Part 61 IFR single pilot recency requirements

[st777]

Hi All

Just reading through the Part 61 regs and want to make sure I understand the changes to IFR recency requirements correctly.

- 3 approaches in last 90 days to be IFR current (per 61.870 (2))
- at least 1 hour under IFR (and not necessarily in IMC) and 1 approach for single pilot IFR in last 6 mths (per 61.875)
- if I want to carry out an NDB approach, I need to have done either an NDB/VOR/RNAV in the last 90 days (per 61.870 (4)) for 2D approach recency and an NDB per 61.870 (6) for azimuth guidance recency
- if I want to carry out a RNAV-GNSS approach, I need to have done either an NDB/VOR/RNAV approach in the last 90 days per 61.870(4) for 2D approach recency, and either VOR/RNAV per 61.870 (6) for course deviation guidance recency
- if I want to carry out a VOR approach, I need to have done either an NDB/VOR/RNAV approach in the last 90 days per 61.870(4) for 2D approach recency, and either VOR/RNAV per 61.870 (6) for course deviation guidance recency
- if I want to carry out an ILS, I need to have done one in the last 90 days per 3D approach recency at 61.870(5)

So if I understand correctly, does that mean a VOR approach would make me recent for RNAV-GNSS since both are 2D and both are based on course deviation, and vice versa?

Does that also mean all the following are now gone? I just want to make sure they're not hidden in some other obscure location across all the legislative instruments!
- 3hrs instrument time in command or 1hr dual instrument time (as in IMC time, not time under IFR) for IFR currency?
- 35 day ILS recency requirement
- 6mths recency for GPS type etc

Thanks for your help!

[Arm out the window]

I can't speak for the accuracy of the details there, but I vote you apply for a job writing the regs - very clear!

Come to think of it, that clear style of expression would probably rule you out ...

[uncopilot]

ILS/LLZ uses a CDI. Does that count for RNAV & VOR recency?

[training wheels]

- 35 day ILS recency requirement

According to an ATO who I met last month, the 35 day ILS recency is now 90 days, just like all the other approaches.

As for '2D with azimuth guidance', why don't they just call it an NDB? Why the need for new terms? :rolleyes:

[st777]

@Arm - thanks, but I much prefer flying to writing regs!

@uncopilot - from what I can infer, the ILS would satisfy the requirements for deviation indicator recency, but haven't seen anything which says a 3D approach covers you for a 2D approach. That doesn't really seem sensible though, so I'm assuming I've missed something somewhere, but then again, who knows with aviation regulations.

@Training wheels - yep agreed, it looks like the 35 days recency for ILS is definitely out.

[scavenger]

As for '2D with azimuth guidance', why don't they just call it an NDB? Why the need for new terms?

Because not only NDB approaches may be flown using azimuth guidance. Consider a VOR approach using an RMI. Conducting that approach would make you recent for 2D and azimuth.

Generally, when considering azimuth/CDI recency, forget the type of approach and only consider what type of needle was used.

When considering 2D/3D recency, forget the type of needle and only consider whether the approach has vertical guidance.

So if I understand correctly, does that mean a VOR approach would make me recent for RNAV-GNSS since both are 2D and both are based on course deviation, and vice versa?

Yes, but only if the VOR was flown with a CDI, not an RMI or bearing pointer (like on a G1000).

ILS/LLZ uses a CDI. Does that count for RNAV & VOR recency?

The CDI part of the ILS covers CDI recency. The 3D part of the ILS does not cover 2D. Therefore, a 2D approach is required, using either azimuth or CDI (because CDI is already covered) to make you recent ofr a VOR/RNAV to be flown with a CDI.

Does that also mean all the following are now gone? I just want to make sure they're not hidden in some other obscure location across all the legislative instruments!
- 3hrs instrument time in command or 1hr dual instrument time (as in IMC time, not time under IFR) for IFR currency?
- 35 day ILS recency requirement
- 6mths recency for GPS type etc

Yes.

[skkm]

Yes, but only if the VOR was flown with a CDI, not an RMI or bearing pointer (like on a G1000).

What if you use both the CDI and bearing pointer in conjunction on the one VOR approach on the G1000? Are you then covered for both?

[glekichi]

Just thought Id point out some instruments have a CDI for NDBs also, so don't write that off entirely either.


What if you use both the CDI and bearing pointer in conjunction on the one VOR approach on the G1000? Are you then covered for both?
Excellent question!
My guess is that 50% of the pilots will interpret as yes, 50% as no, and the latter will abuse the former for being 'unprofessional'.

[training wheels]

What if you use both the CDI and bearing pointer in conjunction on the one VOR approach on the G1000? Are you then covered for both?

Or alternatively, during an NDB approach, use the GPS to monitor your track outbound and inbound using the CDI on your HSI. Would that cover you for both as well?

Because not only NDB approaches may be flown using azimuth guidance. Consider a VOR approach using an RMI. Conducting that approach would make you recent for 2D and azimuth.

Oh yes, point taken.

[Water Wings]

Talk about making things hard! Why couldn't you have followed little ol' NZ?

Three hours every 90 days. Three approaches every 90 days.

One hour must be in the air and one approach can be in a sim.

Shoot a non-precision approach and you're current to fly any non-precision approach you're endorsed on (LLZ, VOR, NDB, GNSS). Shoot a precision approach and it's the same (ILS, PAR).

