Would these VFR practice approaches be loggable for currency?

[midlifeflyer]

So let's take the thought experiment a step further. Attitude indicators are not required for VFR flight. Would you fly/log an instrument approach under the hood without any attitude reference?

Absolutely. Are you suggesting it is not?

I have no doubt whatsoever that a partial panel approach is loggable. It is both a required training requirement and a instrument PTS task, including for an IPC (none of which, of course, applies to an iPad).

And, without question, if I had a portable AHRS on board, I would use it to assist.

 

[Henning]

So let's take the thought experiment a step further. Attitude indicators are not required for VFR flight. Would you fly/log an instrument approach under the hood without any attitude reference? What if you had a non-certified replacement (Stratus)? Why or why not?

Hell yes, do it all the time, I try to make 25% of my practice approaches partial panel.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Here is the question I would ask myself: "If I can't legally use the ipad/stratus combo out in the system, why would I be able to use it to stay current?" Now lets say you get in an accident on an IFR flight plan and they want to check your logbook for currency, is anyone really going to be able to tell if you were using the ILS CDI or your ipad, probably not. But if you are literally down to having to use those approaches to count for currency you might as well not even do them at all and just log em. I have heard this float around the FBO numerous times: "Fly what you can, log what you need"

In a nutshell: I wouldn't log them. I am not demonstrating my true instrument flying abilities using it. If the FAA is making me stay current for my own safety and the safety of other, I am going to do it the hard way. Don't cheat yourself.

I agree with you that the bottom line is proficency, but I would also point out that "currency" is checking a bunch of regulatory boxes and is not co-extensive with proficiency.

Your comment about the iPad "not demonstrating my true instrument flying abilities using it" can be applied just as easily to flying coupled approaches or hand-flying the same approach to your home airport again and again and again. OTOH, thinking on it a little, strictly from a safety standpoint, one could easily say that the pilot who has logged 1 or 2 out of 6 approaches successfully flown by hand with an iPad simulating an on-board system failure is demonstrating his true instrument flying abilities than Kid Autopilot who hasn't hand-flow an approach in two years.

I used to use a tagline it might be time to revive:
Log for currency, fly for proficiency, and pray you never confuse the two.

 

[Palmpilot]

So let's take the thought experiment a step further. Attitude indicators are not required for VFR flight. Would you fly/log an instrument approach under the hood without any attitude reference?

No, because it wouldn't work. If you somehow made it through the approach, I don't think it would be legal to log it because the regulation requires you to do it solely by reference to instruments, and I don't think luck meets that test.

What if you had a non-certified replacement (Stratus)? Why or why not?

If it works well enough to allow the approach to be flown successfully, I wouldn't hesitate to use it for some of my practice approaches - perhaps up to a quarter of them. Practicing emergency procedures has value. I'm not aware of any regulations that would be violated by logging them.

 

[Palmpilot]

Absolutely. Are you suggesting it is not?

I have no doubt whatsoever that a partial panel approach is loggable. It is both a required training requirement and a instrument PTS task, including for an IPC (none of which, of course, applies to an iPad).

And, without question, if I had a portable AHRS on board, I would use it to assist.

I interpreted his phrase "without any attitude reference" as excluding even the partial panel instruments that one would use to infer attitude, but perhaps I was mistaken.

 

[Henning]

No, because it wouldn't work. If you somehow made it through the approach, I don't think it would be legal to log it because the regulation requires you to do it solely by reference to instruments, and I don't think luck meets that test.

What does luck have to do with a successful partial panel or no gyro approach?

 

[EdFred]

So let's take the thought experiment a step further. Attitude indicators are not required for VFR flight. Would you fly/log an instrument approach under the hood without any attitude reference? What if you had a non-certified replacement (Stratus)? Why or why not?

Yeah, it's called partial panel, and we did them - and logged them -in training.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Your comment about the iPad "not demonstrating my true instrument flying abilities using it" can be applied just as easily to flying coupled approaches or hand-flying the same approach to your home airport again and again and again. OTOH, thinking on it a little, strictly from a safety standpoint, one could easily say that the pilot who has logged 1 or 2 out of 6 approaches successfully flown by hand with an iPad simulating an on-board system failure is demonstrating his true instrument flying abilities than Kid Autopilot who hasn't hand-flow an approach in two years.

