A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Logging approaches



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 30th 04, 01:11 AM
Ron Garrison
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?


Ads
  #2  
Old January 30th 04, 01:28 AM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #3  
Old January 30th 04, 01:49 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #4  
Old January 30th 04, 02:34 AM
Ron Garrison
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #5  
Old January 30th 04, 03:57 AM
Jay Somerset
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!!!




  #6  
Old January 30th 04, 09:24 AM
Ross Oliver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #7  
Old January 30th 04, 01:23 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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



  #8  
Old January 30th 04, 04:09 PM
John T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_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
____________________


  #9  
Old January 30th 04, 05:17 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 =---
  #10  
Old January 30th 04, 06:30 PM
David Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What approaches are in a database? Ross Instrument Flight Rules 11 January 4th 04 08:57 PM
GPS approaches with Center Dan Luke Instrument Flight Rules 104 October 22nd 03 09:42 PM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.