What constitutes an instrument approach

[moresky]

nnnnn

 

[nosehair]

nnnnn

Now that's more like it! Someone with a common sense approach.

The question has two answers. One for a legal interpretation, and one for a practical application. Like "night landings", a night landing, according to the regs to count for currency must be "one hour after sundown". That's so it will be dark, so you won't use that just-after-sundown landing to count. But what if it is, oh, say 55 minutes past sundown, and there's no moon and it's really dark? Is it a night landing? Of course it is. But not technically, or legally. In a moral sense, and for practical purposes, I could log it as a night landing for currency. The spirit of the law is fulfilled. But...if I later become involved in a night landing accident, and the actual landing time is recorded somewhere, that could be seen as logbook falsification.

Same thing with instrument approaches: Did you do enough of the approach in IMC and/or hood to get you close enough to minimums to insure you are proficient? Technically and legally, you must go to minimums, just like when you are training, your instructor lifts the hood just as you approach minimums. You would be cheated if you got to see the runway at 4 or 500 feet above minimums, wouldn't you?

 

[splatattack]

if you get the clearance log it

 

[100LL... Again!]

Obviously, this legal interpretation was written by a fed with little real-world experience.

Lets look at apporaches in actual for a sec:

Essentially, if you break out at 210' on an ILS, the approach is not loggable for currency. What logic is there in that. I'm certain that the common-sense interpretation existed for many years until some non-pilot lawyer decided to lay down the law.

Essentially, the only approaches in actual that could be logged are ones where a miss is almost a certainty. After all, how often is the weather EXACTLY at mins.

Given this interpretation, currency based on approaches flown in actual is a theoretical possibility only.

FAA lawyers are within their rights to issue such opinions, but it speaks very poorly about their understanding of real-world operations.

The interpretation, as written, makes it more or less mandatory for "currency" approaches to be either foggled or in a sim/ftd. Therfore, it is my opinion that the original intent of the reg was a common-sense one that later got lawyered up into stupidity.

 

[avbug]

Obviously, this legal interpretation was written by a fed with little real-world experience.

No, it was written by an attorney. An attorney, as it turns out, who is employed as the FAA Administrators Assisitant Chief Legal Counsel, who is speaking directly for the only person authorized by an Act of Congress to prescribe, define, and enforce aviation regulation in the United States of America. And an attorney who's opinion, I might add, is the only one that counts in this discussion.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Ummm... that's essentially what I said. Your petulance and pedantic attitude is not very comely, avbug.

A fed, a fed lawyer, an attorney, if you must - whatever.

You remind me of the class snitch/bully who really got off on making sure everyone else knew the rules. Your knee-jerk need to have the last and "most correct" work speaks volumes about your raging insecurities. And, to humor those insecurities, I will politely let you have the last word, since you crave it so.

Grow up.

 

[avbug]

Righty-o, then. Very well. You might have noticed, low lead, that this is a FAR forum...not an opinion forum. The question asked in the thread is what constitutes a legal instrument approach for the purposes of logging time. In the real world, the FAA grants you privileges, and sets the regulations by which you are governed in the exercise of those privileges. Seeing as you want to discuss "the real world."

What I find truly amazing is that the question was asked, the answer given verbatim, and yet so many step out of the woodwork to argue what they *think* should be the case...sort of the "yes-it's-black-but-I'm-still-going-to-call-it-white" mentality. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[TDTURBO]

Righty-o, then. Very well. You might have noticed, low lead, that this is a FAR forum...not an opinion forum. The question asked in the thread is what constitutes a legal instrument approach for the purposes of logging time. In the real world, the FAA grants you privileges, and sets the regulations by which you are governed in the exercise of those privileges. Seeing as you want to discuss "the real world."

What I find truly amazing is that the question was asked, the answer given verbatim, and yet so many step out of the woodwork to argue what they *think* should be the case...sort of the "yes-it's-black-but-I'm-still-going-to-call-it-white" mentality. Why do you suppose that is?

