Quick Question

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Display name:
Ben
On my last flight, I was cleared for an approach while in the soup. I intercepted the FAC while in the soup and was beginning the descent. I broke out before the FAF. Do I record this? I can't find the wording in the FARs. I know that this approach--whether or not I record it--doesn't add as much to proficiency as an approach to minimums, but I do want to know what to put in my logbook.

Thanks!
 
Ben,

I use Ron's method: IMC after FAF, log it. Otherwise, no. You'll have to get the explanation straight from the hors, uh, Ron's mouth but IIRC the "official" FAA guidance would only allow you to log an approach that you went missed on which is probably not what they really want. IMC after FAF at least makes some kind of sense.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ben,

I use Ron's method: IMC after FAF, log it. Otherwise, no. You'll have to get the explanation straight from the hors, uh, Ron's mouth but IIRC the "official" FAA guidance would only allow you to log an approach that you went missed on which is probably not what they really want. IMC after FAF at least makes some kind of sense.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's how I've been doing it. I definitely logged the time in IMC, but I didn't log the approach because I broke out before the FAF.

Of course, in the case of an ILS, glideslope intercept is the FAF, and I did intercept it in the clouds. When I say "FAF" here, I was thinking of the localizer's maltese cross.
 
spiderweb said:
On my last flight, I was cleared for an approach while in the soup. I intercepted the FAC while in the soup and was beginning the descent. I broke out before the FAF. Do I record this? I can't find the wording in the FARs. I know that this approach--whether or not I record it--doesn't add as much to proficiency as an approach to minimums, but I do want to know what to put in my logbook.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

If I'm IAF inbound on the approach in IMC, I log it as an approach.
 
One of the outcomes of the last discussion on this topic was we're supposed to use our best judgement. Even though the regulation is open to a lot of interpretation, we'd rather have the ability to decide whether to count an approach or not.

Personally, I think counting the approach probably changes some after gaining some experience. If I feel like didn't really "fly" the approach after the IAF I don't count it. If there's a FAF I will use that in my decision. I think it's good to set some requirements so that you can be consistent. In the end, we're counting approach so we and others have an idea of our compentency.
 
jdwatson said:
One of the outcomes of the last discussion on this topic was we're supposed to use our best judgement. Even though the regulation is open to a lot of interpretation, we'd rather have the ability to decide whether to count an approach or not.

Personally, I think counting the approach probably changes some after gaining some experience. If I feel like didn't really "fly" the approach after the IAF I don't count it. If there's a FAF I will use that in my decision. I think it's good to set some requirements so that you can be consistent. In the end, we're counting approach so we and others have an idea of our compentency.
Click to expand...

Not me, I just log for currency. I've probably got 1500 hrs that never made it into the logs.
 
The FAA guidance is as murky as a Chesapeake Bay summer day. My personal standard is to log it if I'm in IMC at any point on the final approach course. Where there's an FAF, that means inside the FAF. Where there's no FAF (e.g., one of those "out and back" approaches off a navaid on the airport), that means established in final after the PT. I have yet to find any FAA official who disagrees with my method. Some say it's overly restrictive (and suggest Henning's "inside the IAF" standard), but none have said it isn't strict enough.

Given that, I would not log for currency the approach described by Ben, but it does meet Henning's criteria. Beyond that, it's your logbook, Ben.
 
Henning said:
Not me, I just log for currency. I've probably got 1500 hrs that never made it into the logs.
Click to expand...

I hope that I'll *get* to log 1500hrs let alone have 1500 that didn't make into the books. What were the general circumstances of those approaches that never made into your logbook ?
 
Ron said that his personal standard was to log it if he is in IMC at any point on the final approach course. I certainly was. Additionally, on an ILS, I know the FAF is whenever you intercept the glideslope. Like I say above, I intercepted the glideslope in IMC (breaking out shortly thereafter), so I was also beyond the FAF. But just for fun, take a look at the approach, and read my description:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0609/05251I32.PDF

Here is what happened: I was cleared for the approach and vectored onto the FAC inside the FAF (CLADD) at an altitude of 3,100 feet. I intercepted the glideslope before CEDER, and followed it on down. I broke out at about 2,600 feet, before reaching COGAN (which would be the FAF for the LOC approach).

Bottom line: I guess I will log it, but it wasn't as challenging as a flight down to mins. I don't *need* the approach for currency, but it would be good to have a record of it if I may log it. I log at least five or six approaches per month--sometimes in IMC, but mostly under the hood, mostly partial panel, too.
 
Last edited:
spiderweb said:
Ron said that his personal standard was to log it if he is in IMC at any point on the final approach course. I certainly was. Additionally, on an ILS, I know the FAF is whenever you intercept the glideslope. Like I say above, I intercepted the glideslope in IMC (breaking out shortly thereafter), so I was also beyond the FAF. But just for fun, take a look at the approach, and read my description:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0609/05251I32.PDF

Here is what happened: I was cleared for the approach and vectored onto the FAC inside the FAF (CLADD) at an altitude of 3,100 feet. I intercepted the glideslope before CEDER, and followed it on down. I broke out at about 2,600 feet, before reaching COGAN (which would be the FAF for the LOC approach).

