Part 61 IFR single pilot recency requirements
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 61 IFR single pilot recency requirements
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!
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!
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 ...
Come to think of it, that clear style of expression would probably rule you out ...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- 35 day ILS recency requirement
As for '2D with azimuth guidance', why don't they just call it an NDB? Why the need for new terms?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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.
@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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for '2D with azimuth guidance', why don't they just call it an NDB? Why the need for new terms?
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?
ILS/LLZ uses a CDI. Does that count for RNAV & VOR recency?
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
- 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
Last edited by scavenger; 26th Aug 2014 at 01:16. Reason: Added bit about 3D not covering 2D
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Aus
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but only if the VOR was flown with a CDI, not an RMI or bearing pointer (like on a G1000).
Just thought Id point out some instruments have a CDI for NDBs also, so don't write that off entirely either.
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'.
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?
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'.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scavenger
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Aus
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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.
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.
As far as I can tell, the requirement for equipment-specific experience for GNSS approaches has finally been killed off though.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Perth
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Perth, WA
Age: 38
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??