Should I log it? ILS during VMC

[Morne]

Recent trip to KNEW with my wife we arrived at night. I had never flown into KNEW before and had trouble finding the runway. Most of my night flying I am going into smaller airports out in the country so I just look for the beacon and lights in the middle of nowhere. Can't do that in New Orleans - there are lights EVERYWHERE.

As we're getting stepped down over the lake from the north I keep looking and looking and I just don't see the runway. Weather is CAVU but the dense lights of the city have me perplexed. Finally, as we got close to SNAKI (10nm from the airport and still no joy) I asked for the ILS to 18R and was cleared for it. Turned right towards BOGLY and waited for the localizer needle to move. Once it did I turned inbound, centered the needle and dropped down onto the glideslope and VOILA - there's the runway!

I switched to CTAF and a Baron in the pattern graciously let me in since I was on an instrument approach and not just practicing for fun. Cancelled IFR on the ground (I had filed the whole route there).

So my question is - should I log this as an instrument approach for purposes of currency? It was VMC and I was not wearing a view-limiting device. But I am also certain that without at least the localizer I wouldn't have found the runway. It wasn't clouds or poor visibility that hid the runway environment from me, it was a mass of lights.

Yay or nay?

 

[taters]

you can log anything you want...but FOR CURRENCY proving purposes No, needs to be under IFR or simulated appropriately...all kinds of interpretation and "rules" I hear on what counts as under IFR, but just use common sense, If you are cleared for an ILS in the clouds and the field is IFR ya that goes in my logbook.

 

[bobmrg]

I agree with Clay. In similar circumstances I would have asked the tower to bring the runway lights up to maximum brightness or even to flash them on and off, and to activate the approach lights (although in your specific case I'm not sure what kind of lighting was available).

Bob Gardner

 

[Morne]

Bob - tower was closed for the evening.

And my first instinct agrees with y'all, my logbook is currently bare for actual approaches on that trip.

 

[Palmpilot]

you can log anything you want...

People say that, but what about 61.59(a)(2)?

(a) No person may make or cause to be made...

(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or exercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part...​

Since your logbook is required to be "kept, made, or used...," this would seem to apply.

 

[taters]

People say that, but what about 61.59(a)(2)?

(a) No person may make or cause to be made...

(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or exercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part...​

Since your logbook is required to be "kept, made, or used...," this would seem to apply.

you can just remark ILS not for currency etc or highlight the ones that count..trust me its your logbook/record what ever you have... you own it.

 

[Palmpilot]

you can just remark ILS not for currency etc or highlight the ones that count..

Makes sense to me.

trust me its your logbook/record what ever you have... you own it.

I'd rather trust the plain language of the regulation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'd rather trust the plain language of the regulation.

Why? If you get brought up on falsification charges and are facing certificate revocation, just say SGOTI told you to trust him and that it was ok.

Clay's comment on indicating entries that don't count made sense to me too.

But unless it's something special (and you like to treat your logbook as a scrapbook or diary), I've never quite understood the rationale for logging something that doesn't count.

 

[Dead Stick]

Ok, I'll be the contrarian. At night, at a strange airport, you'd better believe I'll be on a published instrument approach and preferably a precision approach if it's available - something about using EVERY available aid. Did ATC clear you for the ILS approach? Whether or not you log it is up to you, but if you're on an IFR flight plan, flying a published procedure using instrument references then I could see why you'd log it as an approach for currency purposes.

 

[ja_user]

I would like to see some IMC, haze, low visibly, something inside the faf before I would log it. And I wouldn't log it unless it was for currency. You can put anything in the comments that you would like. I always try to fly the approaches at night, at unfamiliar airports, a couple times I wouldn't have found the runway otherwise.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ok, I'll be the contrarian. At night, at a strange airport, you'd better believe I'll be on a published instrument approach and preferably a precision approach if it's available - something about using EVERY available aid. Did ATC clear you for the ILS approach? Whether or not you log it is up to you, but if you're on an IFR flight plan, flying a published procedure using instrument references then I could see why you'd log it as an approach for currency purposes.

Using every available aid is one thing. I've taught VFR-only pilots to use on-field VORs and localizers as an additional aid to finding their way into strange airports.

Logging for currency is a different issue. A pure creature of regulation. Can you explain how your contrarian view fits in with the regulatory language?

