Question about logging an approach

brywd

brywd

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
124
Location
San Jose, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Bryan
Okay this started out as a joke, but now I'm actually wondering about it.

I was with a friend in his plane which is the same as mine, albeit a different model year so I am current and rated, etc... We were flying to lunch and had to descend through a marine layer to land. After he was cleared for the approach and was established on the approach I asked him to "Give me the plane for a minute." (We were still above the layer) He did and I was sole manipulator of the controls for approx. 30 seconds, maybe a little longer before I gave it back. He asked afterwards what I was doing and I told him I needed the approach for currency and that now I could log it. We both laughed and that was the end of it.

Now a month or so later I'm wondering if this type of thing can be logged? I don't actually need it for currency, but I was sole manipulator on a GPS approach and I was rated and current at the time. What say you? Can more than one person log the same approach? I've seen the arguments on how 4 people can actually log PIC during the same flight, but never seen something like this kicked around. ???
 
That's a new one on me . . . Do you think you gained any proficiency in your 30 seconds of straight ahead, constant rate descent?

Never heard of two people each trying to log the same approach. You may as well try to log the whole flight. Good luck with "1/120th of an hour". :lol:
 
I vote no because during the time you were sole manipulator you were VMC and I assume not wearing a view limiting device. My interpretation of 61.57 indicates one of the two conditions has to exist before you can log it.

I think there would also be an argument as to whether flying only a portion of an approach constitutes meeting the intent of the currency requirement.
 
Last edited:
In a letter interpretation some time back, the FAA Chief Counsel said you must fly the approach all the way to the runway/MAP for it to count. You didn't do that, so you can't count it. Also, the only way more than one person can get credit for an approach is when an instrument instructor is giving training, and the trainee flies the approach in actual instrument conditions. In that situation, both the pilot flying (the trainee) and the instructor can log it for 61.57(c) currency. Otherwise, only the pilot flying can log the approach.
 
If you think 30 sec. Was good, just imagine what a full min. Would have done! WOW! If I asked that question , I would ask it very quietly, to an an instructor and not be surprised if he burst out laughing.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
If you think 30 sec. Was good, just imagine what a full min. Would have done! WOW! If I asked that question , I would ask it very quietly, to an an instructor and not be surprised if he burst out laughing.
Click to expand...

I usually won't do a full minute without an autopilot. You must be reckless... :D
 
Ron Levy said:
In a letter interpretation some time back, the FAA Chief Counsel said you must fly the approach all the way to the runway/MAP for it to count. You didn't do that, so you can't count it. Also, the only way more than one person can get credit for an approach is when an instrument instructor is giving training, and the trainee flies the approach in actual instrument conditions. In that situation, both the pilot flying (the trainee) and the instructor can log it for 61.57(c) currency. Otherwise, only the pilot flying can log the approach.
Click to expand...


Thanks Ron. Makes sense obviously but you can't blame a guy for trying.
 
Last edited:
brywd said:
Makes sense obviously but you can't blame a guy for trying.
Click to expand...
I don't think it make much sense but that is how the rule has been interpreted.

In over 23 years as an airline pilot I've only had a handful of approaches that would qualify even though I'm flying quite a few approaches keeping me proficient. Luckily, in an airline environment, our continuing training programs replace the requirement for maintaining currency through logged approaches.
 
Larry in TN said:
I don't think it make much sense but that is how the rule has been interpreted.
Click to expand...
Curious. Which part doesn't make sense to you? That you have to fly an approach from start to finish in order to log it or that an instructor can log a student approach flown in actual?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Curious. Which part doesn't make sense to you? That you have to fly an approach from start to finish in order to log it or that an instructor can log a student approach flown in actual?
Click to expand...
The part about flying all the way to DA/MAP in IMC. That almost never happens.
 
Larry in TN said:
The part about flying all the way to DA/MAP in IMC. That almost never happens.
Click to expand...