I think I can answer that,

It's because you're a pompous know it all with nothing to do but spend 15 hrs /day on the internet bragging how superior you are and copying and pasting regs, No one here likes you, go away, your opinions are as out dated as what your wear. Cowboy boots, hah, is that to make up for you genetic dental shortcomings and being vertically challenged?

Get a life and leave people be, you are an arrogant crass, irritating insult to aviation topped off by being a self proclaimed hipocryte of epic proportions, I know the internet means a lot to you since that's all you have, but I suspect that will soon come to an end as well.

 

[schoolio]

So here's the solution to the issue of being able to log the approach -

Before every approach, as part of your approach brief, throw on the Foggles, whether or not you're actually IMC. Then at MDA/DH, look up. Then log away!

C'mon, you've got to be kidding me...

 

[midlifeflyer]

You know, this thread could have just died quietly when half of it was lost in the crash.

 

[TIS]

It's because you're a pompous know it all with nothing to do ...

Blah, blah, BLAH! We know the rest of what you said.

You're out of line.

Look, you might not like what avbug has to say but that doesn't make him wrong. That he continues to insist on his view that there is only one way to accept a legal interpretation doesn't make him right either. Stubborn perhaps and correct to a degree, but there comes a time when you just have to let it drop.

I suspect very strongly that avbug has his reasons for for his unshakable faith in the way he sees this and other issues he comments at length about here and elsewhere and I think that those reasons are based on experience. If you're in this business long enough, you're gonna get involved in a tussle with the FAA in some way either as a direct assualt on your certificates or because you represent someone who's under their microscope (attorney, Chief Pilot, Director of Ops., etc.)

The FAA can do some pretty amazing stuff in their legal branch that has absolutley NOTHING to do with the way things actually are. I know one guy who got violated and the FAA got the registration number, make and model of the aircraft, and the date of the occurrence all wrong in the written complaint and didn't have a usable audio tape to back up their assertion of pilot deviation and they STILL won. They said that there was nothing on the tape that proved the pilot's contention that the FAA had the wrong guy - the fact that he had exculpatory evidence that he was not flying on the date concerned notwithstanding. It cost him almost $20,000 in legal fees to have the ALJ side with the FAA - 20 grand that the kiddies DIDN'T get for college that year (actually, 19 months).

So you see, with stuff like this going on in FAA legal, it's easy to see how you might take the attitude that you'd better be prepared to hang the FAA with its own rope. Avbug is right when he asserts that the most effective way to deal with them is with their own words. If you can substantively prove that your actions were guided by their suggestions or interpretations then when its your turn to sit across the big green table from them in an informal conference, you might have a better shot at walking away smiling.

Whatever the case, your attempt at a thorough dressdown, while vicious enough, relies on put downs and llifestyle commentary rather than REAL experience - which is what avbug is relying on. I'll say the same thing to you that I say to my own critics - if you don't like what he has to say DON'T READ WHAT HE WRITES. It's really a very simple strategy and it actually works quite well.

TIS

 

[NYCPilot]

TDTURBO, that was kind of brutal towards avbug. I know his seemingly pedantic ways can get annoying but I think its wrong to put him down so scathingly. Making personal attacks can be hurtful.

I think he contributes a lot to this board and wouldn't want his comments to disappear. He is entitled to voice his strong opinions as much as you or I am. He does speak by the letter of the law which is fine as this is how he likes to come across. The beauty of the board is that one can post what they feel, but should expect to be challenged. We all need to play by the rules and get along as community.

 

[taloft]

Regulation and FAA Chief Legal Counsel Opinion (legal interpretation) to follow:
<snip>
For currency purposes, 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.

When I put on my "FAA letter of the law" hat, I see a difference between following an instrument approach procedure and remaining actual/simulated to MDA/DA(H) for currency. Certainly that's the most conservative interpretation of the interpretation (don't you just love it?). However, I don't see it as the only one.

Also, I don't get their "safety reasons" statement. So if the approach is abandoned due to safety reasons, can it still be logged for currency? Seems to me it would be abandoned and can't be loggged, but according to that statement it can.

