Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Confused-Approaches
- Thread starter 88_MALIBU
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
um, perhaps because you aren't the one flying the approach?
Logging approaches is a CURRENCY thing... you need to have flown the approaches yourself so that you're current (and hopefully proficient) enough to do it for real if/when required. Not really the same skill as monitoring your student flying the approach.
Logging approaches is a CURRENCY thing... you need to have flown the approaches yourself so that you're current (and hopefully proficient) enough to do it for real if/when required. Not really the same skill as monitoring your student flying the approach.
midlifeflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2003
- Posts
- 2,127
- Base airport
- KTTA
- Ratings
- Commercial ASEL, CFI-ASE, CFII
Part one: If your student is under the hood, I assume that you are in VMC. In that case, you obviously can't log them since you couldn't log them even if you were flying them. To be logged for currency, the pilot logging them must be performing them in actual or simulated IMC.88_MALIBU said:
Part two. If you are in IMC, then the Part 61 FAQ says that you can, so long as you are in actual instrument conditions.
From the Part 61 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).
This is one of The FAQ's most often debated positions, with some very strong and very reasonable views on both sides. Unfortunately, John Lynch doesn't really explain the 'why' of the position, 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". On the other hand, instrument currency requires that the pilot merely "performed" the approaches.
2. "Sole manipulator" language appears in a number of FAR. In fact, it appears 4 different times in 61.51. The use of the different word "performed" for approaches in the same FAR sticks out like a sore thumb, and must mean something different. That they mean different things is also supported by 61.55, the SIC qualification rule, which even goes so far to use them together:
==============================
...performed and logged pilot time...which includes -
(I) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls
==============================
3. The different wording means that you =don't= have to be the sole manipulator in order to log the approach.
4. We're left with the FAR that says that a CFI can log instrument time when teaching in IMC (and the associated general policy of the FAA to let CFIs log all sorts of stuff).
My biggest problem with the position is that even though I'm satisfied that "performed" doesn't mean "sole manipulator" haven't a clue what "performed" =does= mean.
There are some "common sense" arguments that support it also, but, like the opposing common sense arguments, they are pretty irrelevant. Whether pro or con, arguments about whether watching someone else fly an approach makes you proficient aren't very impressive. 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 in even mild IMC. (I'd stack up the skills of 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.
My personal take on logging is this: I don't see any logging rule as anything other than collecting numbers toward a certificate, rating or =technical= currency requirements. So I log for currency, (hopefully) fly based on proficiency, and pray that I'll never confuse the two.
Snoopy58 is correct, to a point.
The following excerpt from a 1992 legal interpretation by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel addresses the issue of flight instructor's logging a student's landings for currency, or the logging of a student's landings.
December 9, 1992
Mr. Renato Simone
Dear Mr. Simone:
This is in response to your November 7, 1991, letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Chief Counsel, in which you pose questions relating to certain requirements in Parts 61, 71, 91, and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
...Finally, you asked whether a CFI can log landings day or night if the manipulations of the flight controls are shared by both student and instructor. FAR section 61.51(c)(2)(iii) states that a CFI may log as PIC time all flight time during which he acts as a flight instructor. For recent flight experience, however, under Section 61.57(c) and (d), to log PIC time one must be the "sole manipulator of the flight controls." In the scenario you presented, where the "flight controls are shared by both student and instructor," the CFI can log that as PIC flight time under Section 61.51(c)(2)(iii) but the CFI cannot log this as PIC flight time towards recent flight experience under Section 61.57(c) and (d).
We trust the above response will prove helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information in this regard.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division
It's worth noting that 61.57 stipulates that for currency in landings, one must be sole manipulator of the controls. However, under 61.57, currency under instruments only requires that one operate the airplane...the language is subtly different, but does not stipulate that one must be sole manipulator of the controls.
While I'm inclined to agree that one should only log an approach if one flies it, an instructor may reasonably log an approach if the student flies it, and be legal. The regulation stipulates that one must perform the approach. A coupled approach is flown in actuality by the Aircraft Flight Control System or autopilot...but the person operating the autopilot can still log the approach. A flight instructor has a student manipulate the controls, but is still operating the aircraft in most cases, through the student. Note that this applies only in instrument conditions, as Mark noted.
If I fly an approach with a student, I do not log it. I will endorse the student's logbook to show that the student flew the approach, and received instruction in doing so.