Very true

 

[Palmpilot]

What does luck have to do with a successful partial panel or no gyro approach?

Nothing. (See post #45.)

 

[Henning]

There is no downside to practicing anything, the worst that will happen is the realization that, "In an emergency, this will not cut it." The question here is, "can one apply it to currency REQUIREMENTS?" and for Pt 91, that's pretty much up to the individual to determine. Personally I don't train to minimum standards and try to manage some training issues into every flight I do unless all my pax are non pilot pax, but that is fairly rare. In a twin I typically make the end of every third flight or so a simulated OEI approach and landing, and if I am flying with another pilot I'll request an approach and put on the Foggles that live in the plane. If I have a new "just in case" platform, I'll practice a bit with it to determine the suitability, but I don't log it. I still do an IPC every 6 months if it's feasible and my CFI buddy does not make it easy on me by my request, "Be brutal", because experience has taught me when things start going wrong, reality is typically brutal.

Part 91 is all about the standards you want to hold yourself to, what you log is really irrelevant, legal does not make you safe, train to the standard you want to be at.

 

[Palmpilot]

Good advice.

 

[AustinPilot]

Yeah, it's called partial panel, and we did them - and logged them -in training.

And what standby instruments did you use? If they were any required for IFR but not VFR then return to step 1.

At the end of the day if you fly an approach marked "RNAV" then you have to have RNAV equipment. What seems to be in debate here is whether people can make up their own rules as to what is RNAV-capable because they are VFR.

Also, a no gyro approach is not the same as flying a published RNAV approach.

 

[Palmpilot]

And what standby instruments did you use? If they were any required for IFR but not VFR then return to step 1.

At the end of the day if you fly an approach marked "RNAV" then you have to have RNAV equipment. What seems to be in debate here is whether people can make up their own rules as to what is RNAV-capable because they are VFR.

What is in debate is which of us are making up their own rules.

 

[EdFred]

And what standby instruments did you use? If they were any required for IFR but not VFR then return to step 1.

At the end of the day if you fly an approach marked "RNAV" then you have to have RNAV equipment. What seems to be in debate here is whether people can make up their own rules as to what is RNAV-capable because they are VFR.

Also, a no gyro approach is not the same as flying a published RNAV approach.

Altimeter and HSI - as for the rest of your post I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I think you have trouble differentiating between VFR and IFR and what is required. There is nothing in the regulations about what is required equipment wise (other than VFR minima equip) to shoot a practice approach.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There is no downside to practicing anything, the worst that will happen is the realization that, "In an emergency, this will not cut it." The question here is, "can one apply it to currency REQUIREMENTS?" and for Pt 91, that's pretty much up to the individual to determine.

I agree 100% with the underlined portion. While I don't have a "legal" answer to the rest, as a practical matter, you are right. With very few exceptions, we are on the honor system and "1X ABC VOR-A" as a log entry tells the reader nothing about what equipment was used to track that VOR course.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Altimeter and HSI - as for the rest of your post I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

As far as I can tell, the point is that if you are NORDO partial panel in hard IMC and use that nice AHRS-driven EFB HSI page to successfully get yourself and your family down safely, while communicating with ATC on your Sporty's handheld, you are a bad person if you dare record the flight in your logbook as "actual," let alone for currency if they way you got down was by navigating the courses and bearings of a published approach.

 

[AustinPilot]

Altimeter and HSI - as for the rest of your post I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I think you have trouble differentiating between VFR and IFR and what is required. There is nothing in the regulations about what is required equipment wise (other than VFR minima equip) to shoot a practice approach.

Logging it for instrument currency is the question, not whether you can play around and practice it with an iPad. Nothing illegal about the latter. I don't believe you can log an RNAV approach when you don't have equipment approved for RNAV, or a VOR approach when you don't have a certified VOR receiver, but I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

 

[AustinPilot]

As far as I can tell, the point is that if you are NORDO partial panel in hard IMC and use that nice AHRS-driven EFB HSI page to successfully get yourself and your family down safely, while communicating with ATC on your Sporty's handheld, you are a bad person if you dare record the flight in your logbook as "actual," let alone for currency if they way you got down was by navigating the courses and bearings of a published approach.

The fact that everyone keeps bringing emergency scenarios into this makes me think they are not so confident in justifying this stuff under regular operations...

