Logging approaches

I had a 'first' last week, and I am looking for other peoples thoughts on
this one. It was my first (I believe) loggable instrument approach in what
was legally VMC. I was flying from the San Francisco bay area down to
Burbank. The reported conditions were sky clear, visibility 4 miles in haze,
with the ILS 8 in use, no mention of visual approaches. The visibility part
was right, from about 4,000 feet down to the surface there was about 4 miles
visibility based on when the runway appeared. I could see the ground below
just fine the whole time, but looking forward there was no visible horizon.

I considered the approach loggable because:
1) navigation aids were required to find the airport
2) There was no visible horizon so the attitude indicator was required
to identify and maintain the desired aircraft attitude.

Any differing opinions on this one?

In article ,
"Ron Garrison" wrote:

I had a 'first' last week, and I am looking for other peoples thoughts on
this one. It was my first (I believe) loggable instrument approach in what
was legally VMC. I was flying from the San Francisco bay area down to
Burbank. The reported conditions were sky clear, visibility 4 miles in haze,
with the ILS 8 in use, no mention of visual approaches. The visibility part
was right, from about 4,000 feet down to the surface there was about 4 miles
visibility based on when the runway appeared. I could see the ground below
just fine the whole time, but looking forward there was no visible horizon.

I considered the approach loggable because:
1) navigation aids were required to find the airport
2) There was no visible horizon so the attitude indicator was required
to identify and maintain the desired aircraft attitude.

Any differing opinions on this one?



I can only repeat something I've said before. You can lie to your
instructor, you can lie to the FAA, and you can lie to your logbook.
But you can't lie to yourself.

Do you honestly feel the experience of flying the approach was such that
it helped keep your instrument skills sharp? If the answer is "yes",
then go ahead and log it with a clear conscience.

"Ron Garrison" wrote in message
...

I had a 'first' last week, and I am looking for other peoples thoughts on
this one. It was my first (I believe) loggable instrument approach in what
was legally VMC. I was flying from the San Francisco bay area down to
Burbank. The reported conditions were sky clear, visibility 4 miles in
haze,
with the ILS 8 in use, no mention of visual approaches. The visibility
part
was right, from about 4,000 feet down to the surface there was about 4
miles
visibility based on when the runway appeared. I could see the ground below
just fine the whole time, but looking forward there was no visible
horizon.

I considered the approach loggable because:
1) navigation aids were required to find the airport
2) There was no visible horizon so the attitude indicator was required
to identify and maintain the desired aircraft attitude.

Any differing opinions on this one?


Could you have landed at that field without flying the approach? That's the
test I use.

Good advice, thanks! Hand flying that ILS while having to look out for the
multiple VFR targets did more to keep me sharp than flying a coupled
autopilot approach to minimums in solid IMC from before the IAF.

The purpose of the question was to get a better understanding of what the
rules are, knowing that what is legal and what is safe are two different
things. Flying one ILS approach through a calm, thick overcast layer each
month, with one hold thrown in every six months, would keep me perfectly
legal, but the only thing that it would give me real confidence in is my
ability to fly an ILS on a calm day. I am still sorting out in my own mind
the difference between "flight in IFR conditions", which is clearly defined
as conditions below VMC minimums, and "flight by reference to instruments",
which is what gets logged and is vaguely defined at best.


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ron Garrison" wrote:

I had a 'first' last week, and I am looking for other peoples thoughts
on
this one. It was my first (I believe) loggable instrument approach in
what
was legally VMC. I was flying from the San Francisco bay area down to
Burbank. The reported conditions were sky clear, visibility 4 miles in
haze,
with the ILS 8 in use, no mention of visual approaches. The visibility
part
was right, from about 4,000 feet down to the surface there was about 4
miles
visibility based on when the runway appeared. I could see the ground
below
just fine the whole time, but looking forward there was no visible
horizon.

I considered the approach loggable because:
1) navigation aids were required to find the airport
2) There was no visible horizon so the attitude indicator was
required
to identify and maintain the desired aircraft attitude.

Any differing opinions on this one?



I can only repeat something I've said before. You can lie to your
instructor, you can lie to the FAA, and you can lie to your logbook.
But you can't lie to yourself.

Do you honestly feel the experience of flying the approach was such that
it helped keep your instrument skills sharp? If the answer is "yes",
then go ahead and log it with a clear conscience.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:49:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Garrison" wrote in message
...

I had a 'first' last week, and I am looking for other peoples thoughts on
this one. It was my first (I believe) loggable instrument approach in what
was legally VMC. I was flying from the San Francisco bay area down to
Burbank. The reported conditions were sky clear, visibility 4 miles in
haze,
with the ILS 8 in use, no mention of visual approaches. The visibility
part
was right, from about 4,000 feet down to the surface there was about 4
miles
visibility based on when the runway appeared. I could see the ground below
just fine the whole time, but looking forward there was no visible
horizon.