My recommendation would be to not log the approaches flown by a student; log your own, only. You can make a note in the remarks portion of your logbook entry stipulating what maneuvers were conducted, and list the approaches there...but I wouldn't log the approaches themselves unless you flew them.
The following excerpt from a 1992 legal interpretation by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel addresses the issue of flight instructor's logging a student's landings for currency, or the logging of a student's landings.
December 9, 1992
Mr. Renato Simone
Dear Mr. Simone:
This is in response to your November 7, 1991, letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Chief Counsel, in which you pose questions relating to certain requirements in Parts 61, 71, 91, and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
...Finally, you asked whether a CFI can log landings day or night if the manipulations of the flight controls are shared by both student and instructor. FAR section 61.51(c)(2)(iii) states that a CFI may log as PIC time all flight time during which he acts as a flight instructor. For recent flight experience, however, under Section 61.57(c) and (d), to log PIC time one must be the "sole manipulator of the flight controls." In the scenario you presented, where the "flight controls are shared by both student and instructor," the CFI can log that as PIC flight time under Section 61.51(c)(2)(iii) but the CFI cannot log this as PIC flight time towards recent flight experience under Section 61.57(c) and (d).
We trust the above response will prove helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information in this regard.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division
It's worth noting that 61.57 stipulates that for currency in landings, one must be sole manipulator of the controls. However, under 61.57, currency under instruments only requires that one operate the airplane...the language is subtly different, but does not stipulate that one must be sole manipulator of the controls.
While I'm inclined to agree that one should only log an approach if one flies it, an instructor may reasonably log an approach if the student flies it, and be legal. The regulation stipulates that one must perform the approach. A coupled approach is flown in actuality by the Aircraft Flight Control System or autopilot...but the person operating the autopilot can still log the approach. A flight instructor has a student manipulate the controls, but is still operating the aircraft in most cases, through the student. Note that this applies only in instrument conditions, as Mark noted.
If I fly an approach with a student, I do not log it. I will endorse the student's logbook to show that the student flew the approach, and received instruction in doing so.
My recommendation would be to not log the approaches flown by a student; log your own, only. You can make a note in the remarks portion of your logbook entry stipulating what maneuvers were conducted, and list the approaches there...but I wouldn't log the approaches themselves unless you flew them.
Last edited:
johnpeace
#199 of 201
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Posts
- 841
I'm sort of new at all this...
I'll be proceeding to CFII ratings in a year or so and this thread brought up a question.
If you log all the approaches your students fly with you, how many is that?
I see hours in hiring mins all the time...with specific breakdowns of types of hours (XC, multi PIC, Instrument, etc)
Are there unwritten 'approach minimums' that you're trying to achieve by logging as many approaches as possible?
I'll be proceeding to CFII ratings in a year or so and this thread brought up a question.
If you log all the approaches your students fly with you, how many is that?
I see hours in hiring mins all the time...with specific breakdowns of types of hours (XC, multi PIC, Instrument, etc)
Are there unwritten 'approach minimums' that you're trying to achieve by logging as many approaches as possible?
Jedi_Cheese
Remove your shoes please!
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 494
From what I hear, it's a bitch to keep yourself instrument current (6 approaches, a holding and a tracking every 6 months). If you can log them when your student is doing them, you don't need to worry about staying current.
If you don't mind me asking johnpeace, how do you plan on going from PP to CFII in a year? You need to log about 4 hours of flight a week to make that, and while possible is going to be a full time job in and of itself.
If you don't mind me asking johnpeace, how do you plan on going from PP to CFII in a year? You need to log about 4 hours of flight a week to make that, and while possible is going to be a full time job in and of itself.
johnpeace
#199 of 201
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Posts
- 841
Jedi_Cheese
Remove your shoes please!
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 494
If you are training part 61 (also applicable to 141 too but maybe not, I am not used to their rules), start working on your CFI binder when you are working on your commercial (and save your instrument notes and handouts). Any notes you you can find or borrow are worth their weight in gold by the time you get that far. It will pay to be a packrat and keep everything.
PS: I did the 8-10 hours per week thing. Its not as fun as you think it would be.
PS: I did the 8-10 hours per week thing. Its not as fun as you think it would be.
johnpeace
#199 of 201
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Posts
- 841
Good tip.
I actually am beginning to think that since I learn so many subtle little things about how to teach from each CFI I fly with...I should start a set of notes on teaching technique already...