 

[TIS]

Also, I don't get their "safety reasons" statement. So if the approach is abandoned due to safety reasons, can it still be logged for currency? Seems to me it would be abandoned and can't be loggged, but according to that statement it can.

This I think I understand. They HAVE to say that. They can't very well issue this interpretation and then have some poor slob running up the tailpipes of a 757 and get stuffed simply because he was desperate to log a sixth approach. It would be unseemly to have the widow coming after the FAA correctly asserting that it was the FAA's own guidance that played a significant causal role in the accident.

But there is something I'd like to know. Does it matter whose judgment of safety is used. I mean if the tower sends you around because of spacing between you and a preceeding aircraft, or if, like at MRY, tower is launching an aircraft opposite direction and they pull you off the approach "for safety reasons," does these fit the "for safety reasons" intent of the inerpretation? Or is it rather, that the pilot MUST initiate ALL safety related decisions that invoke this exception? I guess someone should write another letter requesting clarification of their clarification!

But this leaves me with one more somewhat (given the nature of this thread) delicate question: What do we do in the meantime while we wait for an answer from FAA legal? Exercise common sense? It can't be that simple, can it?

TIS

 

[TDTURBO]

Blah, blah, BLAH! We know the rest of what you said.

You're out of line.

Look, you might not like what avbug has to say but that doesn't make him wrong. That he continues to insist on his view that there is only one way to accept a legal interpretation doesn't make him right either. Stubborn perhaps and correct to a degree, but there comes a time when you just have to let it drop.

I suspect very strongly that avbug has his reasons for for his unshakable faith in the way he sees this and other issues he comments at length about here and elsewhere and I think that those reasons are based on experience. If you're in this business long enough, you're gonna get involved in a tussle with the FAA in some way either as a direct assualt on your certificates or because you represent someone who's under their microscope (attorney, Chief Pilot, Director of Ops., etc.)

The FAA can do some pretty amazing stuff in their legal branch that has absolutley NOTHING to do with the way things actually are. I know one guy who got violated and the FAA got the registration number, make and model of the aircraft, and the date of the occurrence all wrong in the written complaint and didn't have a usable audio tape to back up their assertion of pilot deviation and they STILL won. They said that there was nothing on the tape that proved the pilot's contention that the FAA had the wrong guy - the fact that he had exculpatory evidence that he was not flying on the date concerned notwithstanding. It cost him almost $20,000 in legal fees to have the ALJ side with the FAA - 20 grand that the kiddies DIDN'T get for college that year (actually, 19 months).

So you see, with stuff like this going on in FAA legal, it's easy to see how you might take the attitude that you'd better be prepared to hang the FAA with its own rope. Avbug is right when he asserts that the most effective way to deal with them is with their own words. If you can substantively prove that your actions were guided by their suggestions or interpretations then when its your turn to sit across the big green table from them in an informal conference, you might have a better shot at walking away smiling.

Whatever the case, your attempt at a thorough dressdown, while vicious enough, relies on put downs and llifestyle commentary rather than REAL experience - which is what avbug is relying on. I'll say the same thing to you that I say to my own critics - if you don't like what he has to say DON'T READ WHAT HE WRITES. It's really a very simple strategy and it actually works quite well.

TIS

Well said TIS, He is on my ignore list. HE and I as well as most of the people on this board can read an FAR book without ridiculing someone with a legit question, as if he is all knowing, HA! Maybe in his own mind.

How do you know what experience he has, has he ever owned an airplane, do you actually believe half the embellished crap he spews on this board?

There are a lot of SEAT flyers on this board that just shake their head in disgust and this guys ability to transcend any hollywood producers example of self admiration. The guy makes me and most others want to puke!

So from now on he is ignored!

 

[JAFI]

How do you know what experience he has, has he ever owned an airplane?

Not that I wish to get in the middle of this "love" fest, but

what does owning an aircraft have to do with pilot experience? I know many pilots with extensive experience who have never owned an aircraft but are very knowledgable.

Just courious.