There's a little regulation that exempts you from all sorts of requirements in an emergency.

And if your first thought is to fly the whole approach so you can log it instead of following vectors to get the hell down then I feel bad for your family.

 

[EdFred]

Logging it for instrument currency is the question, not whether you can play around and practice it with an iPad. Nothing illegal about the latter. I don't believe you can log an RNAV approach when you don't have equipment approved for RNAV, or a VOR approach when you don't have a certified VOR receiver, but I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

What equipment do the regulations require when flying practice approaches under VFR? When you can provide that you will have a much better understanding. Until then, I can't help you much.

 

[Palmpilot]

The fact that everyone keeps bringing emergency scenarios into this makes me think they are not so confident in justifying this stuff under regular operations...

The question posed was not whether it is justified; the question was whether it is legal.

There are lots of regulations that are light on justification, IMO.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The fact that everyone keeps bringing emergency scenarios into this makes me think they are not so confident in justifying this stuff under regular operations...

There's a little regulation that exempts you from all sorts of requirements in an emergency.

And if your first thought is to fly the whole approach so you can log it instead of following vectors to get the hell down then I feel bad for your family.

I would feel sorry for anyone's family if a pilot thought about logging anything whatsoever while engaged in the act of flying an airplane.

But who said anything about flying a full approach? Or are you now saying that only full approaches are loggable for currency?

 

[midlifeflyer]

The question posed was not whether it is justified; the question was whether it is legal.

There are lots of regulations that are light on justification, IMO.

IMO, the emergency practice/justification question really only has one place in the discussion, as an example of the situations in which one might want an answer to the real question:

Does the 61.57(c) mandate for "six instrument approaches" require they be accomplished using the FAA-approved navigation equipment associated with the procedure, or is there enough leeway in the reg to allow for substitutions, so long as the procedure itself is followed?

We're talking about EFBs with navigation capability in this thread, but it might just as easily be an ASR type ("turn-stop turn") approach, someone calling out distances (or an uncertified GPS read) in lieu of DME to practice a DME arc (is the "skill" reading the numbers on the screen or staying within the parameters of them?), any number of other things.

I can easily see an answer either way; what I am enjoying is the folks who claim to have THE answer.

To add to the fun, I just have to point out that while 61.57(c)(1) simply requires "six instrument approaches," it gets more specific with some of the other currency requirements like, "Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems" (my emphasis). I would have a harder time arguing that anything other than a VOR to intercept or track a VOR would satisfy that one due to the more specific language.

 

[AustinPilot]

For what it's worth I realize I'm coming across as argumentative about it but I'm honestly enjoying the discussion. It's an interesting question and I'm keeping an open mind for alternative interpretations of the FARs.

 

[AustinPilot]

What equipment do the regulations require when flying practice approaches under VFR? When you can provide that you will have a much better understanding. Until then, I can't help you much.

Only the bare VFR minimum equipment is required! Which is not enough to fly nearly any instrument approach unless simulating an emergency or flying no-gyro approaches. VFR doesn't even require an adjustable altimeter! Good luck checking your minimums against the local altimeter setting.

To be clear, it's legal to practice flying an ILS under VFR using a compass and star chart but that doesn't mean I can log it as an "instrument approach" for currency. That is my viewpoint.

 

[Palmpilot]

IMO, the emergency practice/justification question really only has one place in the discussion, as an example of the situations in which one might want an answer to the real question:

Does the 61.57(c) mandate for "six instrument approaches" require they be accomplished using the FAA-approved navigation equipment associated with the procedure, or is there enough leeway in the reg to allow for substitutions, so long as the procedure itself is followed?

We're talking about EFBs with navigation capability in this thread, but it might just as easily be an ASR type ("turn-stop turn") approach, someone calling out distances (or an uncertified GPS read) in lieu of DME to practice a DME arc (is the "skill" reading the numbers on the screen or staying within the parameters of them?), any number of other things.

I can easily see an answer either way; what I am enjoying is the folks who claim to have THE answer.

I think everyone is just expressing their opinions. It's an interesting question to think about.

To add to the fun, I just have to point out that while 61.57(c)(1) simply requires "six instrument approaches," it gets more specific with some of the other currency requirements line, "Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems" (my emphasis). I would have a harder time arguing that anything other than a VOR to intercept or track a VOR would satisfy that one due to the more specific language.

