Logging approaches in VMC

When I attend annual recurrent training at SIMCOM, the instructors will not log or sign off approaches. There was an instructor present when I did them, of course. They will sign off WINGS proficiency on the FAA site. They also will not give and IPC. This is in an FTD.

I did fly several hours in a jet sim at Flight Safety early this year. Same deal. What I put in my log was up to me. Instructor would not endorse.

I guess FAA can call to verify, but sign
offs in log books in the sim are getting scarce. The jet sim at Flight Safety was full motion.

Best,

Dave
 
Velocity173 said:
I think the biggest criteria in all that is the requirement to be controlling the aircraft by reference to instruments. In the Army the instrument or "W" time is more clear cut. Actual instrument meteorological conditions that does not permit visual contact with the natural horizon or the earth's surface and aircraft control must be made by reference to instruments. I flew with a couple instructors in the Army that logged weather (W) time during a hazy summer day where they couldn't see the horizon but could see the ground. I was sitting in the back and I seriously doubt they were controlling the aircraft by reference to instruments. To me it's an integrity thing.
Click to expand...

To me it's a survival thing: The person who is most likely to die due to inadequate instrument proficiency work is the pilot!
 
Dave Siciliano said:
When I attend annual recurrent training at SIMCOM, the instructors will not log or sign off approaches. There was an instructor present when I did them, of course. They will sign off WINGS proficiency on the FAA site. They also will not give and IPC. This is in an FTD.

I did fly several hours in a jet sim at Flight Safety early this year. Same deal. What I put in my log was up to me. Instructor would not endorse.

I guess FAA can call to verify, but sign
offs in log books in the sim are getting scarce. The jet sim at Flight Safety was full motion.
Click to expand...
Didn't you get some sort of sticker or certificate to indicate that you completed the course? I've seen them hand out stickers to the Part 91 guys although I couldn't tell you what was written on them. We get an 8410 form after completing the 135 checkride which counts as a FR and IPC. I've never seen anyone with a logbook at FlightSafety. I remember thinking it was strange the first time I went when I was told it was not necessary to bring it.
 
I log visual approaches.

It doesn't count for currency, but I want to know if I landed and then cancelled (or was at a Towered airport) or if I canceled in flight and proceeded VFR to the airport.

Anyone who says I can't put it in my logbook, is wrong. It's my damn logbook.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
When I attend annual recurrent training at SIMCOM, the instructors will not log or sign off approaches. There was an instructor present when I did them, of course. They will sign off WINGS proficiency on the FAA site. They also will not give and IPC. This is in an FTD.
Click to expand...
It may be the "sim" (in this case an FTD) is not approved for those events in its letter of authorization -- the biggest limitation to signing off an IPC in an FTD is usually that the FTD is not approved for circling approaches. It may also be the instructors do not have a current CFI-IA.

I did fly several hours in a jet sim at Flight Safety early this year. Same deal. What I put in my log was up to me. Instructor would not endorse.

I guess FAA can call to verify, but sign
offs in log books in the sim are getting scarce. The jet sim at Flight Safety was full motion.
Click to expand...
Did you ask why they wouldn't sign the training?
 
denverpilot said:
I log visual approaches.

It doesn't count for currency, but I want to know if I landed and then cancelled (or was at a Towered airport) or if I canceled in flight and proceeded VFR to the airport.

Anyone who says I can't put it in my logbook, is wrong. It's my damn logbook.
Click to expand...
The problem with putting ones that don't count for currency in your logbook is keeping track of which ones do and which ones don't. Same for pretty much all events -- other than remarks, if it isn't 61.51-legal, I don't put it in my log. That way, there's never any question about what counts and what doesn't.
 
denverpilot said:
I log visual approaches.

It doesn't count for currency, but I want to know if I landed and then cancelled (or was at a Towered airport) or if I canceled in flight and proceeded VFR to the airport.

Anyone who says I can't put it in my logbook, is wrong. It's my damn logbook.
Click to expand...
As long as you identify them in some way as not counting, you;'re fine. If you log them the exact same way as the ones that do count, you're looking at a potential logbook falsification charge if the issue should come up.

As you say, it's your logbook - your authored written statement that you have entered information about each logged flight in order to show the FAA that you meet qualification for certificate, ratings and currency.

