What constitutes an instrument approach

[mojavedriver]

With all this talk about alter egos and usernames, could I be flyifrvfr, AKA the banned one? The answer is yes, or until the webmaster or mods remove this username as well.

1. flyifrvfr - banned
2. erniestrange - banned
3. rich tillery - banned
4. transpondersoff - banned
5. mojavedriver - New until mods remove and I have to create more...

 

[NYCPilot]

It's unfair to accuse anyone of holding an alter-ego and quite possibly tarnishing another users name and credentials. I retracted my earlier statements and apologize for any disturbance it may have caused. This was done uncoerced and voluntarily out of being sensible and fair. Whether someone is or isn't someone else matters not. It is just another voice expressing an opinion on a message board.

 

[banned username 2]

With all this talk about alter egos and usernames, could I be flyifrvfr, AKA the banned one? The answer is yes, or until the webmaster or mods remove this username as well.

1. flyifrvfr - banned
2. erniestrange - banned
3. rich tillery - banned
4. transpondersoff - banned
5. mojavedriver - New until mods remove and I have to create more...

6. bizijet - banned
7. trooper1 - banned
8. mojavedriver - banned

Hey Victor,

Just can't stay away, huh??? I thought this place sucked? And all that other crybaby stuff you wrote in the email to the web master... But yet you just keep coming back... Acting like the child you are...

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showpost.php?p=697151&postcount=2

 

[100LL... Again!]

I'm flattered guys...but I only post under one name. One a couple of occasions I got on a computer before someone else logged off and inadvertantly used their name without realizing it...but that got straightened out. Luckily they were folks I knew.

For the record, I'm not dumbledore or anybody else, though I liked the character on Harry Potter. I have enough trouble being one person, let alone more than one.

As for the use of the word "mute," vs. "moot," a number of posters over several years have taken me to task for my dogged refusal to use the word "moot." Include a few in that list who do know whence they speak...there's a good exchange on the topic between TonyC and myself. I don't disagree with TonyC, and I certainly won't try to correct his use of the English language (though in truth it does differ somewhat from the Queens English, but we'll reserve that for another time).

I don't mistakenly use the word "mute," but rather use it as an expression of my intent. For starters, I don't like the word "moot." I never have. By saying "the point is mute," rather than "the point is moot," my intent is to literally say "the point is silent." Or in other words, the point of the word is literally without voice, which more accurately expresses my intent. Words are nothing more than a vehicle for the speakers intent, and my use of that word is intentional and deliberate. Further, a little research will show that while the use of the term "mute" is not contemporary, it's not incorrect either. You merely don't hear it much any more. It is my preference, and from me, you do hear it. If you were to hear it in conversation, you would hear me enunciate "mute," rather than "moot," would would clearly hear that I intend to say, "mute."

Like it or lump it, that's how I talk, and I type on here exactly as I talk in person.
Fly safe.

Now, call me a conspiracy nut, but this really has an after-the-fact rationalization kind of feel about it.

Not that I doubt that his explanation predates this thread - I DO believe that he has rationalized it during a previous argument with Tony C or whomever.

That said, Occam's Razor cuts to the heart of it and says that he used the wrong word, got busted, looked them both up and formulated a plausible but difficult to swallow 'reason' for the original word misuse.

You have a potential very succesful career ahead of you as a senator, avbug.

 

[banned username 2]

That said, Occam's Razor cuts to the heart of it and says that he used the wrong word, got busted, looked them both up and formulated a plausible but difficult to swallow 'reason' for the original word misuse.

Hey! I thought I was the only one around here who gets to reference Occam's Razor...

This sounds just like another member who used "irregardless" and backpeddled as well...

 

[Dumbledore]

It's unfair to accuse anyone of holding an alter-ego and quite possibly tarnishing another users name and credentials. I retracted my earlier statements and apologize for any disturbance it may have caused. This was done uncoerced and voluntarily out of being sensible and fair. Whether someone is or isn't someone else matters not. It is just another voice expressing an opinion on a message board.

I will add my public thanks for having done so. The time alotted for me to edit my stuff has expired. My words will have to stay.

Peace

 

[TonyC]

As for the use of the word "mute," vs. "moot," ... I don't like the word "moot."