He didn't say the whole approach had to be in IMC. I thought only part of the approach between the IAF and the MAP had to be in IMC or the pilot must have been wearing a device to simulate IMC with an appropriate safety pilot to be logged. I've never heard anyone say that only an approach to minimums could be logged.
 
ChrisK said:
He didn't say the whole approach had to be in IMC. I thought only part of the approach between the IAF and the MAP had to be in IMC or the pilot must have been wearing a device to simulate IMC with an appropriate safety pilot to be logged. I've never heard anyone say that only an approach to minimums could be logged.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy will come along with more, but the latest guidance from the FAA on this states that it only counts if the approach is flown to minimums.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ron Levy will come along with more, but the latest guidance from the FAA on this states that it only counts if the approach is flown to minimums.
Click to expand...
While the Chief Counsel said the approach must be flown all the way, neither the Chief Counsel nor I ever said it must be flown in actual instrument conditions all that way. If you break out above mins but continue the approach, it counts. It's only when you break it off prior to the runway/MAP (we're talking about abandoning the approach -- a circle-to-land is not "breaking it off" in that context) that it doesn't count. There's also an exception when the approach must be stopped above MDA/DA for safety (e.g., a practice approach limited to 500 AGL due to personnel/equipment on the runway). Further, if you read the FAA Chief Counsel pronouncements on this, it's pretty clear that they carefully tiptoed around the point of how much of the approach must be in instrument conditions, and rightly so, since as Larry pointed out, 99% of approaches wouldn't count if they had to be flown all the way to MDA/DA in actual instrument conditions, and I'm very sure the FAA doesn't want that.
 
ChrisK said:
Nah. I was paraphrasing Ron Levy ;)
Click to expand...
You were close, but not quite there. While I have noted in the past that it is my personal practice not to log a non-simulated instrument approach unless some part of the final segment was under actual instrument conditions, the FAA Chief Counsel has never made that an explicit requirement. Thus, one can, within what the Chief Counsel has written, log an approach if any part was in actual instrument conditions as long as it was flown to the end of the approach.
 
Ron Levy said:
You were close, but not quite there. While I have noted in the past that it is my personal practice not to log a non-simulated instrument approach unless some part of the final segment was under actual instrument conditions, the FAA Chief Counsel has never made that an explicit requirement. Thus, one can, within what the Chief Counsel has written, log an approach if any part was in actual instrument conditions as long as it was flown to the end of the approach.
Click to expand...

I think it is difficult and verbose to use language precise enough to encompass the spirit of what you are trying to say, but I think the spirit is pretty clear nonetheless. Don't log an approach unless it included actual or simulated IMC and you completed it.

Seems like a good rule for me to follow.
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
The part about flying all the way to DA/MAP in IMC. That almost never happens.
Click to expand...

==============================
Second, you questioned how low a pilot must descend (i.e., minimum descent altitude or decision height or full stop landing) on the six instrument approaches he must log to meet the recent IFR experience requirements specified in FAR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) (14 CFR Sec. 61.57 (e)(1)(i)). You also asked if an instrument approach “counts” if only part of the approach is conducted in actual IFR conditions. [Quotation of the reg omitted and emphasis added]

For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e) (1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height.
==============================

Given the actual language of the opinion (rather than your or my or Ron's paraphrase), there's no doubt, especially since the "is partial enough" question was asked, the Chief Counsel opinion can be read to say that all of the approach must be in IMC. But most agree (1) on the "all the approach and part of it in IMC" reading and (2) it would not be wise to ask for a clarification.