Fun...heh. For the next 25 hours I will be logging XC time VFR in Hawaii. In September we're moving to Atlanta where I'll continue my training (to be fair, I anticipate CFI about a year after we move...precise date to be determined). I am pretty much expecting to not have a lot of fun in the airplane until after the CFI checkride (with the possible exclusion of commercial XCs).
Fun is what the sailplane add on is for!
I actually am beginning to think that since I learn so many subtle little things about how to teach from each CFI I fly with...I should start a set of notes on teaching technique already...
Fun...heh. For the next 25 hours I will be logging XC time VFR in Hawaii. In September we're moving to Atlanta where I'll continue my training (to be fair, I anticipate CFI about a year after we move...precise date to be determined). I am pretty much expecting to not have a lot of fun in the airplane until after the CFI checkride (with the possible exclusion of commercial XCs).
Fun is what the sailplane add on is for!
TEXAN AVIATOR
Bewbies
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 1,132
Jedi_Cheese
Remove your shoes please!
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 494
johnpeace
#199 of 201
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Posts
- 841
Yeah, I'm just making notes of stuff I wished my CFI did during PPL training, for instance:
After my checkride, this retired airline pilot (now flies a falcon) told me about when he was a CFI...he said he would have students make low approaches and just fly down the runway centerline, keeping the nose centered at final approach airspeed, all the way down the runway. He made PPL students do this until they were staying on the centerline all the way down the runway BEFORE they moved on to pattern work.
I WISH my CFI had done this with me!
It's technique stuff like that that I'm thinking of.
After my checkride, this retired airline pilot (now flies a falcon) told me about when he was a CFI...he said he would have students make low approaches and just fly down the runway centerline, keeping the nose centered at final approach airspeed, all the way down the runway. He made PPL students do this until they were staying on the centerline all the way down the runway BEFORE they moved on to pattern work.
I WISH my CFI had done this with me!
It's technique stuff like that that I'm thinking of.
nosehair
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Posts
- 1,238
Teaching
Yeah, it's stuff like that - low, slow flight in the landing attitude/configuration, down the runway centerline - that you won't find in any FAA Handbook. The FAA Training material is the same today as it was when I started in 1959. It is based on WWII aviation knowledge and training techniques. I have since learned from my own experience as an instructor about good ways to fly and teach flying. I have learned that the FAA will not get anymore into the business of teaching because of the fear of liability. No FAA Inspector is allowed by law to recommend or advise or pass opinion on any thing. He only can quote and enforce regulations - because of the government's overwhelming fear of liability.
And so...when you ask a government employee(FAA Inspector) if you can log the landings, or approaches, with your student, he can only quote the black-and-white regulation and enforce it. He cannot say what he knows to be true - if he has spent any time as an instructor - and that is: If I am on the controls with a new student, struggling against him as well as the wind, then I am darned well gonna log that landing! All of these currency requirements and logging instrument time and PIC time and all that stuff is totally an individual decision. Did I manipulate the controls sufficiently enough to insure I am staying proficient? Do I actually have to use the instruments to control the airplane? Am I actually the PIC? This is how you determine what to log. Not what some bureaucrat in an office in D.C. who MIGHT happen to have a CFI certificate with no experience - and if he does have experience, it is probably in a miltary flight school.
I repeat - they are not allowed to make a decision on the right or wrong of these things we discuss here - they only can quote the reg. Of course, the reg must be followed for legal purposes, but I log what I really do. f I am controlling the machine, with my head and/or hands, and I know I am staying proficient - I will log myself current.
Yeah, it's stuff like that - low, slow flight in the landing attitude/configuration, down the runway centerline - that you won't find in any FAA Handbook. The FAA Training material is the same today as it was when I started in 1959. It is based on WWII aviation knowledge and training techniques. I have since learned from my own experience as an instructor about good ways to fly and teach flying. I have learned that the FAA will not get anymore into the business of teaching because of the fear of liability. No FAA Inspector is allowed by law to recommend or advise or pass opinion on any thing. He only can quote and enforce regulations - because of the government's overwhelming fear of liability.
