logging instrument approach question

[A Squared]

Avbug,

the explanation which you give requires a voluntary nature of the flight (hey, you're not *assigning* the flight, I'm volunteering for it) I'm a little skeptical that this distinction is made, it would leave the door wide open for a lot of "volunteering" to get around all sorts of regulations. Even beyond that, the voluntary nature of this would satisfy the part about the certificate holder scheduling the flight, but not the pilot accepting the flight.

Do you have any reference to support that it hinges on the voluntary nature of the flight?

I dug up an older interpretaion which references Part135.1 "applicability", which states that the part (135) is not appliccable to ferry flights. This would explain why my friend had an enforcement action for the flight, it was clearly not a ferry flight (ie: sole purpose is to reposistion the aircraft)

The thing is, Part 135.1 has been changed and no longer includes this exclusion of ferry flights ..... so any interpretation regarding part 135 issued before this change would seem to be invalid as the regulations are now different.

Part 121.1 has no similar exclusion for ferry flights that I can find.

 

[avbug]

Asked, and answered, Checks. And it's avbug, not avweb.

I don't assert that an approach must be flown to minimums under actual or simulated instrument conditions to meet recency of experience requirements. The FAA does. Argue with them.

 

[bigD]

The FAA does. Argue with them.

You know, for someone who constantly tells people to always post a reg to back up their assertions - I see a distinct lack of FAR quotage in your posts!

 

[avbug]

It's already been quoted here, repeatedly. Why post it again. Read the thread.

 

[bigD]

Yes, the regs have been posted here. They can also be found on AOPA's web site, the FAA site, and a number of other locations. I can pull a FAR/AIM off my shelf and get to them there, too. But again, nobody seems to be able to point to a reg that specifically states that an approach has to be flown to mins to count for currency. Perhaps you're seeing something I'm not, and I'm merely trying to get you to point that out.

 

[flewa72]

avbug wrote:

He is not assigned to make the flight, and is not accepting an assignment. He's given the choice, and he returns home. This is how it's typically done.

I'm assuming that you never flew for a cargo outfit. At our Part 121 Supplemental we were regularly assigned Part 91 repo flights and if you refused, you got to come to HQ and meet with the Chief Pilot and Director of Operations. There were rare occasions when we got to volunteer for one to come home early but the majority were definitely assignments. Our POI was well aware that these were not voluntary flights and he didn't seem to have a problem with them.

 

[avbug]

Flewa172,

Yes, I have, and you missed the point. It's a matter of semantics in defining what you are doing, insofar as you don't wish to lose you ticket. Yes, there are many times when you had better get your ass in gear and take the flight, or you'll not be able to aford quality top ramen tomorrow. But when the FAA comes calling, were you assigned to that flight? The answer had better be a resounding hell, no!

The company has offered you the chance to come home, and you elected to do that rather than stay overnight. Your assigned duty period has ended. We've all been there. Yes, you need to come home, but when the FAA asks, you weren't assigned, you did it on your own. You were released, and you elected to fly the airplane home, and the company was nice enough to let you do it. Saved you being away from your beloved daschsund one more night.

How many of us have flown a typical 135 operation, in which you are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Many, I'd bet. You're not considered on-duty until you take the flight. Now the truth of it is that if you are in any way obligated to take the flight, then you're not free, you're obligated in some way. It may not be duty, but it's also not a rest period, as a rest period is at least 10 hours (or more) of uninterrupted rest with no obligation to act for the employer.

In a typical 135 operation, however, that's often not the case. You're on all the time. The days you don't fly just became your day off, in retrospect. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. The company shows you being off the appropriate days and times, but in reality, you haven't had a day off in ten months. Been there. Many others have, weather they'll admit to it or not. One former employer was quite adamanant unofficially that there were NO days off for the first year. And they meant it.

Is that what was expressed to the FAA? Of course not. But that's how the game is often played...just like something not breaking until short final of the last flight of the day, or putting squawks on stickum notes on the airplane can, instead of writing up and grounding the airplane. Anybody who has ever had to fight for their job and worked in the trenches is probably familiar with this.

BigD, rather than get into a round circle of words with you, don't bother picking up your regulations. Don't bother going to AOPA's web site. Don't bother getting your regs from the FAA site or a number of other locations.