==============================
61.57(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR only if:

(1) ... Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate, for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device that involves having performed the following--
(i) Six instrument approaches.
==============================

 

[gismo]

People say that, but what about 61.59(a)(2)?

(a) No person may make or cause to be made...

(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or exercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part...​

Since your logbook is required to be "kept, made, or used...," this would seem to apply.

If you noted that you made an ILS approach it wouldn't be false unless you somehow also indicated it was in IMC. The column in most logbooks labeled "approaches" usually doesn't include the words "in IMC" in the label but that's how most of us treat it and baring a note disclaming IMC I suppose it could be considered intentionally false logging if you put a '1' there. It it were me and I wanted to keep a record of such, I'd use my usual nomenclature (e.g. ILS 10R KFCM) but leave the approach column blank or (better yet) put a '0' in that column so I wouldn't accidentally count it for currency later.

 

[Dead Stick]

Mark, please define "actual weather conditions". Is CAVU an actual weather condition? What about those VMC nights with high overcast clouds and no discernible horizon? Since few approaches are to minimums, at what point is there enough weather to count?

 

[Jaybird180]

 

[midlifeflyer]

Mark, please define "actual weather conditions". Is CAVU an actual weather condition? What about those VMC nights with high overcast clouds and no discernible horizon? Since few approaches are to minimums, at what point is there enough weather to count?

==============================
"Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. (Chief Counsel, 1984)
==============================

There's your overcast with no visible horizon (the definition is from the "moonless night" opinion after all)

But I didn't see in your scenario that this was a moonless night with no visible horizon that required the aircraft instruments to keep the shiny side up.

Of course, if you're saying that, as an instrument pilot, you were so distracted by the unfamiliar surroundings that you were unable to keep the right side up at night without relying on the instruments by all means log it for currency.

"is there enough weather to count" (how much time do you have to spend in actual) is a separate question.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If you noted that you made an ILS approach it wouldn't be false unless you somehow also indicated it was in IMC.

I think you're playing a "pin" game that wouldn't work if the issue actually came up. If it's in the column for instrument approaches, the most reasonable interpretation is that you intended to count it as an instrument approach (especially keeping in mind that if the issue comes up, it likely means you've already caused a problem).

 

[Dead Stick]

==============================
"Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. (Chief Counsel, 1984)
==============================

There's your overcast with no visible horizon (the definition is from the "moonless night" opinion after all)

But I didn't see in your scenario that this was a moonless night with no visible horizon that required the aircraft instruments to keep the shiny side up.

Of course, if you're saying that, as an instrument pilot, you were so distracted by the unfamiliar surroundings that you were unable to keep the right side up at night without relying on the instruments by all means log it for currency.

"is there enough weather to count" (how much time do you have to spend in actual) is a separate question.

The reg used the phrase "actual weather conditions" you gave me the definition for "actual instrument flight conditions" The contrarain in me would argue that actual instrument flight conditions is just what the Chief Counsel wrote in 1984, but the phrase "actual weather conditions" might mean something else. Are they one and the same? Maybe yes, maybe not.

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, but it's not a matter of being distracted by the unfamiliar surroundings, most jets that I've flown can't really be flown without relying on the flight instruments. It's much different than say a Cessna 172, but this characteristic is not limited to jets and it does become an issue with many aircraft. Day or night, VMC or IMC you're on the gauges all of the time and the procedures are exactly the same whether or not there happens to be clouds in the sky or not. That's why I asked if he was on an IFR plight plan and had been cleared for an ILS approach. I really don't think it would be too much of a stretch at all to log it as an approach. Whether he would or not of course would be up to him.

 

[Morne]

Did ATC clear you for the ILS approach?

They sure did.

 

[EdFred]

I only log an approach if I am in IMC on a published segment of the approach.

 

[Dead Stick]

I only log an approach if I am in IMC on a published segment of the approach.

For what it's worth, that's pretty much my personal criteria as well not that it makes much difference when you have to go play in the sim every 6 months.

 

[EdFred]

For what it's worth, that's pretty much my personal criteria as well not that it makes much difference when you have to go play in the sim every 6 months.

I've never gotten recurrent/kept current in a sim.

 

[poadeleted20]

First, some definitions...

