Which of these approaches is loggable?

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.

--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer a
Rolls Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon and
explode once a year killing everybody inside. - Robert Cringley (InfoWorld)

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.

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.

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
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

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
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

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
email
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
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

If in IMC or if flight control solely by instruments is required, once
cleared and established it's loggable. Thus becomes the question of
currency vs. proficiency.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
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.

--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer a
Rolls Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon and
explode once a year killing everybody inside. - Robert Cringley
(InfoWorld)

"Jim" wrote in message ...
If in IMC or if flight control solely by instruments is required, once
cleared and established it's loggable.

That's a fine opinion but are you claiming to have something offical
from the FAA that supports it? Our local FSDO certainly would be
unhappy to see a log book like that. They want you to be IMC all the
way to the MAP to log it. Of course, its just one FSDOs opinion. Log
what you want, fly what you need.

BTW: The **ONLY** place the FARs even mention an actual approach is
for currency. Of course, they then fail to define actual approach.

(Robert M. Gary) writes:

"Jim" wrote in message ...
If in IMC or if flight control solely by instruments is required, once
cleared and established it's loggable.

That's a fine opinion but are you claiming to have something offical
from the FAA that supports it? Our local FSDO certainly would be
unhappy to see a log book like that. They want you to be IMC all the
way to the MAP to log it. Of course, its just one FSDOs opinion. Log
what you want, fly what you need.

BTW: The **ONLY** place the FARs even mention an actual approach is
for currency. Of course, they then fail to define actual approach.

It's not defined in the FAR's, but there is an official FAA web page which
is very clear on the topic, and seems to provide the most strict
-interpretation- of the FAR's.

The document is
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
14 CFR, PART 61
ARRANGED BY SECTION

MAINTAINED BY JOHN LYNCH
GENERAL AVIATION CERTIFICATION BRANCH, AFS-840

Found at:
http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc contains this:

QUESTION: As far as logging an approach in actual, is there any
requirement (i.e. must it be in actual conditions beyond the final
approach fix)? Assume that the pilot was flying single-pilot IFR so he
couldn't simply put on the hood if he broke out?

ANSWER: § 61.51(g)(1) and § 61.57(c)(1)(i); Again the only place where it
defines logging .instrument flight time. means .. . . a person may log
instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the
aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . . .. As for logging an
..actual. approach, it would presume the approach to be to the conclusion
of the approach which would mean the pilot go down to the decision height
or to the minimum decent altitude, as appropriate. If what you.re asking
is whether it is okay to fly to the FAF and break it off and then log it
as accomplishing an approach, the answer is no.
{Q&A-291}

-----------
There you have it. It -seems- like the only loggable approach is one that
is in IMC or under a hood until DH or MDA.

-Jack Cunniff

"Jack Cunniff" wrote in message
...

Found at:
http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc contains this:

QUESTION: As far as logging an approach in actual, is there any
requirement (i.e. must it be in actual conditions beyond the final
approach fix)? Assume that the pilot was flying single-pilot IFR so he
couldn't simply put on the hood if he broke out?

ANSWER: § 61.51(g)(1) and § 61.57(c)(1)(i); Again the only place where it
defines logging .instrument flight time. means .. . . a person may log
instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the
aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . . .. As for logging an
.actual. approach, it would presume the approach to be to the conclusion
of the approach which would mean the pilot go down to the decision height
or to the minimum decent altitude, as appropriate. If what you.re asking
is whether it is okay to fly to the FAF and break it off and then log it
as accomplishing an approach, the answer is no.
{Q&A-291}

-----------
There you have it. It -seems- like the only loggable approach is one that
is in IMC or under a hood until DH or MDA.

I had thought that was what John Lynch meant, but now I read this extract
again I'm not so sure.

What he actually says is that you fly all the way to the conclusion of the
approach, not that you fly to the conclusion in IMC. His reference to "fly
to the FAF and break it off" seems gratuitous otherwise. I don't think
anyone is actually asking that, so he may be, in his mind, answering a
slightly different question.

-- David Brooks