ASR PAR approaches

No, you are not navigating in reference to a navaid. You are just following verbal commands.
 
61.57(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought—

(i) At least six instrument approaches;

(ii) Holding procedures; and

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems.
Click to expand...

Nothing there requires that the instrument approach be navigated "in reference to a navaid." So, unless someone can point to FAA guidance that says otherwise, I say an ASR approach in actual or simulated instrument conditions counts toward the six instrument approaches for currency.
 
Minnesota_Flyer said:
Nothing there requires that the instrument approach be navigated "in reference to a navaid."
Click to expand...

It does say "use of navigation systems" and ASR/PAR are not navigation systems, according to

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../interpretations/data/interps/2008/Glaser.pdf

which says

ASR and PAR are not on the above list because they do not qualify as navigation systems. Rather, they are radar tracking systems. ASR and PAR are ground controlled approaches in which air traffic control personnel transmits instructions to the pilot by radio. They do not require flight crew to direct an aircraft on its course, but rather to listen and comply with a ground controller's instructions.​
 
tgrayson said:
It does say "use of navigation systems" and ASR/PAR are not navigation systems, according to

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../interpretations/data/interps/2008/Glaser.pdf

which says

ASR and PAR are not on the above list because they do not qualify as navigation systems. Rather, they are radar tracking systems. ASR and PAR are ground controlled approaches in which air traffic control personnel transmits instructions to the pilot by radio. They do not require flight crew to direct an aircraft on its course, but rather to listen and comply with a ground controller's instructions.​
Click to expand...

However, it only mentions using navigation systems with reference to interecepting and tracking. It does not say that each of the 6 approaches require intercepting and tracking or holding. My interpretation would be that you could do 1 ILS, 1 LOC, a couple of RNAV, and an ASR and PAR, do a missed approach on the ILS that involves a hold and you are covered on all accounts. Obviously, this is an example, you could also do 3 ASRs and 3PARs, then go hold off some radial and you have also met your requirements. Just my opinion.
 
ASR/PAR are still instrument approaches (prec/non-prec), and for the purposes of logging an approach for currency, are perfectly legal to do so.

If you're accomplishing approaches for your instrument rating on the instrument XC, then it changes; and have been listed by the FAA below:

QUESTION: How does FAA define the requirement that three “different kinds of approaches” must be completed during a cross-country flight for an instrument rating?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.65(d)(2)(iii)(C); Under the April 4, 1997, final rule for Part 61, the FAA consciously did not specify the kinds of approaches a pilot must perform in order to comply with the requirement under § 61.65(d)(2)(iii)(C). A pilot seeking an instrument rating must complete the cross-country aeronautical experience requirement by simply performing three different kinds of approaches, i.e., using thee different kinds of navigation systems. A pilot may choose any three of the list below:

1. Non-directional beacon (NDB)
2. Localizer-type directional aid (LDA)
3. Very high frequency omnirange station (VOR)
4. Global positioning system (GPS)
5. Simplified direction facility (SDF)
6. Instrument landing system localizer (LOC).
Click to expand...
 
Hubbs said:
However, it only mentions using navigation systems with reference to interecepting and tracking. It does not say that each of the 6 approaches require intercepting and tracking or holding. My interpretation would be that you could do 1 ILS, 1 LOC, a couple of RNAV, and an ASR and PAR, do a missed approach on the ILS that involves a hold and you are covered on all accounts. Obviously, this is an example, you could also do 3 ASRs and 3PARs, then go hold off some radial and you have also met your requirements. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

That's how I read it.
 
MikeD said:
ASR/PAR are still instrument approaches (prec/non-prec), and for the purposes of logging an approach for currency, are perfectly legal to do so.