I said to read this thread, because the information you snidely asked for is right here. It's a legal interpretation, defensible in both administrative and civil court, and it specifically states as a direct representation of the Administrator, that an approach for the purposes of meeting recency of experience requirements must be flown in instrument conditions (specifically it states "IFR conditions, as previously discussed at great length) to the minimums published for that proceedure. It's been published here several times, and discussed at great length throughout this thread.

Read it, you'll see the interp, sections of the interp, and discussions of the interp. This interpretation is fully supported, and you need look no farther than that. Not only is the interpretation very clear and very specific, but it's been expounded upon here and explained to you over, and over, and over. Now, do you really want me to post it again??

 

[flewa72]

who missed the point?

avbug,

You missed my point. Our POI (FAA Principal Operating Inspector) was well aware that these were flight assignments as a couple of employees and former employees made sure of it. He did not have a problem with the company operating that way. So what makes you think they aren't all aware of it? And if they are all aware of it, how would they be able to support a certificate action for activities they have condoned? I know enough to play the game, but don't like playing games.

 

[A Squared]

flewa72,

I would point out that the regulations specifying the flight time limitations for flag and supplememtal carriers do not contain the words which I read to be a prohibition on assiging or accepting "other commercial flying". That is only in 121.471, which applies to domestic operations only. Flag and supplememtal operations, as you know have thier own regulations. I fly 121 supplememtal cargo also (international rules, even worse) so I'm pretty familiar with thoe regs and I don't see anything that seems to me to prohibit "other commercial flying" or tail end ferry flights.

regards

 

[midlifeflyer]

But again, nobody seems to be able to point to a reg that specifically states that an approach has to be flown to mins to count for currency. Perhaps you're seeing something I'm not, and I'm merely trying to get you to point that out.

That's true. In fact, as I mentioned in my earlier post, in 1997, the FAA specifically rejected such a rule.

(BTW, that post, part of a personal FAQ file, represents the "universe" of FAA-based (official or unofficial) information that I've been able to collect through the years on this. It's designed to present the information rather than come to a specific conclusion. If anyone has some other sources that bear light on any side of the issue, I'd love to add it)

 

[legaleagle]

Currency and logging time are different!!!!

The real legal deal.......

As a future aviation attorney who will defend you guys next year, and who worked for FAA legal for 9 months in Boston, and who brought the first aviation law class to our law school (recruiting the FAA Regional Counsel as the professor), and has flown to the point of becoming an instrument pilot who will be commercial in two weeks (248 hours), you cannot log instrument hours unless you are in IMC. IMC includes if you are VFR on top, because you have no reference to a "ground" horizon. Thus, you can log instrument time even though conditions in and around you are VMC. Shooting approaches for currency is a different story. You can log approaches shot in VMC, and you simply keep track of the number and type ( I do this by describing approach ILS 29-BED, and then logging the number of approaches in one of the blank fields over to the right of the logbook) in order to maintain currency. But, to clarify...instrument hours can only accrue when flying in IMC conditions, whether night or day. The caveat to this is if you are in and out of the clouds for a portion, or all of your ride, no one is going to actually log .01 hours here, and .01 hours there. So, if you are in and out of the clouds for the most of your ride, or a significant portion of some of your ride, than log that as IFR time. i.e. two hour flight in VMC, but for .4 hours you can see the ground intermittently, but you are at flight level where you are riding in a bunch of little puffies and keep going in and out, than log the .4 as actual.....that is acceptable by most FAA examiners and DE's that I know.....

email me at [email protected] if you have questions.

 

[legaleagle]

Approaches /mins/currency

You should shoot the entire approach. The currency does not state you have to fly 6 half approaches or 6 incomplete approaches. However, as in real life, you can go missed for a variety of reasons prior to the MDA or DH. You might have a mechanical issue, you might be hot on the approach, get a full deflection on the needle, etc. So, as the missed approach instructions to a holding point would be the final phase of the approach, this would complete the approach even if you go missed. But, aside from a good reason to go missed, other than your simple desire to break it off, you should go down to mins in VMC, and of course in IMC you are going to continue down to mins if you don't break out, so it is not an issue.

