IFR three approach interpretation

Discussion in 'Pilot Training' started by luv2pilot, Nov 27, 2018.

  1. luv2pilot

    luv2pilot Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    Rosamond, Ca
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    luv2pilot
    So here is the issue, I show up for my 141 School end of course check ride today for my IR and was told I would only be able to complete the Oral part of the test because my long x-country did not meet the qualifications of requirement.

    So we depart IFR flight plan with the miles requirement met no issue. Here are the approaches:

    Depart KCMA- ILS 25 into KVIS full procedure with ARC
    Depart KVIS WEESL1 arrival for LOC8 @ KBUR
    Depart KBUR via the SID and shoot RNAV Y 26 at KCMA

    It was explained to me that this was not acceptable via the FAR's

    There's an FAA letter of interpretation1

    [A] pilot may choose any three of the following navigation systems:

    • Non-directional beacon (NDB)
    • Localizer-type directional aid (LDA)
    • Very high frequency omni-range station (VOR)
    • Global Positioning System (GPS)
    • Simplified Direction Facility (SDF)
    • Instrument landing system localizer (LOC)
    So I guess I am just super confused as to why this would be, what would you do without a GPS? Its a 1,500 hundred dollar mistake if so and should that really fall on me being a IFR student? Thoughts please.
     
  2. PPC1052

    PPC1052 En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    4,005
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    PPC
    I'm skeptical. What is the letter of interpretation? The FAR merely requires three different types of approaches. Nothing comes to mind why an ILS, LOC and a VOR wouldn't be ok. That's what I did during my training. Accordingly, an ILS, LOC, and a GPS seems fine to me.
     
  3. luv2pilot

    luv2pilot Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    Rosamond, Ca
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    luv2pilot
    Right FAR 61.65 only says three different approaches which I completed! Very frustrating to say the least!
     
  4. jaymark6655

    jaymark6655 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    256
    Location:
    Bedford, IN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    jaymark6655
    I haven't started instrument training yet but, I would fight this one. Do have to pay an additional fee to continue later? What do you do at this point, go to the FSDO?
     
  5. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    15,566
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    There should be any "interpretation" needed. If this is a 141 program, the requirements should be explicitly spelled out in the approved syllabus.
    If the syllabus reads as above, then that's what you have to do. However, the above specify navigation systems, NOT approach types. The part 61 just says different approach types using navigation systems. Notice where the word DIFFERENT appears.
     
    paflyer likes this.
  6. Wheels

    Wheels Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Fernandina Beach
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wheels
  7. frfly172

    frfly172 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    12,734
    Location:
    mass fla
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ron keating
    Looks like a serious communication problem between you and the school.
     
  8. luv2pilot

    luv2pilot Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    Rosamond, Ca
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    luv2pilot
    don't think that is the case but we will find out I'm looking into the syllabus but it's grey area I guess. Some have had issues and others not with the exact same thing as far as I can tell but needs to be clearly stated and school needs to clearly understand before they send you out on cross country knowing that this could possibly be an issue or not.... Needs to be this is what gets you through do that! DONE!
     
  9. Lando

    Lando Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 11, 2015
    Messages:
    107
    Location:
    NoDak
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Lando
    I’m confused. What exactly did they say is unacceptable?
     
  10. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,176
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Especially when the Part 141 instructor you were paying obviously didn’t know this either. If you paid for this training with a credit card, complete all your training and dispute the charge for the wasted XC. You paid for training meeting the requirements of the regulation and did not receive it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2018
  11. benyflyguy

    benyflyguy Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    913
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    benyflyguy
    What does your cfii have to say about it?
     
  12. ja_user

    ja_user Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Kixd
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Sam
    What does the part 141 approved course state?

    So let me get this right.. They said it didn't count because of your ILS? Because an ILS is to close to the LOC? But a LDA or SDF and a LOC would have been fine?
     
  13. ja_user

    ja_user Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Kixd
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Sam
    The punt to FSSO seemed pretty clear to me...