...the use of the term "mute" is not contemporary, ... It is my preference, and from me, you do hear it.

A quick search fore moot and mute reveals that Avbug has been alerted two the issue own several occassions, even be four my discovery of this bored. He's got his mind maid up, so it's a waist of thyme.



Eye just wish he'd stop using "weather" when he's knot talking about the environment! (Whether he prefers it or NOT!)





.

 

[TonyC]

This sounds just like another member who used "irregardless" and backpeddled as well...

That word really bugs you, huh? At least we find the nonstandard usage recognized in a contemporary dictionary. We can't find Avbug's usage of mute recognized in a contemporary dictionary, but that matters little. Dictionaries change to reflect the language more often than the other way around.


I'll have to remember to fit irregardless in to more posts, irregardless of it's usefulness in the conversation.






,

 

[nitrogen]

All Very Familiar

I had to laugh as I read this thread because it all seems like deja vous to me.

See I went throught this ridiculous drill with this Av person a long time ago.

Like some of the other posters on this board I became incredulous at the outrageous claims that this AV person made on a routine basis. At that time he had his qualifications actually posted under his name. When I challenged him to prove some of them he removed them.

The one most outrageous claim that I remember him making was something about ingesting burning tree limbs down the engine of his aircraft. At first I thought he was joking. He wasn't. He stuck with that fantasy.

Then there was the discussion on declaring an emergency when he vehemently argued that having an onboard fire did not necessarily constitute an emergency. At that point I really began to suspect he wasn't a pilot but was someone who was around aviation a lot and studied about it quite a bit. Nothing he has ever said convinces me that I was mistaken then, including this ridiculous situation here.

Its really all just entertainment value. If you choose to buy into the Av persons questionable claims, fine. If not, then fine also. From what I can tell he won't really ever stop so whats the difference? Back then he had a small group of posters that came to defend him when he needed it. Like the ones that have shown up here I suspected then it was the Av person posting under a different name. That certainly seems to be the case again. And once more, who cares? It doesn't matter. I was concerned then that someone would take some of his highly questionable advice and do something they shouldn't in an aircraft. But, looking back now I guess I should have realized that when it comes down to it how much creedence is anyone really going to put in something they read on a "chat board"?

So what the heck. Let him live out his fantasies here if the moderators will allow him to do so. And when The Av person writes another of his "stupendous feats" stories just laugh it off as we do a Wile E Coyote episode with the Acme mining company.

 

[avbug]

Not that I have any need to prove or disprove anything, but I've never embellished on this board, or in person. If you can refute a single claim I have ever made, then I challenge you to do so.

You questioned striking materials over a fire...the answer is of course materials present a FOD hazard over a fire. If you'd ever been there, that would be obvious. I have hit burning materials, birds, and ingested a lot of smoke...just like anybody else who has ever piloted an aircraft over a fire on a tanker, helitanker, air attack, smoke jump, paracargo, or other mission dealing with wild fire. That anybody would question that is laughable...and far off the topic of this thread. I even saw a Skycrane in Lake City about seven years ago on a fire that ingested a turkey vulture. It was plastered across the intake, spread-eagled. Cost them a new engine.

Then there was the discussion on declaring an emergency when he vehemently argued that having an onboard fire did not necessarily constitute an emergency.

I still do. I have always been consistant in that assertion, based not on conjecture, but on real world experience. Can you make the same claim?

While I have always maintained, with absolute consistancy, that if one needs to make a declaration of priority or an emergency, one should do so, not every case demands it. Further, having experienced cockpit fires, wing fires, engine fires, ground fires, and a host of other such events, none to date have been of a nature that demanded the "declaration" of an emergency.

Several weeks ago I experienced a hydraulic loss in a tanker aircraft under circumstances which, in my judgement, justified requesting a crash rescue truck, and opening a closed runway. I did so, and landed uneventfully. This is the third time in my career I have requested and used the services of a rescue truck on a runway, despite the fact that each time each situation turned into a non-event. I have never hesitated to use the services available to me, when required. I do not, however, believe in blind panic, nor a blanket assertion that all things demand the drama you seem to feel is merited.

