IMC definition for approach logging

[midlifeflyer]

I wonder about the pilot that turns off wind/turbulence/failures, turns on the G1000 syn-vis and programs the GFC700 VPTH.

I feel the same about the pilot who maintains currency by flying the local approaches they know like the back of their hand,

 

[Palmpilot]

Since when does "making sense" have anything to do with FAA regs?

The FAA guidance on this subject seems relatively sensible to me.

 

[Palmpilot]

I wonder about the pilot that turns off wind/turbulence/failures, turns on the G1000 syn-vis and programs the GFC700 VPTH.

When I'm using an ATD with that equipment, I alternate between hand-flying and using the GFC700.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Since when does "making sense" have anything to do with FAA regs?

Cop out.

 

[eman1200]

I feel the same about the pilot who maintains currency by flying the local approaches they know like the back of their hand,

RNAV 14 KAFP, HILPT, RNAV 32, HILPT, RNAV 14, HILPT, RNAV 32, HILPT, RNAV 14, HILPT, RNAV 32, home in time for dinner. boom.

 

[Matthew]

I feel the same about the pilot who maintains currency by flying the local approaches they know like the back of their hand,

That is one nice thing about the sim. You can pull up about any sort of approach there is. I did that a week or so ago, I “flew” a couple approaches to a place I’ve never been. There is an arc to a localizer back course not too far me, that’s one I need to get out and do for real. I think I’ve only done it once.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That is one nice thing about the sim. You can pull up about any sort of approach there is. I did that a week or so ago, I “flew” a couple approaches to a place I’ve never been. There is an arc to a localizer back course not too far me, that’s one I need to get out and do for real. I think I’ve only done it once.

The TOP LOC BC 31? Questions:
1. Would you ever fly it for real absent a GPS failure?
2. In that case, would you be able to fly the DME arc (do you have real DME?), or would you have to rely on radar?
3. Will you practice it the way you would really fly it?

 

[asicer]

When I'm using an ATD with that equipment, I alternate between hand-flying and using the GFC700.

I'll usually do one with the GFC700 but not all 6. For my situation, I find that's enough to keep the buttonology fresh.

And I keep the syn-vis turned off. That's just too big of a cheat for me personally.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'll usually do one with the GFC700 but not all 6. For my situation, I find that's enough to keep the buttonology fresh.

And I keep the syn-vis turned off. That's just too big of a cheat for me personally.

Since we have a choice, and that’s what I fly, I switch back and forth between the g1000 and six pack.

 

[Matthew]

The TOP LOC BC 31? Questions:
1. Would you ever fly it for real absent a GPS failure?
2. In that case, would you be able to fly the DME arc (do you have real DME?), or would you have to rely on radar?
3. Will you practice it the way you would really fly it?

That’s the one.

1) probably not. The RNAV is more efficient.

2) the rental I usually fly doesn’t have a real DME, although right this minute I wonder about that. I’ve flown in that approach as safety pilot and I remember we had to request the arc since ATC was just going to vector my pilot onto the localizer.

3) that’s an interesting question. Practice an approach that you’ll probably never choose in real life because it has several complications? Or do the one you would probably do anyway?

 

[asicer]

Since we have a choice, and that’s what I fly, I switch back and forth between the g1000 and six pack.

I do too, but given the state of the simulators available to me, it's not always by choice.

 

[MauleSkinner]

3) that’s an interesting question. Practice an approach that you’ll probably never choose in real life because it has several complications?

There are good reasons to do that, IMO…it gets you thinking about how an approach is structured and validates some things you maybe haven’t thought about for a while, like what a localizer needle deflection really means.

 

[Kritchlow]

The only real flying difference between any ILS approaches, is the missed.

 

[midlifeflyer]

3) that’s an interesting question. Practice an approach that you’ll probably never choose in real life because it has several complications? Or do the one you would probably do anyway

#3 is really a consolidation of the other two. With a GPS failure, you might well need that BC LOC. But in that case, unless you have real DME, you would not be able to fly the arc and would have to rely on ATC radar. if you have real DME, definitely practice the arc - without GPS backup. If you don’t have DME, then fly it with radar, also without GPS backup.

