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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Yes they are related in that part of the approach has to be in IMC or under the
hood, and the approach needs to be flown to the MAP. It doesn't say how much of the approach has to be in IMC. The how much simply is not quantified in those two sentences. In my IFR training, I was told by three different instructors in different schools, as well as by a two different PIC instructors during recurrent training that as long as I was in IMC sometime after the FAF, I could log the approach. Nevertheless, I cover myself by getting an IPC every 6 months. Insurance co. likes it, and I get the benefit of a trained observer to drill me on areas I might gotten rusty and to point out any bad habits I might have developed. Matthew Waugh wrote: You don't believe the 2 sentences are related? One says the instrument approach must be actual or simulated and the other says it must be flown to the MAP? I guess I don't get your reasoning, but it wouldn't be the first time I've been confused. Mat -- Matthew Waugh Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm "Ray Andraka" wrote in message ... But it doesn't say that it has to be flown *TO* the MAP in IMC or simulated IMC. Matthew Waugh wrote: It says "actual or simulated" conditions - visual is neither. Mat -- Matthew Waugh Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm "Ray Andraka" wrote in message ... This says that the approach procedure must be followed to the MAP, it does not say anything about the conditions, since you can follow the approach procedure in visual as well as instrument conditions. I find it easier just to schedule an IPC every 6 months, that way I get an instructor checking me for any bad habits I might be picking up, and I get to practice stuff I might not do on my own. The instructor I fly with puts me partial panel most of the flight, for example. Barry wrote: While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some precedent- please read the following FAA Chief Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA Chief Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally binding as to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional contrary leads anyone may provide in that regard. "January 28, 1992 (no name given) ... 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. Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel" (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section) Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion. It is not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge about it. However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot whose IFR currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief Counsel Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes a "useable" approach for currency purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule contrary to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion. I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official legal opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its existence when doing my approaches for currency purposes.. Tailwinds. "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... 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. -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
There are too many contradictory opinions on what it means to perform or log
approaches under actual or simulated instrument conditions. John Lynch carefully avoids the issue in the FAQs, saying only that in order to log instrument flight time you must fly the aircraft solely by reference to the instruments and that if you want to log an approach you must fly it at least beyond the FAF; you can't just fly to the FAF and call it an approach. Well, fine. If you fly an approach solely by reference to the instruments until you are at least beyond the FAF, then it seems to me that you should be able to log it as an instrument approach. Requiring the flight to be IMC all the way to the MAP seems to have too many problems. For one thing, the vast majority of approaches are not flown all the way to the MAP. You have to take over visually at some point and land or go missed. If you are flying a typical non-precision approach and can't see the runway until you reach the MAP, then odds are you don't have the visibility minimums to land. Also, flying all the way to the MAP is discouraged at many airports. Similarly, it is rare to fly the full approach before the FAF. You frequently get vectors to final, omit the procedure turn, etc. The regulations should be interpreted in such a way as to make it possible to comply with them; otherwise there is no point in even having the regulation. I tend to be rather conservative and don't log all the approaches I probably could. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
... Gary L. Drescher wrote: It would be odd to require IMC to the MAP, since that would effectively preclude almost all precision non-missed IMC approaches from being loggable (since it's rare for the ceiling to be exactly at DH, rather than a little higher or lower). Assuming controlled airspace, isn't 499' below a ceiling still IMC? Yes, I spoke imprecisely. The requirement set forth in 61.57c1 is for not instrument meteorological conditions, but rather for instrument conditions. You'd think the two terms would be synonymous, but in one of the more spectacular examples of FAR incomprehensibility, they are not. The term "instrument conditions" is not even defined in the FARs or the AIM, but apparently it refers to conditions that require flight by reference to instruments. Similarly for the undefined term "instrument flight conditions" in 61.51g1. You can have IMC without IC/IFC (as in your example), and you can have IC/IFC without IMC (e.g. flying over water on a clear, moonless night). IMC pertains to separation; IC/IFC pertains to control of the aircraft. So if the terminology were rational, the FAA would refer to instrument separation conditions (ISC) and instrument control conditions (ICC). Instead, the FAA refers to instrument meteorological conditions vs. instrument flight conditions (the latter without even giving a definition), even though both are meteorological conditions and both are flight conditions, so the names give no clue as to the difference in meaning. --Gary - Andrew |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:23:09 GMT, "Matthew Waugh"
wrote: "Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message . net... The two sentences are related, but the question is how. Without using a hood, the approach has to be flown in actual IMC. Only started. But does that mean that some, most, or all of that flying has to be in IMC? The flying must continue to the MAP, but that doesn't tell us how much of the flying has to be in the clouds. The approach only has to start in IMC. Ah - my mistake. I thought the definition of actual IMC was pretty clear, but apparently not. The definition is, but it is being applied where it is not necessary. IMC only need apply at the beginning of the approach. I have never flown an approach that was all IMC where I could land. Any instrument approach in normal category aircraft to a landing will be at least partially flown in VMC. On an ILS, it matters not whether you break out right at DH, half way down, or just past the OM. the whole ILS is loggable as an approach. Terms can be a real problem at times. Logging the approach and logging the time are, or should be, two different issues. I was told by my instructors that to log the approach assuming I'm not under the hood, I only have to be in IMC when I start the approach from the IAF. This has been in some of the aviation mags as well over the years. One given, the entire approach is *never* going to be flown to completion (with the exception of a missed) in IMC or you couldn't land. So, no mater how one looks at it is only a matter of degree. Breaking out right at the MAP in most cases is a glimpse of the ground prior to going missed and rarely followed by an actual landing. If it were followed by an actual landing then there are some unusual weather conditions (which I have seen), or the pilot is dropping down with the glimpse and busting minimums. You are supposed to be within 30 degrees of the desired runway heading before descending below MDA in the case of non precision approaches. At this point you have three choices. You break out far enough prior to the MAP to see well enough and land, you break out and initiate a missed at the MAP, or you don't break out and go missed at the MAP. All three are loggable approaches. Technically if you break out just past the IAF then the time past the IAF is not loggable as IMC, but the approach can still be logged. Otherwise the FAA would have to set some kind of standard that says so many percent of the course between the IAF and the MAP would have to be IMC to be logable and I've never seen such a definition. The flying the approach to the MAP does not mean it has to be IMC all the way to the MAP. Only that if you are doing approaches, you can not fly the IAF to FAF, break off and still count it. You fly the whole approach and either land, or go missed at the MAP if you want to count it. It's an entirely different matter that has nothing to do with how much of the approach is IMC. Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) Mat |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The flying must
continue to the MAP, but that doesn't tell us how much of the flying has to be in the clouds. [...] The approach only has to start in IMC. Source? While we're at it, what about an approach that does not start in IMC, but continues to just above the MAP in IMC. Loggable? (of course). Source? (beats me.) Jose (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Zaleski wrote in message . ..
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. Well, you could break at at the MAP (I actually have) but it is true that you could have to get pretty lucky to get that weather. However, that is what the Sacramento FSDO says and Mr. Lynch as well. So you are correct, a successful approach in actual conditions would almost never be loggable in their view. For me personally, I log the approach if I encounter any IMC between the IAP and MAP. However, since I'm a CFI and I'm flying around with students (sometimes in the clouds) and often with my wife and small kids, I do an IPC with our local DE every 6 months. |
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 |