Is an ASR approach the use of a "navigation system"?

nddons

nddons

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
13,304
Location
Waukesha County, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Stan
I'm doing my long IR XC on Saturday from Waukesha to La Crosse (which has three approaches with DME arcs) and returning through Madison. It looks like I have a good chance of actual IMC for this trip, which is exciting.

My CFII wants me to do an airport surveillance radar approach at Madison, as they are very helpful in accomodating ASR or no-gyro approaches, but we questioned whether an ASR approach meets the requirements under FAR Sec. 61.65(d)(iii), i.e. "Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems." In other words, is airport surveillance radar a "navigation system"?

We concluded it might not, so to be safe, for purposes of accomplishing my three different kinds of approaches, we will be doing a "regular" instrument approach there, and save the ASR approach for a different day or an extra approach for this flight.

What say you?
 
nddons said:
I'm doing my long IR XC on Saturday from Waukesha to La Crosse (which has three approaches with DME arcs) and returning through Madison. It looks like I have a good chance of actual IMC for this trip, which is exciting.

My CFII wants me to do an airport surveillance radar approach at Madison, as they are very helpful in accomodating ASR or no-gyro approaches, but we questioned whether an ASR approach meets the requirements under FAR Sec. 61.65(d)(iii), i.e. "Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems." In other words, is airport surveillance radar a "navigation system"?

We concluded it might not, so to be safe, for purposes of accomplishing my three different kinds of approaches, we will be doing a "regular" instrument approach there, and save the ASR approach for a different day or an extra approach for this flight.

What say you?
Click to expand...

I say you'd be smart to not try to count it - I sure wouldn't consider an ASR a "navigation system." It's a person telling you what to do. I'd maybe do an ASR at Madison, followed by another approach (We have ILS's to 3 runways, RNAV(GPS) to 5 runways, VOR/DME to a few, VOR to 5... Another option would be a VOR, RNAV(GPS), or LOC into C29, many of those approaches start at the Madison VOR.)

Madison Approach is very accommodating when it comes to practice approaches, and they're generally happy to do an ASR as they have to do a certain number of them to stay current as well. In fact, when I filed an IFR flight plan stating "multiple practice approaches" to get some actual in, they asked me if I'd do an ASR for them! :yes: I'd never done one before, and it was pretty interesting. I have video of it somewhere, I'll have to throw it up on YouTube when I find it.

Have fun! :yes:
 
BTW, here's how the ASR will go:

The approach controller (on 135.45 if you're coming from LSE, unless you're going to runway 21 or 32) will vector you as if vectoring you for an ILS, and roughly at the point where they'd clear you for the ILS they'll have you "Contact Final Controller, 126.85." That controller will begin giving you a stream of "right of course, correcting, turn left 5 degrees" type of instructions.

Three other things will happen during this:

1) At some point early on in the game, they'll advise you to not acknowledge any further transmissions, so they can keep giving you corrections.

2) Another thing that they'll give you early on is your MDA, and they'll tell you when it's OK to descend to MDA.

3) They'll say "Tower advises you are cleared to land, runway xx."

The rest will be a fairly constant stream of position updates, corrections, etc. One thing that's a bit confusing at first is that they may give you something like "right of course, correcting" but not a turn - What that means is that on your current heading you are already correcting. They'll give you a turn when you're back on course.

Have fun!
 
Definitely No. It is not. A navigation system is a device on board the aircraft controlled by the pilot. Like a compass and a watch.;)
 
Off topic...

ASRs and PARs are the most fun approaches out there.

Unfortunately, PARs are very few and far between these days.
 
shooting from my hip I would say anything thats not a visual/contact approach counts...The ASR is a system...you just need a "middle man" i.e atc to use it...In my area PAR's/ASR's are often one of the approaches on the IR checkride
 
Last edited:
Also remember that the controllers need to do a minimum number of surveilance approaches to remain current as well. so they are not onnly fun, but you are also doing the controllers a favor. I've been asked if I wanted to do one by the controllers here in Madison one day while I was shooting practice approaches.
 
Also, when I shot an ASR approach at GRR, we found there was a Jeppessen approach plate for it (that's how we found out the approach existed in the first place), plus it has missed procedures, etc. I'm not sure why it wouldn't count - it's still a non-precision approach.
 
If you are in an area with ASR/PAR approaches the controllers like doing them for practice since they don't get used often.

Years ago while stationed at Atsugi NAF in Japan our Navy Flying Club would get request from Yokota AB to come up and do practice ASR/PAR for the controllers.
 
I don't see why an ASR doesn't count towards the six total, since the regs don't say the approaches themselves must include "intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems."

So I'd say that technically if you did a flight in simulated or actual conditions, and performed a hold, and did six ASRs you'd be good, because a hold includes intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems - it's hard to hold without it.
 
Flight Standards' position is that it is not -- it must be an on-board nav system. The issue has never been raised to the Legal folks. Therefore, if you present your log for an IR practical test with an ASR approach as one of your three approaches for the long IFR XC, and the examiner does what Flight Standards wants, the checkride will be postponed until you either refly the XC with only on-board nav systems, or the Chief Counsel says Flight Standards is wrong, and that takes a minimum of four months.
 
TMetzinger said:
I don't see why an ASR doesn't count towards the six total, since the regs don't say the approaches themselves must include "intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems."
Click to expand...
According to the guy who wrote that rule (I asked him myself one time), that highlighted language was added specifically to ensure that pilots who fly primarily in the military, where ASR/PAR approaches used to be the norm, did not maintain instrument currency for civilian instrument flying (where ASR/PAR approaches are rarely used) solely via ASR/PAR approaches. If you take this to the Chief Counsel, the first thing they're going to do is ask that guy what his intent was when writing that rule, and that's what he'll say. It may even say that in the preamble to either the NPRM or FR in which that requirement was first stated, which would seal the deal without further ado.
 
