Logging instrument approach opinion

[NotarPilot]

The other morning I flew an ILS approach into Burbank, CA on a VERY hazy day.  ATIS was reporting 3 sm visibility and sky clear.  I reached the FAF and could not see the airport but was in VMC and above the haze layer.  I continued the approach and at no time did I lose sight of the ground and maintained visual with the horizon until going through the haze layer. However, I needed the ILS to navigate to the runway as I could not see it at all.  I finally see the runway at about 1.75 NM out.  

 

Question:  Should I still log this as an instrument approach although I never lost visual with the ground, and maintained visual of the horizon up until descending into the haze?  I think it can be argued that I was never in complete IMC although visibility was less than VFR minimums.  Therefore, I have a little problem logging actual instrument time but I think logging the approach as an instrument is appropriate as I used the ILS to navigate to the runway.  Being that I could still see the ground I don't think I can say I flew the aircraft solely by reference to instruments.   What do you guys think?

[MooneyBob]

Let's see...

[Hank]

I log every approach, and time as Actual, whenever I need to fly the approach to find the airport. (Losing it in ground clutter or looking the wrong way doesn't count.)

I flew back to Huntington in beautiful clear weather, but descending through 6000 msl the work turned milky. The hilltops began to appear around 3000 msl, and visibility returned at 2500 msl. I logged the time as actual, but because I could see again did not fly an approach.

Weird how that haze stuff happens sometimes.

[Cruiser]

The FAA says 6 approaches in 6 months. Unless you are involved in some action the FAA wants to investigate nobody else is going to care. Log whatever you want.

The FAA wants you to be current and safe for continued flying in IMC. If you think these approaches are adequate to maintain your proficiency you are good to go! Other than that, there is no real need to log approaches and actual instrument time for that matter.

I have stopped keeping track of both. They don't help to meet any higher ratings.

The insurance company does not care.

The ATC controllers don't care.

My wife doesn't care.

and I don't care.

 

I do the mandatory 6 in 6 with a safety pilot and duly log that in my book for legal currency. 

[carqwik]

Sounds like a "contact approach"....although I think you have to be on an IFR flight plan (CFII's please chime in)

 

The real question is whether finding the airport via localizer is different than IMC where aircraft control requires use of instruments.  Having learned to fly in the haze in SoCal in the 1980s, I am quite familiar with the conditions you encountered...but it's still VFR.  But if you required instruments to fly...and to maintain flight control...then go ahead and log it as IMC.  Since we weren't in the cockpit with you, we can't assess....

[Dave Marten]

Notar,

 

I think you have met the criteria for logging your approach as an actual. Take a read below and you be the judge, but as you stated you needed to rely on the instruments to maintain adequate control of the aircraft. Sorry to glob up the post, but below the much cited CFR is a helpful (although dated) FAA legal interpretation. If you log the approach to meet 61.57© take note of why. For example: "ILS 08 KBUR, haze"

 

 

From part 61.51(g)

 

"(g) Logging instrument time.

(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

(2) An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions.

(3) For the purposes of logging instrument time to meet the recent instrument experience requirements of § 61.57© of this part, the following information must be recorded in the person's logbook—

(i) The location and type of each instrument approach accomplished; and

(ii) The name of the safety pilot, if required.

 

-----------------------------

 

Legal Interpretation # 84-29

November 07, 1984

Mr. Joseph P. Carr

Dear Mr. Carr:

This is in response to your letter asking questions about
instrument flight time.

First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51©(4) of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of
instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight
over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon
could be logged as actual instrument flight time.

As you know, Section 61.51©(4) provides rules for the logging
of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the
requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent
flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section
provides, in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time
only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft
solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument
meteorological conditions (i.m.c.)) or simulated instrument
flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when
the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally
restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument
flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it
necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order
to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these
conditions involve adverse weather conditions.

To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may
occur in the case you described, a moonless night over the ocean
with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is
necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The
determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is
necessary is somewhat subjective, and based in part on the sound
judgement of the pilot. Note that, under Section 61.51( (3),
the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should
include the reasons for determining that the flight was under
actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be
called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged
was legitimate.

[201er]

As stated above, logging an approach has more to do with flying instruments than weather. Theoretically you can be in pure VMC and yet be in actual instrument conditions while in other cases you can be IMC but not in actual instrument conditions.