JAFI

 

[Dumbledore]

Owning a plane only proves that you're not the smartest pilot!

 

[TDTURBO]

The difference between not owning a plane and owning one is equivalent to driving a car and owning one. There is a lot to owning that you learn that can't be learned by renting or flying for hire with equipment you don't own.

For example, there are many things such as what can and can't be differed as maintenance, insurance costs and how it relates to type and experience, doing or assisting in your own annuals, researching places for hard to find parts and become resourceful and proficient at it, hanger fees, intimate knowledge gained by flying the same bird year after year, being RESPONSIBLE for anything you break, depending on how you run it.

This equating to LOP vs. ROP, non-owners could care less since they aren't paying the fuel bills, meeting the legal requirements yourself with regards to STC's and SB's, not to mention AD's that are taken care of by your employer. Reading and keeping up with the ever changing challenges of keeping an aircraft airworthy with day to day changes in compliance and rule changes that effect different systems and on and on and on it goes.

Those who fly for hire or rent don't have to concern themselves with as much vigor on these issues as owners. I think it naive to think that an owner is no different in his knowlege base than a user.

These points I would imagine should be obvious but apparently not.

I am not blaming you, it's just that there are a lot of things owners must know that non-owners don't. Avbug being a non-owner commenting on another thread on a different website commented that a PLANE WITHOUT LOGS IS WORTHLESS. This is entirely untrue, if he were an owner he would know that, the problem I have with avbug is he "thinks" he is an authority on everything aviation which he is clearly not. Neither am I or you. It's one thing to copy and paste a reg with malicious undertones and it's another to interpret the reg the correct way.

They are written ambiguous for a reason, one to keep lawyers in business and two to cover their butts. This is just one example of avbugs misconceptions, Correcting him will always lead into a maligning attack of credibility, not only to me but to most he replies to. I think anyone can read an FAR, but few can truly understand it, how it is applied in various situations and how it applies to your specific circumstance.

When avbug says "flying under an airmet is illegal" is like saying driving 56 mph on the highway is illegal. To say that most GA personal and 135 operations without KI operate in the winter months is unheard of is the most ridiculous statement I ever heard. Either he has never flown here or is just looking to start an argument. If you fly 135 in Chicago, I guarantee you that you will be dispatched into icing conditions so you better know how to deal with them by having a thorough flight plan with a plan B and C. To chastise people for not doing things to the "letter" of the law would put us all in jail.

He seems to think he is beyond reproach when it comes to flying by the book. If that were so, How do you explain 8 engine failures, ingesting tree branches in running engines in mountainous areas in IFR condition as safe or legal. I believe he is a hypocrite and states what ever suits him at the time,

I have caught him praising a military officer for ignoring direct orders from his superiors, ( which I agree with), only to turn around and chastise people for doing far less infractionary occurrences. There is no question he embellishes and lies about his exploits, I know who he is remember, but I won't risk being baited into his weakly vailed attempt at getting me time off.

He also seems to be cozy with an "EX" moderator PI lawyer ambulance chaser extrordiniar who will remain unmentioned for disclosing my identity which was clearly against that sites TOS.

He then goes on by calling me a "twit" for having his moderator status removed and getting the ARDC up his butt. Go figure? His ethics only suits him when it serves his own lack of accomplishments in life except being (anonymous, to some people at least, not me), a know it all. Those that know the most, talk the least.

I only bring up my background when I’m called out as something I'm not, that's something I just won't put up with. For a guy with only a GED or HS education at most with a questionable proficient A&P( remember the 8 engine failures),?, he sure has most of you fooled.

 

[landlover]

Owning a plane only proves that you're not the smartest pilot!

i'd rather be dumb and rich than smart and poor. Plenty of people own airplanes and are smart about. I know of several operations where the airplanes are all privatly owned and put on the 135 ticket to earn the owners money. Also having the AC managed by a 135 the they will take care of the maint.

 

[TDTURBO]

Owning a plane only proves that you're not the smartest pilot!

No, but it proves you don't, which certainly eliminates you from the list you created.