I believe you, Ron.

Before I go write the counsel's office, let me go check and see the last 61 FR - it should have been altered to fix that confusion. If not, then shame on him.

Edit: one minor change - now says "electronic" systems. So - three separate qualifications:
Six approaches
Holds
Intercept and Track courses through navigational electronic systems.

That to me still says that you could do six ASRs, but you'd have to use VOR/ADF/GPS to perform some course interception and tracking, and you'd have to do a hold.

Forget what you know his intent to be for a moment - do you agree with my logic?
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
I believe you, Ron.

Before I go write the counsel's office, let me go check and see the last 61 FR - it should have been altered to fix that confusion. If not, then shame on him.

Edit: one minor change - now says "electronic" systems. So - three separate qualifications:
Six approaches
Holds
Intercept and Track courses through navigational electronic systems.

That to me still says that you could do six ASRs, but you'd have to use VOR/ADF/GPS to perform some course interception and tracking, and you'd have to do a hold.

Forget what you know his intent to be for a moment - do you agree with my logic?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I got confused between the two issues -- the 61.65 long XC and the 61.57 instrument currency. It was the "interception and tracking" which was added to 61.57 because of the military's fondness for radar approaches -- they can do six PAR's and one VOR intercept/track and be covered for recent experience for PIC under IFR. It's the 61.65 long XC where you can't use ASR/PAR to fill the square.
 
Last edited:
nddons said:
Thanks, Pete, that will be helpful. Now what is this "Jepp" thing of which you speak? :D
Click to expand...

It is really expensive paper that is sent to you every 28 days, that could be bought in the FBO for $4.50 :D:devil:
 
Ron Levy said:
Sorry, I got confused between the two issues -- the 61.65 long XC and the 61.57 instrument currency. It was the "interception and tracking" which was added to 61.57 because of the military's fondness for radar approaches -- they can do six PAR's and one VOR intercept/track and be covered for recent experience for PIC under IFR. It's the 61.65 long XC where you can't use ASR/PAR to fill the square.
Click to expand...

Oh good! Now I don't have to write another WTF? letter to the Chief Counsel.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Have fun! :yes:
Click to expand...

That I did!

We never did an ASR approach, but on a 4.1 hour flight, I got 3.0 hours of actual and 0.7 hours of simulated.

Two days before, I planned on flying at 8,000 ft. One day before, in my outlook briefing, I noticed that the freezing levels were around 6,000 ft. On the morning of the flight, I woke up to an airmet for icing from 4,000 ft to 12,000 ft over our route. I also noticed a trough coming through Wisconsin, and was concerned that the icing layer would stick around for a while. I was right.

So, I filed for 4,000 ft. We took off into an 800 ft overcast, and was in the soup for most of the flight to La Crosse. We did get into some layers, but never got on top. Temps never fell below +2C. My approach into La Crosse was the VOR Rwy 36, and utilized a 14 DME arc. I broke out on final at about 1,000 AGL (MDA is 507 ft AGL), and landed. The best part? No hood on this IFR flight! My CFII wanted me to experience the flight as a "typical" use of the instrument rating, including breaking out a little above minumums.

After topping off fuel, we took off in rain, and flew to Madison. Approaching MSN, conditions were BKN022, so I donned the hood for that approach, the ILS 36. Immediately after landing, ground asked us to do a 180 turn on A5, and hold for our clearance to Waukesha. We were then cleared to cross 36 and take off on rwy 3.

Back in the soup, it was a quick flight to Waukesha. About 15 miles out, my CFII turned off Com 1 and Nav 1. Thanks a lot! Conditions were SCT013, so back on with the hood. I flew the LOC Rwy 10.

It was a great day. Some solid, continuous actual IMC; realistic approaches in IMC; good Wx decision making; and good radio work.
 
TMetzinger said:
Forget what you know his intent to be for a moment - do you agree with my logic?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with your logic. The logic of requiring any and all recency of experience is to maintain pilot proficiency. The logical intent of the requirement of 6 approaches in 6 months is to maintain a 'reasonable' level of proficiency in instrument approaches. Doing 6 ASR's to fill that block is not logical at all.

Now, if the intent of your reasoning is to 'find a loophole' and get out of doing the right reasonable logical thing in maintaining pilot proficiency - then you may be able to use the legal system to do that - is that you?
 
Well, if you follow the whole thread, you'll see that we did agree that 6 ASRs (along with a hold and nav tracking and intercepting) did meet the IFR PIC recency requirements. We were discussing what complied with the reg, not what was "advisable".

That said, I don't see the difference between doing 6 ASRs, or 6 ILS, or 6 Coupled LPV approaches. Proficiency takes different amounts of effort for everyone.

Now, when I do my quarterly proficiency flights, I mix up ILS, VOR, and GPS approaches. I do them at night under the hood or in actual, and I mix coupled and manual approaches, because I want to be fully exercised.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Also, when I shot an ASR approach at GRR, we found there was a Jeppessen approach plate for it (that's how we found out the approach existed in the first place), plus it has missed procedures, etc. I'm not sure why it wouldn't count - it's still a non-precision approach.
Click to expand...

When did you fly into GRR??
 
EdFred said:
When did you fly into GRR??
Click to expand...

About 15 months ago, when I was working on my instrument rating. I didn't realize until after returning that you lived in the area (this is back in the days before 6Y9).
 
timwinters said:
Off topic...

ASRs and PARs are the most fun approaches out there.

Unfortunately, PARs are very few and far between these days.
Click to expand...

Gray Army Airfield at Ft. Lewis still offers them. I'm sure my CFII and I will take advantage at some time in my IR training. Obviously just to a low approach. :yesnod:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top