What about the situations where FAA guidance for IFR operations allows substituting an IFR-certified GPS receiver for conventional navaids? Would logging interception and tracking be legal in those cases? Perhaps the answer to that would also apply when substituting non-certified GPS equipment under visual flight rules.

 

[EdFred]

Only the bare VFR minimum equipment is required! Which is not enough to fly nearly any instrument approach unless simulating an emergency or flying no-gyro approaches. VFR doesn't even require an adjustable altimeter! Good luck checking your minimums against the local altimeter setting.

To be clear, it's legal to practice flying an ILS under VFR using a compass and star chart but that doesn't mean I can log it as an "instrument approach" for currency. That is my viewpoint.

True. But as Richard quoted it says " through the use of navigational electronic systems" not "certified and installed navigational electronic systems."

Sort of like the regulation change they made years back to 61.3(a)(1) from "possession" to "physical possession" meaning it must be carried on the person or in the plane.

61.57 doesn't say certified and installed. IF they wanted it to be certified and installed equipment, then the regulation would say certified and installed equipment.

 

[Palmpilot]

Only the bare VFR minimum equipment is required! Which is not enough to fly nearly any instrument approach unless simulating an emergency or flying no-gyro approaches. VFR doesn't even require an adjustable altimeter! Good luck checking your minimums against the local altimeter setting.

I would say that if you don't have some means of performing the applicable tasks on the approach plate, including staying above the minimum altitudes, then you haven't performed the approach.

To be clear, it's legal to practice flying an ILS under VFR using a compass and star chart but that doesn't mean I can log it as an "instrument approach" for currency. That is my viewpoint.

Logging in that scenario would be ruled out by the test I proposed in post #15:

"I think the issue is whether you're using equipment that receives and displays the signals that are specified on the approach plate."​

 

[AustinPilot]

I would say that if you don't have some means of performing the applicable tasks on the approach plate, including staying above the minimum altitudes, then you haven't performed the approach.

Ah, but now we're just making reasonable assumptions again.

If anyone can find the regs that would require the use of equipment such as an altimeter to log a VFR practice approach then they might also be able to find whether it says anything about what "RNAV" means in that scenario.

 

[AustinPilot]

True. But as Richard quoted it says " through the use of navigational electronic systems" not "certified and installed navigational electronic systems."

Sort of like the regulation change they made years back to 61.3(a)(1) from "possession" to "physical possession" meaning it must be carried on the person or in the plane.

61.57 doesn't say certified and installed. IF they wanted it to be certified and installed equipment, then the regulation would say certified and installed equipment.

Actually I agree with you there. I think an iPad would count for the purposes of tracking or intercepting a course based on the regs. However that wording doesn't apply to the section regarding six instrument approaches.

 

[EdFred]

Actually I agree with you there. I think an iPad would count for the purposes of tracking or intercepting a course based on the regs. However that wording doesn't apply to the section regarding six instrument approaches.

What wording?

61.57(c)
(1) Use of an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship for maintaining instrument experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate, for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device that involves having performed the following—
(i) Six instrument approaches.
(ii) Holding procedures and tasks.
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.

Where does it say anything about installed equipment?

 

[AustinPilot]

What wording?

Where does it say anything about installed equipment?

I was saying that "use of navigational electronic systems" only applies to the tracking/intercepting requirement.

 

[Palmpilot]

Ah, but now we're just making reasonable assumptions again.

If I were "just making reasonable assumptions," I wouldn't have needed to point out specific language in the regulations and AIM to support my opinions.

If anyone can find the regs that would require the use of equipment such as an altimeter to log a VFR practice approach then they might also be able to find whether it says anything about what "RNAV" means in that scenario.

I didn't mean to imply that you have to have an altimeter to log a VFR practice approach. I'm not aware of any prohibition on logging it when using the altitude readout of a WAAS-capable GPS, for example.

I believe the regs that would require some means of determining your altitude in order to log a VFR practice approach would include the following:

61.51 says you have to log time that is used to meet recency of experience requirements. 61.57(c) requires recent flight experience that includes performing instrument approaches. As you pointed out, 61.1 says that an instrument approach is a procedure defined in part 97. Part 97 says that the approach procedures are incorporated by reference. Approach procedures specify minimum altitudes.

