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)