"Counting" approaches in visual conditions with no foggles for currency - where does this idea come from?

RussR

RussR

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
5,219
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
Display Name
Russ
Home Airfield
OKC
Several times over my time as a CFII I have encountered people who log every approach they do, whether it's in actual IMC or simulated, OR EVEN completely VMC with no safety pilot and no view-limiting device. If they fly an "approach", even purely visually, they log it for IFR currency. I have even heard "but I don't have to wear the hood after I'm done with training".

Obviously this is incorrect. That's not what I'm asking.

Where does this idea come from? Like I said I've heard it several times and have had to conduct IPCs for pilots that, once you exclude all the "visual" instrument approaches were no longer even remotely current. The regulation is very clear about using a view-limiting device if not in "actual". It's one of the most clear regulations we have. Note that I'm not talking about "between layers" or "less than VFR cloud clearance under the ceiling" or "moonless night over the ocean" - type stuff. I'm talking "not a cloud in the sky, I loaded the approach and flew it (or let the autopilot fly it) while staring at the runway the whole time, and logged it as an "approach" for currency".

I felt my instrument training was adequate but not amazing, and I've never been confused on this issue. Neither are most people in my experience. But clearly some are. So where does this idea come from? Are there actually CFII's out there teaching it this way?
 
My guess is it’s a combination of willful ignorance and a couple of the hazardous attitudes.

My second guess is motivating factors where a pilot only plans to “use” an instrument rating to bust through a layer on takeoff so instead of doing the right thing, they just pencil whip it so their conscience is clean when they file that IFR flight plan.
 
TCABM said:
so instead of doing the right thing, they just pencil whip it so their conscience is clean when they file that IFR flight plan.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how those two can be true at the same time.

To me, it just comes down to arrogance, which this industry has plenty of.
 
I've heard it for decades. Have even discussed it with specific pilots. So far none in the "I don't care" or "pencil-whip" mentality. Just ignorance. My takeaway: the idea is there because pilots don't read regulations, let along ACs and other guidance material. They learn paraphrasing and mnemonics (yes that's the real reason I hate most of them*).

And well, they did fly an approach, didn't they?
 
Remember the old saying log what you need fly what you want. May work untill you get into actual.
 
What? Next you will try and tell me Santa Claus isn't real.
 
RussR said:
Several times over my time as a CFII I have encountered people who log every approach they do, whether it's in actual IMC or simulated, OR EVEN completely VMC with no safety pilot and no view-limiting device. If they fly an "approach", even purely visually, they log it for IFR currency. I have even heard "but I don't have to wear the hood after I'm done with training".
Click to expand...
What's the limit for this? If I fly a full approach in clouds, but the weather is MVFR so I break out to VMC at a thousand feet do I not count it?
Does it only count if flight conditions are IFR?
 
They can log it all they want, but unless it is in simulated or actual conditions, it can't count for currency.
 
flyingron said:
They can log it all they want, but unless it is in simulated or actual conditions, it can't count for currency.
Click to expand...
Sure, they can log the approach, but they are prohibited from log it as instrument time.

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.
(3) For the purposes of logging instrument time to meet the recent instrument experience requirements of § 61.57(c) 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.
 
I bet they log touch and go landings as full stop landings. Their annual only took half a morning and a cup of coffee.

Aviation, for better or worse, is built on the honor system. There are probably a lot of shenanigans that go on that only ever discovered when something bad happens to get the FAA's attention.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I bet they log touch and go landings as full stop landings. Their annual only took half a morning and a cup of coffee.

Aviation, for better or worse, is built on the honor system. There are probably a lot of shenanigans that go on that only ever discovered when something bad happens to get the FAA's attention.
Click to expand...
I remember a conversation I had with a student pilot a long time ago. I can’t remember the details of what we were talking about, but he asked, “What’s to prevent someone from…?” I told him, “The honor system.”

If that ever breaks down, I don’t know how we come back from all the new ramp checks or whatever that will get thrown at us.
 
Approximately 9000 hours. Just under 400 actual and 354 logged approaches in the book.

I don’t always remember to put in the actual IMC but generally remember to log the approaches.

I logged more actual by percentage of flight time in the turboprops and pistons. Jets not so much. Anything much over 10% of total time is a lot, less and it’s likely forgot to log it.

My logbook has been a record for me to look back on more than anything else for a while now. The company tracks currency for me.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Approximately 9000 hours. Just under 400 actual and 354 logged approaches in the book.

I don’t always remember to put in the actual IMC but generally remember to log the approaches.

I logged more actual by percentage of flight time in the turboprops and pistons. Jets not so much. Anything much over 10% of total time is a lot, less and it’s likely forgot to log it.

My logbook has been a record for me to look back on more than anything else for a while now. The company tracks currency for me.
Click to expand...

Logging actual in a flight that varies from IMC to VMC is usually just an educated guess at best. I doubt anyone is tracking the minutes or tenths of an hour they are in a cloud versus not in a cloud.
 
Anthem said:
the honor system is kind of laughable. . we all want to believe that the pilots next to us are "honorable" or tell the truth. The reality is that they mostly arent. The honor system carries through everywhere - and there are many known pilots that are / should be medically disqualified to fly that are flying. . . or conveniently left off the medxpress because they didnt want to deal with the subsequent hassle.