The only definition I've found for RNAV is in the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

RNAV−

(See AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV).)​

RNAV APPROACH− An instrument approach
procedure which relies on aircraft area navigation
equipment for navigational guidance.

(See AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV).)
(See INSTRUMENT APPROACH
PROCEDURE.)​

AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV)− A method of
navigation which permits aircraft operation on any
desired flight path within the coverage of ground− or
space−based navigation aids or within the limits of
the capability of self-contained aids, or a combination
of these.

Note: Area navigation includes performance−
based navigation as well as other operations that
do not meet the definition of performance−based
navigation.​

​

I don't see anything in there requiring IFR certification of RNAV equipment used in VFR practice approaches.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What about the situations where FAA guidance for IFR operations allows substituting an IFR-certified GPS receiver for conventional navaids? Would logging interception and tracking be legal in those cases? Perhaps the answer to that would also apply when substituting non-certified GPS equipment under visual flight rules.

I didn't mean to automatically exclude an FAA-recognized substitute and perhaps should have said "anything other than a VOR, or officially-recognized substitute, to intercept or track a VOR.

So, yeah, for the purpose intercepting an tracking a VOR, certified GPS would be fine.

But I would still personally read "appropriate certified" into "through the use of navigational electronic systems" a lot faster than I would into "performing an approach" for currency purpose, although I see some have the exact opposite view.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The only definition I've found for RNAV is in the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

RNAV−

(See AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV).)​

RNAV APPROACH− An instrument approach
procedure which relies on aircraft area navigation
equipment for navigational guidance.

(See AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV).)
(See INSTRUMENT APPROACH
PROCEDURE.)​

AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV)− A method of
navigation which permits aircraft operation on any
desired flight path within the coverage of ground− or
space−based navigation aids or within the limits of
the capability of self-contained aids, or a combination
of these.

Note: Area navigation includes performance−
based navigation as well as other operations that
do not meet the definition of performance−based
navigation.​

​

I don't see anything in there requiring IFR certification of RNAV equipment used in VFR practice approaches.

There is one in FAR 1.1

==============================
Suitable RNAV system is an RNAV system that meets the required performance established for a type of operation, e.g. IFR; and is suitable for operation over the route to be flown in terms of any performance criteria (including accuracy) established by the air navigation service provider for certain routes (e.g. oceanic, ATS routes, and IAPs). An RNAV system's suitability is dependent upon the availability of ground and/or satellite navigation aids that are needed to meet any route performance criteria that may be prescribed in route specifications to navigate the aircraft along the route to be flown. Information on suitable RNAV systems is published in FAA guidance material.
==============================

Still doesn't necessarily answer your point about whether there is a requirement for a "suitable RNAV system" when practicing under VFR (though my personal answer doesn't depend on whether the instrument task is being done under VFR or IFR)

 

[Palmpilot]

There is one in FAR 1.1

==============================
Suitable RNAV system is an RNAV system that meets the required performance established for a type of operation, e.g. IFR; and is suitable for operation over the route to be flown in terms of any performance criteria (including accuracy) established by the air navigation service provider for certain routes (e.g. oceanic, ATS routes, and IAPs). An RNAV system's suitability is dependent upon the availability of ground and/or satellite navigation aids that are needed to meet any route performance criteria that may be prescribed in route specifications to navigate the aircraft along the route to be flown. Information on suitable RNAV systems is published in FAA guidance material.
==============================

Still doesn't necessarily answer your point about whether there is a requirement for a "suitable RNAV system" when practicing under VFR (though my personal answer doesn't depend on whether the instrument task is being done under VFR or IFR)

I thought about that definition, but the way it's worded implies that whether that type of equipment is required for a particular type of operation is specified elsewhere.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I thought about that definition, but the way it's worded implies that whether that type of equipment is required for a particular type of operation is specified elsewhere.

I agree with you. I've taken the reference to "guidance material" to mean that the FAA was smart enough to realize that technology changes happen often enough that the formal regulatory process can't possibly keep up, so we need to look at Orders, ACs, the AIM and other "non-regulatory" documents.

But that doesn't mean there aren't requirements for proper equipment; just that they are specified somewhere other than in the FAR.

