logging instrument approach question

[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.