You cant pick and choose where your honor system is applicable or not.
Click to expand...
But it’s nice to pretend it works. I’m not sure FAA wants any other system either.
 
You're 100% correct -- those pilots who fraudulently count approaches for currency are cheating the system.

I just wonder if that is manifest in the safety record in any way. In those accidents where an IFR-rated pilot (ETA: and 'current') loses control in IMC, has there been any effort to forensically audit their logs to see if lack of genuine currency was a factor? If airman logs an approach on XX day at YYY airport, and it turns out the weather was CAVU ±48 hrs. and there is no safety pilot mentioned in the log, well...
 
Last edited:
DJTorrente said:
You're 100% correct -- those pilots who fraudulently count approaches for currency are cheating the system.

I just wonder if that is manifest in the safety record in any way. In those accidents where an IFR-rated pilot loses control in IMC, has there been any effort to forensically audit their logs to see if lack of genuine currency was a factor? If airman logs an approach on XX day at YYY airport, and it turns out the weather was CAVU ±48 hrs. and there is no safety pilot mentioned in the log, well...
Click to expand...

I believe I have seen that noted somewhere before, that the FAA reviewed a pilot's logs and made the correlation, but I don't recall if it was a crash investigation or something other. But its like driving 5 mph over the speed limit, the odds of you getting caught and getting in trouble are low enough its an easy temptation.
 
I flew with a guy that said if he punched through a cloud, even if for just a few seconds, he put .2 actual in his book. I flew with another guy who supposedly had 3000 hours, I had my doubts. He was terrified of entering the clouds (he was PIC). His landings were, shall we say, less than great. Made several other claims of experience that I flat out didn't believe. But, since he had 3000 hours, insurance company just looked at numbers, he sat in the left seat. Could be the hours were real and he was just not that good, but I think the hours were b.s.
 
Wagondriver said:
I flew with a guy that said if he punched through a cloud, even if for just a few seconds, he put .2 actual in his book. I flew with another guy who supposedly had 3000 hours, I had my doubts. He was terrified of entering the clouds (he was PIC). His landings were, shall we say, less than great. Made several other claims of experience that I flat out didn't believe. But, since he had 3000 hours, insurance company just looked at numbers, he sat in the left seat. Could be the hours were real and he was just not that good, but I think the hours were b.s.
Click to expand...
I had a CFI who said, in broken conditions, log .1hr for every cloud you bust.:biggrin:
 
A lot of less-than-honorable stuff goes on out there. As a CFI, I've been asked on more than one occasion to sign off a flight review with no actual flight review given. Last person that asked for that is now dead from a fuel exhaustion crash. His last actual FR was 4 years prior to the crash. My first PPL student was caught flying solo in a twin Comanche he had purchased before he had the rating. He later went on the kill himself and another in a hold-my-beer stupid move in said Comanche. Plenty of people flying without a medical cert. They often justify it by only doing laps in the pattern. I suspect and hope that Basic Med has reduced this somewhat. I'm sure many of us here have been given VFR traffic by ATC on a very IFR day. Happens often in the LA basin.

More to the point re: foggles, I've lost track of how many Part 135 instrument check rides I've done. But on only one was I asked to use the foggles and then only for 1 approach.
 
Would an approach in say clear and 1 mile visibility count? I say yes.
 
Ultimately currency rules are for our own benefit. I imagine the commercial guys carrying passengers for a living fly enough that it's not an issue.

For those of us private pilot weekend warrior guys it's a bare minimum. I'm 100% legit and current right now but I'm not proficient enough to go fly approaches to minimums. Ultimately it's up to us to know our own limitations regs or no regs. I think the majority of us do a decent job of that, of course we know some won't but IMHO that's on them. I'm fine with it being an honor system.
 
cowman said:
Ultimately currency rules are for our own benefit. I imagine the commercial guys carrying passengers for a living fly enough that it's not an issue.

For those of us private pilot weekend warrior guys it's a bare minimum. I'm 100% legit and current right now but I'm not proficient enough to go fly approaches to minimums. Ultimately it's up to us to know our own limitations regs or no regs. I think the majority of us do a decent job of that, of course we know some won't but IMHO that's on them. I'm fine with it being an honor system.
Click to expand...
In South Florida it was always a struggle for actual approaches.
 
172andyou said:
What's the limit for this? If I fly a full approach in clouds, but the weather is MVFR so I break out to VMC at a thousand feet do I not count it?
Does it only count if flight conditions are IFR?
Click to expand...
As I think no one answered this and as an all knowing instrument student, I will answer this...:)

For logging approaches and currency, flight in IMC isn't relevant, it's the approach that matters. If you break out of the clouds after the Final Approach Fix, you can count it. Even if the rest of the way down is visual.
 
asicer said:
Are you operating the aircraft solely by reference to instruments?
Click to expand...
That's the thing that always got me thinking prior to starting IFR training. If everything else is on the honor system, why SHOULDN'T we log a solo instrument approach in VFR conditions? I swear I didn't look over the dash until minimums! *That's a joke for legal purposes*

But seriously, I was shocked when I finally learned what the currency requirements actually are if you follow them the way you're supposed to. Basically, for us weekenders you're relegated to IPCs as opposed to the actual instrument currencies. It's one of the reasons I put a pause on my IFR training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top