New IFR Currency requirements...!

Roy Smith wrote:
Vectors.

Aha, I hadn't thought of that.

Wait, I got vectors from NY Approach on my first solo cross-country. Does
this mean that the flight doesn't count?

Also, a strict reading of the regulation would say that if you just take
off in a random direction, wander around totally lost for an hour, happen
to find an airport by pure luck and land, it shouldn't count as X/C time.

What if it's the airport you meant to go to in the first place? :-)

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

On Feb 24, 10:14 pm, "Dan" wrote:
So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR currency
requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour of cross-
country time will be required, along with six approaches, consisting


To the cynical it appears the FAA is trying to encourage more people
to do their proficiency flights in a simulator and making it harder to
do them in an airplane.

-Robert

Jose wrote:
There is no means quite as good as having a CFI-I work through the
flight with the pilot.


Well, then why not have the CFI-I work through every flight? After all,
even after demonstrating takeoff, holds, cruise, and an ILS approach to
minimums at night in a driving rainstorm ending in a successful landing
with an obligatory full stop before taking off again does not prove that
the pilot is capable of doing an NDB during the day in calm winds, or
landing on a short runway after a VOR approach, or successfully
executing a go-around if a spotted deer is spotted on the runway after
an otherwise uneventful GPS approach (which has not been demonstrated
either).

There are reasonable limits as to what we have to prove all the time,
and there are cost/benefit judgements to be made.

Jose
It's not worth debating. You always have your mind made up.

It's not worth debating. You always have your mind made up.

Actually, I don't know how I feel about the proposed rules. I don't
however think that a knee-jerk "more rules are good rules" reaction is
the correct one. It seems to me that the purpose of instrument currency
rules is to ensure that the rust stays off the IFR abilities, not to
"prove" to the FAA that one is capable of everything (although one
=should= be capable of everything the license reasonably lets one do).

What I am unconvinced of is that flying in cruise knocks any rust off
that flying an approach hasn't already disloged. Your point about good
approaches to unlandable configurations is well taken; but while one
might need to demonstrate competence to an examiner when an examination
is warranted, I'm not convinced that the same holds true for currency rules.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

It's not worth debating. You always have your mind made up.


Actually, I don't know how I feel about the proposed rules. I don't
however think that a knee-jerk "more rules are good rules" reaction is
the correct one. It seems to me that the purpose of instrument currency
rules is to ensure that the rust stays off the IFR abilities, not to
"prove" to the FAA that one is capable of everything (although one
=should= be capable of everything the license reasonably lets one do).

What I am unconvinced of is that flying in cruise knocks any rust off
that flying an approach hasn't already disloged. Your point about good
approaches to unlandable configurations is well taken; but while one
might need to demonstrate competence to an examiner when an examination
is warranted, I'm not convinced that the same holds true for currency
rules.

Jose

I'm with you on this Jose, I find that the approach phase when it gets
busy is where any rust shows up in spades. Flying IFR in cruise helps
to knock rust off the scan, but doesn't do it the way flying a few
approaches and having to manage quick changes in the navigation etc
does. When I am a little rusty, flying IMC in cruise to high ceilings
so I don't have a challenging approach at the end is a great way to ease
back into the groove. I don't think it is great for keeping a sharp
edge though.

Ditto.

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote:

It's not worth debating. You always have your mind made up.


Actually, I don't know how I feel about the proposed rules. I don't
however think that a knee-jerk "more rules are good rules" reaction is
the correct one. It seems to me that the purpose of instrument currency
rules is to ensure that the rust stays off the IFR abilities, not to
"prove" to the FAA that one is capable of everything (although one
=should= be capable of everything the license reasonably lets one do).

What I am unconvinced of is that flying in cruise knocks any rust off
that flying an approach hasn't already disloged. Your point about good
approaches to unlandable configurations is well taken; but while one
might need to demonstrate competence to an examiner when an examination
is warranted, I'm not convinced that the same holds true for currency
rules.

Jose

I'm with you on this Jose, I find that the approach phase when it gets
busy is where any rust shows up in spades. Flying IFR in cruise helps to
knock rust off the scan, but doesn't do it the way flying a few approaches
and having to manage quick changes in the navigation etc does. When I am
a little rusty, flying IMC in cruise to high ceilings so I don't have a
challenging approach at the end is a great way to ease back into the
groove. I don't think it is great for keeping a sharp edge though.