When is it an approach?

[ksu_aviator]

Just as a sidebar...if you have to fly the complete approach procedure under actual/simulated conditions then wouldn't you have to fly the Missed Approach Procedure as well?

 

[Simon Says]

I dont understand KSU. Why would you have to fly the miss. (if at mins you have all the required elements to land)

 

[Speedtree]

Seattle,

In answer to your question about safety pilots. The answer is found in FAR 91.109(b). The safety pilot needs to possess a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings. In your example, Airplane: Single-Engine-Land. No mention of endorsements, currency, or even a medical. You are the PIC. How you interperet it is for you to decide based on how conservative you are.

Keep asking questions.

 

[Vik]

Yes a contact approach is considered an IFR approach.

 

[avbug]

A contact approach is conducted under IFR, and is an approach proceedure, but is NOT an instrument approach proceedure, and may not be counted toward the currency requirements of FAR 61.57(c). FAR 61.1 defines an instrument approach as an approach proceedure defined in part 97 of the FAR. The contact approach is not defined under FAR 97, but is an approach proceedure (not instrument approach proceedure) used in lieu of a standard SIAP, with prior approval, and upon pilot request.

Weather a field is "IFR" makes no difference at all. The decision to log an approach when an airfield is reporting instrument conditions is a personal decision, and has no basis in the FAR. An approach conducted outside instrument conditions (actual or simulated) to an airfield reporting instrument conditions, may not be counted for currency under 61.57(c). This subparagraph requires that the approach be flown to minimums by reference to instruments, and that the entire approach be flown with reference to minimums. If an airport is reporting instrument conditions, the approach itself in many cases may be flown visually, or without reference to instruments. In such a case, to use the approach for the purposes of currency, the approach would have to be flown under simulated instrument conditions for the sake of legality.

Note also that an airfield is not IFR, but may be conducting operations under instrument flight rules. The existence of instrument conditions does not make a field "IFR;" the field does not go IFR, or become IFR. It simply has instrument conditions. Under FAR 91, one may begin an approach, fly to minimums, and then land if the required visual references are in sight, regardless of what is reported. Therefore, the reporting of instrument conditions, or meteorological conditions less than VFR, is not binding, except for certain operators. (It may hinder one's chances in appeal following a violation in certain circumstances, but that's the subject of another very different thread...).


Weather a safety pilot is required to be current with respect to landings, flight review, etc, and have the appropriate endorsements for the aircraft being flown, depends on the function of the safety pilot. If the safety pilot is the pilot in command (a common arrangement), then the safety pilot must be fully capable of acting as pilot in command. This includes currency, endorsements, etc.

If the safety pilot is not to act as PIC, then he or she does not need to hold endorsements for complex, conventional gear, etc. The safety pilot is required only to hold category and class ratings for the aircraft being flown, with a minimum certification of private pilot. Therefore to properly answer the former question, the question must specify the role of safety pilot, in piloting the airplane. If the safety pilot fulfills the roll of safety pilot only, then he or she need not hold the endorsements. If the safety pilot fulfills the role of PIC, he or she must be capable in every respect to act as pilot-in-command.

There is no requirement to fly the "complete" proceedure, which would include the missed. There is a requirement to fly the proceedure to minimums. If the flight termniates without going missed, the approach may be counted. Again, one must fly approaches, not full proceedures. 61.57 specifies no requirement to show missed approaches, but does specify flying approaches, tracking, and holding.

I have to agree also with 8N that the truth of the matter is that ultimately no one will likely know the actual conditions of your approach, of if you used a view limiting device, if you were in instrument conditions throughout the approach, etc. If you fly the approach by reference to instruments, to minimums, by all means, log it. If you're not in instrument condtions all the time, but still fly the approach by reference to instruments, so be it. If you log it as simulated instrument, then you must also include the name of the safety pilot as required by FAR 61.51(g)(3)(ii).

 

[ScRaMJeT]

This is what I say!

Hey Young Pilot Friend

If you are flying an approach like its a real approach, log it anyway, in the grand scheme of things it won't really matter. From what I've seen, I've never heard the question "How many approaches have you done" being asked in an interview. Come to think of it I've never been asked that on a checkride. As a matter of fact, I fill in my logbook once every 2 months and I guesstimate how many approaches I've done. You guys admit it to the little fella

And if you are worried about Currency go to the local FBO fly their frasca 142 or their ATC 820, and look your good for 6 months, and it took all of 2 hours.

I don't know, I guess i'm just a pawn in the Chess game of life.