For example if you are on an ILS in glass G airspace above a low layer, below a layer above, and in 10 or less mile visibility (particularly at night), you would be in VMC for sure and could be VFR there in theory. However, the lack of a visible horizon would create actual instrument conditions and necessitate you to fly by sole reference to the instruments.

On the other hand, if you are in class E airspace less than 500ft below the cloud deck, you would be in IMC but with good visibility, not in actual instrument conditions. Because of a visible horizon, you would be able to fly without sole reference to the instruments even if you cannot find the airport without the approach.

There can be a bit of a gray area where visibility is VMC but things are so murky that you would get disoriente flying visually. Although you can ser the ground, without a visible horizon you would have to rely on sole reference to the instruments. It is up to you to determine if your situation was one of these or not.

[NotarPilot]

Dave: Actually I was making the argument that because I had visual contact with the ground I believe I did not fly the aircraft solely by reference to instruments.  I could see the horizon clearly until descending through the haze layer but at no time did I lose sight of the ground.  I believe visibility was a little less than 3 sm but was never in true IMC.  

 

Cruiser: As you have stated "Unless you are involved in some action the FAA wants to investigate nobody else is going to care. Log whatever you want."  While you are correct this question was brought up to spur discussion and to share an experience I had while flying on an IFR flight plan. I don't want the NTSB looking up the weather for each approach I made and ultimately decide I'm one approach short of being current.  I don't want to give the insurance company a reason not to cover an accident, or worse, leave my family with an uninsured crash to deal with should I not make it.

 

I did log it as an instrument approach and even if I didn't I would still be current as I have more then the minimum logged.  But logging "whatever you want" as you say, would not be how I would want to log my time.  I also log the altitude I break out in for personal reference.

[HRM]

 I don't want the NTSB looking up the weather for each approach I made and ultimately decide I'm one approach short of being current.  I don't want to give the insurance company a reason not to cover an accident, or worse, leave my family with an uninsured crash to deal with should I not make it.

 

Seriously? Has this happened? What if you forgot the one time or let the date slip a bit?

 

In the overall, I'll quote R.E.Lee: Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.

 

The operative phrase is you cannot do more. It speaks to personal minimums. Frankly, if you are in doubt about the logging of this, don't, go fly another one with less uncertainty. Or do a personal penance of three under the hood or something. Jeez.

[M016576]

Seriously? Has this happened? What if you forgot the one time or let the date slip a bit?

 

In the overall, I'll quote R.E.Lee: Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.

 

The operative phrase is you cannot do more. It speaks to personal minimums. Frankly, if you are in doubt about the logging of this, don't, go fly another one with less uncertainty. Or do a personal penance of three under the hood or something. Jeez.

That's an excellent point. It goes along the lines of this:

If there is any doubt, then there is no doubt.

[Dave Marten]

Dave: Actually I was making the argument that because I had visual contact with the ground I believe I did not fly the aircraft solely by reference to instruments.  I could see the horizon clearly until descending through the haze layer but at no time did I lose sight of the ground.  I believe visibility was a little less than 3 sm but was never in true IMC.  

 

Yep, its up to you and your judgement as PIC. Contact with the ground matters not, what matters is what were you referencing for aircraft guidance (eyeballs-out or eyeballs-in on the needles)? If you needed to use approach guidance because insufficient visual references were available to "maintain adequate control of the aircraft" then log it. If you were primarily eyes out flying a visual approach then its a non-counter.

 

Either way don't sweat it Striker 

[Bob - S50]

Dave: Actually I was making the argument that because I had visual contact with the ground I believe I did not fly the aircraft solely by reference to instruments.  I could see the horizon clearly until descending through the haze layer but at no time did I lose sight of the ground.  I believe visibility was a little less than 3 sm but was never in true IMC.  

 

Cruiser: As you have stated "Unless you are involved in some action the FAA wants to investigate nobody else is going to care. Log whatever you want."  While you are correct this question was brought up to spur discussion and to share an experience I had while flying on an IFR flight plan. I don't want the NTSB looking up the weather for each approach I made and ultimately decide I'm one approach short of being current.  I don't want to give the insurance company a reason not to cover an accident, or worse, leave my family with an uninsured crash to deal with should I not make it.

 

I did log it as an instrument approach and even if I didn't I would still be current as I have more then the minimum logged.  But logging "whatever you want" as you say, would not be how I would want to log my time.  I also log the altitude I break out in for personal reference.