So, sure you can enter whatever you want in your damn logbook. And the FAA tan revoke all of your certificates and ratings if what you put in your own damn logbook was false or misleading as to your qualifications.
 
CFR 61.51 Pilot logbooks:
(a)Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:
(g)Logging instrument time:
(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.
(3) For the purposes of logging instrument time to meet the recent flight experience requirements of 61.57(c), the following info must be recorded in the person's logbook:
(i) the location and type of instrument approach accomplished.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Any person who likes to do what they want to their logbook should look closely at paragraph (a)

Seems obvious that loggable instrument time must accompany a logged approach- for currency.

An accomplished instrument approach would be to it's completion- DH or MDA/time.
 
Everskyward said:
Didn't you get some sort of sticker or certificate to indicate that you completed the course? I've seen them hand out stickers to the Part 91 guys although I couldn't tell you what was written on them. We get an 8410 form after completing the 135 checkride which counts as a FR and IPC. I've never seen anyone with a logbook at FlightSafety. I remember thinking it was strange the first time I went when I was told it was not necessary to bring it.
Click to expand...

Yea, I get a completion cert that says I completed KA initial training and baron recurrent. They go on the FAA web site and give me Wings credit which would satisfy annual recurrent requirements, but no IPC. They said if I wanted that, I would have to arrange it in advance. Since I was current, didn't worry 'bout it.

Best,

Dave
 
Ron Levy said:
Did you ask why they wouldn't sign the training?
Click to expand...

I did, but don't recall the specifics. I'll ask again before I go next year.

BTW, they quit letting folks roll the sim at one named air safety course :D
The story was an instructor there showed a crew how to do that in jet training on one sim after all formally required training was complete. Seems, after that crew flew home, there was funny blue stuff sprayed about the cabin. Maintenance brought it to management's attention. Crew said and instructor at xxxx school had taught them how to properly perform that maneuver :hairraise:

Best,

Dave
 
nosehair said:
Seems obvious that loggable instrument time must accompany a logged approach- for currency.
Click to expand...
Don't even need 61.51 for that one. The 61.57 currency reg itself says that the approach must be in actual or simulated instrument conditions to count.
 
The regs say what you must log, they do not say you cannot log anything else.

And anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure out a way to mark the ones that count for instrument currency.

There being a big fat blank spot under Instrument Time on the same line as an Approach would be a big freakin' clue, for some clueless idiot who says you're trying to falsify something.

Okay, maybe you launched IMC and it got nicer later before that boring Visual approach. There's a nifty comments area in every logbook I've ever seen. Great place for a... wait for it... Comment about the flight.

Personally, I think some rainbow colored Unicorn stickers next to every Approach that counts would be nice.

Because Unicorn meat is tasty, and just as rare as a thread on PoA not turning into a Regulation-gasm of epic proportions. Oh baby, say Chief Counsel again. It's hot in here! Ooh!

Now, someone please go draw a Unicorn in their logbook and post it, just to make us laugh at those scared of their own shadows. My new book is too nice still to do it. Maybe a few more years when the cover starts to fall off like the 2nd one, it'll be ready for Unicorns.
 
denverpilot said:
The regs say what you must log, they do not say you cannot log anything else.
Click to expand...
Actually, 61.59 does. You cannot make intentionally false (or fraudulent) entries.

But you are right. If you can find a way to mark the entries so they cannot be reasonably considered to be claims to time you don't have, you're probably ok. And you mentioned a couple of ways to do it (I like the unicorns so).

The problem with not doing so is that the issues of false logbook entries isn't going to come up at a friendly cocktail party with the local FSDO inspectors. It's going to come up during an investigation when something has already gone wrong. It's funny how in those situations "clueless idiots" can really make your life miserable on very small discrepancies. "Oh yeah, but I wasn't planning on counting it" might not cut it.

Personally, I never found much use for my logbook as scrapbook except perhaps in the comments area and don't see any point for me to log something that doesn't count for anything in an "FAA column" that does.

