Logging Approaches

[avbug]

Ok, I think you are not understanding me. I am saying that you do not need a safety pilot to fly in IMC, period. I you elect, for whatever reason to wear a hood and fly with a safety pilot: to have your safety pilot build PIC time, you are lonely, etc.. then of course you can both log it. Now, why would you need a safety pilot in IMC? His function will be to look out and see nothing? It's an honor system and of course you can always do as you please, it doesn't mean it's "honorable". Now if you are going in and out of weather or if the Wx conditions are such that you would need a safety pilot then I fully agree. I think we both understand the Regs in this respect.

Negative. I understand you completely; it's just that you're wrong.

If, in instrument conditions, the pilot flying is wearing a view limiting device, a safety pilot MUST be used. Absolutely, positively, must be used. This is no courtesy. If you are conducting flight under simulated instrument conditions by the use of a view limiting device, regardless of the conditions of flight, regardless of the visibility or cloud clearance outside the cockpit, a safety pilot is required. Period.

You fly a Cessna 172. You takeoff under visual conditions, with the pilot flying wearing a view limiting device. A safety pilot is required. The flight enters the clouds. A safety pilot is required. Not a nicety. Not a courtesy. Not a not toward safety. A requirement by regulation.

A pilot is obligated to see and avoid regardless of weather IFR or VFR, IMC or VMC. See and avoid is always an obligation and duty. A pilot in instrument conditions, weather under VFR or IFR, who cannot see and avoid due to limiting his or her vision using a view limiting device (that is used in order to conduct flight by reference to instruments...in other words, simulated instrument flight), MUST HAVE A SAFETY PILOT.

Your arguement doubtless is that once the flight enters instrument conditions it is no longer in simulated instrument flight. This is incorrect. Most certainly the pilot flying is flying under simulated instrument conditions, regardless of what is occuring outside the aircraft. That pilot MUST have a safety pilot, weather operating under visual rules or instrument rules, weather in visual conditions or instrument conditions.

A single engine prop a/c does not need an SIC or an additional PIC unless it is really required. My point was that in IMC he is not required. I would question why would you choose to have one if not required that's all.

Because two pilots in instrument flight are much better than one pilot in instrument conditions. You do understand this, right?

I wanted to ask you, however, do you have a reference for you statement concerning logging approaches only if they go to minimums in IMC or simulated?

Though I've posted it many times on this site before (a simple search would find it), the letter of interpretation that states it very clearly has already been given in this thread. Have you not read this thread?

The question is because approaches where you are IMC right to minimums are fairly rare. You could get the runway in sight at 500 AGL , for instance, on an ILS approach which is typically 300 above mins. In this case, you are saying that the approach cannot be logged?

I don't make the regulation, nor do I interpret it. You have been given the regulation, and the interpretation by the FAA chief legal counsel. The FAA chief legal counsel has stated quite clearly that the approach must be conducted to minimums under simulated or actual instrument conditions. That should be quite clear.

 

[Swerpipe]

once again

If, in instrument conditions, the pilot flying is wearing a view limiting device, a safety pilot MUST be used. Absolutely, positively, must be used. This is no courtesy. If you are conducting flight under simulated instrument conditions by the use of a view limiting device, regardless of the conditions of flight, regardless of the visibility or cloud clearance outside the cockpit, a safety pilot is required. Period.

OK, so you are saying that you need a safety pilot in IMC (not IFR), you don't ,all right?. Can't you understand that you do not need a hood and THEREFORE a safety pilot in IMC. That's all. I know you need a safety pilot IF WEARING A HOOD. I AM TRYING TO SAY THAT YOU DO NOT NEED A HOOD IN IMC in the first place. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?. YOU WANT TO WEAR A HOOD IN IMC WITH A SAFETY PILOT, GREAT! GO DO IT.
Do you understand me now or are you going to tell me again that if wearing a hood I need a safety pilot again? I need the safety pilot IF wearing a hood no matter what in IMC, VFR, IFR blah blah blah That's obvious, nobody is arguing that right? You don't need simulated instrument flight in actual instrument flight OK? I don't know how else to say it...