A BC flown purely “green needles” is a challenge, CDI or HSI, especially since you have to disregard any glideslope indications. Why not practice things the way you’d really fly them if you had to?

 

[Matthew]

There are good reasons to do that, IMO…it gets you thinking about how an approach is structured and validates some things you maybe haven’t thought about for a while, like what a localizer needle deflection really means.

Yeah. Mixing it up like that throws a lot of different things at you. Then you learn how to think through what the approach is doing and what the equipment is doing.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I do too, but given the state of the simulators available to me, it's not always by choice.

Our club has a Redbird TD2 - the non-motion desktop BATD, but we have both the g1000 and analog panels for it.

I always joke/curse about the fake G1000, but the analog panel has what might be the only KAP140 variant with native GPSS

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

The TOP LOC BC 31? Questions:
1. Would you ever fly it for real absent a GPS failure?
2. In that case, would you be able to fly the DME arc (do you have real DME?), or would you have to rely on radar?
3. Will you practice it the way you would really fly it?

For 17 years I flew a Bonanza without an IFR-certified GPS. Lots of LOC BC approaches at my home drome, Kalamazoo, and also Green Bay. DME arc approach at Central Wisconsin Airport (no longer published) and one or two others. Yes, the airplane had DME. I think arcs were easier to fly at high speeds in the T-38. Last one I flew was at Rhinelander, Wisconsin a few years ago. GPS in that airplane made it simple.

It seems to me that those skills are not common in this day of almost exclusively GPS navigation.

 

[asicer]

#3 is really a consolidation of the other two. With a GPS failure, you might well need that BC LOC. But in that case, unless you have real DME, you would not be able to fly the arc and would have to rely on ATC radar. if you have real DME, definitely practice the arc - without GPS backup. If you don’t have DME, then fly it with radar, also without GPS backup.

A BC flown purely “green needles” is a challenge, CDI or HSI, especially since you have to disregard any glideslope indications. Why not practice things the way you’d really fly them if you had to?

Funny you should mention that. There was one day where I booted up the sim, got the "Training Approved" popup and proceeded to configure the aircraft/airport/weather. After that was set up, I noticed the GPS was stuck on the previous airport and never updated to the new location. I checked the equipment page and nothing was set to fail, so I figured it must be a real software glitch somewhere in the sim. I sat there and thought about it for a second and reasoned that it would probably take longer to reboot this beast than it would for me to pick out a set of "green needle" approaches, not to mention that this would be good practice for the real world.

And if I recall correctly, I think one of them was a LOC BC.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'll usually do one with the GFC700 but not all 6. For my situation, I find that's enough to keep the buttonology fresh.

And I keep the syn-vis turned off. That's just too big of a cheat for me personally.

I do the same on the syn-vis, for the same reason, especially since many of the planes where I rent are not G1000 equipped.

 

[Matthew]

#3 is really a consolidation of the other two. With a GPS failure, you might well need that BC LOC. But in that case, unless you have real DME, you would not be able to fly the arc and would have to rely on ATC radar. if you have real DME, definitely practice the arc - without GPS backup. If you don’t have DME, then fly it with radar, also without GPS backup.

A BC flown purely “green needles” is a challenge, CDI or HSI, especially since you have to disregard any glideslope indications. Why not practice things the way you’d really fly them if you had to?

The sim I use doesn’t have an HSI. Doing an arc to a BC without a moving map is a good time.

I learned long enough ago that a 430 was rare. That was in my pre-instrument days. I did my IR last year, starting with a Dynon Skyview and then into a 650. The capability of these systems is really incredible. It’s important to know how to do an approach without all those aids, too.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Funny you should mention that.

