Currency ???
06-14-2010, 09:42 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Going Mach Chicken
Posts: 324
I guess I've always fallen along the lines of counting an approach if at any point from my descent at the FAF to the runway I pass through a cloud layer. My reasoning is that, without the approach, a safe landing would not have been made under an IFR flight plan.
For logging student approaches, as long as the above is met, then as far as I'm concerned: I'm PIC, my name is on the IFR flight plan, so I log the approach. The FAR's don't specify that one must be sole manipulator of the controls for IFR currency. Only that the approach be flown in actual or simulated instrument conditions. Usually I just teach CFII's so I stick on the hood, have them teach me as a student, and I maintain currency
.
For logging student approaches, as long as the above is met, then as far as I'm concerned: I'm PIC, my name is on the IFR flight plan, so I log the approach. The FAR's don't specify that one must be sole manipulator of the controls for IFR currency. Only that the approach be flown in actual or simulated instrument conditions. Usually I just teach CFII's so I stick on the hood, have them teach me as a student, and I maintain currency
.
Last edited by WalkOfShame; 06-14-2010 at 09:43 PM. Reason: spelling and grammer nazi!
06-15-2010, 03:46 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
I'd also be wary of any analysis that's says "I log it because I'm responsible." Since logging under the FAR is not tied to responsibility, following that rule is an easy way to have false information in one's logbook.
06-15-2010, 07:09 AM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,057
Not quite. The FAR specifies that the approach must be "performed" and the Chief Counsel has already said that in most cases (CFIs instructing being an exception) this means sole manipulator. For example, a legal SIC who is not flying the approach himself may not log it.
I'd also be wary of any analysis that's says "I log it because I'm responsible." Since logging under the FAR is not tied to responsibility, following that rule is an easy way to have false information in one's logbook.
I'd also be wary of any analysis that's says "I log it because I'm responsible." Since logging under the FAR is not tied to responsibility, following that rule is an easy way to have false information in one's logbook.
06-15-2010, 10:20 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Going Mach Chicken
Posts: 324
Not quite. The FAR specifies that the approach must be "performed" and the Chief Counsel has already said that in most cases (CFIs instructing being an exception) this means sole manipulator. For example, a legal SIC who is not flying the approach himself may not log it.
I'd also be wary of any analysis that's says "I log it because I'm responsible." Since logging under the FAR is not tied to responsibility, following that rule is an easy way to have false information in one's logbook.
I'd also be wary of any analysis that's says "I log it because I'm responsible." Since logging under the FAR is not tied to responsibility, following that rule is an easy way to have false information in one's logbook.
06-17-2010, 06:36 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: JS32 FO
Posts: 848
Personally, I only log approaches when I am a) on an instrument approach assigned by ATC under IFR rules (or under the hood, for practice) and b) enter visual conditions after the FAF. In other words, a descent and navigation of some navaid through IMC (or plasti-cast) that couldn't be accomplished legally under VFR. One cloud just past the marker doesn't make it an approach, IMHO.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kasserine06
Flight Schools and Training
22
03-21-2009 09:33 AM
