Should I log it? ILS during VMC

[Alexb2000]

Just a personal comment, here; I have flown into KNEW fairly often, and I consider the approach over the lake (which, with prevailing winds, is almost all of them) to be something close to instrument flying even when it is clear and daytime. Lake Pontchartrain is big, and it's usually pretty hazy to boot. The closer you get, the fewer horizon cues you have (especially laterally, the kind you use more than you know through peripheral vision).

Under the circumstances the OP cites, I'd absolutely want an approach (and I typically file IFR to KNEW), and based upon my prior experiences with KNEW, I bet I'd feel pretty comfortable logging it for currency. I absolutely, positively rely upon the instruments for verifying and maintaining both situational awareness and airplane control, when I am approaching and landing at KNEW.

Spike, the gators want you to know that there is no reason to fly an approach into KNEW, ever.

 

[SCCutler]

Spike, the gators want you to know that there is no reason to fly an approach into KNEW, ever.

Not an issue; gators give sharks a wide berth as a matter of professional courtesy.

 

[douglas393]

"Whether or not you have enough visual cues to remain right side up without the instruments" is only the criterion for whether or not you are in actual instrument conditions for the purpose of logging actual instrument time or counting events conducted in those conditions for recent instrument experience. I don't think I said anything which could be interpreted as saying one can maintain legal instrument currency "by just flying enroute in simulated instrument conditions."

I guess I will remain confused, because though I realize that flying upright is important, but my ability to hold altitude, and track, as well as descend, turn, and ascend with the use of my instruments, while communicating with ATC, making sure I am still on my flight plan, evaluating the weather conditions that may affect my flight, keep track of the mechanical issues of my plane, etc are all part of me flying in actual instrument conditions. I fully realize that currency and proficiency are two completely different issues, and thus the reason for my original post. I personally do not believe for me doing approachs, holding patterns, and tracking and intercepting courses on an approved flight simulator, or even with foggles are enough for me to be proficient. Maybe others feel that it is good enough for them, but for me they are not a good substitute for flying in the soup. Even the night flying currency rules are not enough for me to feel I am proficient with night flying. I find if I do not fly at least once a month at night I lose something when I fly at night. Am I safe, sure, but I am just not as much skillful with them. I took a two week hiatus from flying because of annual woes this December, and the first time I was up I felt my skills had deteriorated. Maybe this is because I am a relatively low hour pilot(350 hrs or so), or maybe it is just me I do not know. I do know in my professional life, I can do a procedure once every four or five years and do it as well as (and with similar skill levels) a procedure I do three times a week, but not so with flying.

 

[gismo]

I guess I will remain confused, because though I realize that flying upright is important, but my ability to hold altitude, and track, as well as descend, turn, and ascend with the use of my instruments, while communicating with ATC, making sure I am still on my flight plan, evaluating the weather conditions that may affect my flight, keep track of the mechanical issues of my plane, etc are all part of me flying in actual instrument conditions.

While that's all true, the issue of whether an approach is loggable for legal IFR currency is only about whether or not you have enough visual cues to maintain your intended aircraft attitude without resorting to the flight instruments for that. Nothing in the currency requirements dictates that you have any recent experience evaluating weather, communicating with ATC, following a flight plan, monitoring the mechanical issues, etc. even though as you point out this is indeed a required element WRT proficiency.

I fully realize that currency and proficiency are two completely different issues, and thus the reason for my original post. I personally do not believe for me doing approachs, holding patterns, and tracking and intercepting courses on an approved flight simulator, or even with foggles are enough for me to be proficient. Maybe others feel that it is good enough for them, but for me they are not a good substitute for flying in the soup. Even the night flying currency rules are not enough for me to feel I am proficient with night flying.

I agree that simulated IMC by virtue of view limiting devices or simulators doesn't provide the same environment and challenges of the "real" thing but even "real" IMC comes with a wide range of challenges and to really be at the top of your IFR flight game you need periodic exposure to way more issues than most of are likely to face on a hundred IMC flights. One of the most obvious is the transition from instrument flight to visual at the end of an approach. Practicing that whether it be in a simulator or in an airplane with actual clouds or foggles doesn't really prepare you for picking out the approach and runway lights in half mile visibility except when those actual conditions exist on your approach (BTW FWIW, many sims do a better job with that than foggles in an airplane). IMO the expectation is that any of the approved methods for currency training are sufficient to maintain the ability to scan instruments and control an airplane along with the skills needed to perform an approach procedure according to the chart and that if a pilot can manage that without totally consuming his mental bandwidth the rest can be handled "on the fly" so to speak.

I find if I do not fly at least once a month at night I lose something when I fly at night. Am I safe, sure, but I am just not as much skillful with them. I took a two week hiatus from flying because of annual woes this December, and the first time I was up I felt my skills had deteriorated. Maybe this is because I am a relatively low hour pilot(350 hrs or so), or maybe it is just me I do not know. I do know in my professional life, I can do a procedure once every four or five years and do it as well as (and with similar skill levels) a procedure I do three times a week, but not so with flying.

Perhaps those procedures are so "procedural" (straightforward/logical, step by step, and unchanging) that once you've mastered one they're not so hard to follow? Or perhaps your training on each was so intensive that they are burned so deeply into your subconscious you could do them in your sleep? Flying in general, and flying on instruments even more so, can and does become just as routine if you've done it long enough and while I'd have to admit that the first few minutes hand flying in IMC are a little harder when a couple months have gone by since the last attempt, it really just takes a little extra attention until you "get in the groove". Even on the rare occasions when I've gone several months without any IMC flying, my first subsequent encounter with a cloud doesn't make me feel like I'm on the verge of losing control, I just feel a bit sloppy with altitude and heading deviations, neither of which is going to kill me unless I just give up.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The contrarain in me would argue

I guess it depends on your definition of contrarian beyond the technical definition of taking an opposing viewpoint.

If it means creating "Colgate-Ipana" distinctions (a phase on my my law professors used to use) that don't mean anything in order to take a view that makes no sense, I would agree.

 

[douglas393]

Perhaps those procedures are so "procedural" (straightforward/logical, step by step, and unchanging) that once you've mastered one they're not so hard to follow? Or perhaps your training on each was so intensive that they are burned so deeply into your subconscious you could do them in your sleep? Flying in general, and flying on instruments even more so, can and does become just as routine if you've done it long enough and while I'd have to admit that the first few minutes hand flying in IMC are a little harder when a couple months have gone by since the last attempt, it really just takes a little extra attention until you "get in the groove". Even on the rare occasions when I've gone several months without any IMC flying, my first subsequent encounter with a cloud doesn't make me feel like I'm on the verge of losing control, I just feel a bit sloppy with altitude and heading deviations, neither of which is going to kill me unless I just give up.

Maybe on the first part, but your last part is exactly my point, I do not feel close to losing control but I am sloppy whether its the night flying issue, VMC flying issue, or IFR flying. I just do not like being sloppy.

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe on the first part, but your last part is exactly my point, I do not feel close to losing control but I am sloppy whether its the night flying issue, VMC flying issue, or IFR flying. I just do not like being sloppy.

Good. Then do whatever it takes to stay sharp. But also make sure your logbook shows the recent experience in actual or simulated conditions to meet the requirements of 61.57(c) IAW the Chief Counsel's interpretations of the relevant regulations.