But that's just me. These are hardly violations involving moral turpitude and, like speeding a little (or for that matter any activity involving some risk), you get to make your own personal calculation of the benefit and risk involved.
But, since ignorance of the law is not a defense anyway, might as well understand the rules before you decide something doesn't violate it.
 
denverpilot said:
The regs say what you must log, they do not say you cannot log anything else.
Click to expand...
61.51(a) says you must log in a manner acceptable to the Administrator.
And anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure out a way to mark the ones that count for instrument currency.
Click to expand...
I agree, as long as the method is acceptable to the administrator.
(which is your friendly faa inspector)
There being a big fat blank spot under Instrument Time on the same line as an Approach would be a big freakin' clue, for some clueless idiot who says you're trying to falsify something.
Click to expand...
That was sort of one of my points- since the op was under the illusion that he/she could log instrument approaches under vmc.

Because Unicorn meat is tasty, and just as rare as a thread on PoA not turning into a Regulation-gasm of epic proportions.
Click to expand...
Yes, Unicorn meat is very tasty, indeed. However, occasionally, a Unicorn has been mad at the world for a time, and the meat is very sour.
Encountering the "sour meat Unicorn" can be avoided if the recommended meat-acquiring techniques are followed.

My (our) regulation-gasm is a natural survival attempt at avoiding the sour Unicorn.

What i mean is that you (generically you) should acquire the habit of reading the opening paragraph of all of the regs.

Quite often, we skip the opening statement in (a) of all the regs, and go straight to the subpart that seems to support our personal beliefs, when the opening paragraph(a) of the reg may put a different light or change it completely.

...just sayin'..:wink2:
 
nosehair said:
That was sort of one of my points- since the op was under the illusion that he/she could log instrument approaches under vmc.
Click to expand...
And that's an excellent point. I've seen enough online and off to know that there are people who think that approaches don't need to be in actual or simulated instrument conditions in order to log them for currency. So the lack of recorded instrument time is not a very good sign it wasn't being counted as a 61.57 approach. OTOH, it's inclusion in the "IAP" column and the recording of "The location and type of each instrument approach accomplished" in the comments is decent evidence that it was being counted.
 
Something to consider... I need to make three night T/O & landings to a full stop every 90 days to maintain night currency. So do most CFI's, if they want to stay night current. By offering a take a local CFI with me, I can make the night approaches under the hood, and the CFI also gets to use my plane to make log his night landings. He doesn't charge me, and I don't charge him. (win/win)

Also, all of my cross country flights are filed IFR, unless my passengers want to do some sightseeing. Even when informed by approach control to expect a visual approach, I request (and am usually granted) a full instrument approach. While it may not count for currency, it does count for maintaining personal practice. The way I figure, since I'm already at altitude, might as well get another practice shot in there. The only times I was not granted the full approach was during heavy arriving traffic times.

One other thing... Don't forget to do your VOR checks, and log them.
 
So if you break out 1 second before DH/DA you didn't shoot an approach. Glad I read all this total nonsense.

This thread defines my librarian theory. I don't know how some of you ever get off the ground.
 
Captain said:
So if you break out 1 second before DH/DA you didn't shoot an approach. Glad I read all this total nonsense.

This thread defines my librarian theory. I don't know how some of you ever get off the ground.
Click to expand...

Nobody said it has to be instrument conditions all the way to DH/DA.
 
Captain said:
So if you break out 1 second before DH/DA you didn't shoot an approach. Glad I read all this total nonsense.
Click to expand...
Sorry you didn't read it all, because if you had, you'd see nobody said that. The Chief Counsel merely said that you had to fly the whole approach to MDA/DA to count it, not that it all had to be flown in instrument conditions. They very carefully sidestepped the issue of how much had to be in instrument conditions for the very good reductio ad absurdum reason you mentioned. So, if you break out of just past the FAF and then break off the approach and enter the traffic pattern, it doesn't count, but if you instead just continue flying the needles all the way to the MAP/runway (as appropriate), it does.
 
noproblem said:
Also, all of my cross country flights are filed IFR, unless my passengers want to do some sightseeing. Even when informed by approach control to expect a visual approach, I request (and am usually granted) a full instrument approach. While it may not count for currency, it does count for maintaining personal practice.
Click to expand...
I think that's very smart. IFR is about 20% flying on instruments and 80% flying procedures. Keeping yourself procedural proficient (that 80%) can will go a long way to maintaining overall competence. It's understandable for the FAA to measure currency by approaches performed in instrument conditions but that doesn't diminish the value of flying not only approaches but en route flight portions VFR.

