IFR currency

[Pierre Vachon]

Is there a way to maintain IFR recency requirements without a safety pilot. Could a non pilot passenger sit in the right seat while I shoot 6 approaches to stay current?

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

No to the second question

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

only if you were sitting in a simulator.....

 

[RyanB]

Go find some fluff and shoot approaches solo.

 

[asicer]

No to the second question

If it's < 6 months since the previous 6HIT, why not if doing it in actual?

 

[AggieMike88]

Is there a way to maintain IFR recency requirements without a safety pilot. Could a non pilot passenger sit in the right seat while I shoot 6 approaches to stay current?

Question 1: Yes. Wait for a benign IFR day where the ceilings are not below your personal minimums and tops are just tall enough to make it a luggable approach. Then get out there and shoot the approaches, track the course, and do a hold.

Alternate is to look for an appropriate simulator and do the work there. Make sure to take a photo of the Letter of Authorization for that sim and keep that with your logbook.

Question 2: No. See FAR 91.109(c)(1) and the following sub paragraph. As an IFR rated pilot, this is something you should already know.

Edit: corrected the FAR reference from 209 to 109

 

[Pierre Vachon]

If it's < 6 months since the previous 6HIT, why not if doing it in actual?

I may do that. It's been a while so my personal minimums are pretty high.

 

[Pierre Vachon]

Question 1: Yes. Wait for a benign IFR day where the ceilings are not below your personal minimums and tops are just tall enough to make it a luggable approach. Then get out there and shoot the approaches, track the course, and do a hold.

Alternate is to look for an appropriate simulator and do the work there. Make sure to take a photo of the Letter of Authorization for that sim and keep that with your logbook.

Question 2: No. See FAR 91.209(c)(1) and the following sub paragraph. As an IFR rated pilot, this is something you should already know.

I do know it but I just converted my license from Canada and I thought I may be missing another option. You confirmed it for me.

 

[AggieMike88]

You confirmed it for me.

Keep in mind that many answers of "how things are to happen" are contained in the FAR/AIM.

If you don't already have a good app downloaded to your iPhone or iPad, I can recommend this one: Pilot FAR/AIM The link takes you to the App Store

I have the ASA FAR/AIM as well, but the one I linked has better formatting, and better book marking capability.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

If it's < 6 months since the previous 6HIT, why not if doing it in actual?

I thought question 2 was regarding simulated time under hood and the non-pilot passenger acting as safety pilot, because of question 1.

 

[smv]

I thought question 2 was regarding simulated time under hood and the non-pilot passenger acting as safety pilot, because of question 1.

So a non-pilot pilot?

 

[MauleSkinner]

So a non-pilot pilot?

I’ve worked with my share of those over the years.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is there a way to maintain IFR recency requirements without a safety pilot. Could a non pilot passenger sit in the right seat while I shoot 6 approaches to stay current?

I know this is repetitive.

Yes, you can maintain currency without a safety pilot by flying instrument approaches and holds in actual instrument conditions or in an approved device. Of course, to do that in flight solo or with non-pilot passengers on board, you would have to be instrument current at the time.

The qualifications for a safety pilot are pretty clearly laid out in 91.109.

I'm a bit surprised by the question. Are you already instrument rated or actively working on it? I ask because discussion of maintaining currency (and its relationship to proficiency) is a standard checkride subject,

 

[flyingron]

Yes, you can maintain currency without a safety pilot by flying instrument approaches and holds in actual instrument conditions or in an approved device. Of course, to do that in flight solo or with non-pilot passengers on board, you would have to be instrument current at the time.

I'll make a small quibble here with your second statement. Actual Instrument Conditions are not the same as Instrument Meteorological Conditions. It is possible to fly legal VFR in actual instrument conditions.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'll make a small quibble here with your second statement. Actual Instrument Conditions are not the same as Instrument Meteorological Conditions. It is possible to fly legal VFR in actual instrument conditions.

Your quibble is absolutely correct, Ron.

But I think the drill-down to the tiny percentage of the time one might actually come across an opportunity to fly one "moonless night" scenario instrument approach, let alone six, are so limited as to not be worth mentioning as a statement of the general rule.

Aside from an IAP into the sun where you are completely blinded and need to rely on the instruments to keep the shiny side up, we seem to be left with an IAP into an airport on a moonless night with an high overcast into a very rural airport with PCL where you have decided not to turn on even the runway lights until past the MDA.

 

[eman1200]

.....No. See FAR 91.209(c)(1) and the following sub paragraph. As an IFR rated pilot, this is something you should already know.

hhhmmmmm

 

[midlifeflyer]

hhhmmmmm

Typo. Replace the two with a one.

 

[asicer]

I thought question 2 was regarding simulated time under hood and the non-pilot passenger acting as safety pilot, because of question 1.

Yeah, the original question was rather ambiguous.

 

[flyingron]

I had dropped off a friend out in rural NC and while it was technically VMC, it was a very dark and hazy night. I figure what the hell, I can go fly a bunch of approaches and count them. I don't even agree that you need to leave the runway lights off. I needed to be flying instruments to keep the dirty side down throughout the flight. I was current and on IFR, but I was in actual conditions in my opinion. What was amusing in all this was that PCT tells me in between approaches that I have a pretty plane. I guess it was a slow night and the googled my N-number in the overhead to see what I looked like.

 

[AggieMike88]

Typo. Replace the two with a one.

Soooo happy fat thumb syndrome isn’t reportable on a flight medical

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I'll make a small quibble here with your second statement. Actual Instrument Conditions are not the same as Instrument Meteorological Conditions. It is possible to fly legal VFR in actual instrument conditions.

well....how would you "log" that? .....lol

 

[flyingron]

well....how would you "log" that? .....lol

Simple. "Actual instrument" under the conditions of flight. 61.51 doesn't have any provision for logging IFR or VFR.