One reason is that I had been giving it some thought for a while. We have a popular VOR/DME arc approach nearby - the only one left after the others were deleted. CFIs and DPEs would use it to satisfy ACS requirements, substituting GPS for DME. Permitted, but I thought it was stupid unless you had real DME. For a pilot without DME, i saw it as a check off a box approach with no benefit.

The instrument ACS that went into effect May 31 removes the requirement to use a ground-based navaid for any of the three required checkride/IPC approaches. (I talk about the changes in next month’s IFR Mag)

For many, the “hooray” is they don’t have to do a VOR approach (assuming they can find one nearby). For me, the bigger “hooray” is, we don’t have to create make believe green needle approaches we would not fly with GPS and could not fly without it. If we can, absolutely work those skills.

 

[Jim K]

I try to fly three approaches in actual every month. At least one hand- flown, at least one with simulated GPS failure. Beyond that, mixing it up with precision vs non, some coupled, some on the second cdi as if the gtn failed. Yes, I do still have a real DME.

In real life traveling with family, I think I've only ever flown coupled LPVs. I might've gotten vectors to an ILS once or twice. They're so easy and safe. It feels like cheating after doing the dme arc on green needles to a VOR approach for funsies.

 

[tsts4]

Our club has a Redbird TD2 - the non-motion desktop BATD, but we have both the g1000 and analog panels for it.

I always joke/curse about the fake G1000, but the analog panel has what might be the only KAP140 variant with native GPSS

I also have a TD2 but I only have the G1000 panel for it as glass (Non-Touch G3X with a GTN 650) is what I have in my own plane. Actual IMC that won't kill you in my part of Florida is exceedingly hard to come by and syncing up with a safety pilot became an exercise in frustration. Going the CFI route was not practical either for a variety of reasons. So I bit the bullet and bought the BATD and now can fly a logable simulated approach whenever I've got a few spare minutes--that convivence is priceless for me. The other options are still there if the opportunity presents itself but I don't have to chase after them for the sake of currency and/or proficiency.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It feels like cheating after doing the dme arc on green needles to a VOR approach for funsies.

Funny thing about DME arcs. When I worked on my instrument rating, the airplanes did not have DME, so I wasn’t taught how to fly one. When I moved to Colorado, the airplanes I had available had DME (I thought it was great) and there was an airport with arcs to two runways (and a restaurant ). So, while I had read about them, I was basically self taught. Tried that “turn 10, twist 10” nonsense once and thought it was ridiculous.

I put DME arcs in the same category I put holds - a very simple procedure we unnecessarily complicate by the way we teach it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

syncing up with a safety pilot became an exercise in frustration

I feel your pain. I got lucky. When we lived in Colorado, I met a guy at work. Also a pilot, we became close friends. We’d get together at least once every month after work, fly a few approaches each, then go out to dinner. Plus, since I was working in my CFII, I got to experiment on him

 

[Tarheelpilot]

The saying we have about our Redbird, “If you can fly the sim, you can fly anything.”

The control feedback is terrible. The GPS almost, but not quite simulates a Garmin. There’s a Bad Elf used to generate a Bluetooth gps output for your tablet. The BadElf has a BadHabit of losing connection so, more often than not, approaches have to be done without a georeferenced plate using a “gps” that doesn’t always sequence as expected. The approach is normally much easier than the missed where a lot of things are happening at the same time and the poor control feedback and lack of a moving map signal really makes you work.

I did a few sim approaches to a local airport, then did the real thing. The real thing was surprisingly easy after that sim session.

You have to fly approaches without a geo referenced approach plate???

OMG. How did you manage.

 

[Matthew]

You have to fly approaches without a geo referenced approach plate???

OMG. How did you manage.

It was like the stone age.

When the rwy was in sight I saw two 55 gal drums on fire acting as REILs and the local townspeople were lined up along the edges of the rwy shining their car headlights onto it.

It’s a really good sim.

 

[robin ardoin]

It was like the stone age.

When the rwy was in sight I saw two 55 gal drums on fire acting as REILs and the local townspeople were lined up along the edges of the rwy shining their car headlights onto it.

