IFR approach currency and what are requirements for the approach

flyzone

flyzone

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 10, 2014
Messages
111
Display Name
Display name:
Flyzone
I'm sure this question has been asked numerous times but I can't find a specific answer.

If I'm flying IFR into, say KMYR (Myrtle Beach) and I'm in clouds along most of the way. As I approach the airport for the ILS Rwy 36 I'm vectored, in the clouds, over the water to align on runway and I'm cleared. As I begin the approach I'm at 1600 ft. Immediately I'm now out of the clouds and the airport is VFR and clear ahead. (That's a nice feeling when you are over the water). There are very few clouds over the airport.

Anyway, for IFR currency purposes, I understand that I can't use that approach since the airport is not IFR even though I've been flying actual IFR for 3 hours. Even part of the approach was in IFR conditions (over the VOR). This is what most of my IFR flying is like. (I'm told that pilots have their own rules on approach IFR currency and that an approach like this would be counted as 1 of 6 for IFR currency.)

If that is so, a clarification of the rule should state that the AIRPORT must be IFR for the approach to be valid for currency requirements (but it doesn't say that). For me, this means every six months I go up with an instructor and do 6 approaches under the hood. I know a safety pilot is fine too but I like to get a bit of instruction while I'm at it.

Any thoughts on approach/airport conditions and currency?
 
Last edited:
jordane93 said:
https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avi...afety/info/all_infos/media/2015/InFO15012.pdf
Click to expand...
According to this reference, passing the FAF (and therefore beginning a descent below 1600) in IMC is required to log this as 1 of 6.

But it's all up to you to follow the letter of law - no one will know except you.

Common sense suggests that it's not countable by the 'law of proficiency'. Doing the 6, intercept and hold, along with some operation in the system is the minimum in my book. I've perhaps done less in the past but have lived to regret it. Just my 2c.
 
Thanks @jordane93 for pointing out the InFO system exists.... I didn't know about it and I already found a few bits of interesting info from past entries.
 
So, at least from a legal logging standpoint, this clarification would change my ability to log such an approach, which I have not in the past. That note should be in the FARs. Thanks.
 
flyzone said:
So, at least from a legal logging standpoint, this clarification would change my ability to log such an approach, which I have not in the past. That note should be in the FARs. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm curious - what were you doing before?

I don't know that it really changes anything, it simply clarifies and provides examples of what is considered legitimate. It's pretty much the same way I've always been doing it (IMC past the FAF). I'd say that was probably the most common interpretation among pilots I've talked to. If you were using a stricter standard and change that as a result of this letter, then yes, it would change how you're logging them.

Note that this letter does require you to follow the procedure down to the MDA and MAP even if you break out before hand - so you can't break out of the clouds a mile past the FAF and break it off and come back around to get another one real quick.
 
Answer the question "Was the approach in IMC?" If the answer is yes, then you have your answer. At least that's my take.
 
Last edited:
RussR said:
I'm curious - what were you doing before?

I don't know that it really changes anything, it simply clarifies
Click to expand...

I've talked to a number of pilots and instructors and none of them have given me the precise rules and interpretation of them before this. Nor could they point me to a "legal" reference. It looks like IMC past the FAF would be a correct interpretation but I never heard that before or saw it written, so if you had told me that I'd be skeptical. I had been told and then assumed that the airport must be IMC to qualify but that is not the case. As I stated, to keep current I'd go up with an instructor and do 6 simulated approaches every 6 months.
 
Good topic.
On a similar note, how does everyone log approaches while differentiating between "currency legal" and just an approach in VFR conditions?

My log book has a column for approaches: For currency, only the ones meeting the standards noted in post #2 above are relevant and for my 6 month window, Should I not even bother logging the other approaches? Should I circle "currency meeting" approaches?
 
flyzone said:
I've talked to a number of pilots and instructors and none of them have given me the precise rules and interpretation of them before this. Nor could they point me to a "legal" reference. It looks like IMC past the FAF would be a correct interpretation but I never heard that before or saw it written, so if you had told me that I'd be skeptical. I had been told and then assumed that the airport must be IMC to qualify but that is not the case. As I stated, to keep current I'd go up with an instructor and do 6 simulated approaches every 6 months.
Click to expand...

If it's simulated, you must go to minimums. But note it doesn't say WHICH minimums. If you are going to fly the missed, you can legitimately use circling or straight-in minimums. I prefer to use the ones appropriate for conditions, which I'd use for landing if I weren't planning to use the missed, using my category (usually A) and the equipment in use.

Some approaches have minimums higher than 1000 AGL, so you can fly an approach all the way to minimums in the clouds and go missed, while the airport is still VFR.