Attending a fire for me isn't an emergency. It's my job. A fire in flight may be quickly extinguished, or it may be uncontrollable. Clearly someone flicking a zippo lighter isn't worthy of an emergency descent, while in other circumstances, the mere scent of smoke might be. To suggest that any fire is an emergency is ridiculous.

I maintain now, and have always maintained, that there is no better scent than the smell of smoke in the cockpit.

I suspected then it was the Av person posting under a different name.

That is certainly not the case, but as the burden of proof is on you for making the accusation...prove your case. This would be impossible, of course, as I don't post under other names, but by making a false accusation (again) you have a duty to make good on the verification. Shall you?

 

[Yank McCobb]

I believe he said he "suspected" and that "who cares?". So this (in your imaginative mind) represents an "accusation" that requires a "burden of proof"????

Man, you are SO full of yourself you can't even separate reality from whatever you call what floats around in your head.

WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK, WHAT YOU DO, WHO YOU ARE or AREN'T?

Is that clear enough for you or will you need to come back on the defensive? Heck, if anyone really DID care, they'd be asking YOU to start proving that all the crap that you post is indeed, fact. But then again, you will simply state "I have nothing to prove".

Hey! Hey! Hey, hey, hey!
Macho, macho man (macho man)
I've got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
I've got to be a macho! Ow....

Macho, macho man
I've got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man (yeah, yeah)
I've got to be a macho!


I guess short people ALL suffer from this same affliction.

 

[avbug]

It goes back a little longer than you've been around, but thanks for playing.

 

[Dumbledore]

So I have a question for all you guys who think avbug is BSing here.

Please try to be honest both intellectually and in terms of veracity. Have any of you ever actually known or talked to a member firefighting aircraft's crew? Have you ever taken the time to understand the TRULY unique challenges of that kind of flying?

These are simple questions that require only yes or no answers without embellishment or editorial comment.

So, what say you?

 

[slashgolf]

6. bizijet - banned
7. trooper1 - banned
8. mojavedriver - banned

Hey Victor,

Just can't stay away, huh??? I thought this place sucked? And all that other crybaby stuff you wrote in the email to the web master... But yet you just keep coming back... Acting like the child you are...

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showpost.php?p=697151&postcount=2

I'd leave the previous post up, but there is something going on concerning phone numbers and I figure we just ought to stop the madness now....

 

[banned username 2]

mojavedriver[/b]]With all this talk about alter egos and usernames, could I be flyifrvfr, AKA the banned one? The answer is yes, or until the webmaster or mods remove this username as well.

1. flyifrvfr - banned
2. erniestrange - banned
3. rich tillery - banned
4. transpondersoff - banned
5. mojavedriver - New until mods remove and I have to create more...


6. bizijet - banned
7. trooper1 - banned
8. mojavedriver - banned

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showpost.php?p=697151&postcount=2

Let's add one more to the list:

9. slashgolf - banned

 

[bigD]

Wow. Quite the personality that guy has. He'll make it far in this industry.

 

[banned username 2]

Wow. Quite the personality that guy has. He'll make it far in this industry.

Yeah, he is "special" isn't he... See what happens when you end up being 35 years old and still living at home with Mommy... Makes for a very angry little boy...

 

[heph224]

If you're strictly under Part 91, then the instrument currency requirements are clear. To log the approach, you must be in instrument conditions (actual or simulated), and the approach must be flown to minimums. Regulation and FAA Chief Legal Counsel Opinion (legal interpretation) to follow:

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought -
(i) At least six instrument approaches;
(ii) Holding procedures; and
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems.


Note: I have deleted the non-relevant portions of this legal interpretation, as they don't apply to the question at hand. Note also that the codification and specific requirements for the regulation have changed since this interpretation; no longer are 6 hours of instrument time required. This does not change the basis for the interpretation, nor it's specific application...the approach must be flown in actual or simulated instrument conditions and must be flown to minimums:

January 28, 1992

(no name given)

This is in response to your October 24, 1991, letter in which you asked several questions about certain Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
Second, you questioned how low a pilot must descend (i.e., minimum descent altitude or decision height or full stop landing) on the six instrument approaches he must log to meet the recent IFR experience requirements specified in FAR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) (14 CFR Sec. 61.57 (e)(1)(i)). You also asked if an instrument approach "counts" if only part of the approach is conducted in actual IFR conditions. Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) states that:

No pilot may act as pilot in command under IFR, nor in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless he has, within the past 6 calendar months - (i) In the case of an aircraft other than a glider, logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved, including at least six instrument approaches, or passed an instrument competency check in the category of aircraft involved.