BTW, the FAA chief legal counsel i.e. a lawyer right? he provided just an OPINION. Just for your information. Many of the other FAA inspectors out there also have different opinions. That's his interpretation, just like I got mine. What rules is the REGS, AIM, advisory circulars, etc.. I have gone over this with folks at our FSDO. If his interpretation was law, it would be in the REGS or AIM. He would have a hard time explaining how arriving to an airport with less than VFR conditions using an approach does not constitute an approach... just use your head, it's just common sense. "I was able to fly into to a tower airport under less than VFR conditions by using an instrument approach procedure but it was not an instrument approach procedure for the purpose of currency". Only a lawyer. Notice how in the regs or in the AIM you don't see "his interpretation".

Your answer,
"Because two pilots in instrument flight are much better than one pilot in instrument conditions. You do understand this, right?"
I have over 2600 hours in a crew environment. I definitely understand it. It doesn't mean the FAA considers your Cessna 172 an aircraft requiring 2 pilots and they want two people logging PIC or PIC/SIC unless it is required for safety because one pilot NEEDS to wear a hood and the other one is there for safety as PIC or SIC as arranged. BTW, between my private and instrument tickets, every flight I made was simulated instrument flight.

 

[avbug]

Clearly, you do not understand the regulation.

OK, so you are saying that you need a safety pilot in IMC (not IFR), you don't ,all right?. Can't you understand that you do not need a hood and THEREFORE a safety pilot in IMC. That's all. I know you need a safety pilot IF WEARING A HOOD. I AM TRYING TO SAY THAT YOU DO NOT NEED A HOOD IN IMC in the first place. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?. YOU WANT TO WEAR A HOOD IN IMC WITH A SAFETY PILOT, GREAT! GO DO IT.

Still incorrect. While a view limiting device is not required during flight in instrument conditions, if a hood is worn, the safety pilot is still required. If upon entering instrument conditions the pilot wearing the hood elects to remove it,the safety pilot is then, and only then, no longer required.

Do you suppose adding the tagline under your post with ratings and your certificate level adds any level of understanding or credibility, or is that supposed to make a wrong point right? I've got a lot more certification and experience than you...but so what??? What has that got to do with the price of tea in china??

BTW, the FAA chief legal counsel i.e. a lawyer right? he provided just an OPINION. Just for your information. Many of the other FAA inspectors out there also have different opinions. That's his interpretation, just like I got mine. What rules is the REGS, AIM, advisory circulars, etc.. I have gone over this with folks at our FSDO. If his interpretation was law, it would be in the REGS or AIM. He would have a hard time explaining how arriving to an airport with less than VFR conditions using an approach does not constitute an approach... just use your head, it's just common sense. "I was able to fly into to a tower airport under less than VFR conditions by using an instrument approach procedure but it was not an instrument approach procedure for the purpose of currency". Only a lawyer. Notice how in the regs or in the AIM you don't see "his interpretation".

What a marvellously ignorant statement.

An insepctor at the FSDO level has NO authority to interpret regulation or to make statements of policy for the Administrator. The regional and chief legal counsel does, and those statements of policy, referred to as both legal opinions and legal interpretations, are how the regulation will be interpreted and held in enforcement action.

Nothing you get from the FSDO level is binding with respect to interpreting policy, even if you get it in writing. However, statements made by the chief legal counsel's office are binding at all levels and throughout the enforcement and appeals process. Do you not understand this??

The Administrator is the final word in interpretation and application of regulation. The legal counsel representing the administrator speaks officially on his or her behalf, and represents the official policy of the Administrator with respect to how the regulation will be applied. The Administrator is the person chartered under the authority of an act of congress to apply the regulation and enforcement of aviation in this country, and the legal counsel appointed by the Administrator speak for the administrator; these statements are fully defensible in administrative court.

This one kills me:

If his interpretation was law, it would be in the REGS or AIM. Notice how in the regs or in the AIM you don't see "his interpretation".

This is, of course, the entire purpose of the interpretation; to interpret the regulation and lend the specific application that it requires. Of course it is not the regulation; it is the official interpretation and application of the regulation. You're sounding a lot like our beloved white house idiot. Don't do that.

Of course you don't find the legal interpretations in the aeronautical information manual. Nor is the AIM regulatory. You do understand that, don't you?