 

[bobbysamd]

General Counsel opinions

As a future aviation attorney who will defend you guys next year, and who worked for FAA legal for 9 months in Boston, and who brought the first aviation law class to our law school (recruiting the FAA Regional Counsel as the professor) . . .

Nice to see your responses.

On a related matter, what precedential value, if any, do General Counsel opinions carry in enforcement procedings? Are these opinions black-letter law or applicable only to each individual fact pattern for which they're sought (cf. IRS Private-Letter rulings)?

Thanks. Good luck with your Commercial practical and the bar.

 

[legaleagle]

The General Counsel opinions ...

My experience was that when the Gen Counsel made a statement regarding an issue, like duty hours (wasn't that a fun one), it is adhered to by all regional offices as the bible. An example would be after 9/11 when the sanctions handed down for P airspace violations went to 180 days, even for 1st time offenders who wandered in there unbeknownst to them, or ones who check ed the NOTAMS, but just were a little off course. The regional offices, who actually had to prosecute these really hated to do it, because they were the ones who dealt with the people face to face, and a lot of the guys had done it without harm or foul. But, the Gen counsel explicitly handed down that sanction mandate. As for precedential value, the only thing that matters if your case goes to trial is NTSB decisions and ALJ decisions. Gen Counsel statements on a particular matter are not binding unless they are an interpretation of an existing reg. As he is not the regulatory law creator, he can recommend, and the regs can then be changed. It's kind of like the ABA or Judicial College recommendig changes to the Fed. Evidenciary Rules. Until they are made into law, they have no binding effect. At the FAA, the process goes: informal conference, sanction handed out, appeal to ALJ, then to NTSB Board ct, then Fed District Court, etc.

 

[legaleagle]

Bobbysamd--Thanks!

Thank you for the words of encouragement! I love reading your posts all the time! Did I hear correctly that you are trying to get back into flying? Sweet! Good Luck!

Christopher

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Currency and logging time are different!!!!

As a future aviation attorney <snip>
IMC includes if you are VFR on top, because you have no reference to a "ground" horizon. Thus, you can log instrument time even though conditions in and around you are VMC.

Wow! As a future aviation attorney, you'd better check your sources a little better. The FAA definition of "the actual instrument conditions" necessary for logging instrument time is the one I quoted above. Perhaps you have another source that says that anytime you fly without a visible horizon, it's IMC. I know a lot of mountain pilots who would love to log some extra IMC when the go down a canyon in a tilted valley when the daytime weather is CAVU.

Flying on top of a cloud deck is perfectly legal VFR for a non-instrument rated pilot, and every pilot who has done so can tell you that you don't need instruments to remain upright. It can be done quite easily without looking at the instruments any more than top cross-check them as you would during a severe clear flight.

 

[avbug]

Legaleagle,

One may log instrument time any time one is conducting flight by reference to instruments, in actual or simulated instrument conditions.

One need not be in IMC, which by definition involves instrument meteorological conditions. Flight over an unlighted landscape on a moonless night, flight between cloud layers with no discernable horizon, etc, all enable one to log instrument time even though one is VFR or VMC.

Further, one may log instrument time under simulated instrument conditions. Simulated instrument flight is equal in significance to actual instrument conditions, with respect to logging, and currency both.

 

[bigD]

Sigh...Avbug, I'm not sure why you're getting so upset over this. I'm not trying to be snide here. At your request, I went back and reread the entire thread, which will be the 4th time for me. midlifeflyer had a good post that seemed to sum everything up well, and here's an excerpt from the end of it...

The camp that says that the legal counsel didn't mean all the way in IMC (call them the "Rule of Reason" school) are essentially saying that "How much" is one of those undefined terms. Not everything is susceptible to precise definition. Try to thing of all of the scenarios and come out with a rule that covers every probably (let alone possible) approach scenario. How many pages did you use?

When Part 61 was revised in 1997, there was a proposal to write the rule so that, in order to count, approaches had to be flown to MDA or DA to count. They got a lot of comments, including one that said,

"One commenter suggests revising the definition to permit the pilot to terminate the approach prior to DH or MDA for safety reasons. Another commenter proposes to define "instrument approach" as " * * * an approach procedure defined in part 97 and conducted in accordance with that procedure or as directed by ATC to a point beyond an initial approach fix defined for that procedure." The commenter explains that this definition would allow for logging instrument approaches that require some portion of the published approach procedure to be followed in order for the pilot to establish visual references to the runway"

The FAA decided against the new requirement.

