IMC definition for approach logging

[robin ardoin]

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?

If you were flying solely by reference to instruments anytime after the FAF, then yes, I interpret the regs as that counting as an instrument approach that can be logged.

 

[EdFred]

If you were flying solely by reference to instruments anytime after the FAF, then yes, I interpret the regs as that counting as an instrument approach that can be logged.

What if you are flying an approach without a FAF?
MOP used to have one before they axed the VOR approach.

If I'm on a bold part of the plate and wrapped in a blanket of clouds, I log it. Coming into my home drome I've got 23.5 mile approach. 19 of it is before the FAF, the last 4.5 is after the FAF. If I'm in the soup the whole time and break out 50' above the FAF I'm still logging that. I've seen even more imbalanced pre-FAF/post-FAF approaches than that one.

 

[Jim K]

What if you are flying an approach without a FAF

I had this question a couple weeks ago when I went up and did my approaches for May. I flew the VOR 4, which doesn't have a FAF. I think I remember from training that the course reversal is considered the FAF. This makes sense too, as the minimum altitude at the course reversal is pretty close to the altitude for the FAFs on the the other approaches into CMI. They ended up giving me vectors and I was in the clouds at 2300 when I got established on the inbound, so that one went in the book.

 

[TexShark]

...one of my favorite trivia questions.

Aeronautical Chart User's Guide: Page 116

> On non-precision approaches, the final segment begins at the Final Approach Fix (FAF), which is identified with the Maltese cross symbol. When no FAF is depicted, the final approach point is the point at which the aircraft is established inbound on the final approach course.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What if you are flying an approach without a FAF?

I flew the VOR 4, which doesn't have a FAF.

Exactly. No FAF. The FAS on one of those begins as soon as you turn inbound. A perfect example of not covering every possible scenario.

 

[Rheo]

If I'm on a bold part of the plate and wrapped in a blanket of clouds, I log it. Coming into my home drome I've got 23.5 mile approach. 19 of it is before the FAF, the last 4.5 is after the FAF. If I'm in the soup the whole time and break out 50' above the FAF I'm still logging that. I've seen even more imbalanced pre-FAF/post-FAF approaches than that one.

In the flight I originally posted about, I was on radar vectors to the final approach course. I was in the clouds on the 'downwind' and a little of the 'base' portion of the vectors but broke out prior to the FAF. Would that be the equivalent of "the bold part of the plate" in your opinion?

 

[EdFred]

In the flight I originally posted about, I was on radar vectors to the final approach course. I was in the clouds on the 'downwind' and a little of the 'base' portion of the vectors but broke out prior to the FAF. Would that be the equivalent of "the bold part of the plate" in your opinion?

If you were only on vectors and broke out before being on the FAC? I wouldn't count it. Unless it was an ASR or PAR.

To me that's the same as being vectored en route.

 

[MRC01]

“‘simulated’ instrument conditions occur when the pilot’s vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles.” “Actual” instrument flight conditions exist “when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions.”
-1984 Chief Counsel Carr Letter (famous for the ”moonless night” scenario)

Basically, you can log actual when outside conditions require you to use the instrument to keep the airplane right side up.

Yep, and one consequence of this is that one can log actual IMC while flying in legal VFR conditions. The "moonless night" was an example of where this might happen.