The AIM is a compilation of information, found in regulations, advisory circulars, and other locations, detailing the general practices and proceedures to be followed in the national airspace system and under visual and instrument flight operations. Legal interpretations are specific legal answers that constitute FAA policy, in response to specific questions of regulation and law.

 

[transpac]

avbus is displaying exceptional restraint!. He's not 100%, but he is well-informed on most subjects. My only real complaint is his condescending attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him, right or wrong. Brightspark?? Anyway, he's absolutely correct on this subject and is displaying an unusual gentleness to the naysayers.

 

[Ralgha]

Clearly, you do not understand the regulation.




Still incorrect. While a view limiting device is not required during flight in instrument conditions, if a hood is worn, the safety pilot is still required. If upon entering instrument conditions the pilot wearing the hood elects to remove it,the safety pilot is then, and only then, no longer required.

Do you suppose adding the tagline under your post with ratings and your certificate level adds any level of understanding or credibility, or is that supposed to make a wrong point right? I've got a lot more certification and experience than you...but so what??? What has that got to do with the price of tea in china??

I was just looking at that regulation, and it said a safety pilot is needed when the pilot is operating the airplane in simulated instrument flight. That's very cut and dry. The problem is that "simulated instrument flight" isn't defined anywhere that I know of (maybe there's an interp I haven't seen). When an airplane is being flown inside a cloud, there's nothing simulated about it, regardless of what headgear is worn.

Of course, if there's an interp defining what simulated instrument flight is, then that's what matters.

 

[Swerpipe]

I am glad you are here to "help"

Clearly, you do not understand the regulation.
Still incorrect. While a view limiting device is not required during flight in instrument conditions,.

View limiting device not required in IMC... WOW. Thank you, that was point. I thought you would never say it...

if a hood is worn, the safety pilot is still required. If upon entering instrument conditions the pilot wearing the hood elects to remove it,the safety pilot is then, and only then, no longer required.,.

Agree with you, great! So, if the whole flight is in IMC, then safety pilot not required. So far so good...

Do you suppose adding the tagline under your post with ratings and your certificate level adds any level of understanding or credibility, or is that supposed to make a wrong point right? I've got a lot more certification and experience than you...but so what??? What has that got to do with the price of tea in china??

Ok, so I shared with you who I am not so you can dump on me. You don't know me just like I don't know you. The purpose of the profile is so that people understand we all have different backgrounds, not to start insults. Number of hours, ratings, etc... means nothing. You should know that...

What a marvellously ignorant statement.
An insepctor at the FSDO level has NO authority to interpret regulation or to make statements of policy for the Administrator. The regional and chief legal counsel does, and those statements of policy, referred to as both legal opinions and legal interpretations, are how the regulation will be interpreted and held in enforcement action.

Nothing you get from the FSDO level is binding with respect to interpreting policy, even if you get it in writing. However, statements made by the chief legal counsel's office are binding at all levels and throughout the enforcement and appeals process. Do you not understand this??

Ha, Ha, Ha... That's a good one. Who do you think is going to "violate you?" The FAA chief legal counsel? No, maybe President Bush. If it doesn't go past your FSDO the matter is dead. You are not as experienced as you think you are my friend. You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk. Have you ever left "the classroom"?
BTW marvellously has one "l" like this...marvelously

The Administrator is the final word in interpretation and application of regulation. The legal counsel representing the administrator speaks officially on his or her behalf, and represents the official policy of the Administrator with respect to how the regulation will be applied. The Administrator is the person chartered under the authority of an act of congress to apply the regulation and enforcement of aviation in this country, and the legal counsel appointed by the Administrator speak for the administrator; these statements are fully defensible in administrative court.

I agree, only after the FSDO wrote you up which is why you had to go there in the first place. If they carry a different policy then it doesn't matter which is my point. If the inspectors at the Miami FSDO consider an approach to be what I said then you think it matters what the legal counsel thinks? No it doesn't.

This one kills me:
This is, of course, the entire purpose of the interpretation; to interpret the regulation and lend the specific application that it requires. Of course it is not the regulation; it is the official interpretation and application of the regulation. You're sounding a lot like our beloved white house idiot. Don't do that.

Finally, we agree. I don't like Bush. Remember, if a cop doesn't think you broke the law then the judge's opinion means very little. Look at the BIG PICTURE, alright? You would never make it to court. What a concept!