The emphasis by the bolded parts were placed there by me, and are the areas that seem contradictory to what you said. This is what's been making me unsure.

Anyway, I'll leave you alone from now on. Sorry to bother you with my question.

 

[legaleagle]

Avbug you are entirely right

I was in a hurry as I work in a law office right now. Had to write quickly. Anyway, when I said no reference to the horizon, my mind was thinking solely by reference to the instruments, which includes above a solid cloud deck, or even in intermittent clouds tha obscure the horizon, even if they allow you to see the ground below you from time to time. You can of course also log simulated time eith flight under a hood even in CAVU without clouds. Particularly with all of the time builders out there who are using safety pilots, the ability to log simulated time under the hood is very important. I appreciate your constructive help and correction to my earlier post.

 

[avbug]

Those comments do not carry the weight of the legal interpretation as already presented, which does address the matter clearly.

 

[Checks]

"Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft.

Thanks MidLifeFlyer, this the same quote I used way earlier in the thread.

Looking at this, I have a question for AVBUG:

I am in the soup, on an ILS, until 400ft AGL. At 400ft AGL, I break out of the soup and see this beautiful, wide, well lighted runway with a VASI and the ALS leading me to the runway visually. So from 400ft AGL until touchdown it isnt necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. If I stay on the aircraft instruments until DH, in an effort to count this approach towards my currency, even though it isnt necessary, can I count this approach?

BTW, how do you make parts of the text bold type or underlined?

Also, why is it always just AVBUG, ASQUARED, MIDLIFEFLYER, BOBBY, and myself always trying to figure these regs out? Does the FAA need to issue us all pocket protectors?

 

[avbug]

I am in the soup, on an ILS, until 400ft AGL. At 400ft AGL, I break out of the soup and see this beautiful, wide, well lighted runway with a VASI and the ALS leading me to the runway visually. So from 400ft AGL until touchdown it isnt necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. If I stay on the aircraft instruments until DH, in an effort to count this approach towards my currency, even though it isnt necessary, can I count this approach?

Checks,

The answer is yes...technically you need to complete the trip to minimums by reference to instruments...be it actual or simulated conditions.

On a practical note, are you going to throw on a set of foggles? No. Why not simply not cheat...simply fly it by reference to instruments to minimums? Simulated instrument conditions can be as simple as not looking outside the airplane.

Again, on a practical basis, who logs the altitude at which you break out? The legal interpretation states that it must be flown to minimums under actual or simulated conditions. However, unless you make a log entry stating that you flew part of the approach with reference to instruments, is anybody ever goingto go back and look up the weather at the time of your approach to find out? No.

For currency, you are required to log approaches. To meet the requirements, log them. The technical breakdown qualtifies what's loggable. At that stage, it's up to you. Much of what we do in this business is on the honor system...the real legal question comes from what's in your logbook. Your logbook is a legal record, a legal document, and will almost certainly come under some form of scrutiny at some point in your life However, seldom will the act in the field be under direct scrutiny...especially weeks or months down the line. In other words, the FAA will look at your logs, not necessarily at the closenes of weather at a given time in the past, to minimums, and then try to do an analytical study as to how close you came to flying the airplane to minimums under those conditions. It won't happen.

To put quotes, use the quote button above your reply box when making a reply. Paste whatever you want to quote into the little box that comes p when you hit the quote button, and enter it. It will put it in quotes for you. Same for the itallics, underline, bold, etc. Play with it a little, it's easy to figure out.

I think a great many others follow here, but don't always post.

A lot of posters stay with perhaps the best site there is on aviation regulation, at DOC's Far Forum (www.propilot.com). If you are looking for some good discussion on regulation, visit there. You will not be disappointed and you'll get a lot of help from some good sticks. Good luck!

 

[bigD]

BTW, how do you make parts of the text bold type or underlined?

For bold text, you place {b} and {/b} around the text you wish to make bold, except use square brackets, not the squiggly ones that I did. So for example,

{b}This sentence would be in bold if I used "[" and "]" brackets instead of the squiggly ones.{/b}

For italics use the letter i instead of b, and for underline, use the letter u instead of b.

