Okay, everyone but YOU agrees that flying an approach to within seconds of its terminus as charted but not being able to count it as one click towards currency is hogwash. You can sit on the bench.
I can sit on the bench then, for stating the FAA Administrator's policy as prescribed by the Administrator's official mouthpiece? Let's see, this "everybody" of whom you speak, all the opinionated everyone's not sitting on the bench...which one of them was chartered by an act of congress to regulate aviation in the United States of America? Would that be you? No, no. I don't think so. Would that be me? No, not really. How about everyone? No, wrong again.
That would be the FAA Administrator, who has the power and authorization and responsibility to make regulation and enforce it, and to interpret it. Interpretations explaining the regulation and it's application are made by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel, as delegated by the Administrator. Other opinions outside of that don't really matter. Yours, included. I'm not stating my opinion, only the official stand and policy of the Administrator. On what authority do you base your comments, exactly?
Oh, that's right. Opinion. Lots of weight behind that, isn't there?
Not really. It's stuff like this that forms the basis for legal argument.
Not really. This isn't even debatable, and the Administrators interpretations are fully defensible in adminstrative court. The Administrator has clearly stipulated that an approach must be conducted in instrument conditions, simulated or actual, and must be flown to minimums, period. The administrator has made it possible for every approach to count by including the provision that simulated instrument flight is the same as actual with respect to currency and the ability to count the approach, meaning that a person in the dry desert has the same opportunity to fly in instrument conditions to minimums as someone does in the fog of marthas vineyard...no excuses for not being current, no excuses for not having available instrument conditions to minimums...nothing to debate.
I find your arguement amusing...someone who merely likes to argue. Much like putting a blotch of the color black before you, and you attempting to call it white and find a way to argue the case. There's no arguement here; the matter is very clear.
Those most inclined to fight an action against them by the FAA are those who use their license as a meal ticket and are exempted from Part 61 IFR currency by their air carrier proficiency checks.
Negative, and what an arrogant attitude. The regulation is applied to everyone. Further, the regulation provides that a SIC under 135 air carrier regulations must still comply with the PIC instrument currency requirements of Part 61. That, however, is not relevant to the issue, which is the clearly defined question of what constitutes a legal instrument approach for logging purposes. Again, you're attempting to cloud the issue with non-relevant information, when it's very clear cut. The approach must be conducted in instrument conditions and flown to minimums. Period.
Besides, just because you haven't located a ruling that overturns this opinion it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that you haven't found it.
Have you? Didn't think so, as there isn't one, and there won't be. An ALJ isn't going to "overturn" regulation, and this isn't a legal rendering of judgement...there's nothing to "overturn." Do you not understand that? This is regulation, and the clarification thereof by the same person and entity chartered by an act of congress to produce and enforce the regulation. It's not done by popular vote, and it's not put up for debate before an administrative court. The ALJ will consider weather someone has met the requirements of the regulation and the guilt of violation, but not the efficacy of the regulation itself. The ALJ doesn't have the discretion to "overturn" regulation, nor is the legal interpretation, which is nothing more than an official clarification of the Administrator's policy, open to being "overturned." Again, there's nothing to argue. The approach must be flown to minimums, and must be flown in instrument conditions, per official policy.
Weather you choose to like it or adhere to it is your business, but there is no room to debate the policy of the Administrator...ie, the regulation. It's clear.
Not so fast. They did say unless safety precluded it. But okay, I'll tell you what. I'll do it my way and you do it yours.
You do whatever you want to do. But the forum here, and the question asked, isn't about what dumbledore's opinion is. It's about regulation, about the authoritative, official policy of the Administrator as prescribed by an Act of Congress...you do whatever you want, but it's really irrelevant to the topic, which is what constitutes a legal instrument approach for currency, to meet the requirements of the regulation. That matter, of course, is very clear, and very cut and dried...it must be conducted in instrument conditions and it must be conducted down to minimums to count...I'm sure you're getting this, by now.
If you're as worldly as you claim to be then you also know that there are very few places where you genuinely need to fly all the way to miniums on a regular basis. If you happen to be located in one more power to you but if you're not you're screwed. As usual, the FAA's made their rules unusable in the real world - and you're right there with them to make sure it's to minimums.
Good job there buddy.
Now, now. Let's not make it personal. This isn't my interpretation or policy...it's that of the Administrator (remember the one given authority to do so by an Act of Congress??). Take it up with the Administrator.
We've covered this, of course. The Administrator has made it clear that anybody, anywhere, can meet the currency requirements, by clearly stating that the approach must be flown down down to minimums, and must be executed in instrument conditions. By clarifying the fact that instrument conditions are either actual or simulated, the Administrator has equally and fairly applied the regulation to ensure that everybody can complete the requisite approaches, even when it's clear and a million.