Just today there was a post in another forum where a GPS pilot was lamenting that he received a "relatively complex" clearance of "fly the XYZ -53° radial from ABC; intercept the 233° UVW radial inbound to DEF" instead of "ABC Direct DEF" (which is was pretty much the equivalent of). A little procedural proficiency would have helped a lot with that one.
 
I fly a lot of procedures that won't qualify as loggable. Does help a lot keeping your button mashing skills up, especially with the autopilot (else I'll tend to just punch the red button and say the hell with it).

I did recently drop off a friend at another airport on the way home and realized it was now a very hazy night. Technically legal VFR, but dark, hazy, and in rural NC/VA, it's pretty much "solely by reference to instruments conditions." I picked up an IFR clearance and flew random approaches to every field I passed on the way home (not real busy evening at ATC either)." Logged them all.
 
I see I was quoted in this thread. However the entire conversation was not. The original question that was posed was if the member could fly an approach in VFR and still log it as an approach to maintain currency. However as has also been stated in this thread to log an approach for currency, it must be flown while either A. In IMC, or B. under the hood.
There has also been some discussion about whether or not this approach must be flown to minimums to count towards currency, and that is something we are still trying to get a clear answer from the FAA, however a few DPE's have stated that the approach must be to minimums to log. I will get back to you all with more information on monday as I am out of town at the moment.
 
And yes, must be flight solely by reference to instruments, so dark night would count, over ocean, arctic tundra, etc.
 
josetuya said:
There has also been some discussion about whether or not this approach must be flown to minimums to count towards currency, and that is something we are still trying to get a clear answer from the FAA, however a few DPE's have stated that the approach must be to minimums to log. I will get back to you all with more information on monday as I am out of town at the moment.
Click to expand...

Cap'n Ron quoted an FAA Chief Counsel opinion on that question in post #72:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=982453&postcount=72
 
BillTIZ said:
Approved simulator with CFII, $130/hr.
Ability to fly almost twice the number of approaches in the sim vs. the airplane. Able to reposition the sim. Yes, fly one or two with the full published or "ATC" directed missed procedure. Not taking full time for radar downwind or vectors for the next approach. Able to complete approaches to multiple airports 100s of miles apart instead of flying the same ILS/Loc approach 6 times.

Cost of C182, $180/hr plus CFII
I'll agree that in the airplane is more realistic, but around here, you can only get "multiple practice approaches" between midnight and 6am.
Click to expand...


In my experience, FRASCAS and the likes are just a waste of time and dollars. They are expensive and for a little bit more you can actually go and fly the approach for real and learn something. While in training I tried to stay away from the sims as much as I could. They are overly sensitive to the controls, and not realistic. Maybe the airliner or jet sims are way better, but for anything the size of a bug smasher it is always better to go out and fly the plane. Plus, If you can't afford minimum IFR currency you probably shoud not even be thinking about flying IFR as the 6 HITS is the minimum requirement to legally set yourself up for an accident, if anything.
 
nosehair said:
CFR 61.51 Pilot logbooks:
(a)Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:
(g)Logging instrument time:
(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.
(3) For the purposes of logging instrument time to meet the recent flight experience requirements of 61.57(c), the following info must be recorded in the person's logbook:
(i) the location and type of instrument approach accomplished.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Any person who likes to do what they want to their logbook should look closely at paragraph (a)

Seems obvious that loggable instrument time must accompany a logged approach- for currency.

An accomplished instrument approach would be to it's completion- DH or MDA/time.
Click to expand...



You can log instrument time without an approach. What about when you are in the clouds for most of the flight and then break out to get cleared for a visual.
 
cirrusmx said:
You can log instrument time without an approach. What about when you are in the clouds for most of the flight and then break out to get cleared for a visual.
Click to expand...
You are looking at it backwards. What he was saying is you cannot log an approach for recent experience without logging instrument time. Nobody was saying you couldn't log instrument time without logging an instrument approach, although for most of us, once you have your instrument rating, there is no legal requirement for any particular number of hours of instrument time beyond that required for ATP.
 
Last edited:
All of my cross-country flights are made on an IFR flight plan. Even when told by ATC to "expect visual approach", I still load an appropriate approach procedure into my GPS, and use the "vectors" to final.

On my return into JKA this afternoon, made my descent, getting through the clouds at 5,000, but still flew the approach down to minimums. Since I didn't have a safety pilot, I couldn't log it. Not worried about logging an approach, but am worried about staying proficient with all the procedures.
 
