What constitutes an instrument approach

[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.

 

[avbug]

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.

That's very true. However, very seldom will the ALJ attempt to work contrary to a legal interpretation, particularly one that merely defines the regulation. The most an airman could hope to argue is that he "thought" he had complied with the regulation and that he had gotten enough proficiency from the approaches he did, but he would need a very compelling reason to have not complied with the regulation and the interpretation thereof.

The legal interpretation carries far more weight than an opinion, even though it may say "we believe." It is the Administrator that prescribes the regulation, and it is the administrator that both interprets and enforces the regulation. It is the airman that is guilty until proven innocent. The airman cannot argue that the regulation is not fair, but only that he or she is not guilty of inconsistency with the regulation. Further, case law, such as it is in administrative law, is far less "binding" and influential than in civil or criminal court.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

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.

Here is where you, I and the legal council disagree. An IAP is defined from the IAF to the MAP. I can find no where that allows or defines vectors as a "whole" procedure, in essence vectors are a "short cut". Since the legal council has taken great pains to define exactly what must be done to log an approach for currency, ie ENTIRE PROCEDURE, in either IMC or foggled, to minimums you have to, by extension, ASSuME the legal council meant and wants you the pilot to fly all approaches for currency as full procedures.

We, as the flying public, do not have the luxury of inserting our own beliefs and procedures into this "opinion" so we must read it literally and take no creative license to it. The council states the "instrumet approach procedure", which is IAF to MAP, must be flown down to minimums.

Whats my point? That this legal opinion is just that, an opinion. Until someone is brought before an ALJ and this opinion is upheld IN ALL OF ITS CONTEXT, it is simply a guide. Does that mean I am free to do what I want to maintain currency, nope not at all, it means I better go and do 6 full procedure or 6 vector only, or a combination there of, approaches to be current, as the opinion states. Is there anyway to show that I did the approaches full or vectored? I don't know, the FAA would have to be fairly bored to go through all those tapes to find out?

 

[avbug]

An IAP is not necessarily IAF to MAP; many approaches don't have an IAF. They may rely on vectors, or be transitions from the enroute structure. Approaches which include part of the enroute structure may have no initial segment, and become either vector approaches or mere transitions from the enroute structure.

The ILS when vectored isn't a short-cut proceedure. It's for this reason that the GSIA is the published FAF on the ILS, but the FAF becomes the point of intercept when vectored to intercept lower and closer...it's still the proceedure, w(h)eather one flies straight in, flies to a published IAF, obtains radar vectors to the final approach course (or any intermediate segment), has radar guidance, or utilizes any other approved means of accomplishing the approach.

Further, the chief legal counsel doesn't dictate how the approach must be started (ie from a feeder fix to an IAF, by radar vectors, from an enroute transition, etc), but does stipulate how far is must go to be counted.

 

[heph224]

An IAP is not necessarily IAF to MAP; many approaches don't have an IAF. They may rely on vectors, or be transitions from the enroute structure. Approaches which include part of the enroute structure may have no initial segment, and become either vector approaches or mere transitions from the enroute structure.

The ILS when vectored isn't a short-cut proceedure. It's for this reason that the GSIA is the published FAF on the ILS, but the FAF becomes the point of intercept when vectored to intercept lower and closer...it's still the proceedure, w(h)eather one flies straight in, flies to a published IAF, obtains radar vectors to the final approach course (or any intermediate segment), has radar guidance, or utilizes any other approved means of accomplishing the approach.

Further, the chief legal counsel doesn't dictate how the approach must be started (ie from a feeder fix to an IAF, by radar vectors, from an enroute transition, etc), but does stipulate how far is must go to be counted.

IAP is not necessarily IAF to MAP; many approaches don't have an IAF

True, there are a lot of Radar Approaches that don't have an IAF and you bring up a good point and its a good thing we have forums like this to discuss these senarios and express our opinions. Like I said before, I always assumed that once your past the IAF or accept a vector for an approach and you encounter IMC you can log the approach since techinically you were relying on your instruments to navigate for part of that approach. I guess that some of the approaches that I have done and logged over the years are either legal or not.

 

[Dumbledore]

The airman cannot argue that the regulation is not fair, but only that he or she is not guilty of inconsistency with the regulation.

I don't agree here. The airman could argue that the interpretation that the FAA cites in its case makes it impossible to comply with the intent of the regulation - to spell out a way for a pilot to maintain recency of (instrument) experience requirements.

In other words, the regulation isn't fair.

And besides, there is a HUUUUUGE hole in the interpretation per se: they specifically exempt situations where safety is at stake from the broader core of their thoughts on the matter.

Further, case law, such as it is in administrative law, is far less "binding" and influential than in civil or criminal court.

Again, I have to disagree. The case law sets the precedent. The FAA relies upon it in making their case and the respondent may rely on it to defend himself. In the 1987 Brasher case, for example, the FAA's policy of ATC specialists notifying pilots of potential deviations was at issue. The respondent had been accused of a deviation that he claimed he had not been informed of as the controllers’ handbook required.

The ALJ sided with the pilot in the regard that since he had not been given notice that a violation was impending he never had the chance to file a NASA report to protect his license. The result was that although the ALJ sided with the FAA in determining that a deviation had indeed occurred, he also vacated the sanction saying that the FAA had disregarded its own policy as set forth in the 7110.65 current at the time.

So, though rare, precedents ARE indeed brought forth by respondents. My personal feeling is that if there’s an argument to be made one should make it. You really never know how successful you’ll be until you try.

Of course a good lawyer – preferably one who worked at the FAA before entering private practice – never hurts either.

 

[avbug]

In other words, the regulation isn't fair.

That's really the point. The airman doesn't have the option of arguing w(h)eather the regulation is fair. The ALJ isn't there to consider weather the regulation is proper. The airman may only try to prove that he or she was in compliance, and the ALJ is there to determine weather it is so.

 

[Rattler71]

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.

hehe right on

 

[Hipster Loser]

look, just put the foogles on every 6 months and shoot the approaches down to minimums and you'll be safe. its as simple as that guys and gals.

when ive practiced my approaches i always ask for the full approach if possible. i get more practice that way.

 

[nosehair]

OK, here's the deal. The purpose of the rule is to stay proficient on instrument approaches. Just like landings. You stay proficient on landings by flying a final approach through the complete touchdown. Don't you? Do you practice a landing to stay proficient by flying a final to 100' then going around? How is that making your landings proficient?

You fly the instrument approach to minimums with the hood on or in IMC to stay proficient. Period. It doen't make a rat's behind about all this legal argument, except for the fight of legal arguing - that is all that's going on here.

Those of you that argue that a partial approach counts just don't want to put the hood on. Or you think you're so good you don't have to. Maybe you are.

 

[Dumbledore]

Those of you that argue that a partial approach counts just don't want to put the hood on. Or you think you're so good you don't have to. Maybe you are.

Now that's not fair at all! You're assuming that it's as simple as going out in 172 or a Cherokee and just getting the approaches out of the way. For some of us that's not how it goes. While I will grant you that many folks flying part 91 corporate ships are kept proficient through some sort of recurrent training or by 135 checks because the aircraft is dual-use, I'm here to tell you that not all are.

The fact is that you don't just go out and goof around for a couple of hours in a Hawker 800 or a G-IV to practice approaches, and going out in a 172 is hardly applicable to the business of flying one of those machines, although LEGALLY it counts. There are angles here that you've not considered.

As I said before, a good many pilots know when they’re proficient. For the rest there’s a floor of recent experience that is mandated.