Or forget all the above and demonstrate competency to a Flight Examiner. Also ticks the currency box.

Now how simple is that!

[scavenger]

I think it's better than NZ as stated. Under Part 61, everything can be done in a simulator/synthetic trainer and there are no IF requirements at all.

If you do an NDB and an ILS plus 1 other in 90 days (to get to 3 total) you are covered.

If you want single pilot you need a 1 hour IFR flight (not necessarily IF time) in the last 6 months.

How much simpler can it be?

[skkm]

I'd say you need to do 1 hour IFR incl. one approach in a trainer, as a single pilot op.

[skkm]

I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I'm about to do my first Part 61 "proficiency check" so I've spent a while trying to get my head around the rules and that's how I interpret 61.875.

Although then, 61.880 4B states:
If the holder is taken to have a valid instrument proficiency check for the relevant aircraft only because of the holder’s participation in an operator’s training and checking system, the check is taken to be valid only for operations conducted by the operator.

So if you haven't done a proper "proficiency check" in the past year as opposed to your company C&T you'll need to do that too if you want to fly privately, cheers CASA.

As far as I can tell, the requirement for equipment-specific experience for GNSS approaches has finally been killed off though.

[mustafagander]

Perhaps PIFR is the answer.

[alb92]

Well that's major balls. Shooting multiple approaches, go arounds, engine failures, all in night IMC every 6 months for 4 hours (not to mention operating on a daily basis under IFR) isn't enough to let one fly a 110kt putput single engine machine IFR?

That 1 hour every 6 months isn't for single engine ops, but single pilot ops. So in the above case, you are allowed to fly that 110kt single IFR. But, a pilot who flies with a co-pilot (and thus might share IFR duties) cannot go alone without that recency.

[Stiff Under Carriage]

Got nothing to do with CDI's, RMI's or any type of pointer guys. It's dimensional.

2D = 2 Dimensions
3D = 3 Dimensions

2D Approaches only gives you guidance with direction
3D Approaches gives you guidance in direction and altitude (G/S)

Note, altitude steps on a 2D approach is not altitude guidance.

Yes, NDB app renews VOR and RNAV and vice versa. They all renew each other regardless of the pointer/CDI used. They are all 2D approaches.

[manymak]

From the definitions and abbreviation section of Jepps.

INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE (IAP) — A series of predetermined maneuvers by reference
to flight instruments with specified protection from obstacles from the initial approach fix,
or where applicable, from the beginning of a defined arrival route to a point from which a landing
can be completed and thereafter, if a landing is not completed, to a position at which holding or
enroute obstacle clearance criteria apply. Instrument approach procedures are classified as follows:
a. Non-precision approach (NPA) procedure. An instrument approach procedure designed for
2D instrument approach operations Type A.
NOTE: Non-precision approach procedures may be flown using a continuous descent final
approach technique (CDFA). CDFA with advisory VNAV guidance calculated by on-board
equipment are considered 3D instrument approach operations. CDFA with manual calculation
of the required rate of descent are considered 2D instrument approach operations.
b. Approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV). A performance-based navigation (PBN)
instrument approach procedure designed for 3D instrument approach operations Type A.
c. Precision approach (PA) procedure. An instrument approach procedure based on navigation
systems (ILS, MLS, GLS and SBAS Cat I) designed for 3D instrument approach operations
Type A or B.

[eight10man]

With the new rules in effect: can or can't you still fly the approach in VMC after recency has lapsed?

Previously in the CAO it was specifically stated the 90 and 28 days applied to being allowed to conduct a specific approach in IMC, hence implying that no approach recency is required when operating in VMC.
This part about IMC has been pulled in the new regs; so does this imply not being allowed to conduct the approach at all, regardless of meteorological conditions??

[thorn bird]

Anyone know what the US recency requirements are? They have a much better safety record than us, maybe we should copy theirs?

[pilotchute]

Nothing stopping you just flying the ILS after asking for a straight in approach.

[eight10man]

I know you can 'just fly the ILS', because who would be able to tell you dialled in the frequency.

I'm more interested in knowing whether you then legally log that approach to get your 90 days back up..?
But how I read the new Part 61 rules - because they've now left out the bit about IMC - you can't. Regardless of it being VMC..

In Europe (EASA-land) approach recency doesn't exist as far as I know. There I just do my Instrument Rating Proficiency Check (finally Australia starts using the same ICAO-nomenclature for these things) once a year, and all sorted for the next 12 months..
Because who cares whether you're recent: as long as you don't bust the tolerances set for that approach - MDA/DA, half scale deflection etc etc - and your licences and ratings are valid, it always seems better and safer to me to fly an instrument approach over anything visual..

PS: In general I always prefer to fly visual off course, but being 'forced' by a rule created 'by pencil pushers' to elect something less safe in marginal conditions seems backwards..!

[QFF]

I understand for single pilot ops the recency requirement for 1 hr under the IFR (rather than in actual/simulated IMC). How does one log the 1 hr under IFR? Noting in the remarks column "IFR flight plan"? Attaching the bill from Airservices or the flight plan acknowledgement?

[dartman2]

CASA makes this so hard. I work for a large out of town airline. Recent = landing every 60 days. Everything else is covered by 6 monthly sim rides.

[Radix]

...........