 

[Checks]

big D,

I didnt forget about you. You are also a Regulation Nerd.

[avbug],

I was trying to illustrate the stupidity of the regulation and your earlier interpretation of it. Since the legal interpretation says the use of instruments must be necessary all the way down to the DH the approach, based on earlier arguments it is not loggable.

I personally just use the FAF as my guide. If I am in the soup past the FAF and I stay on the instruments all the way to DH then I log it as an approach towards my currency. I dont care if I break out into 10sm of visibility. If I didnt do this then I would have to rent an aircraft, bribe a friend to act as Safety pilot, and go log 6 approaches to min's every 6 months.

Just my 2 cents, which dont count for much.

big D

 

[bigD]

I didnt forget about you. You are also a Regulation Nerd.

Heh - I try! I certainly don't have many answers, but I enjoy reading and figuring out the FAR's. I have a FAR/AIM in my bathroom right next to the magazines!

I currently do as you do with regards to using the FAF as a kind of indicator, and fly the approach all the way down to the DH. I guess I developed this habit because my DE for my instrument checkride logged my last approach, and we broke out at about 350-400'. Obviously he's not an authority on the issue, but you know how young impressionable pilots are!

It's a big issue for me because I'll wake up in the morning, and if it's low IFR, I'll head out to the airport and practice approaches. And of course they get logged and used for currency reasons. If any future employer looks at my logbook, they'll know that basically none of those approaches were in actual all the way down to the DH. Furthermore, they'll know I've been in violation of the FAR's for quite some time.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Those comments do not carry the weight of the legal interpretation as already presented, which does address the matter clearly.

Obviously, I find the Legal Counsel opinion a little less clear than you do, but that's where reasonable minds can disagree.

But, I would hesitate suggesting that the "Supplementary Information" a Federal Agency publishes as part of the publication of a Final Rule in the Federal Register doesn't carry a =lot= of weight when something about the rule itself needs interpretation. To the contrary, courts regularly examine this part of the rule as an authoritative guide to interpretation.

 

[avbug]

For the record, nothing I've said has been "my interpretation." It's all strictly according to the Administrator. Also for the record (and should go without saying), I do not represent the administrator. (technically I guess I do as a volunteer safety counselor, in somewhat the same way that girlscouts represent cookies...).

I think the issue is obvious. The issue is safety and proficiency. The intent of the regulation; the spirit thereof, is to utilize and demonstrate the full proceedure. If you break out early, then simply continue to the MAP on instruments, and log it.

By strict use of the references and materials we're given, if you're continuing the the runway under simulated instrument conditions, you require a safety pilot, yada, yada, yada. However, if you're making the approach, and on the gages until the MAP, then you've flown in accordance with the spirit of the regulation, and proficiency has been served.

Even though you breakout, it's often as simple as not looking. Resist the urge to cheat (though if you do, make it to look for other traffic, as you're always obligated under IFR or VFR), and log the appraoch and landing as experience. Easily said, and easily done.

 

[A Squared]

legaleagle,

I'm not sure that you've quite grasped entirely the meaning of the interpretation on logging actual instrument time (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) Being on top of a cloud deck wouldn't qualify, as it is is quite possible to cover up all your instruments and control the airplane entirely by references outside the airplane when on top of a cloud deck.

Checks,

>>>>Also, why is it always just AVBUG, ASQUARED, MIDLIFEFLYER, BOBBY, and myself always trying to figure these regs out?

Well, Bobby is a paralegal and Midlife's an attorney, so it's understandable. The rest of us don't have an excuse.

>>>>>>Does the FAA need to issue us all pocket protectors?

probably.

 

[bigD]

But now we're coming full circle back to what the original poster was asking. We all pretty much said that an approach done completely in VMC with no safety pilot is not loggable for currency reasons. But now, here we're applying essentially the same logic, but only to the section of the approach after the FAF. So if I can start calling myself "in simulated instrument conditions" merely by burying my head in the panel and not looking out, it would seem that you could indeed log approaches completely in VMC all you want.

Of course, by doing so you're completely undermining the whole reason safety pilots are required to begin with...

 

[avbug]

Yup.