.

It seemed as if you wanted a copy of the original document. I gave you
the government source for that information. Under FOIA, you should be
able to contact them to obtain the document, knowing also that it was
written in 1984.

If you wish to pay for the document, Summit Aviation publishes a fully
searchable database of vital aviation publications, updated bi-weekly,
which should include this legal interpretation. I believe you can
purchase a single CD, but you'd have to check their web site for more
information.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:YKYUb.187404$Rc4.1460112@attbi_s54...
"Ron Natalie" wrote...

It comes from an FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretation (John Cassady,
Nov. 7 1984).

Is that readily available somewhere?


I get it off the Summit Aviation disks. I've already posted it once in this
thread.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:20:44 GMT, Judah wrote:

For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section
61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR
conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must
be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow
the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or
decision height.

The poster in that thread interprets that to mean that the entire
approach down to minimums must be in IFR conditions. I'm not 100% sure I
agree that it must be interpreted this way. But what is interesting is
that the Assistant Chief Counsel who authored this document referred
specifically to "actual or simulated IFR conditions" not "actual or
simulated IMC conditions"...

There is frequently inconsistency in FAA documents. When these are
important or questioned, they get ironed out in subsequent revisions.
However, with regard to this particular opinion, there was quite a bit of
discussion at the time it was issued. I don't have the documentation to
prove the point, but I'm pretty certain that it is not considered binding
by anyone. Most consider this to be a gray area.

I generally log the approach if enough of it was conducted in instrument
conditions that I felt I really got some benefit to my currency by
conducting it. So a thin overcast at the FAF would not count for me. But
a ceiling 100-200' above DA would count.

Don't forget that the purpose of logging is for currency, and/or
qualification for a rating. If you cheat on currency, you are cheating
yourself and your passengers. And if you are going to be tested for a
rating, the examiner WILL have you conduct the approach (perhaps in
simulated conditions) down to the MDA or DA(H).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Doug" wrote in message
om...

It's in the FAR's. You can log actual IMC if you have to use the
instruments to fly the airplane. This can occur and you still meet VFR
visibility requirements. For instance, between layers at night.


Where does one find that in the FARs?

"Eclipsme" wrote in message
...

Is this true? It has been a bit since I have flown IFR, but it used to be
under 700ft agl - some places 1200ft, and outside of other controlled
airspace such as ATAs, the airspace was uncontrolled. There was quite
a bit of uncontrolled airspace out in Nevada, as I recall. This was
before the airspace revisions. Has this changed?


No, it was the same way before airspace reclassification. An IFR clearance
is required only in controlled airspace. You can fly IFR without a
clearance where you have sufficient uncontrolled airspace to do so, but you
don't have sufficient airspace where controlled airspace begins 700 or 1200
feet above the ground.

I find it is worth it just to go out with an instructor every six months and
do an IPC. That way you can nip any bad habits you might be developing before
they become ingrained, you get a no-questions-asked log book entry saying you
are current, and it may help with your insurance. You can usually get your
wings signoffs in the same flights, which also helps for insurance purposes.
If you are worried about your performance in front of the instructor, you need
the IPC anyway.


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759