Logging Instrument Approaches toward currency.

[Mooneymite]

The subject of what constitutes "an approach" for IFR currency has stirred controversy in the past.  Maybe this has already been posted, but the FAA has recently issued an InFO laying it out in black and white.

 

InFO15012

[Oscar Avalle]

Thanks for sharing, really interesting...

[MooneyBob]

Are HOLDS still required?

[Deb]

Holds are not required to log an approach (nor is flying the missed approach procedure.) A hold is required to maintain currency but it does not have to be part of an approach.

[wishboneash]

1. Actual instrument flight conditions flown in an aircraft;

2. Simulated instrument flight conditions, using a view-limiting device, flown in an aircraft with a safety pilot;

3. Simulated instrument flight conditions conducted in any FAA approved: • Flight Simulator/Full Flight Simulator (FFS), 2 • Flight Training Device (FTD), 3 • Aviation Training Device (ATD), 4 or

4. A combination of methods 1 through 3 as prescribed by § 61.57(c)(4), or (5).

The question still remains about (1) - what duration of the approach has to be IMC? Start of the approach? To what minimums, etc. There must be another rule that defines what IMC is with regards to logging. Does punching through a layer qualify? I am asking about the logging issue not what is safe to maintain currency. 

[Deb]

1. Actual instrument flight conditions flown in an aircraft;

2. Simulated instrument flight conditions, using a view-limiting device, flown in an aircraft with a safety pilot;

3. Simulated instrument flight conditions conducted in any FAA approved: • Flight Simulator/Full Flight Simulator (FFS), 2 • Flight Training Device (FTD), 3 • Aviation Training Device (ATD), 4 or

4. A combination of methods 1 through 3 as prescribed by § 61.57(c)(4), or (5).

The question still remains about (1) - what duration of the approach has to be IMC? Start of the approach? To what minimums, etc. There must be another rule that defines what IMC is with regards to logging. Does punching through a layer qualify? I am asking about the logging issue not what is safe to maintain currency. 

Item 5 says you have to be in IMC until after the FAF. Here's their example:

"Example 1: An instrument-rated pilot, conducting a flight under an IFR clearance, approaches the destination airport, aligned with runway 33 and 17 miles out. ATC issues a clearance that states, “. . . cleared ILS runway (RWY) 33R approach as published, maintain 3000, advise when established.” The pilot operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, complies with the clearance, and continues in IMC—while remaining established as published on each required IAP segment. The aircraft descends past the final approach fix (FAF) as the pilot contacts the control tower and the aircraft transitions from IMC to visual metrological conditions (VMC) before reaching the DA. At this point, the pilot receives an ATC clearance to land; the pilot visually confirms runway environment assured and lands. In this example, the IAP complies with § 61.51(g)(3) and § 61.57(c); therefore, the pilot may log this IAP."

This is item 5:

"5) When conducted in an aircraft maneuvering in IMC, and the aircraft transitions from IMC to visual flight conditions on the final approach segment of the IAP prior to or upon reaching MDA or DA/DH."

It would seem that the approach until the final approach segment must be in IMC, whether flying the full approach or being vectored.

[Hank]

Wishbone, read the InFO. Your question is answered in detail on Pages 2 & 3.

Really good information, Gus!! Thanks!

[wishboneash]

Thanks for looking up the regs for me  - this certainly clarifies.

Edited September 22, 2015 by wishboneash

[Cruiser]

1. Actual instrument flight conditions flown in an aircraft;

2. Simulated instrument flight conditions, using a view-limiting device, flown in an aircraft with a safety pilot;

3. Simulated instrument flight conditions conducted in any FAA approved: • Flight Simulator/Full Flight Simulator (FFS), 2 • Flight Training Device (FTD), 3 • Aviation Training Device (ATD), 4 or

4. A combination of methods 1 through 3 as prescribed by § 61.57(c)(4), or (5).

The question still remains about (1) - what duration of the approach has to be IMC? Start of the approach? To what minimums, etc. There must be another rule that defines what IMC is with regards to logging. Does punching through a layer qualify? I am asking about the logging issue not what is safe to maintain currency. 

I think this: 

"When conducted in an aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device, the pilot must be established on each required segment of the IAP to the minimum descent altitude (MDA) or decision altitude/decision height (DA/DH)"

requires you to be in IMC past the FAF, which is the final segment of any approach.

and in the first example.