As a legally critical point of semantics, let's not forget the definitions of VMC, IMC, simulated instrument conditions (which for brevity I'll call SIC here), and actual instrument conditions (AIC).

VMC is flight conditions in which VFR flight is permitted under 14 CFR 91.155. These conditions change depending on altitude and airspace.

IMC is flight conditions in which VFR flight is not permitted under 14 CFR 91.155.

From the 1984 Carr letter of interpretation:

"Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles.

"Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions.

Note in particular the "typically," as oppose to "always" in the AIC definition.

Thus, you can be in AIC in VMC -- say, between layers at night with several thousand feet between the layers and miles of visibility, but no visible ground or horizon references for navigation or control. Likewise, you can be in IMC without being in AIC, say, when you're 1500 feet laterally from the only cloud in a clear blue sky.

This may seem silly, but it's an important point to remember when discussing these rules, particularly since there are times you can be legally logging approaches for currency in VMC, and there are also times you cannot legally log them for currency when in IMC.

Now, the Chief Counsel gave a legal interpretation in 1992 on how much of the approach must be flown and how low it must be taken. See the Slater interpretation, #92-5, quoted below:

Second, you questioned how low a pilot must descend (i.e., minimum descent altitude or decision height or full-stop landing) on the six instrument approaches he must log to meet the recent IFR experience requirements specified in FAR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) (14 CFR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i)). You also asked if an instrument approach "counts" if only part of the approach is conducted in actual IFR conditions. Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) states that: No pilot may act as pilot in command under IFR, nor in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless he has, within the past 6 calendar months - (i) In the case of an aircraft other than a glider, logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved, including at least six instrument approaches, or passed an instrument competency check in the category of Ò aircraft involved. For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height.

However, they have never said how much of the approach must be flown in actual instrument conditions. I would note that it is probably a good thing that nobody has pressed the issue on how much of the approach must be flown in instrument conditions, as we probably could not stand the answer, which might be "all of it," in which case you'd not be able to count any approach you successfully completed, since if you were still in instrument conditions as DH/MDA, you wouldn't be able to land, so if you successfully landed, you wouldn't be able to count it. Best to let this sleeping dog continue to doze.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I think it's pretty simple. If you cannot legally land VFR and at some point in the approach you are in IMC you log it.

 

[taters]

Its dirt simple either you needed the approach under ifr
to get in or you didn't

 

[poadeleted20]

I think it's pretty simple. If you cannot legally land VFR and at some point in the approach you are in IMC you log it.

That isn't true. Simply being in IMC is not sufficient. You must be in actual instrument conditions, and there are situations described in my post above where you are in IMC (and thus not legal to be VFR) but not in actual instrument conditions.

 

[tlglenn]

First time I flew into KSTP was at night and I needed to use the ILS to find the runway. Lots of city lights and I didn't spot the runway until about two miles out. But, I had plenty of outside visual references to help me stay upright so I did not consider logging this as an actual instrument approach.

 

[Jaybird180]

Perhaps it was a navigational issue. I still try to get it right first time when I arrive at my home drone at night. Perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on myself, afterall, my mentor told me that he had to night land in the jungles of Vietnam with only 2 lit oil cans as a runway marker.

 

[gismo]

I think you're playing a "pin" game that wouldn't work if the issue actually came up. If it's in the column for instrument approaches, the most reasonable interpretation is that you intended to count it as an instrument approach (especially keeping in mind that if the issue comes up, it likely means you've already caused a problem).

Which is why I wrote:
" The column in most logbooks labeled "approaches" usually doesn't include the words "in IMC" in the label but that's how most of us treat it and baring a note disclaming IMC I suppose it could be considered intentionally false logging if you put a '1' there"

 

[Alexb2000]

I thought I read somewhere that the Navy considered dark night conditions at sea logable as instrument time since there was no horizon.

I could also argue dark night approaches in the mountains to be instrument navigation.

 

[poadeleted20]

I thought I read somewhere that the Navy considered dark night conditions at sea logable as instrument time since there was no horizon.

Correct -- at least as of 1977 when I last flew in the
Navy

I could also argue dark night approaches in the mountains to be instrument navigation.

You could, and the Chief Counsel would agree that constitutes "actual instrument conditions."