Of course you don't find the legal interpretations in the aeronautical information manual. Nor is the AIM regulatory. You do understand that, don't you?
The AIM is a compilation of information, found in regulations, advisory circulars, and other locations, detailing the general practices and proceedures to be followed in the national airspace system and under visual and instrument flight operations. Legal interpretations are specific legal answers that constitute FAA policy, in response to specific questions of regulation and law.

You have never heard of a pilot violated for not following procedures or policy written in the AIM? I have. In fact, we were taking the checkride together. The pilot was busted for "not following procedures specified in the AIM". I hope your students, Mr. know-it-all, don't find it the hard way. An FAA inspector could "bust" you on a checkride if he found you were consistenly going against FAA procedures set forth on the AIM.

"Nor is the AIM regulatory" yeah that's what I think he said. Ha Ha Ha... you are really funny!
The AIM was written as a suggestion in case Mr. know-it-all wants to follow the FAA rules and policy. For instance, this is standard phrasealogy but if You want, Mr. AVBUG, go ahead and say it any way you want!

Well, I guess you can tell I'm bored. I hope you are not upset because I find our "conversation" entertaining. Alright, let's hear it...

BTW AVBUG, I also have the "avbug"

 

[avbug]

Agree with you, great! So, if the whole flight is in IMC, then safety pilot not required. So far so good...

No, becuase while it's not required, if used, a safety pilot is required. A flight that begins with a view limiting device and a safety pilot has may result in the pilot flying removing his or her view limiting device, or not. The person wearing the device has no way of knowing weather he or she is in a cloud unless the safety plot informs him or her. Accordingly, the device may just as well remain in place.

Connecting that back to the issue of logging the time, if the pilot in command is the pilot manipulating the controls, then the most the safety pilot can log is second in comand. The pilot manipulating the controls, wearing the view limiting device, may log PIC...not only because he or she is the PIC, but because he or she is sole manipulator of the controls. The only times that being PIC is a qualification for the logging of PIC time is either when solo, or when acting as the PIC of an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember.

If the pilot acting as safety pilot is acting as pilot in command, then he or she may log PIC only for that portion of the flight when the pilot manipulating the controls wears a view limiting device. If the pilot wearing the view limiting device removes it in visual or instrument conditions, day or night, winter or summer, then the safety pilot is not required. The safety pilot continues to be the acting pilot in command, but may not log the flight time at all. The pilot manipulating the controls may continue to log the flight time as pilot in command.

Let's make the pilot manipulating the controls a non-instrument rated private pilot. The safety pilot is instrument rated, and is acting as pilot in command. The pilot manipulating the controls makes the flight under IFR. He or she is not legally qualified to act as PIC under IFR, but may log the flight time as PIC. The flight enters instrument conditions. A view limiting device is worn. A safety pilot is required. The private pilot logs pilot in command, and instrument time. The safety pilot logs pilot in command, and instrument time.

The pilot wearing the view limiting device removes it. This pilot, while not instrument rated, continues to log PIC and instrument time. The safety pilot, now now longer required, is still acting pilot in command...though now no longer a safety pilot. He or she may not log PIC. He or she may not log SIC. He or she may not log instrument time.

Ha, Ha, Ha... That's a good one. Who do you think is going to "violate you?" The FAA chief legal counsel? No, maybe President Bush.

Who? The Administrator. Clear as mud?

At the FSDO level, an inspector may initiate enforcement action, but may not "violate" you. Enforcement action then goes to the regional legal counsel, who determines if it has merit.

However, this isn't a discussion about what you can get away with at the local level, or about the practice of being ignorant of the regulation. It's a discussion about the legalities of the regulation, and this is clear and unequivocal. The regulation, as interpreted by the Administrator, the sole person chartered by an act of congress to regulate aviation in the United States of America, has clearly stated that an approach for the purpose of recency of experience must be conducted in instrument conditions to minimums. Period.

You have never heard of a pilot violated for not following procedures or policy written in the AIM? I have. In fact, we were taking the checkride together. The pilot was busted for "not following procedures specified in the AIM". I hope your students, Mr. know-it-all, don't find it the hard way. An FAA inspector could "bust" you on a checkride if he found you were consistenly going against FAA procedures set forth on the AIM.

