rookie1255
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 108
- Display Name
Display name:
rookie1255
If I file IFR and execute an approach at the destination, does that approach count towards currency requirements if the conditions are VMC?
Approaches that count for currency
- Thread starter rookie1255
- Start date
FAA just released guidance on this.
https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avi...afety/info/all_infos/media/2015/InFO15012.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avi...afety/info/all_infos/media/2015/InFO15012.pdf
4 months ago is hardly "just." Not sure but I think this has been discussed here since it was issued in September.
No. The reg makes it pretty clear that they have to be performed
"in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device".
That part has always been clear. What the new guidance clarified was how much of the approach had to be under those conditions to be loggable.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Unless the FAA has mandated cameras in the cockpit, use your best discretion.
It would be even more clear if they had written "actual instrument flight conditions" instead of "actual weather conditions." The latter overlooks the fact that it is possible for "actual weather conditions" to meet the requirements for VFR flight!
I'm wondering if that's legally enforceable, given that an InFO letter is not a regulation.
Gucci Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 2,066
- Display Name
Display name:
Gucci Pilot
2nd that.
What do you mean? Something like and enforcement action in which the pilot is accused of not being current and the FAA presents evidence that the ceilings were 900' rather than 200' on the days the approaches were logged?
The pilot points to a an official FAA publications that gives guidance about when an approach is loggable and the FAA says, sorry you can't rely on what we tell you is proper? And the FAA wins?
In a world of paranoid conspiracy theorists I guess its possible.
The guidance tells many of us nothing new. It's just confirms the way many of us looked at it all along.
My FAQ (at least 10 years old) on the subject: http://bit.ly/1mNlsZ1 I haven't even bothered to update it with the guidance, although I probably should.
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
I always thought the "must be in IMC until the DA" was a pile of crud from instructors trying to get extra hours. Turns out I was right. I have always logged anything that involved not seeing the runway past the FAF. That to me means the airport is IMC and an approach was mandatory and it should count. When a visual approach is an option a hood needs to be worn.
The post I replied to said "What the new guidance clarified was how much of the approach had to be under those conditions to be loggable." One of the things the InFO letter appears to say is that you have to be in actual at some point on the final approach segment. There are a lot of pilots who log the approach if any part of it is in actual. I'm just wondering if an InFO letter is a sufficient basis to support an enforcement action.
A visual approach can not be logged as an instrument approach.
azure
Final Approach
I don't see anything in the post you quoted that implies that a visual approach is loggable. I read it as saying, in effect, that if conditions are such that a visual approach is possible (I'd add, possible from before the FAF), then the pilot needs to wear a hood (and have a safety pilot) in order to log the approach as an instrument approach.
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
Yep, that is what i meant
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
What if the minimum is really high? many of the local airports have minimums well above pattern altitude. Reid's LNAV (Y), South County, Hollister, Watsonville's VOR approach. It's possible to get in VFR under any of those scud running or ducking around the deck, but have to go missed on the approach.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
yeah...yeah, let yer conscience be your guide.
btw....I don't count them unless some portion of the approach after the FAF contains either actual or simulated IMC conditions.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
I was talking about IFR. I'll give in though and say there are some exceptions.
What is the purpose of the Y approach at Reidhillview? The ILS at SJC is a better option.
When two straight-in approaches use the same primary navaid but have something different about them that leads the charting office to create more than one version, they add a letter to the approach starting with Z and working up the alphabet (as opposed to circling-only approaches which start with A and work down the alphabet).
In this case KRHV has an RNAV(GPS) Y that is an LNAV-only approach and an RNAV(GPS) Z that has LPV minimums. If you look at them the difference between the two is not only a substantial difference in minimums but a different an initial targets for the missed (there may be others as well, but those tow stood out to me right away)
There are a number of practical and legal issues with doing that:
At high traffic times, there could be delays in getting the SJC ILS 30L, and when you get it, they might ask you to keep your speed up, which a GA pilot may or may not be proficient at.
You can't cancel IFR until you're 500 feet below the clouds, and depending on the ceiling, that could put you well past RHV.
It also wouldn't be practical when the visibility is below the three mile VFR minimum, because you couldn't depart from the localizer until you got a special VFR clearance to RHV, which ATC might not be able to grant in time, even if they're willing.
I don't know whether SJC runs simultaneous approaches to 30L and 30R, but if they do, then cutting across the 30R final approach course could be a problem.
When the weather is better than 1500 and 3, then I guess it could work, especially if you fly the localizer version of the approach. Otherwise, there is too much "if" and "maybe" for it to be a dependable plan.