CFII Logging Approaches

[Fly_Chick]

Can a CFII log the instrument approaches which his/her students have shot?

I know a CFII can log actual instrument time during the portion of the flight when in actual IMC. When can a CFII log the instrument approach? Is it any approach where the student went down to MDA or DA? Inside the FAF?

I ran into a situation/discussion today where someone said a CFII can only log the approach in his/her logbook if it was in actual conditions.

Would like to know how other CFIIs log their approaches with their students.

 

[minitour]

I ran into a situation/discussion today where someone said a CFII can only log the approach in his/her logbook if it was in actual conditions.

I'm interested to hear the answer to this too...

Regarding to the thought on "actual conditions". My question to them would be...

What if there's a 800 overcast...you shoot through the overcast layer and break out and there's 4 miles of vis underneath the overcast...you're inside B C D or E airspace laid out for an airport (think special VFR rules). Do you have to stop logging the approach at that time?

I would think that doesn't make much sense...but it could be right.

My guess would also be that as the PIC you would log the approaches shot...but thats probably wrong...

Stick a fork in me....I'm done

-mini

 

[Fly_Chick]

My home base has an ILS on a rwy not frequently used (rwy 36).

Commonly (90% of time) they have us circle to land to rwy 9.

If I have them break it off at MDA - 600' and circle, would you log that as an approach?

Also - at what point would you log the approach? Inside the FAF, reaching MDA/DA? Actual or VMC?

 

[SiuDude]

There have been several opinions issued by the FAA that say an approach must be flown to minimums in order to count for currency. As for logging approaches in IMC, I don't see how you can do it when you're not the sole manipulator of controls. Probably the same reasoning behind a Captain not being able to log an approach when the FO is flying it.

 

[kj6991]

here is the way i look at shooting an approach in actual, whether i am radar vectored or shooting the entire approach. if i shoot 95% of that approach in actual and then break out of the clouds a few hundred above DH/MDA, or get vis back with only a mile or two, it's hard pressed to tell me that approach i just shot isn't an approach i cannot log. just like the term "actual" can be thrown many ways around and back, but it's your judgement and interpretation as an honest pilot to log what you feel is an approach. just like in actual conditions, you can sit down a dozen CFII's and they all will have there opinion and what actual IMC conditions really are(ex. can't see the tip of wing from the deck,no horizon line,clouds intermitant but can't really tell for sure, etc). now sure, if i'm shooting an ils and break out of the clouds 1000 feet above DH and with 4 miles vis than i might not put that approach in my book. i shoot enough approaches that currency isn't a problem. just be truthful with everything and obide by the regs best you can and everything will be ok. just my .02. there are a lot more experienced pilots out there than me that probably have a more clear answer. i am just trying to work my way into the mix and get better every day.

 

[172driver]

Can a CFII log approaches which his/her student has shot?

No. The regs specifically state that the person logging the approach for currency must have performed the approach. Now you can argue the meaning of 'performed' all day long but to me it means I was in control of the aircraft 100%. Not in command, not monitoring, not teaching, but in control.

Why do we log our approaches to begin with? One reason...to be current and legal under the FAR's. If there is an incident, accident, or violation under IFR, you better believe the FAA will come knocking and ask to see proof of IFR currency. Would you feel comfortable defending the position that you are current because you have monitored/taught several approaches recently?

Now, if you want to log your students' approaches above and beyond your own personal currency, you can, but it's just silly. You can also log your MS Flight Sim landings if you want to, as long as they don't count toward landing currency. Both practices may raise eyebrows down the road.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Dusting off the old Personal FAQ:

May a CFII Log Student Approaches Flown in Actual IMC?

In the Part 61 FAQ, John Lynch says "Yes". This is probably the most controversial position he's taken. A lot of folks disagree with him. FWIW, here's my personal FAQ on the issue, which sets out the FAQ and some of the pro and con arguments. You'll have to make up your own mind which way to go

The FAQ

QUESTION: Am I correct in understanding that a CFII may log approaches that a student flies when those approaches are conducted in actual instrument conditions? Is there a reference to this anywhere in the rules?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.51(g)(2); Yes, a CFII may log approaches that a student flies when those approaches are conducted in actual instrument flight conditions. And this would also permit that instructor who is performing as an authorized instructor to ". . . log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions" and this would count for instrument currency requirements under § 61.57(c).


The arguments

John Lynch doesn't go into great detail about the reasons for his view, but the best argument that I could find that supports it goes something like this:

1. The FAR for landing currency specifically says "sole manipulator" (a CFI can't log student landings) .
2. The FAR for instrument currency says "performed" approaches.
3. The different wording means that you =don't= have the be the sole manipulator in order to log the approach. The phrase "sole manipulator of the controls" appears 4 different times in 61.57. It's absence from approach currency sticks out like a sore thumb.
4. We're left with the FAR that says that a CFI can log instrument time when teaching in IMC.

The supporting common sense arguments tend to be:

1. The CFI who is monitoring the student's approach is not only responsible for it (probably one of the FAA's rationales for permitting CFIs to anything while giving instruction) but is working harder by needing to stay not only ahead of the airplane but ahead of the student.
2. The CFI who is monitoring the student's approach is definitely doing a lot more in terms of performance than the pilot who is monitoring her autopilot flying the approach and who clearly can log it.
3. The general policy of the FAR is to let CFIs log all sorts of stuff.

The opposing view comes down to:

1. The regulation requires that the approach be "performed". While maybe not a tight as "sole manipulator" it obviously contemplates more than just sitting there.
2. It's just plain stupid for anyone to get credit for an instrument approach for currency by just sitting there and doing nothing. That can certainly be the case, say during an IPC or other recurrent training with an experienced instrument pilot.

BTW, I don't personally see it as a proficiency issue. I'm not particularly impressed by the arguments on wither side about whether watching someone else fly an approach makes you proficient. Legal currency rarely has much to do with proficiency. Watching your autopilot coupled airplane do 6 identical ILS approaches into your home airport (which you've memorized anyway) hardly makes one proficient to fly even mild IMC. (Anyway, I'd stack up the CFII who teaches in actual conditions against that guy any day). Even if we don't look at approaches, does anyone really think that doing three night stop and goes night home airport makes you proficient to take the family on a long night cross-county to a strange airport if you haven't flown at night for 7 years. But the FAA says, sure, that's enough for the legalities.

Me, I'll continue to log for currency, fly for proficiency, and pray I'll never confuse the two.