There is still a bit of ambiguity. Does it count if I maneuver onto the FAF above the clouds and then descend through them on instruments? I tend to think not, but you could argue it either way. This situation is pretty common for marine layer around terrain. Tops are seldom above 2500, but the FAF can be.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Do an IPC every 6 months and it doesn't matter. Most people would benefit from it anyway.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I do that, if for no other reason than my CFII keeps me honest. That, and I've never done 6 approaches in a 6 month period and this is the easiest (and best) way to stay current.
 
jordane93 said:
I'm not sure why/how you would log an appproach if it doesn't meet currency requirements
Click to expand...
Probably the same reason we continue to log any hours that don't apply to a certification or currency. None of it's required. My log book proves I've met the PPL and IR requirements, shows I received my HP and complex endorsements and even shows that I went to visit my Dad on Christmas, flew some crazy wind conditions a few weeks ago, practiced approaches in VMC, or took my brother in law for his first flight. Kind of like my little version of a diary. :)

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
jordane93 said:
I'm not sure why/how you would log an appproach if it doesn't meet currency requirements
Click to expand...
I can see a few. A "scrapbook" item or perhaps tracking personal procedural proficiency. Like the names of passengers, that the trip was for a picnic, that a string xwind was handled in landing, or any one of the other technically unnecessary comments people put in the logbooks.

But if not qualified for currency, they really should be identified in some way as not counting, lest, for example, if the logbook be reviewed by the FAA in connection with an accident or incident, logbook falsification be added to any other violations. Those tend to be particularly nasty.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I can see a few. A "scrapbook" item or perhaps tracking personal procedural proficiency. Like the names of passengers, that the trip was for a picnic, that a string xwind was handled in landing, or any one of the other technically unnecessary comments people put in the logbooks.

But if not qualified for currency, they really should be identified in some way as not counting, lest, for example, if the logbook be reviewed by the FAA in connection with an accident or incident, logbook falsification be added to any other violations. Those tend to be particularly nasty.
Click to expand...
What I got from his post is let's say you ask for a practice approach and you don't have your hood on or your IFR and it's VMC and you ask for an approach instead of a visual. I wouldn't mark that as an approach in my logbook. I just log what counts for currency. To each their own I guess.
 
jordane93 said:
What I got from his post is let's say you ask for a practice approach and you don't have your hood on or your IFR and it's VMC and you ask for an approach instead of a visual. I wouldn't mark that as an approach in my logbook. I just log what counts for currency. To each their own I guess.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't either. But we are not the arbiters of what people choose to put in their logbooks. I guess technically neither is the FAA so long as the entry isn't done in a way that suggests is being improperly counted toward qualification or currency.
 
MAKG1 said:
There is still a bit of ambiguity. Does it count if I maneuver onto the FAF above the clouds and then descend through them on instruments? I tend to think not, but you could argue it either way. This situation is pretty common for marine layer around terrain. Tops are seldom above 2500, but the FAF can be.
Click to expand...

I believe it does count. In fact, in real life there may be multiple cloud layers and scud as you descend. Or you could be solid IMC from just after takeoff to low minimums at 200 and 1/2 on the ILS or LPV, but might momentarily pop out between layers just as you cross the FAF. That does not render the approach unloggable for IFR currency, and I can't find any language in Jordan's link that says otherwise. The important thing (for loggability) is to remain on the IAP during the final approach segment, and to encounter IMC during that segment.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
I wouldn't either. But we are not the arbiters of what people choose to put in their logbooks. I guess technically neither is the FAA so long as the entry isn't done in a way that suggests is being improperly counted toward qualification or currency.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear in mine (I hope). I'll put a VMC practice approach in the notes section with all the other irrelevant to currency info instead of the approach column.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
If it's left to interpretation and the logbook honor system, I would guess the "best" interpretation is that which reduces the liklihood of getting kilt the most. Beyond that, there's legal, then perhaps the gray area, and then not legal.
-Non Instrument Rated pilot, so ignore as necessary.
 
I've done a number of 6-approach-and-hold flights, where I become current again a few hours later.

A year ago, I decided to shoot the six approaches at night. Same foggles, radically different experience.

Log what you want - but when you're bumping along in actual, the quality of your training matters a whole bunch.
 
whereisrandall said:
I've done a number of 6-approach-and-hold flights, where I become current again a few hours later.

A year ago, I decided to shoot the six approaches at night. Same foggles, radically different experience.

Log what you want - but when you're bumping along in actual, the quality of your training matters a whole bunch.
Click to expand...

Your experience highlights the difference between being current and being proficient. As has been stated many times before, the two terms are not synonymous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top