Ah, that old stick. Perhaps you understand that the AIM constitutes a gathering point of advisory practices, policies, regulations, etc. Perhaps you don't. The AIM of it's own accord is purely advisory in nature. One cannot be violated for failing to observe the information contained in the AIM. However, much of what is in the AIM is gathered from regulation, or FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, FAA Handbooks, and other sources.

If your friend failed to observe the traffic pattern on his checkride, for example, your friend was not violated for failure to obey the AIM; that ain't gonna happen, mate. Your friend most likely was the target of enforcement action for violation of 14 CFR 91.126(b)(1).

An FAA inspector could "bust" you on a checkride if he found you were consistenly going against FAA procedures set forth on the AIM.

No, he really couldn't.

Only in a case where safety is compromised or a disregard for safety is demonstrated could this be the case, but this would be a violation of 91.13, Careless or Reckless Operation.

The inspector may "bust" you if you violate a regulation. If you become the object of enforcement action, it will NOT be arbitrary. It will be for violation of regulation. That regulation may summarized in the AIM, but you will not be violated for failure to follow the AIM; you will be violated for violation of regulation, and the specific regulation will be cited, not the AIM.

All for your entertainment, brightspark.

 

[Swerpipe]

OK we are agreeing about the safety pilot let's drop it

No, becuase while it's not required, if used, a safety pilot is required.

"If used" once again,the safety pilot doesn't need to be used. In other words you said "No" and after that everything else you said, I agree. But keep writing it if it makes you feel better.

Connecting that back to the issue of logging the time, if the pilot in command is the pilot manipulating the controls, then the most the safety pilot can log is second in comand. The pilot manipulating the controls, wearing the view limiting device, may log PIC...not only because he or she is the PIC, but because he or she is sole manipulator of the controls. The only times that being PIC is a qualification for the logging of PIC time is either when solo, or when acting as the PIC of an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember.

If the pilot acting as safety pilot is acting as pilot in command, then he or she may log PIC only for that portion of the flight when the pilot manipulating the controls wears a view limiting device. If the pilot wearing the view limiting device removes it in visual or instrument conditions, day or night, winter or summer, then the safety pilot is not required. The safety pilot continues to be the acting pilot in command, but may not log the flight time at all. The pilot manipulating the controls may continue to log the flight time as pilot in command.

Let's make the pilot manipulating the controls a non-instrument rated private pilot. The safety pilot is instrument rated, and is acting as pilot in command. The pilot manipulating the controls makes the flight under IFR. He or she is not legally qualified to act as PIC under IFR, but may log the flight time as PIC. The flight enters instrument conditions. A view limiting device is worn. A safety pilot is required. The private pilot logs pilot in command, and instrument time. The safety pilot logs pilot in command, and instrument time.

The pilot wearing the view limiting device removes it. This pilot, while not instrument rated, continues to log PIC and instrument time. The safety pilot, now now longer required, is still acting pilot in command...though now no longer a safety pilot. He or she may not log PIC. He or she may not log SIC. He or she may not log instrument time.

Blah Blah Blah, I agree! Please let's argue about stuff we disagree, otherwise, it's boring!

Who? The Administrator. Clear as mud?
At the FSDO level, an inspector may initiate enforcement action

Right!, guilty until proven innocent my friend. Do you think that when the FAA initiates enforcement it's just like a regular court? Smell the coffee. Ha, Ha, Ha Initiate enforcement.... That's a good one, you are naive OR maybe you are a friendly FED "trying to help" right?
Once enforcement is initiated, you are screwed!

but may not "violate" you. Enforcement action then goes to the regional legal counsel, who determines if it has merit.

I agree. If you have enforcement action, good luck. BTW AOPA legal services 1 808 872 2672

However, this isn't a discussion about what you can get away with at the local level, or about the practice of being ignorant of the regulation. It's a discussion about the legalities of the regulation, and this is clear and unequivocal. The regulation, as interpreted by the Administrator, the sole person chartered by an act of congress to regulate aviation in the United States of America, has clearly stated that an approach for the purpose of recency of experience must be conducted in instrument conditions to minimums. Period.

