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.