Bottom line: I guess I will log it, but it wasn't as challenging as a flight down to mins. I don't *need* the approach for currency, but it would be good to have a record of it if I may log it. I log at least five or six approaches per month--sometimes in IMC, but mostly under the hood, mostly partial panel, too.
Click to expand...

I'd log it. You need to be both legally current and practically competent. Sounds like you've got both covered.
 
jdwatson said:
I hope that I'll *get* to log 1500hrs let alone have 1500 that didn't make into the books. What were the general circumstances of those approaches that never made into your logbook ?
Click to expand...

All my approaches and IFR flights make it. Most of the 1500 unlogged is either pipeline or Ag. Once you have enough to meet insurance lowest rate, what does it matter? Who cares if you have 700 in a PA-12 or 1000? or 1500 in an Air Tractor or 2000? No one. I've got more than enough TT to sit an ATP, so after a 8-12+ hr day of bouncing around down on the deck, I sometimes can't be bothered to log it. I'm not heading for an airline and even if I was, I meet minimum time. So, I just log for currency. Now down here, I'm required to log every flight.
 
spiderweb said:
Ron said that his personal standard was to log it if he is in IMC at any point on the final approach course.
Click to expand...
Ron mistyped -- he meant final approach segment, not course (although the more lengthy description was accurate). By that standard, I would not log the approach under discussion because you broke out on the intermediate, not final, segment, even though you were on the final approach course.
 
Ron Levy said:
Ron mistyped -- he meant final approach segment, not course (although the more lengthy description was accurate). By that standard, I would not log the approach under discussion because you broke out on the intermediate, not final, segment, even though you were on the final approach course.
Click to expand...


I see. Question, though: If the FAF is glideslope intercept, and I intercepted the FAF while still in IMC, wouldn't I have been on the Final Approach Segment?

Again, this is really just academic, but I am still interested.

Thanks!
 
spiderweb said:
I see. Question, though: If the FAF is glideslope intercept, and I intercepted the FAF while still in IMC, wouldn't I have been on the Final Approach Segment?
Click to expand...

On this approach, wouldn't the FAF be the Maltese cross at the Cogan NDB?

Otherwise, you could ask ATC to vector you on at 5000 feet or something, which doesn't do much for you if you break out at 4500.
 
spiderweb said:
I see. Question, though: If the FAF is glideslope intercept, and I intercepted the FAF while still in IMC, wouldn't I have been on the Final Approach Segment?
Click to expand...
Yes. For an ILS, the FAF is wherever you intercept the GS, not the maltese cross, which is only the FAF for a LOC-only approach. If I'm still in the soup when I hit the GS, I log it for currency, regardless of whether that's before or after the maltese cross.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes. For an ILS, the FAF is wherever you intercept the GS, not the maltese cross, which is only the FAF for a LOC-only approach. If I'm still in the soup when I hit the GS, I log it for currency, regardless of whether that's before or after the maltese cross.
Click to expand...
Yay! Then I can log it, according to Ron Levy's standards!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
On this approach, wouldn't the FAF be the Maltese cross at the Cogan NDB?

Otherwise, you could ask ATC to vector you on at 5000 feet or something, which doesn't do much for you if you break out at 4500.
Click to expand...
Not on an ILS. It is my understanding that the FAF is whenever you intercept the glideslope. (That's also where you do your final power reduction, lower gear, flaps, etc.)
 
spiderweb said:
Not on an ILS. It is my understanding that the FAF is whenever you intercept the glideslope.
Click to expand...
That's correct.

(That's also where you do your final power reduction, lower gear, flaps, etc.)
Click to expand...
That's a matter of technique, not regulation. In fact, Peter Dogan's book specifically and strongly recommends configuring to gear down and approach flaps 3 minutes/5 miles outside the IAF during IR training. This moves the changes in configuration and power out to a point where you're not very busy, and reduces the number of things you have to do at GS intercept (or the FAF for NP approaches).

My experience as an instructor for PIC suggests this is a very good way to make IR training go faster and easier -- you can learn the fancy stuff after you get the rating. Approach may not like you slowing down at that point, but they're not the ones trying to pass the IR practical test, and the worst that can happen to them is spilling their coffee, not busting a checkride.
 
Thanks for clarifying my post. I knew that it wasn't regulation, of course. (For example, how would one lower a gear if it were fixed.)

I like the technique Dogan describes, for the reasons you describe. It is nice to have only one thing to do at the FAF. I learned both ways, but at BWI, of course, they prefer best speed as long as possible. In this case, regardless of type of approach, I keep best (reasonable) speed until around 1,000 AGL. This does make flying a glideslope harder, because I am trying to reduce speed while holding that needle. I won't do this in IMC; only during practice approaches. In IMC, I reduce to my final approach speed during the prelanding check, about three miles before the FAF.

Ron Levy said:
That's a matter of technique, not regulation. In fact, Peter Dogan's book specifically and strongly recommends configuring to gear down and approach flaps 3 minutes/5 miles outside the IAF during IR training. This moves the changes in configuration and power out to a point where you're not very busy, and reduces the number of things you have to do at GS intercept (or the FAF for NP approaches).

My experience as an instructor for PIC suggests this is a very good way to make IR training go faster and easier -- you can learn the fancy stuff after you get the rating. Approach may not like you slowing down at that point, but they're not the ones trying to pass the IR practical test, and the worst that can happen to them is spilling their coffee, not busting a checkride.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top