I try to make sense of it in my FAQ, http://midlifeflight.com/flying-faq/faq-instrument-procedures-currency/
 
Last edited:
ChrisK said:
I think it is difficult and verbose to use language precise enough to encompass the spirit of what you are trying to say, but I think the spirit is pretty clear nonetheless. Don't log an approach unless it included actual or simulated IMC and you completed it.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
Seems like a good rule for me to follow.
Click to expand...
:yes:
 
hindsight2020 said:
fly what you want, log what you need? :D
Click to expand...
I won't argue with that in this context. I think we all know that mere compliance with the 61.57(c) minimum requirements will not guarantee true single pilot IFR proficiency, so at the end of the day it's really up to you to make sure you're prepared for the flight you plan including all reasonably foreseeable possibilities (including instrument/system failures). Do that, and the 61.57(c) requirements will probably take care of themselves. And I've never seen or heard of.a case where the FAA randomly checked somebody's logbook for this, nor brought a case against someone where this was the sole charge. With that in mind, these particular logging rules really aren't worth worrying much about.
 
I'm pretty much of the mindset of "did I really need the instruments to fly this approach?" if I was in IMC somewhere between the IAF and the MDA/DH. Coming down through a 200' layer where I had less than a minute of actual instrument, I haven't logged those, as I really didn't need the instruments to fly the approach. If I actually had to exercise a scan in order to fly it, I'll log it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Given the actual language of the opinion (rather than your or my or Ron's paraphrase), there's no doubt, especially since the "is partial enough" question was asked, the Chief Counsel opinion can be read to say that all of the approach must be in IMC. But most agree (1) on the "all the approach and part of it in IMC" reading and (2) it would not be wise to ask for a clarification.
Click to expand...
The way I read it he did not answer that part of the question very clearly but it seems to imply that the entire approach must be flown in instrument conditions (actual or simulated). I hope that Ron's interpretation is correct as it is much more reasonable.
 
Larry in TN said:
The way I read it he did not answer that part of the question very clearly but it seems to imply that the entire approach must be flown in instrument conditions (actual or simulated).
Click to expand...
The way I read it, the Chief Counsel very carefully avoided saying anything either way on that point (very deliberately, I think), and as for what "it seems to imply", I would quote the Bard -- "'Seems', Madam? I know not 'seems'".

I hope that Ron's interpretation is correct as it is much more reasonable.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, nobody's ever had a problem with the FAA over this point, and that interpretation has been around for several decades.
 
Ron Levy said:
The way I read it, the Chief Counsel very carefully avoided saying anything either way on that point (very deliberately, I think),
Click to expand...
It would have been better to specifically say they can't answer that question because it depends on a number of different situational factors than to specifically pose the question and then (maybe) say nothing about it.
 
Larry in TN said:
The way I read it he did not answer that part of the question very clearly but it seems to imply that the entire approach must be flown in instrument conditions (actual or simulated). I hope that Ron's interpretation is correct as it is much more reasonable.
Click to expand...
The read of the letter does not originate with Ron. It's been around for quite a while and is a view held by many.

Not only is it more reasonable, but if the letter means in IMC to MDA/DA, it's a standard that can almost never be met. Break out 1 foot above MDA/DA? Sorry. No countable approach.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
It would have been better to specifically say they can't answer that question because it depends on a number of different situational factors than to specifically pose the question and then (maybe) say nothing about it.
Click to expand...
My feeling is that they knew if they said something like that, somebody would make an issue of it and demanded elucidation on those other factors. The Chief Counsel's office in those days seemed to be a lot more aviation-wise than some of the young attorneys they have in there today, and in this case, I think they deliberately chose not to open what they recognized as a can full of very slimy worms.

In any event, given all the opportunities they've had to address this issue, it appears to be one the FAA (both the Chief Counsel and Flight Standards) do not want raised, and I'm 100% with them on that. Short of a string of instrument approach accidents involving questionable logging of approaches for recent experience, I neither expect nor want that to change, and I think (hope?) that none of us here would disagree.
 
Won't get a disagreement from me since I already said
But most agree (1) on the "all the approach and part of it in IMC" reading and (2) it would not be wise to ask for a clarification.
Click to expand...
 
IMHO it is between the OP and his conscience. I would not be very proud of a logbook record showing approaches that did not appreciably improve or reflect my proficiency.

Bob Gardner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top