I considered the approach loggable because:
1) navigation aids were required to find the airport
2) There was no visible horizon so the attitude indicator was required
to identify and maintain the desired aircraft attitude.

Any differing opinions on this one?


Could you have landed at that field without flying the approach? That's the
test I use.

An excellent, common-sense answer!!!

Ron Garrison wrote:
I could see the ground below
just fine the whole time, but looking forward there was no visible horizon.

I considered the approach loggable because:
1) navigation aids were required to find the airport
2) There was no visible horizon so the attitude indicator was required
to identify and maintain the desired aircraft attitude.

Any differing opinions on this one?

Well, I believe the FARs differ:

FAR 61.51(g) Logging instrument flight time
(1) 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 conditions.

IMHO, the key word is "solely." Since you say: "I could see the ground
below just fine the whole time," you were not operating solely by reference
to instruments, and therefore the flight time and approach cannot legally
be counted toward instrument currency.

Setting aside the legalities, from a practical standpoint:

Roy Smith wrote:
Do you honestly feel the experience of flying the approach was such that
it helped keep your instrument skills sharp? If the answer is "yes",
then go ahead and log it with a clear conscience.

I would apply a more stringent test: if you flew six approaches ONLY
in these conditions, would you feel your instrument skills would be
sufficiently current to fly in your personal IMC minimums?


Ross Oliver

"Ross Oliver" wrote in message
...
Ron Garrison wrote:
I could see the ground below
just fine the whole time, but looking forward there was no visible
horizon.

I considered the approach loggable because:
1) navigation aids were required to find the airport
2) There was no visible horizon so the attitude indicator was
required
to identify and maintain the desired aircraft attitude.

Any differing opinions on this one?

Well, I believe the FARs differ:

FAR 61.51(g) Logging instrument flight time
(1) 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 conditions.

IMHO, the key word is "solely." Since you say: "I could see the ground
below just fine the whole time," you were not operating solely by
reference
to instruments, and therefore the flight time and approach cannot legally
be counted toward instrument currency.

Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the aircraft by
reference to the ground at all. You could fly an approach with visibility
of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in IMC), and still see be able to
the ground the whole time. But you wouldn't necessarily be using that view
to aviate or navigate.

--Gary

Setting aside the legalities, from a practical standpoint:

Roy Smith wrote:
Do you honestly feel the experience of flying the approach was such that
it helped keep your instrument skills sharp? If the answer is "yes",
then go ahead and log it with a clear conscience.

I would apply a more stringent test: if you flew six approaches ONLY
in these conditions, would you feel your instrument skills would be
sufficiently current to fly in your personal IMC minimums?


Ross Oliver

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:K0sSb.143265$5V2.761500@attbi_s53

Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the
aircraft by reference to the ground at all. You could fly an
approach with visibility of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in
IMC), and still see be able to the ground the whole time. But you
wouldn't necessarily be using that view to aviate or navigate.

Not to mention that this thread is about logging approaches - not IMC time.
There is a difference.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Gary Drescher ) wrote:

Seeing the ground doesn't necessarily mean you're operating the aircraft by
reference to the ground at all. You could fly an approach with visibility
of, say, 0.5 sm (and therefore be solidly in IMC), and still see be able to
the ground the whole time. But you wouldn't necessarily be using that view
to aviate or navigate.

I agree. Last week I was practicing approaches in moderate lake effect
snow where the RVR fluctuated between 1800 and 5000, yet I could see the
ground directly below the aircraft.

Not sure how seeing the ground below is relevant to logging an approach,
unless, of course, I am flying in that direction.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Ron Garrison" wrote in message
...
Good advice, thanks! Hand flying that ILS while having to look out for the
multiple VFR targets did more to keep me sharp than flying a coupled
autopilot approach to minimums in solid IMC from before the IAF.

The purpose of the question was to get a better understanding of what the
rules are, knowing that what is legal and what is safe are two different
things.

At least on this forum, I don't think it has been settled what the rules
are. The question at its extreme is whether you have to be in IMC all the
way to minimums. The most commonly quoted response is Lynch's FAQ, but even
though he seems to be trying to say you do have to go to minimums (making it
a practical impossibility to find a loggable IMC approach), he seems
determined to be vague by answering a question that wasn't asked.

I don't have enough experience to opine, but "do you honestly feel it was
valuable" makes sense. Another common answer seems to be that you should log
it if you are still solid at FAF.

-- David Brooks