"The aircraft descends past the final approach fix (FAF) as the pilot contacts the control tower and the aircraft transitions from IMC to visual metrological conditions (VMC) before reaching the DA. At this point, the pilot receives an ATC clearance to land; the pilot visually confirms runway environment assured and lands. In this example, the IAP complies with § 61.51(g)(3) and § 61.57(c); therefore, the pilot may log this IAP. "

describes the "each required segment" portion completed in IMC. 

So my take on the requirement for "actual" is past the FAF before breaking out to "visual" and it is loggable.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Cruiser

[Hank]

Tom, I think the sections you quoted require the pilot to FLY all sections of the approach except the miss. For being in actual IMC, it says this:

The FAA does not require the ceiling to be at MDA or DA/DH during a flight in IMC. When an aircraft is flying an IAP in IMC, two outcomes are possible:

1. The aircraft will transition from IMC to visual meteorological conditions that allow a landing in accordance with § 91.175; or

2. The aircraft will remain in IMC and execute a missed approach at the missed approach point (MAP) or DA/DH.

In either case, a pilot may log the IAP.

My rule is simple:  If I am in IMC, or in the clear above the layer and descend into IMC, if I need the approach to find the airport, I log it. There have been times when I was setting up for an approach, descending on vectors, and broke into clear before getting established, and I did not log an approach for that flight, just my actual times.

[carusoam]

The list of flight training devices has become extended over the years to include lower cost devices.  Making it a bit more easy to acquire any additional approaches or holds that you were not able to get while flying.

I used to run into this situation where the weather was too nice before the FAF to count as an approach in IMC.  Most of my IFR flights would end with clouds 1000's of feet above ground. 

what would it cost to use a red bird type simulator with your local CFII for a set of approaches and holds, etc...?

Of course, I have helped other Mooney pilots collect a few approaches in VMC while they wear the view limiting device.  A side benefit of having a Mooney fly in maybe?

 

best regards,

-a-

 

Edited September 22, 2015 by carusoam

[1964-M20E]

Good information thanks

 

Again you are the judge of what goes into your log book.  If you are an active pilot flying often and what you have is not outrageous I do not think anyone will really question what is in your log book.  You need to be true to yourself as to weather or not in your own mind you meet the regulations and weather or not your are proficient and safe.

 

 

[Mooneymite]

....Again you are the judge of what goes into your log book.

There are some "logbooks" that read more like "Fogbooks"!  A casual perusal of some logbooks will expose an incredible talent for fiction.

But, it is true, "You are the judge of what goes into your logbook", just not the jury, too.

 

[Danb]

I have had a few instances as we all have been in mvfr conditions for the first segment of the approach,low clouds ,then hard Ifr say you break out 50 ft above DH, I've logged them, based on reading the above I wasn't in Ifr conditions for the first three segments...just segment two three and maybe the miss..these type of approaches are tough in that your only in Ifr conditions for the last 10 miles prior to landing or going missed

[wishboneash]

Wishbone, read the InFO. Your question is answered in detail on Pages 2 & 3.

Really good information, Gus!! Thanks!

Somehow when I loaded the link the first time, I only got the first page. No wonder! Something going with my browser loading pdf files. Thanks.

[Cruiser]

I am continually amazed as to how many different ways the English language can be interpreted.

 

[Cruiser]

will someone please re-read the InFO15012 and point out to me where it states an approach can be logged in an airplane when the conditions are NOT IMC. (simulated not included)

[Marauder]

I am continually amazed as to how many different ways the English language can be interpreted.

 

And no doubt the interpretations get more challenging when a lawyer gets involved.

[carqwik]

I did 1.4 hours in the Redbird Simulator today (at one of the training centers in Scottsdale).  This is the "sort of" motion simulator that allows log-able (sp?) time to count to your approaches.  Did three approaches and two holds at JFK...low ceiling and vis, xwinds, etc.  And flew about half that time with partial panel (no AI or DG)....

The instructor is a SimCom guy so he gave me some of the same stuff they put Citation pilots through....I really screwed up one hold on partial panel real bad but at least the plane was still in the air. 

The simulator is more difficult to fly than the airplane but you still go through all the same mental exercises.  I was really mentally spent after the time in the sim.

The point of my post though is that you can log approaches in the sim that count towards currency.  You can get a lot done in a short time frame - and really work on more difficult stuff that you probably won't do in your plane and encounter wx that normally you might not fly in.

[carusoam]

Part of my IFR training was done in a full size, but stationary 'Frasca' about six years ago.  The simulation does take some getting used to.

 

it was more similar to MSFS than a real bird.  But, I'm pretty good with the MSFS too...

time to go visit the local airport to see what they have to dust off some oxidation from my skills...

best regards,

-a-