It turns out I have the opposite problem. My company has an iPad app we use to send in our numbers. OOOI, experience, uplift, burn, ect..

Well, yesterday I shot 3 GPS approaches in VRB and I can only log 1 of them. The app won't allow for multiple approaches. It just asks "Visual, Precision, Non-Precision" in a check box.

Oh well.
 
Captain said:
It turns out I have the opposite problem. My company has an iPad app we use to send in our numbers. OOOI, experience, uplift, burn, ect..

Well, yesterday I shot 3 GPS approaches in VRB and I can only log 1 of them. The app won't allow for multiple approaches. It just asks "Visual, Precision, Non-Precision" in a check box.
Click to expand...
However, since you get 6-month checks from the company (right?), the 6HIT tracking doesn't really affact you -- you're always IFR current based on your 6-month checks. 61.57(e)(2) refers.
 
Well, that's true. You can be sure also that the 3 approaches made it into my personal logbook....well, they would have anyway, if I were flying. As PNF I don't log any approaches but I do log the IMC.
 
Captain said:
As PNF ... I do log the IMC.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't do that if I were you. From 61.51(g):
(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.
Click to expand...
If you're the PNF (that's "pilot not flying," for those unfamiliar), you're not "operating" the aircraft as the word is used in this context.

Also, as a matter of semantics, whether you're in IMC (instrument meteorological conditions, which are defined by 91.155) or not is irrelevant to whether or not you can log instrument time. Unless hooded, you must be in "actual instrument conditions," which involves whether or not you can control the aircraft and navigate without the use of instruments. IMC is a totally different concept, the purpose of which is only to define when the FAA is happy for you to operate on a "see and be seen" basis for aircraft separation. Thus, passing within 1900 feet of the only clound in the sky puts you in IMC, but it doesn't mean you were in actual instrument conditions for the purpose of logging instrument time if it's a clear blue day with a defined visual horizon. OTOH, as JFK Jr. found out the hard way, flying around over the Long Island Sound on a high overcast, slightly hazy night, you can be in actual instrument conditions without being in IMC.
 
He's a required crewmember. The PF is in IMC. How then should he log it?
 
cirrusmx said:
In my experience, FRASCAS and the likes are just a waste of time and dollars. They are expensive and for a little bit more you can actually go and fly the approach for real and learn something. While in training I tried to stay away from the sims as much as I could. They are overly sensitive to the controls, and not realistic. Maybe the airliner or jet sims are way better, but for anything the size of a bug smasher it is always better to go out and fly the plane. Plus, If you can't afford minimum IFR currency you probably shoud not even be thinking about flying IFR as the 6 HITS is the minimum requirement to legally set yourself up for an accident, if anything.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I just flew some approaches in an approved simulator, with a CFII to observe and sign my logbook. I will always want to do real approaches in my plane, but I can think of three reasons why I think the simulator approach is worthwhile to supplement the real deal:

First of all, it is significantly cheaper than flying my plane to get the same number of approaches, not more expensive but then my plane has bricklike aerodynamics and a large thirsty engine :D (Cessna T206). Second of all, it is tough finding a safety pilot at times convenient for my own schedule. Third of all, I can practice approaches I would not dream of doing in real IMC conditions. For example, I just did a bunch of mountain airport approaches. In reality, forget it, I'm not flying in the mountains in IMC. It is nice to know, though, that if I do ever get into trouble flying in the mountains that I have done approaches down to minimums at least in a simulator.

Yes, they are overly sensitive but that actually is a good thing, it makes you need to be even more vigilant and keep your scan going.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
It turns out I have the opposite problem. My company has an iPad app we use to send in our numbers. OOOI, experience, uplift, burn, ect..

Well, yesterday I shot 3 GPS approaches in VRB and I can only log 1 of them. The app won't allow for multiple approaches. It just asks "Visual, Precision, Non-Precision" in a check box.

Oh well.
Click to expand...

what's OOOI, uplift mean?
 
Jaybird180 said:
He's a required crewmember. The PF is in IMC. How then should he log it?
Click to expand...
Just as it says in 61.51, which does not include logging instrument time when you're not flying the plane, unless you're an instrument instructor giving training in actual instrument conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top