Hey Avbug!

[bobbysamd]

Counting approaches



I did search the FAR section, as Avbug recommended. He cited a 1992 opinion letter. Then, I carefully read Low&Slow's post and went to Mr. Pinkston's link. Mr. Pinkston's link is from 2001 and essentially said the same thing, although Mr. Pinkston was making an assumption in his opinion:

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.

(emphasis added)

What we're talking about is commencing an approach, going to the FAF, leaving the FAF inbound, establishing on the final approach segment, starting timing, etc. In other words, continuing the approach on the final approach segment and breaking out, e.g. at something like 600' AGL, no? Mr. Pinkston is making a presumption that the approach will be flown to mins. Not all approaches are flown to mins. So, applying his reasoning, it doesn't count?

I'm saying we're using the approach as intended, to let down in IMC. I still think you can count it as an approach, on the basis of logic and common sense. However, Mr. Pinkston's comments are recent, and, more importantly (tympani roll, please), he's with the FAA. So, although yours truly doesn't agree 100% with Mr. Pinkston, perhaps in the interests of conservatism and not doing anything wrong, we should do it his way.

 

[Timebuilder]

Bobby, is it possible that Mr. Pinkston means that you simply have to continue to fly down to the DH after breaking out of IMC at 600 AGL in order to have accomplished the approach?

I, too would only log the time spent in IMC as the "actual" time, but I would log the approach that begins in IMC at the FAF. If I were not able to do this, I'd have to log all approaches for currency by using a safety pilot in simulated conditions becuase of the rarity of flying an approach to mimimums and having things work out just perfectly so that I have one or more of the twelve required runway environment items in sight at the moment I arrive at the DH.

In addition, at a busy airport, approaches in simulated conditions rarely go to the DH because the controller needs us to break off, circle to another runway, 360 for traffic, etc.

I'm starting to surmise that only a small fraction of pilots meet Mr. Pinkston's definition of an approach. Interesting.

 

[bobbysamd]

I dunno . . . .



I agree. It is interesting. That's where I'm coming from. That's why I'm not 100% persuaded by his opinion. But, of course, he's from the FAA and is here to help. We're not getting much help in this instance, though. We're having to play aviation lawyer without having law degrees.

 

[hyper]

Ah! Confusion at it's finest....only in true FAA form!

You see, they want it to be obscure and open ended so that they can grab you by the gnads with any open interpretation they want.

But don't fergit...they're here to help.

 

[avbug]

The intent of the regualation is clear. Nobody has ever been violated for lack of currency because the FAA went back and checked weather reports, or questioned crewmembers if their compadre stayed on the gages until DH.

The administrator isn't trying to trap anybody. The intent of the regulation is to fly an approach be reference to instruments, period. This may be done in simulated, or actual conditions. It may be done in a simulator. The regulation doesn't require that a view limiting device be worn, that a certain type of cloud or smoke be present, or any other specific stipulation of how to qualify the conditions. If you break out, continue through the approach to minimums and land.

The approach must be conducted to minimums, or in other words, you must fly the approach, not just a small portion of it. The intent here, or the spirit of the law, is to proficiency. It's a weak spirit; six approaches in six months is hardly enough to stay proficient. However, it's the basic minimum; a standard established just as practical test standards are a minimum, 90 day currency is a minimum, and medical certification is a minimum.

14 CFR was intentionally written to be interpreted. The interpretation isn't left to the certificate holder. Legal interpretations are issued by the Administrator's Legal Counsel. These are available. Again, this was covered at length in the previous thread in the FAR forum. The FAA didn't establish what is in the CFR; it was established long before, and was mandated and created by congress. It was intended to be a loose guideline which permitted the administrator to conduct the mission of the FAA, and so it is. It is one of the smallest and most concise sections of federal regulation, and believe it or not, perhaps the easiest to understand. (Try diving into the tax code some time).

You don't need to be in instrument conditions at the FAF. You need to be flying by reference to instruments. This is an important distinction. Frequently an approach will be in visual conditions at the beginning, but may be descending into an obscuring layer, dust, smoke, fog, a black hole condition, etc. These may often be the most challenging of all. So long as the approach is conducted by reference to instruments, log it. How you determine that you've conducted it by referrence to instruments, is largely up to you.

If you intend to claim that you did it under simulated instrument conditions, list the name of your safety pilot. Problem solved.

 

[bobbysamd]

Logging approaches

You don't need to be in instrument conditions at the FAF. You need to be flying by reference to instruments. This is an important distinction. Frequently an approach will be in visual conditions at the beginning, but may be descending into an obscuring layer, dust, smoke, fog, a black hole condition, etc. These may often be the most challenging of all. So long as the approach is conducted by reference to instruments, log it. How you determine that you've conducted it by referrence to instruments, is largely up to you.

(emphasis added)

Works for me. That's where I've been coming from all along. And, I think, that's where we've all been coming from.

Thanks, Avbug.

 

[hyper]

With all due respect Avbug, if it wasn't so open-ended and confusing, there wouldn't be so many long debates about it filled with uncertainty.

It may be cut and dry to you, but it's pbvious from this and other threads that it is not to others. (like soooo many other regs)

Just a thought.