    Read the whole thing, mainly the 2nd paragraph. The original question was around ASR/PAR, which was found to be not Navigation based for the requirements of an IFR XC. The list of acceptable approaches was not mean to be all inclusive. Although I don't know how the hell they missed ILS with all that other crap.
     
  14. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    8,684
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    Agreed. The legal interpretation is that ASR/PAR is not a "navigation system" not that an ILS doesn't count.

    Sounds like either a 141 syllabus issue or a confusion between the 3 different "kinds of approaches" requirement for the cross country and the 3 different "systems" requirement for the checkride itself.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2018
  15. Grum.Man

    Grum.Man Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,012
    Location:
    Statesville NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Grum.Man
    What did they say was unacceptable, the ILS? The only argument I could see is that the ILS and LOC are very similar and could have substituted in a VOR approach instead. If you violated anything it could only be the 141 syllabus as what you did fits the requirement of the FAA.
     
  16. dtuuri

    dtuuri En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,839
    Location:
    Madison, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dtuuri
    An ILS uses a localizer for navigational course guidance. LOC is on the list.

    EDIT: The school seems to be saying the LOC and ILS are therefore redundant, you needed to do a third type of course guidance.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2018
  17. Juliet Hotel

    Juliet Hotel Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2018
    Messages:
    388
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Juliet Hotel
    I'd call the FSDO and get their input. If they agree that you have not met the requirements, speak with upper management at the school about the mistake they made and how exactly they intend to make it right with you and your checkbook.
     
  18. luvflyin

    luvflyin Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    5,498
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    You only used 2 of the navigation systems. GPS into CMA, localizer into VIS and BUR. You shoulda done a VOR Approach at one of them. Yeah, it could be hard to find three in some parts of the country if you didn’t have GPS. Not a lot of NDB’s left, I think there is just one SDF left in the US. LDA being listed as a different ‘navigation system’ isn’t making sense to me. LDA is a kind of Approach that uses an “Instrument landing system localizer (LOC).” After doing the ILS or LOC Rwy 8 to BUR you could have done the LDA-C to VNY and have used the same ‘navigation system.’ I don’t think the FAA’s letter of interpretation was saying exactly what it was meaning to say.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2018
    Ravioli and dtuuri like this.
  19. ja_user

    ja_user Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Kixd
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Sam
    ILS approaches are certainly not the same as a LOC. Just because the lateral navigation comes from the same type of source, doesn't mean they aren't a different type.
     
    paflyer and dmspilot like this.
  20. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    15,566
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    The "clarification" doesn't address the question. It only rules that PAR/ASR isn't a navigation system (which defies logic as well, but we're not going there). It doesn't change the fact that the regulation doesn't say "three different navigation systems". It says three different approaches using navigation systems. Someday, the FAA bastards will learn English and use it to write and interpret the regulations rather than making up bullpoop on the fly.
     
    dmspilot likes this.
  21. dtuuri

    dtuuri En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,839
    Location:
    Madison, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dtuuri
    You don't "navigate" via a glide slope.
     
  22. luvflyin

    luvflyin Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    5,498
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    Vertigate???
     
    Zeldman, Ravioli and dtuuri like this.
  23. dtuuri

    dtuuri En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,839
    Location:
    Madison, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dtuuri
    I don't see that. Quoting from the Glaser Letter, "...as it pertains to different kinds of approaches, i.e. three different kinds of navigation systems..."

    So, they mean the same.

    So reads the rule itself, "Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems...", i.e., "approaches with the use of navigation systems" as opposed to, say, "ASR".
     
  24. ja_user

    ja_user Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Kixd
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Sam
    You certainly do navigate and the glideslope it part of the approach, and it is different than a lot of Localizers with multiple steps downs. It is a different approach.

    The letter is about the ASR/PAR not requiring navigation.
     
  25. ja_user

    ja_user Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Kixd
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Sam
    Wouldn't you consider a Back-Course approach different as well, even though they didn't specify it in the letter? That list was not meant to be all inclusive, and this was clarified in the 2nd letter.
     
  26. dtuuri

    dtuuri En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,839
    Location:
    Madison, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dtuuri
    No, the Back Course is still using localizer guidance for navigation. The rule is requiring different "course guidance", or as they put it in the rule, "Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems."

