What constitutes an instrument approach

[NYCPilot]

What avbug states is correct, if we interpret it to the letter of the law. In order for it to "technically" count as an approach, you must fly from the FAF to the MDA/DA under actual or simulated conditions.

Just to clarify my stance as per my previous posts, should it be misinterpreted outside of these clear-cut parameters, although the ceiling or visibility precluded you from remaining on the instruments right down to minimums, for all practical purposes, you have flown the approach. This really only applies to a situation where you were just short of staying on the instruments at minimums. Although I cite an arbitray figure (150') it must be within reason that breaking out from anything much higher, might not be considered an approach for currency purposes. Anything at or below this figure may reasonable be logged in good faith to fulfill the said requirements.

Once again, I state that you as the pilot have the discretion to log what you deem appropriate as an approach. For those who are by the book, and will not log it unless they have been at the minimums on the instruments in IMC, then do so. But in keeping with this pedantic view, you will most likely be in a situation where you will be going missed if you have to go this far down before going visually. There has to be a point at where one may reasonable assume that the fulfillment of an approach has taken place. Maybe it is fair to say that at 50' above minimums would be more prudent. But this might be cheating yourself out of something more or less loggable. If you've flown the approach, you've achieved some level of practice in executing the approach, which is what the rule intended in practicality, and so to split hairs as to whether it is an apporach or not may be futile.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

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.

Maybe its my blonde hair, the 35+ hours of flight time in 6 days, or I am just that dense, but I dont see or get how the above paragraph states you have to fly the approach to mins ENTIRELY in IMC or Foggled. I read that as you must fly the IAP in IMC/Foggled but you must go down to MDA/DA, ie no straight and level course tracking, you must make a descent.

Maybe its just fancy twiddly winks, or the fact I cant see straight, but I dont see the requirement to be IMC to the MDA or DA.

 

[NYCPilot]

That's right. To follow an IAP is more than just being under the hood. It requires the procedures and adherence to charted numbers (alt., radials, headings, etc.). It is reasonable to assume that if you follow all of the procedures and track properly along with flying reasonable close to the minimums, you've conducted an approach. Remember, the PURPOSE of this is to ensure proficiency through mandated currency requirements. If you've accomplished all of this, log the approach.

 

[avbug]

Once again, I state that you as the pilot have the discretion to log what you deem appropriate as an approach.

No, you do not have that discretion, if the logging is done for the purposes of meeting recency of experience requirments. If you chose to do so, you choose to do so...but you do not have the legal right nor discretion to do so. Do as you will, but it is not your discretion, and doing so is indeed contrary to the regulation.

For those who are by the book, and will not log it unless they have been at the minimums on the instruments in IMC, then do so.

No, this has been covered quite thoroughly so far, but IMC really has nothing to do with the question at hand. Instrument conditions, simulated, or actual.

If you've flown the approach, you've achieved some level of practice in executing the approach, which is what the rule intended in practicality, and so to split hairs as to whether it is an apporach or not may be futile.

Did you write the regulation and know that with certainty? (I once had a Director of Operations who responded that yes, he did write the regulation...). No, you didn't...don't try to clarify regulation with justification. At least you got some level of practice, and that's good enough...a little like Jack Nicolson as the President of The United States in Mars Attacks... "We've still got two out of three branches of the Federal Government...and that ain't bad!"

How about not doing night landings to a full stop? At least you get a little practice out of it. How about doing the approach proceedure turn only? At least you got a little practice out of it. How about doing landing currency by just going around each time. After all, they say a good approach equals a good landing, and you at least got a little practice out of it. Sort of like having sex by kissing and holding hands. Not quite all the way, but at least you got something.

Justification is the narcotic of the soul...but neither soul nor narcotic has any place in a discussion of legality. What you choose to do is your business, but don't justify contravention of the regulation by opinion or shades of grey. It's not grey, it's clear...you must fly the approach in instrument conditions (actual or simulated) and must fly it to minimums unless it must be abandoned for safety reasons. Period.

 

[NYCPilot]

No, this has been covered quite thoroughly so far, but IMC really has nothing to do with the question at hand. Instrument conditions, simulated, or actual.

I have probably reiterated the fact that it can indeed be done in both simulated and actual numerous times. I know it need not be accomplished in IMC. The question at hand referred to the situation whereas you had been in IMC, and so you have misquoted my statement out of context.

Did you write the regulation and know that with certainty? (I once had a Director of Operations who responded that yes, he did write the regulation...). No, you didn't...don't try to clarify regulation with justification. At least you got some level of practice, and that's good enough...a little like Jack Nicolson as the President of The United States in Mars Attacks... "We've still got two out of three branches of the Federal Government...and that ain't bad!"

How about not doing night landings to a full stop? At least you get a little practice out of it. How about doing the approach proceedure turn only? At least you got a little practice out of it. How about doing landing currency by just going around each time. After all, they say a good approach equals a good landing, and you at least got a little practice out of it. Sort of like having sex by kissing and holding hands. Not quite all the way, but at least you got something.

Justification is the narcotic of the soul...but neither soul nor narcotic has any place in a discussion of legality. What you choose to do is your business, but don't justify contravention of the regulation by opinion or shades of grey. It's not grey, it's clear...you must fly the approach in instrument conditions (actual or simulated) and must fly it to minimums unless it must be abandoned for safety reasons. Period.

Obviously not. No, I did not write the regulation. Nor do I claim to have. I am putting forth my opinion, and one that in practical terms was most likely the rational and intent for writing this rule. I'm sure you would probably agree, but I understand your need to affirm what you have stated. You may be technically correct in that one can not be presumptious. Unfortunately, these rules were written, and to be interpreted with common sense. And so yes, they were provided for these reasons I have mentioned. But I'll leave a disclaimer on that.

I am not claiming that cutting corners in an IAP will get you a loggable approach, but merely justifying ones that will. And these that I claim to qualify are quite narrow indeed.

 

[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.