 

Sure, you could see the ground.  But if you looked out the front of the airplane could you maintain straight and level?  Could you see a horizon for reference?  If you couldn't, I'd log instrument time.

 

My philosophy is that if I need to start an approach in order to find the runway, I flew an instrument approach.

 

You know, there are all kinds of levels of 'flying an approach'.  All the way from in the weather, hand flow, raw data to watching the airplane follow the approach that is loaded in the FMC while using one hand to control airspeed by turning a knob.  Both can log the approach.

 

Bob

[ryoder]

I was thinking that no matter where you broke out an approach is an approach. Let's say you break out at 800 on the ILS? You call the runway in sight and make a normal landing. Same goes for four hundred. I am not ifr rated yet.

[Danb]

I believe Dave nailed it....yes

[Marauder]

And all this discussion about when, how, where, who, what, why to log an approach drove me to the decision that it is easier for me to stay current and legal by scheduling an IPC every 6 months.

I get the benefit of doing unusual attitudes (something hard to practice in actual), failed instruments and to challenge my knowledge of the regs. Not to mention the clipboard to the side of the head for the bad habits I have picked up.

[Danb]

Chris in that tone thats why you and I need to get out together when it warms up

Dan

[FloridaMan]

I find that traveling away from the sun about an hour before sunrise or an hour after sunset puts you in absolutely pure IMC. Light pollution from behind causes your eyes to adjust just enough to not be able to see in the darkness in front of you at all and you find yourself looking into absolute nothingness. 

[midlifeflyer]

I believe Dave nailed it....yes

They key is

 

"Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions.

 

If the pilot needs  the instruments to keep the shiny side up, it's "actual." That's the pilot's decision to make subject to some pretty basic cautions (like if a pilot always seem to need the instruments in visual conditions, maybe he actually needs some more training) .

 

Notar, I share your concern that it was not loggable by you since you say that the only reason you needed the instruments anywhere along the approach was for navigation. I would not have logged it under those circumstances because I don't think navigation is what that interpretation means by  "adequate control of the aircraft."

[AndyFromCB]

And all this discussion about when, how, where, who, what, why to log an approach drove me to the decision that it is easier for me to stay current and legal by scheduling an IPC every 6 months.

I get the benefit of doing unusual attitudes (something hard to practice in actual), failed instruments and to challenge my knowledge of the regs. Not to mention the clipboard to the side of the head for the bad habits I have picked up.

 

I agree. An IPC every 6 months whether you need it or not, is a great idea. If find that that training every 6 months or so makes for much more precise flying anyway. That's what the best corporate crews do and this way one is current enough to learn something new each time instead of just playing catch up. We don't fly enough as it is, at least most of us do not, so I really enjoy scheduling an IPC and then spending a couple of short flights preparing for it. My goal is to always find most messed up approaches around here, that really make you work, like non runway aligned timed VORs or VOR DME arcs and fly them without the moving map or geo referenced plates. Good workout like that makes flying my next ILS a piece of cake.

[AndyFromCB]

I find that traveling away from the sun about an hour before sunrise or an hour after sunset puts you in absolutely pure IMC. Light pollution from behind causes your eyes to adjust just enough to not be able to see in the darkness in front of you at all and you find yourself looking into absolute nothingness. 

 

Try flying around harvest time in the mid-west. Many a time I've taken off in what looks like perfect VFR only to find myself more or less on gauges at 1000AGL if the sun hits the particles just right. I always turn my flight director on before take off anyway, pitched up 10 degrees or so, runway heading, and use it, VFR or IFR. A good habit to have.

[201er]

I find that traveling away from the sun about an hour before sunrise or an hour after sunset puts you in absolutely pure IMC. Light pollution from behind causes your eyes to adjust just enough to not be able to see in the darkness in front of you at all and you find yourself looking into absolute nothingness.

This certainly is not IMC if you have VFR visibility to left and right. However, if you cannot control the plane without sole refernce to the instruments, then you are in actual instrument conditions. The problem is that you are still in VMC and required to maintain visual separation with VFR aircraft.

[AndyFromCB]

This certainly is not IMC if you have VFR visibility to left and right. However, if you cannot control the plane without sole refernce to the instruments, then you are in actual instrument conditions. The problem is that you are still in VMC and required to maintain visual separation with VFR aircraft.

 

Big sky theory? I'm a big believer. Visual separation from aircraft not in traffic pattern or pointed out by ATC is wishful thinking.