It’s a really good sim.

That right thar' is funny!

It reminds me of a story my father told me. When he was in high school (mid 1950's) he was flying a Tripacer from south Louisiana to a ranch in the Texas Hill Country that my grandfather leased for deer hunting. The rancher claimed there was a landing strip in a clearing on the top of a hill that had been used in the past. My grandfather had driven out there to the ranch and cleared some brush and some rocks to make sure the strip was useable. He lit a fire on the approach end and parked his Caddy at the opposite end with the headlights lit. My dad was traveling with his younger brother and a friend and were loaded down pretty good with their gear. He said it was a crystal clear day and could see the smoke plume from 20+ miles out even though the ground was getting dark. He spotted the car headlights and made a good landing stopping just short of grandpa's Cadillac. No problem on the landing but it cost them one day of hunting devoted to clearing enough rocks for the departure.

 

[Pinecone]

I've actually never flown a loggable simulator, but to me the challenge of IFR is ignoring the sensations your body is giving you, and short of a full motion sim, which are generally inaccessible to us hobbyists, you get none of that. Yeah, sims can teach procedures, but that's about it. You can do that in VMC too.

Actually you can, and people do, get disoriented in non-motion sims.

 

[John Collins]

One reason is that I had been giving it some thought for a while. We have a popular VOR/DME arc approach nearby - the only one left after the others were deleted. CFIs and DPEs would use it to satisfy ACS requirements, substituting GPS for DME. Permitted, but I thought it was stupid unless you had real DME. For a pilot without DME, i saw it as a check off a box approach with no benefit.

The instrument ACS that went into effect May 31 removes the requirement to use a ground-based navaid for any of the three required checkride/IPC approaches. (I talk about the changes in next month’s IFR Mag)

For many, the “hooray” is they don’t have to do a VOR approach (assuming they can find one nearby). For me, the bigger “hooray” is, we don’t have to create make believe green needle approaches we would not fly with GPS and could not fly without it. If we can, absolutely work those skills.

Suggestion, in your article, include the new definition that constitutes a kind of approach. Since they are now based on the line of minima, the long cross country could all be RNAV (GPS) approaches, one to LPV, one to LNAV straight in, and one to LNAV CTL. Pilots and instructors should specify the minimum to make it clear that the long cross country requirements were met.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Suggestion, in your article, include the new definition that constitutes a kind of approach. Since they are now based on the line of minima, the long cross country could all be RNAV (GPS) approaches, one to LPV, one to LNAV straight in, and one to LNAV CTL. Pilots and instructors should specify the minimum to make it clear that the long cross country requirements were met.

It’s not about the 61.65 cross country, which was covered quite a while ago.

The article covers the ACS. Since the change to qualifying checkride approach requirements is the single biggest change in the ACS, you can bet it’s covered. But I think “lines of minima” is the most conservative interpretation of “different approaches” (not “different kinds of approaches” as in 61.65).

Can’t change it now anyway slated for the July issue.

 

[John Collins]

It’s not about the 61.65 cross country, which was covered quite a while ago.

The article covers the ACS. Since the change to qualifying checkride approach requirements is the single biggest change in the ACS, you can bet it’s covered. But I think “lines of minima” is the most conservative interpretation of “different approaches” (not “different kinds of approaches” as in 61.65).

Can’t change it now anyway slated for the July issue.

Mark,

I know you know all this, but I am repeating it so that other readers will have the information.

FAA guidance to a DPE as it applies to the new ACS. 61.65 did not change, but the interpretation of its meaning has been clarified. The clarification was needed to support the new ACS version 8C, which eliminated this section from the superseded 8B version on meeting the Non Precision task, which previously read in part as:

The evaluator will select nonprecision approaches representative of the type that the applicant is likely to use. The choices must use at least two different types of navigational aids. Examples of acceptable nonprecision approaches include: VOR, VOR/DME, LOC procedures on an ILS, LDA, RNAV (RNP) or RNAV (GPS) to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV line of minima as long as the LPV DA is greater than 300 feet HAT. The equipment must be installed and the database must be current and qualified to fly GPS-based approaches.

