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.