 

[EdFred]

I agree with you. I've taken the reference to "guidance material" to mean that the FAA was smart enough to realize that technology changes happen often enough that the formal regulatory process can't possibly keep up, so we need to look at Orders, ACs, the AIM and other "non-regulatory" documents.

But that doesn't mean there aren't requirements for proper equipment; just that they are specified somewhere other than in the FAR.

But it's called an *cough* advisory *cough* circular.

 

[petrolero]

Here is the question I would ask myself: "If I can't legally use the ipad/stratus combo out in the system, why would I be able to use it to stay current?" Now lets say you get in an accident on an IFR flight plan and they want to check your logbook for currency, is anyone really going to be able to tell if you were using the ILS CDI or your ipad, probably not. But if you are literally down to having to use those approaches to count for currency you might as well not even do them at all and just log em. I have heard this float around the FBO numerous times: "Fly what you can, log what you need"

In a nutshell: I wouldn't log them. I am not demonstrating my true instrument flying abilities using it. If the FAA is making me stay current for my own safety and the safety of other, I am going to do it the hard way. Don't cheat yourself.

I disagree. He's practicing an emergency procedure, not doing something that he would use in the system. In an electrical failure it's totally an option and I think it's a great idea to practice with it so that a) you'll know how to do it, and b) you'll know the limitations.

If you have no electrics but you have an ipad with a WAAS GPS receiver on hand, why wouldn't you use it?

Can we not practice approaches with the Sporty's handheld ILS receiver either?

Makes no sense to say he can't log it. Nor does it make him less safe for doing so. In fact, I believe it makes him a better instrument pilot for practicing those things we hope will never happen. But if he does it to excess or because he wants to rent a cheaper airplane that is not properly equipped then I'd say it's a bad idea. But I didn't get that as the rationale from the OP.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

He's practicing an emergency procedure, not doing something that he would use in the system. In an electrical failure it's totally an option and I think it's a great idea to practice with it so that a) you'll know how to do it, and b) you'll know the limitations.

Absolutely it is an option and a great backup to have. Agreed it should be practiced. In an emergency I'm throwing the rule book out the window and using every available source I have to get down.

If you have no electrics but you have an ipad with a WAAS GPS receiver on hand, why wouldn't you use it?

As stated above, in an emergency you bet your a** I would.

Can we not practice approaches with the Sporty's handheld ILS receiver either?

Go right ahead

Makes no sense to say he can't log it. Nor does it make him less safe for doing so. In fact, I believe it makes him a better instrument pilot for practicing those things we hope will never happen. But if he does it to excess or because he wants to rent a cheaper airplane that is not properly equipped then I'd say it's a bad idea. But I didn't get that as the rationale from the OP.

I never said anything about his safety as a pilot. He can log whatever he wants. If he does a field sobriety test and passes, shoot I'd say he tracked centerline pretty dang good in actual conditions "mark it dude!"

Sure it is good to practice them in case of an emergency. The reg on logging approaches is pretty vague hence the reason a lot of people take the "rule of reason" approach to logging instrument currency. As Bob Gardner said, “You are the best judge of whether an approach has made you a more proficient instrument pilot or has just allowed you to fill a gap in your log.” If he wants to log those approaches for currency, go right ahead. I am saying that, I wouldn't do it. The ones I count for currency are gonna be done the old fashioned way. If I practiced with an ipad/stratus combo, they are gonna be done in addition to the ones done for currency.

 

[petrolero]

Absolutely it is an option and a great backup to have. Agreed it should be practiced. In an emergency I'm throwing the rule book out the window and using every available source I have to get down.


As stated above, in an emergency you bet your a** I would.


Go right ahead


I never said anything about his safety as a pilot. He can log whatever he wants. If he does a field sobriety test and passes, shoot I'd say he tracked centerline pretty dang good in actual conditions "mark it dude!"

Sure it is good to practice them in case of an emergency. The reg on logging approaches is pretty vague hence the reason a lot of people take the "rule of reason" approach to logging instrument currency. As Bob Gardner said, “You are the best judge of whether an approach has made you a more proficient instrument pilot or has just allowed you to fill a gap in your log.” If he wants to log those approaches for currency, go right ahead. I am saying that, I wouldn't do it. The ones I count for currency are gonna be done the old fashioned way. If I practiced with an ipad/stratus combo, they are gonna be done in addition to the ones done for currency.

Gotcha. Fair enough.