This is from 8900.1 guidance to DPE

5-434 ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY.
A. General Eligibility. The applicant for an instrument rating must meet all the
applicable requirements of§ 61.65 and hold at least a private pilot certificate and a current
third-class medical certificate or, if operating under BasicMed in lieu of possessing a valid
third-class medical certificate, a valid U.S. driver's license as well as a current Certificate of
Completion from an authorized BasicMed medical education course.
B. Clarification of Different Kinds of Approaches. Section 61.65(d) contains the
aeronautical experience requirements for a person applying for an Instrument-Airplane rating.
Section 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C) states, in relevant part, that an applicant must complete 40 hours of
actual or simulated instrument time that includes at least one cross-country flight that is
performed under instrument flight rules (IFR) and involves "three different kinds of approaches
with the use of navigation systems." The FAA previously issued legal interpretations indicating
that the three different kinds of approaches must utilize three different kinds of navigation
systems. The FAA has since rescinded the legal interpretations. To fulfill the regulatory
requirements, an applicant only needs to conduct three different kinds of approaches regardless
of the navigation system utilized. Different approaches can be defined by the various lines of
minima found on an approach plate. For example, localizer (LOC) minima are one kind of
approach operation and instrument landing system (ILS) minima are another kind of approach
operation. The same could be true of Area Navigation (RNAV) GPS-titled approach plates, a
localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) approach is one kind of approach operation
and a Localizer Performance (LP) to a circling MDA is another kind of approach operation.
Subparagraph 5-433A3) above discusses the types of approaches. This paragraph also applies to
§ 61.65(e)(2) and (±)(2).
NOTE: Precision approach radar (PAR) and airport surveillance radar (ASR)
approaches can be used to meet the requirements of§ 61.65(d)(2), (e)(2), and
(f)(2).

The current ACS requires the DPE to accomplish at least two non precision approaches

A non-precision approach is a standard instrument approach procedure to a published minimum descent altitude without
approved vertical guidance. The applicant may use navigation systems that display advisory vertical guidance during nonprecision
approach operations, if available.
The evaluator must select and the applicant must accomplish at least two different non-precision approaches in simulated
or actual instrument meteorological conditions:
• At least one procedure must include a course reversal maneuver (e.g., procedure turn, holding in lieu, or the
course reversal from an initial approach fix on a Terminal Area Arrival).
• The applicant must accomplish at least one procedure from an initial approach fix without the use of autopilot
and without the assistance of radar vectors. During this Task, flying without using the autopilot does not prevent
use of the yaw damper and flight director.
• The applicant must fly one procedure with reference to backup or partial panel instrumentation or navigation
display, depending on the aircraft’s instrument avionics configuration, representing a realistic failure mode(s) for
the equipment used.
The evaluator has discretion to have the applicant perform a landing or a missed approach at the completion of each
approach.

So I expect that, especially if an applicant arrives with an airplane only capable of doing GPS approaches, they will choose multiple non precision approach kinds, even if they are not required to do so by the ACS. My main point, however, was to advise instructors to list the kinds of approaches using the definition used in 8900.1 on the long cross country so they would satisfy the new ACS eligibility requirements.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

The Pilot’s Discretion podcast interviewed DPE Jason Blair this week. Asked what constituted loggable IMC and approaches, he replied that IMC is anything that isn’t legal VMC. You don’t have to be in the clouds, you just have to be too close to them to be legal otherwise. Likewise, if you get to the runway flying an approach that wasn’t legal VMC (remember cloud clearances), you were IMC.

It’s kind of a bureaucrat’s answer, but I like it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The Pilot’s Discretion podcast interviewed DPE Jason Blair this week. Asked what constituted loggable IMC and approaches, he replied that IMC is anything that isn’t legal VMC. You don’t have to be in the clouds, you just have to be too close to them to be legal otherwise. Likewise, if you get to the runway flying an approach that wasn’t legal VMC (remember cloud clearances), you were IMC.

