CFII Logging Approaches

[jdog78]

Hey Guys...

I'm going up with an instrument student for the first time this weekend and thought up with this silly question: When giving instrument instruction, can I log the student's approaches? I flipped through the FAR/AIM but couldn't find anything other than being able to log instument time when giving instruction in actual.

Thanks,
John

 

[Timebuilder]

I made a good faith effort to record the approaches I watched a student perform, but I only logged the occaisional approach that I would demonstrate, when a student asked, which wasn't often.

Check out Doc's page for mucho info about who may log what, and under what circumstances. Check out the Office of Chief Counsel letter about logging approaches for currency.

http://www.propilot.com/doc/

 

[jdog78]

Cool, thanks for that link.

By the way, before anyone mentions it, I did do a forum search in hopes of finding a definitive answer to this question. No such luck.


-j

 

[avbug]

I'm lacking my database, or I'd print the relevant information directly for you. You can lot it all you want, but you may not log it for currency. It may not be logged for meeting the recency of experience requirements under 61.57(c).

 

[flyboy]

You should only log the approach if you are in actual conditions.

 

[avbug]

You should only log the approach if you are in actual conditions

You're confusing logging a student's approaches with logging instrument time while providing flight instruction. One may log instrument time when providing flight instruction in instrument conditions. That is not the same thing as logging the approach.

Logging of approaches for recency of experience requires that the approach be flown to minimums in instrument conditions, weather actual, or simulated.

 

[MarineGrunt]

Logging of approaches for recency of experience requires that the approach be flown to minimums in instrument conditions, weather actual, or simulated.

This answers a question I've had for a while, "how much of an approach do you need to fly in order to log it?" Do you have a source on where I can read this? Couldn't seem to find it in the FARs.

Thnx

 

[flyboy]

Avbug

(Respectively) I don't think I'm confused on that point, however I could be wrong. Also, I've never heard that you have to fly the approach to minimums in order to log it for recency. I'm pretty sure that's not right. Do you have any regs to back that up?

 

[avbug]

Like I said, I don't have my database with that information with me (it was in my car, which alternately melted down or blew up (which ever way one wishes to look at it) last weekend. When I get access again, I'll post it.

However, yes, it must be flown to minimums, per FAA legal interpretation.

That doesn't mean you need to be in "actual" conditions until then, but it must be flown by instruments to minimums. You can break out and continue by simulated instrument flight...but you must still fly the approach to minimums by reference to instruments, in accordance with 61.57(c), referenced to the legal interpretation which further clarifies that.

 

[SierraPilot]

avbug, ummm 61.57c says nothing about flying the approach to minimums.. it clearly states that the approach need only be done within 6 months.

FAA 61.57:

(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought--

(i) At least six instrument approaches;
(ii) Holding procedures; and
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems.

Ryan

 

[Timebuilder]

Found it!

This is the definition from the chief counsel's office, courtesy of a previous post from Midlifeflyer, who had found it. I didn't want to pester Doc for a link to it on his site. I just did a little searching right here.

January 28, 1992
(no name given)

This is in response to your October 24, 1991, letter in which you asked several questions about certain Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

****non-pertinent text removed***

Second, you questioned how low a pilot must descend (i.e., minimum descent altitude or decision height or full stop landing) on the six instrument approaches he must log to meet the recent IFR experience requirements specified in FAR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) (14 CFR Sec. 61.57 (e)(1)(i)). You also asked if an instrument
approach "counts" if only part of the approach is conducted in actual IFR conditions. Section 1.57(e)(1)(i) states that:

No pilot may act as pilot in command under IFR, nor in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless he has, within the past 6 calendar months - (i) In the case of an aircraft other than a glider, logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved, including at least six instrument approaches, or passed an instrument competency check in the category of aircraft involved.

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.


****non-pertinent text removed***


Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information in this regard.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel

 

[bobbysamd]

Logging students' approaches for your cu

I assume you mean logging your students' approaches for your currency. That debate comes up from time to time.

14 CFR 61.57(c) sets forth instrument currency requirements, and says, specifically, that you yourself must have executed the approaches if you want to count them for currency:

(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft . . . performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought --

(i) At least six instrument approaches . . . .

(emphasis added)

It cannot be said any more clearly than that. Always read the plain meaning of the reg. It says what it says.

As always, a discussion on this topic reminds me of my Chief Pilot at FSI. He tried to sell us instructors on the notion that we instructors could count our students' approaches as ours for currency purposes. He either found something in some 121 reg or something that said that or someone at the Orlando FSDO told him that. Once more, read 14 CFR 61.57(c). It ain't so. He also said that we could count our students' night takeoffs and landings as ours, even if we never touched the controls!

I still would respectfully disagree with the interpretation that you must fly an approach to mins for it to count for currency. I don't see that in the reg. How is it derived from the regs? In other words, I cannot count an ILS I started in the clouds but broke out at 400' AGL?

 

[Timebuilder]

we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height.

As long as you stay on the glideslope and localizer, perhaps that is exactly what you are doing: following the instrument approach to MDA or DH.

 

[SierraPilot]

Re: Found it!

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.

We believe? (they dont sound to certain about that) I'm not sure what the FARs said back in 1992 but currently that FAR that was quoted states:

61.57(e)(1)(i) Holds at least a valid commercial pilot certificate with the appropriate type rating for each airplane that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative

While I would normally defer to the FAA, unless you can show me specifically in the FARs that state I need to descend to the minimums on the approach I'll have to beg to differ on that. What someone interpets in 1992 might not be how its interpeted today. Either way.. I think they would have a hard time slapping anyones wrist over this unless they could show a FAR that states the above.

Ryan

 

[Timebuilder]

While I would normally defer to the FAA, unless you can show me specifically in the FARs that state I need to descend to the minimums on the approach I'll have to beg to differ on that.

While the numbering system has changed a little, the same FAR's are the point of reference. If how low you have to go on an approach was not clear before, then this is the clarification we must use for guidance now. They are as certain as they need to be from a regulatory standpoint about what they "believe".

The most important idea is this: the office of the chief counsel is the ONLY authority that can interpret an FAR. Unless another interpretation has been issued, and you can ask Doc if you like, then this one, however obtuse, is the one that would govern any action from an enforcement standpoint.