Practice IAPs
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This leaves the US IR holder who does not fly IFR reguluarly in a bit of a pickle by having to bag lots of instrument approaches and having to pay the practice approach fees at various fields.
Anyway, its not an issue for me, I go to the USA normally twice a year or more....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
You don't need an instructor on board when doing your 3 landings in 90 days, and you don't need one one when doing your 6 approaches in 6 months.
Unless the pilot considers it necessary.
One can tell from these threads the people who are the product of a nanny state, and those who aren't.
Keef, read the FAQ kindly posted by bookworm, what do you think?
You don't need an instructor on board when doing your 3 landings in 90 days, and you don't need one one when doing your 6 approaches in 6 months.
Unless the pilot considers it necessary.
One can tell from these threads the people who are the product of a nanny state, and those who aren't.
Keef, read the FAQ kindly posted by bookworm, what do you think?
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keef, read the FAQ kindly posted by bookworm, what do you think?
Do you think different?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I belive the "intent" in part 61 is for the approach to be carried out as a *normal* approach, and not some mickey mouse way of keeping current.
I still think that if you shoot the IAP in or through IMC but break out at or above DH or MDA, but continue the full approach (either to land, missed or something else), then this is acceptable for logging as a proper approach. Mr Lynch seems to indicate this, he doen not mention that it must be IMC down to DH or MDA, and nor do the FARs, but what he does say is that the approach must be continued until MAP, which seems fair enough to me.
I still think that if you shoot the IAP in or through IMC but break out at or above DH or MDA, but continue the full approach (either to land, missed or something else), then this is acceptable for logging as a proper approach. Mr Lynch seems to indicate this, he doen not mention that it must be IMC down to DH or MDA, and nor do the FARs, but what he does say is that the approach must be continued until MAP, which seems fair enough to me.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very dangerous to interpret the "intent" of the FARs, unless you wrote them 
Lynch says “. . . a person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . . .”
i.e not when flying visually, which is what you do when you break out above DH/MDA. That last 30 seconds does not count, so the approach cannot be logged, in exactly the same way as you cannot log the approach if you take your hood off 30 seconds before you get to the DH. IMO of course
Lynch says “. . . a person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments . . . .”
i.e not when flying visually, which is what you do when you break out above DH/MDA. That last 30 seconds does not count, so the approach cannot be logged, in exactly the same way as you cannot log the approach if you take your hood off 30 seconds before you get to the DH. IMO of course
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one "what constitutes instrument time" has been done to death here a while ago.
Lots of things in aviation aren't written down precisely. A lot of the time one could speculate that the reason is that it is completely unenforceable. Example: regs specify equipment to be CARRIED but don't specify equipment to be USED.
This is the same. Except in really obvious cases (a clear blue sky, and a DH of 200ft) nobody can tell exactly when the pilot became visual.
The way I look at it is that one does what one is happy with, being honest with oneself. After all, a dishonest pilot could write up all sorts of fictitious logbook entries, couldn't he?
Most IFR pilots don't have a problem with this stuff if they own a plane and actually go places. If they are renting, basic currency will be the problem that dwarfs all the others. Most pilots flying an N aircraft will be whole or part owners. And this is all about IFR currency; if you fly often then you will be current and hopefully safe.
Lots of things in aviation aren't written down precisely. A lot of the time one could speculate that the reason is that it is completely unenforceable. Example: regs specify equipment to be CARRIED but don't specify equipment to be USED.
This is the same. Except in really obvious cases (a clear blue sky, and a DH of 200ft) nobody can tell exactly when the pilot became visual.
The way I look at it is that one does what one is happy with, being honest with oneself. After all, a dishonest pilot could write up all sorts of fictitious logbook entries, couldn't he?
Most IFR pilots don't have a problem with this stuff if they own a plane and actually go places. If they are renting, basic currency will be the problem that dwarfs all the others. Most pilots flying an N aircraft will be whole or part owners. And this is all about IFR currency; if you fly often then you will be current and hopefully safe.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wave of disgruntled contempt unleashed in the US when the Lynch opinion regarding what was loggable re IAP's was brought to everyone's attention could be described as overwhelming.
I don't have the reference but I am informed by my CFI that the unworkable position described has been "clarified". If you are IMC anywhere between the FAF and MDA/DA you can log the approach. If simulated, then it's all the way from the IAF, or vectors for the approach, to the MDA/DA.
Simple and sensible. Very FAA.
I don't have the reference but I am informed by my CFI that the unworkable position described has been "clarified". If you are IMC anywhere between the FAF and MDA/DA you can log the approach. If simulated, then it's all the way from the IAF, or vectors for the approach, to the MDA/DA.
Simple and sensible. Very FAA.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if we are going to cite interpretations that we cannot back up then I will say that a lawyer called Byrne in the FAA general counsel office said that the approach had to be flown to minimums for it to count, agreeing with what we know Lynch said in writing.
The FAA is sensible because it lets you do it under the hood with a safety pilot.
The FAA is sensible because it lets you do it under the hood with a safety pilot.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slim,
I normally agree with Mr Lynch, but on this occasion I don't. What he suggested would be unworkable as it'd mean that no one could possibly log an IAP in actual except once in a blue moon. Myself, I have only shot one ILS down to minimums in 4 years in "actual", and if you took what lynch says literally, then if DH is 200' and cloudbase is 201', then the approach is not loggable.
Just my opinion of course, it would be nice to find the reference OVC002's is refering to ....
I normally agree with Mr Lynch, but on this occasion I don't. What he suggested would be unworkable as it'd mean that no one could possibly log an IAP in actual except once in a blue moon. Myself, I have only shot one ILS down to minimums in 4 years in "actual", and if you took what lynch says literally, then if DH is 200' and cloudbase is 201', then the approach is not loggable.
Just my opinion of course, it would be nice to find the reference OVC002's is refering to ....