You are the one who doesn't understand. I fact, I don't even think you are a pilot. What if you break out at 10 feet above mins, 20?, 30?, 100?, 200?, 400? where does it stop? You can still stay on "instruments" and have the airport in sight.

To Quote,
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.

OK,Mr. Know-it-all, where does it say "approach must be conducted in instrument conditions to minimums?"
ANSWER: NOWHERE
1)may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions-> You get that right?

2)the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height.->You get that ?MUST FOLLOW IT, SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE CONDITIONS TO MINIMUMS!!!!!


ONE LAST TIME...

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THE APPROACH MUST BE IMC TO MINIMUMS?????

You love to make stuff up don't you?

Ah, that old stick. Perhaps you understand that the AIM constitutes a gathering point of advisory practices, policies, regulations, etc. Perhaps you don't. The AIM of it's own accord is purely advisory in nature. One cannot be violated for failing to observe the information contained in the AIM. However, much of what is in the AIM is gathered from regulation, or FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, FAA Handbooks, and other sources.

If your friend failed to observe the traffic pattern on his checkride, for example, your friend was not violated for failure to obey the AIM; that ain't gonna happen, mate. Your friend most likely was the target of enforcement action for violation of 14 CFR 91.126(b)(1).

Any Fed that just came out of the Academy can recite you a few catch all FARs 91, 61, 1, 135/121 to bust you in addition to tell you that as a commercial pilot you lack the proficiency and professionalism expected while pointing out all of the AIM procedures that you didn't follow in addition to your Ops Specs and General Operations Manual.
Once again you lack experience. Leave the classroom my friend. It's much funner out here!

The inspector may "bust" you if you violate a regulation. If you become the object of enforcement action, it will NOT be arbitrary. It will be for violation of regulation. That regulation may summarized in the AIM, but you will not be violated for failure to follow the AIM; you will be violated for violation of regulation, and the specific regulation will be cited, not the AIM.
All for your entertainment, brightspark.

Sure, a Fed will always cite a few Regs or your Ops Specs , or GOM and your AIM to give examples of why he thinks you are not safe. "You don't follow the procedures set forth in the AIM. For instance blah blah blah...."

Once again, you focus on the little stuff and miss the BIG PICTURE.
How do you prove that a pilot in unsafe? "Well, look at all these procedures and recommendations that we set and he followed none of them!"

It's been fun, bye bye!

 

[avbug]

Attempting to have a discussion with you is nearly as productive as trying to dance with water. Crikey.

Clearly you've never been through the enforcement process or dealt directly with the FAA legal system. You can be forgiven, therefore, your ignorance on the subject. Unlike you, I do have experience at several levels within the administration, and though I presently do not, have represented the Administrator.

You seem to have it all figured out, though, so good luck to you. With that level of ignorance, you may well one day need it! You're so busy trying to tell the world how it turns. Like so many. Good luck to you; hopefully you won't find out how ignorant you are of the regulation, the hard way.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

All this enforcement talk reminds me of the one time I almost got violated. Let me share my story.

So one day I was flying a cheyenne out of St John New Brunswick. I was issued the "St John 1 departure, flight planned route". The departure stated "fly runway heading, maintain 5000', no turns below 900 feet"

So I blast off and at about 1000 feet turn direct to Bangor which was my flight planned route.

Ok so talk to center and they ask "are you on course now?" and I say "yes" and thats the end of it...

Except his query makes me look at the departure again and I think "hmm actually looks like I should have stayed runway heading till turned on course by center"

Well a few months go by and sure enough my chief pilot was contacted by a friendly fellow from Air Transport Canada. After describing what I did to my chief pilot he said "let me handle this". I was a bit worried and even more so when I heard him arguing with the Canada guy.

Long story short. Even though I figured I made a mistake, my chief pilot thought I did exactly what the departure stated and thats the argument he made on my behalf. He even challenged the Canadian inspectors ability to understand written english. Oh man I thought I was screwed.

Well another few months go by and I get a letter stating that the investigation is dropped as far as I am concerned and that the Air Transport Canada inspector would be writing a letter to Nav Canada, the agency responsible for publishing the procedure, to have them revisit the procedure with an eye on re-writing it in a more understandable manner!

Close one!