    The LDA is specifically considered as a different system (think DCA), as is an SDF, and maybe the BC ought to be added to the list (I'd be in favor of it), but it isn't much different than a localizer to anybody with an HSI. We know all applicant airplanes have HSIs, right? That must be what the FAA was thinking. :)
     
  27. genna

    genna Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Messages:
    940
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ТУ-104
    Maybe it's the foreigner in me, but "Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems" reads to me any 3 different approaches(as in cannot do 2 ILS) that use any navigation system. If they wanted to specify 3 different navigation systems, it should state something like "Three different kinds of approaches each using a different navigation system."
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2018
    danhagan, dmspilot and Wheels like this.
  28. Wheels

    Wheels Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Fernandina Beach
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wheels
    Agreed, but that is the problem with asking lawyers who aren’t pilots to interpret the regulations. They assume that approaches using the same system must be the same type of approach. They don’t have any idea how the approaches actually work and can’t really make an educated interpretation.
     
  29. dtuuri

    dtuuri En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,839
    Location:
    Madison, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dtuuri
    How about, "...including VOR, ADF, and ILS approaches at different airports." That's how the rule read in 1980.
     
  30. Ravioli

    Ravioli Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,701
    Location:
    Fort Worth
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pasta Man
    Am I confused on this? I thought doing a LOC (non-precision), ILS (precision) and RNAV is three different approaches, even if you fly them all to the same runway, using the correct rules for each.

    Are we saying that IF the ILS is sending vertical guidance but we're only flying the LOC we are "cheating"?
     
  31. Wheels

    Wheels Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Fernandina Beach
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wheels
    That is how most pilots interpret it, the lawyers at the FAA decided that it meant that it had to be 3 approaches using different navigation systems. Since the ILS and LOC both use the same system the lawyers think they are the same kind of approach.
     
  32. PPC1052

    PPC1052 En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    4,005
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    PPC
    I see no evidence that doing a LOC, ILS and an RNAV approach during your cross country would not satisfy the FAA's experience requirement.
     
  33. Ravioli

    Ravioli Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,701
    Location:
    Fort Worth
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pasta Man
    Wild. Since If I do the VOR-A approach I'm using the exact same NAV radio and CDI I would on the ILS/LOC.
     
  34. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,176
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Isn’t a glide slope transmitter just a localizer with a smaller spread rotated 90 degrees?
     
  35. ja_user

    ja_user Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Kixd
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Sam
    It is very common that an interpretation comes out, and then another come out to clarify it. The 2nd one clarifies that the initial interpretation did note contain an all inclusive list, and was limited in scope to the question anyway. The initial question was ASR/PAR related....
     
  36. dtuuri

    dtuuri En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,839
    Location:
    Madison, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dtuuri
    In an historical context, before RNAV/GPS, they wanted VOR, ADF and ILS approaches at three different airports. Then they rewrote the rule to include other navigation forms and specified them by name in the Glaser Letter as the state of the art existed at the time. The common denominator is lateral course guidance, historically and at the time of Glaser. Would the FAA, today, allow a LOC and ILS to count as two of the three? Not in my view of how they're thinking. They haven't seemed, in the past, to want localizer specialists or VOR specialists or ADF specialists, they want some minimum breadth of experience and that is at least three types. But, hey, write the Chief Counsel, YMMV.
     
  37. dtuuri

    dtuuri En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,839
    Location:
    Madison, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dtuuri
    Yep, but how did you find it?
     
  38. jaymark6655

    jaymark6655 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    256
    Location:
    Bedford, IN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    jaymark6655
    Maybe, but they shouldn't hold to something they are thinking but isn't writting unless mindreading is now a requirment.
     
  39. James331

    James331 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    17,789
    Location:
    Behind you!
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James331
    Ether way it’s not your problem, their DPE and their CFI all working for their company, ether you are good to go and take your test, or the school gives you another cross country on their dime.
     
  40. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,176
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    In the olden days you found it just like the LOC, just flew to the compass locator.