And so...when you ask a government employee(FAA Inspector) if you can log the landings, or approaches, with your student, he can only quote the black-and-white regulation and enforce it. He cannot say what he knows to be true - if he has spent any time as an instructor - and that is: If I am on the controls with a new student, struggling against him as well as the wind, then I am darned well gonna log that landing! All of these currency requirements and logging instrument time and PIC time and all that stuff is totally an individual decision. Did I manipulate the controls sufficiently enough to insure I am staying proficient? Do I actually have to use the instruments to control the airplane? Am I actually the PIC? This is how you determine what to log. Not what some bureaucrat in an office in D.C. who MIGHT happen to have a CFI certificate with no experience - and if he does have experience, it is probably in a miltary flight school.
I repeat - they are not allowed to make a decision on the right or wrong of these things we discuss here - they only can quote the reg. Of course, the reg must be followed for legal purposes, but I log what I really do. f I am controlling the machine, with my head and/or hands, and I know I am staying proficient - I will log myself current.
pilotman2105
Ground control
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2004
- Posts
- 520
nosehair
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Posts
- 1,238
FAA Training material
Yeah, they changed the name of the "Flight Training Handbook" to "Airplane Flying Handbook". There was absolutely no change in the contents concerning flight training maneuvers. All that I can tell that was changed was that they took out the theory part about aerodynamics. They added some stuff about GPS navigation and radar - a little update on technological improvements, but absolutely no change in the discription of fundamental maneuvers. No FAA publication that I know of actually gets down to the nitty-gritty of teaching basic fundamental control of pitch, roll, and yaw. The "training maneuvers" described in the AFM and in the PTS are maneuvers which, if done correctly, will demonstrate that the pilot applicant does have control of the airplane around it's various axies, but maneuvers designed specifically to develop proper control input to these various forces in a coordinated or uncoordinated manner is not available in an FAA publication that I know of. Probably because of some implication of liability if they said "Fly low and slow".
Yeah, they changed the name of the "Flight Training Handbook" to "Airplane Flying Handbook". There was absolutely no change in the contents concerning flight training maneuvers. All that I can tell that was changed was that they took out the theory part about aerodynamics. They added some stuff about GPS navigation and radar - a little update on technological improvements, but absolutely no change in the discription of fundamental maneuvers. No FAA publication that I know of actually gets down to the nitty-gritty of teaching basic fundamental control of pitch, roll, and yaw. The "training maneuvers" described in the AFM and in the PTS are maneuvers which, if done correctly, will demonstrate that the pilot applicant does have control of the airplane around it's various axies, but maneuvers designed specifically to develop proper control input to these various forces in a coordinated or uncoordinated manner is not available in an FAA publication that I know of. Probably because of some implication of liability if they said "Fly low and slow".
100LL... Again!
youwantapieceofme??
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 1,533
Take it up with the FAA Chief Legal Counsel. You should not log your student's approaches for currency.
I've noted that FAA publications have changed and grown considerably in recent years. This includes maintenance and flight training publications. The content has indeed changed. Picked up a copy recently?
I've noted that FAA publications have changed and grown considerably in recent years. This includes maintenance and flight training publications. The content has indeed changed. Picked up a copy recently?
nosehair
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Posts
- 1,238
FAA Pubs
Yeah, Avbug, FAA pubs in general have changed considerably. I'm talking about the very basic stuff. The stuff every new student reads about in the basic fundamentals in the "Airplane Flying Handbook." That is the book all pilot and flight instructor applicants must know about in the execution of flight maneuvers tested on practical tests. That has not changed. Everthing else has. Everyone thinks that the basics don't change, so no one is looking to change the fundamentals, but the fact is, we are a lot smarter today than we were 50 years ago about safe execution of training maneuvers designed for the individual, not for the masses. The old training mindset is to train to the lowest common denominator - that was the way it had to be in WWII, but now we can approach the individual and train that individual in a lot of better ways than is shown in the old - used to be - Flight Training Handbook.
Yeah, Avbug, FAA pubs in general have changed considerably. I'm talking about the very basic stuff. The stuff every new student reads about in the basic fundamentals in the "Airplane Flying Handbook." That is the book all pilot and flight instructor applicants must know about in the execution of flight maneuvers tested on practical tests. That has not changed. Everthing else has. Everyone thinks that the basics don't change, so no one is looking to change the fundamentals, but the fact is, we are a lot smarter today than we were 50 years ago about safe execution of training maneuvers designed for the individual, not for the masses. The old training mindset is to train to the lowest common denominator - that was the way it had to be in WWII, but now we can approach the individual and train that individual in a lot of better ways than is shown in the old - used to be - Flight Training Handbook.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