 

[douglas393]

Okay, Ron, so according to your interpretation of the rules is the OP able to log this as an approach for currency. I aks this because I have been on approaches in which I have been in what you would call AIC for the 10 seconds or less it took me to fly through the single cloud that was hovering at 2000 AGL just after I passed the FAF, and according to your definition I believe that would count for currency, though in reality it does not provide me with the experience I think the currency requirements are looking for. However, if I fly at night in VMC conditions, and do not turn the runway lights on until I am 1000 ft agl I will not see the runway until then, and would theorectically be in SIC until then(which may describe the OP's situation).

 

[Greg Bockelman]

However, if I fly at night in VMC conditions, and do not turn the runway lights on until I am 1000 ft agl I will not see the runway until then, and would theorectically be in SIC until then(which may describe the OP's situation).

I am not sure what you mean by SIC. But the issue is whether or not you have enough visual cues to remain right side up without the instruments. Not being able to find the airport without runway lights does not qualify.

 

[poadeleted20]

Okay, Ron, so according to your interpretation of the rules is the OP able to log this as an approach for currency. I aks this because I have been on approaches in which I have been in what you would call AIC for the 10 seconds or less it took me to fly through the single cloud that was hovering at 2000 AGL just after I passed the FAF, and according to your definition I believe that would count for currency, though in reality it does not provide me with the experience I think the currency requirements are looking for.

As I said, there is no regulation or interpretation about how much of the approach must be flown in actual instrument conditions for the approach to count for recent experience. It's left to the judgement and discretion of the pilot. In your case, I doubt I'd count it, but I will not be drawn into an inch-by-inch bracketing to set a hard number. At the end of the day, on this issue, I apply the guidance of the Supreme Court in Jacobellis v. Ohio -- "I know it when I see it, and [in your case] this isn't it."

However, if I fly at night in VMC conditions, and do not turn the runway lights on until I am 1000 ft agl I will not see the runway until then, and would theorectically be in SIC until then(which may describe the OP's situation).

Unless you are using a vision restricting device, you are not in simulated instrument conditions (that's what you meant by "SIC," right?). So, turning the runway lights off does not create simulated instrument conditions. Also, the issue for determining actual instrument conditions is not whether you can see the runway itself, but whether use of the instruments is necessary to control the aircraft. Thus, I agree with Greg -- turning the runway lights off does not by itself create actual instrument conditions.

 

[douglas393]

I am not sure what you mean by SIC. But the issue is whether or not you have enough visual cues to remain right side up without the instruments. Not being able to find the airport without runway lights does not qualify.

I was using Ron's defined acronyms in his post SIC meaning simulated instrumented conditions. As for the issue being just "whether or not you have enough visual cues to remain right side up without the instruments", I guess I am confused, as I could stay current with that by just flying enroute in SIC, but the currency requires a lot more than just that.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was using Ron's defined acronyms in his post SIC meaning simulated instrumented conditions. As for the issue being just "whether or not you have enough visual cues to remain right side up without the instruments", I guess I am confused, as I could stay current with that by just flying enroute in SIC, but the currency requires a lot more than just that.

"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."

 

[Alexb2000]

Regulations will always be subject to interpretation and an argument of semantics.

Regardless of what my logbook says, Instrument currency IMO is about being confident to fly anywhere using the IFR system, evaluate the weather common to IFR conditions, and fly IFR procedures as published (including approaches to minimums). If I am not 100% able to do that then I am not current and I need to get some real training before I fly IFR again.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

If I am not 100% able to do that then I am not current and I need to get some real training before I fly IFR again.

Amen to that. And that is why a lot of instrument pilots do 6 month IPCs to maintain currency.

 

[Dead Stick]

Regulations will always be subject to interpretation and an argument of semantics.

Regardless of what my logbook says, Instrument currency IMO is about being confident to fly anywhere using the IFR system, evaluate the weather common to IFR conditions, and fly IFR procedures as published (including approaches to minimums). If I am not 100% able to do that then I am not current and I need to get some real training before I fly IFR again.

Well said. Too many of us confuse legal currency with proficiency. They are not one and the same, in fact they have little to do with each other.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well said. Too many of us confuse legal currency with proficiency. They are not one and the same, in fact they have little to do with each other.

Agreed, but remember that your goal should be to be both proficient and legally current, so knowing what you can log, and what to have to log, should be of at least passing interest.

 

[SCCutler]

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.