It’s kind of a bureaucrat’s answer, but I like it.

Interesting that he’d allow an approach to be counted on a few to scattered day with unlimited visibility so long as you flew within 1999 feet past one of them. No actual required.

Logbook entry: 1 instrument approach with 0 instrument time logged.

I bet there’ll be a little feedback on that one.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

According to him, you’d log it as instrument time because you weren’t legal VFR. It’s possible I misunderstood, but that’s what I heard.

 

[midlifeflyer]

According to him, you’d log it as instrument time because you weren’t legal VFR. It’s possible I misunderstood, but that’s what I heard.

The reg is very clear what is loggable as instrument time - actual or simulated. Visual IMC is neither.

The problem may simply be that while IMC is defined as less than VMC, which includes such things as flying at 10,500’ msl with the nearest cloud 999’ above us on a CAVU day, we all have a tendency to use it as shorthand for “in the clouds.” Even the FAA itself is not immune as the INFO guidance cited earlier demonstrates.

 

[John Collins]

I discussed this extensively with the author of the info. He would disagree with Jason. The author noted that point 4. of the info requires: "4. When conducted in an aircraft, the flight must be conducted under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions [§ 61.51(g)(1)]." There is also this: "NOTE: A pilot cannot log an IAP for currency in an aircraft without also logging actual or simulated instrument time."

 

[midlifeflyer]

I discussed this extensively with the author of the info. He would disagree with Jason. The author noted that point 4. of the info requires: "4. When conducted in an aircraft, the flight must be conducted under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions [§ 61.51(g)(1)]." There is also this: "NOTE: A pilot cannot log an IAP for currency in an aircraft without also logging actual or simulated instrument time."

Of course he would disagree with Jason. Not the first time Jason was wrong about something regarding instrument flight (If the report is accurate, this is the third I've seen). The regulation is very clear on this point. The problem is that the InFO, despite saying the approach must be in actual or simulated instrument conditions, repeatedly uses "IMC" instead of "actual" or some other term that means "with no outside visual references." Eleven times. In every single example. If you are still in contact, my suggestion would be to correct that.

 

[AlphaMike]

This is an interesting topic. I want to bring up an approach I flew last fall. I was shooting the RNAV (LNAV) RWY 22 into KONZ. The ceiling was about 2,400 MSL and I broke out of the clouds just before the FAF. I continued down, runway in sight, all good. At about 2 miles out, at 1,400’ fog just swept across the field from left to right and I was completely in the soup! Ended up going missed and tried it again. I never got the runway in sight on the second try, yet I did pop out again at 2,400 but the fog layer was right at 1,500 and I couldn’t see anything. I ended up diverting to a near by airport that was perfect VFR. I logged both of those approaches. Was that the right thing to do or shold I have not logged them?

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is an interesting topic. I want to bring up an approach I flew last fall. I was shooting the RNAV (LNAV) RWY 22 into KONZ. The ceiling was about 2,400 MSL and I broke out of the clouds just before the FAF. I continued down, runway in sight, all good. At about 2 miles out, at 1,400’ fog just swept across the field from left to right and I was completely in the soup! Ended up going missed and tried it again. I never got the runway in sight on the second try, yet I did pop out again at 2,400 but the fog layer was right at 1,500 and I couldn’t see anything. I ended up diverting to a near by airport that was perfect VFR. I logged both of those approaches. Was that the right thing to do or shold I have not logged them?

I would log them without a moment of hesitation.

The InFO is an attempt to answer a long-standing debate over how much actual is needed to satisfy the reg. I would not expect it to cover every single scenario.

If you are curious about the history, go to http://midlifeflight.com/flyingfaq/. Follow the internal links to


And yeah, the poor “IMC = Actual” usage is there too. As I said, no one is immune.