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.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information in this regard.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel

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.


Basically, from the time you accept a vector or are using own nav to establish yourself on an Approved Instrument Approach and you are in IMC conditions, you can log the approach and if the approach took you .2 you can log .2 as actual since you are flying by refrence to instruments the moment you encounter IMC conditions. There is nothing that states that you have to fly the approach to mins, or 200 feet above mins.

 

[avbug]

Basically, from the time you accept a vector or are using own nav to establish yourself on an Approved Instrument Approach and you are in IMC conditions, you can log the approach and if the approach took you .2 you can log .2 as actual since you are flying by refrence to instruments the moment you encounter IMC conditions. There is nothing that states that you have to fly the approach to mins, or 200 feet above mins.

Aahhh, no.

We've been through this a few times already, let's try it again.

The legal interpretation gives two provisions. One is that the approach must be conducted in instrument conditions. Not part of it, not a little bit of it, but the proceedure must be conducted in instrument conditions. The issue of "IMC" is irrelevant, as the instrument conditions may be actual, or simulated.

And. There's the word. Nor or, not if, not but...but and. The approach must be conducted in instrument conditions AND...

It must be conducted down to minimums, unless it must be abandoned for safety reasons. Which part of down to minimums do you not understand? Seems rather clear, doesn't it?

This isn't an either/or propostion. Two provisions are given, and both must be met; we can glean this from the use of the word "and" in the legal interpretation by the chief legal counsel. The approach must be conducted under instrument conditions AND it must be conducted down to minimums. Ergo, it must be conducted under instrument conditions down to minimums. Not part of the approach must be conducted in instrument conditions. We don't have an interpretation to say that. Not the start of the approach must be conducted in instrument conditions. We don't have an interpretation to say that. Not .2 must be conducted in instrument conditions, becasue quite obviously the interpretation says no such thing at all.

What it does provide us is a requirement to conduct the approach in instrument conditions. The proceedure. Not part of the proceedure, but the proceedure. Lacking any contrary loophole, we clearly have only one avenue by which to read that, and this is the entire proceedure. Had the chief counsel wanted to say something else, one might imagine he would have...for example, he might have said that the proceedure must at some point encounter instrument conditions, actual or simulated. Or he might have said that so long as .2 of the approach is conducted under instrument conditions, it's good enough.

But he didn't.

What he did say is that the proceedure must be conducted under instrument conditions, and to add further clarification, added that it must be conducted to minimums. The only exception to conducting it to minimums is when the approach must be abandoned for safety reasons.

Now, you seem to believe you've found a loophole, wherein the use of the term "we believe" means that it's purely speculation, purely opinion, and is of no effect. You've highlighted that wording, as follows:

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.

As this is a legal interpretation representing the FAA Adminstrator, by the Chief Legal Counsel, the use of the wording "we believe" does not negate the fact that this represents the official defensible interpretation of the regulation as administered and enforced by the FAA Administrator, as provided by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as ammended. In other words, the wording "I kinda prefer," "we think," "we believe," "we insist," "we done thought," or "for the most part we generally agree that..." all has the same effect. Namely, this is the rendering of the regulation to which we are beholden, and as it is to be enforced.

The interpretation really leaves no room for bargaining or loopholes; it's clear. The proceedure must be flown in instrument conditions, period. It must be flown to minimums, period. It must be flown in instrument conditions, and flown to minimums, period. It must be flown in instrument conditions to minimums, end of story.

 

[Dumbledore]

Yeah, but without any case law all we really have in this opinion is a vignette of what the FAA will likely attempt to argue in any case that comes before them.

Whoever is unfortunate enough to have to do battle over this for the first time had better have some deep pockets or we're all gonna get screwed on this goofy interpretation.