 

[midlifeflyer]

well....how would you "log" that? .....lol

If you read the "moonlight opinion" you log it as actual instrument (and the usual for an approach. The only recommended extra is a comment about the conditions. The latter is to create a record in case the entry gets questioned for some reason.

 

[flyingron]

Huh, there's not sufficient information in a log book entry to determine legality anyhow. Even if it had been IMC, I could have had a non-instructor, non-safety pilot as pilot in command while I logged it as the sole manipulator.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Huh, there's not sufficient information in a log book entry to determine legality anyhow. Even if it had been IMC, I could have had a non-instructor, non-safety pilot as pilot in command while I logged it as the sole manipulator.

True enough. You could log an approach for currency in CAVU and no one would know you falsified it --- unless the FAA had a reason to question it.

Interesting comment to me from an ASI: "when we investigate a deviation, you'd be surprised to know we almost always find something else."

I told him he was wrong. I would not be surprised. BTDT.

 

[flyingron]

True enough. You could log an approach for currency in CAVU and no one would know you falsified it --- unless the FAA had a reason to question it.

That would be a violation. I'm not seeing your point.

One is a proper and legal operation and logbook entry, that is perfectly legal to establish currency.
The other is an intentional falsification of the logbook and any resulting IFR operations using it as currency would be illegal.

 

[Chris Hill]

In actual IFR

 

[asicer]

Huh, there's not sufficient information in a log book entry to determine legality anyhow.

...using today's technology. Maybe it will be as technology advances (e.g. police solving cold cases using 23-And-Me).

 

[benyflyguy]

If you read the "moonlight opinion" you log it as actual instrument (and the usual for an approach. The only recommended extra is a comment about the conditions. The latter is to create a record in case the entry gets questioned for some reason.

I had never heard of that opinion. Just looked it up and read it. That is a great way to log some approaches- usually smooth even when summer. Moonless night you do have to keep your head in the cockpit

 

[flyingron]

In actual IFR

There's no such thing as "actual IFR" as far as the regs are concerned.

There are actual instrument conditions and there's Instrument Flight Rules. They don't necessarily imply each other.

 

[Chris Hill]

There's no such thing as "actual IFR" as far as the regs are concerned.

There are actual instrument conditions and there's Instrument Flight Rules. They don't necessarily imply each other.

Sorry good point I meant in actual IMC

 

[Palmpilot]

Go find some fluff and shoot approaches solo.

The hard part there is finding clouds at the right height, especially when it comes to the holding-pattern requirement.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That would be a violation. I'm not seeing your point.

One is a proper and legal operation and logbook entry, that is perfectly legal to establish currency.
The other is an intentional falsification of the logbook and any resulting IFR operations using it as currency would be illegal.

Only referring to your comment that there's not enough information in a logbook entry to determine legality. Nothing more than that being suggested.

 

[Weekend Warrior]

The hard part there is finding clouds at the right height, especially when it comes to the holding-pattern requirement.

I’ve got an approach near me, that includes a hold at the somewhat-low IAF (2300 AGL). Being somewhat low, on an IFR day it is nearly always in the soup. Every time I fly it I’m asked if I want to fly the full approach with hold. And at least once every six months I do. It’s been perfect for hold practice.

 

[Hang 4]

So in the "Moonless night" scenario, assuming it's legally VFR, how do you see and avoid VFR traffic? Not trying to dispute, just understand the mechanics.

 

[flyingron]

So in the "Moonless night" scenario, assuming it's legally VFR, how do you see and avoid VFR traffic? Not trying to dispute, just understand the mechanics.

Nobody says you can't look out the window when it's in instrument conditions. In fact, you need to if only to assure that you are.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So in the "Moonless night" scenario, assuming it's legally VFR, how do you see and avoid VFR traffic? Not trying to dispute, just understand the mechanics.

Really? You've never flow at night and noticed it is actually easier to see them on a moonless night and you won't confuse them with ground lights?

Or are you imagining that IFR flight means you don't look outside. That's only in simulated conditions when yo use a view limiting device to prevent you from looking outside. Check out what the FAA says about your see and avoid responsibilities:

When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.​

 

[Hang 4]

Really? You've never flow at night and noticed it is actually easier to see them on a moonless night and you won't confuse them with ground lights?

Or are you imagining that IFR flight means you don't look outside. That's only in simulated conditions when yo use a view limiting device to prevent you from looking outside. Check out what the FAA says about your see and avoid responsibilities:

When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.​

I understand the regs. That was the point of my question. If I can see well enough to be in see and avoid mode, then how is it logable as an approach?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I understand the regs. That was the point of my question. If I can see well enough to be in see and avoid mode, then how is it logable as an approach?

Because you can't keep the shiny side up without the instruments.

but that's in theory. I already agreed that a moonless night approach scenario is unlikely. As soon as you see the surrounding community lights, the runway lights, etc, you are done. That's usually going to happen well before the FAF.

 

[woodchucker]

Because you can't keep the shiny side up without the instruments.

but that's in theory. I already agreed that a moonless night approach scenario is unlikely. As soon as you see the surrounding community lights, the runway lights, etc, you are done. That's usually going to happen well before the FAF.

I’m a fairly new IR pilot in training but one of the frequently visited airports is difficult to see at night unless you turn the lights on. Just out by myself doing holding practice and an ILS approach in vmc on a dark night. I didn’t log it but it’s essentially an IMC approach until you hit the lights which I didn’t do until minimums. Great experience overall, and I repeated the same approach with my cfii at night soon after and did even better.

I guess my question is why would the lights be on if it’s a quiet airport at night?