If you're accomplishing approaches for your instrument rating on the instrument XC, then it changes; and have been listed by the FAA below:
Click to expand...
Our pilots would do them all the time on the v22 as a way to kill time when needed and maintain currency. Nothing more boring for a crew chief then sitting in the back listening to that. :bandit:
 
juan valdez said:
Our pilots would do them all the time on the v22 as a way to kill time when needed and maintain currency. Nothing more boring for a crew chief then sitting in the back listening to that. :bandit:
Click to expand...

Lol....I could imagine. I'd think it'd be similar to most other crew aircraft when the plne RTBs with no full-stop, instead, it's now landing and approach currency time for the front-enders. lol.
 
MikeD said:
Lol....I could imagine. I'd think it'd be similar to most other crew aircraft when the plne RTBs with no full-stop, instead, it's now landing and approach currency time for the front-enders. lol.
Click to expand...

Right before I left Dover, they started doing "super locals". This was a 45 minute trip out to the AR track, up and down twice, 45 minutes back for 2-3 hours of transition work. It is like 6 hours of local action and man....that sucked. Although, I am pretty sure doing the AWACS thing (burning big 'ole holes) for 12+ hours would suck much worse!
 
I'm going brain dead, but when I was a CFI I had a deal with this controller in an airport I couldn't remember in central TX. I'd bring a student and do an ASR at least once a month -- apparently the controllers have to do a certain amount of ASRs per quarter or something and people very rarely request it.
 
casey said:
No, you are not navigating in reference to a navaid. You are just following verbal commands.
Click to expand...

Gee.. all those years of flying ASRs and GCAs and they were not legal to be logged for instrument currency.

FWIW, try a GCA with a no-gyro approach ...:o
 
Orange Anchor said:
Gee.. all those years of flying ASRs and GCAs and they were not legal to be logged for instrument currency.

FWIW, try a GCA with a no-gyro approach ...:o
Click to expand...

We had a new guy in the -38 getting ready for his XC, and I told him to make sure to request the "backcourse PAR" at the USN field he was going to. He didn't know what it was.....told him that because the controller is looking up the backcourse as opposed to the front course, he (the pilot) should do opposite what the controller is telling him. Not that it could've ever gotten that far, but I do wonder if he made the request, and if so, how the controller responded.....
 
MikeD said:
We had a new guy in the -38 getting ready for his XC, and I told him to make sure to request the "backcourse PAR" at the USN field he was going to. He didn't know what it was.....told him that because the controller is looking up the backcourse as opposed to the front course, he (the pilot) should do opposite what the controller is telling him. Not that it could've ever gotten that far, but I do wonder if he made the request, and if so, how the controller responded.....
Click to expand...

Nice prank.

We were in Thailand coming off refueling a strike and the wx at U-Tapao was down. Everyone was doing PARs to the field. As part of the deal, the Thais got some training. We were coming down final and the Thai controller had things all screwed up so I requested a "GI contoller' meaning an English speaking good old boy from 'merica. The next thing I got was "turn light... stop turn. turn light.. stop turn".. a no-gyro approach. The copilot and I looked at each other and almost broke up laughing. We missed and came back around if I remember correctly.

Now that I think about it decades later.. what the hell was his USAF supervisor doing??? He must have been laughing also.
 
Orange Anchor said:
Nice prank.

We were in Thailand coming off refueling a strike and the wx at U-Tapao was down. Everyone was doing PARs to the field. As part of the deal, the Thais got some training. We were coming down final and the Thai controller had things all screwed up so I requested a "GI contoller' meaning an English speaking good old boy from 'merica. The next thing I got was "turn light... stop turn. turn light.. stop turn".. a no-gyro approach. The copilot and I looked at each other and almost broke up laughing. We missed and came back around if I remember correctly.

Now that I think about it decades later.. what the hell was his USAF supervisor doing??? He must have been laughing also.
Click to expand...

Lol.....GI controller get you No-GI-RO control!!:D

Reminds me of the ROKAF controllers...with new ones, you'd be in the soup there (Korea standard), and new guy getting his work cut out for him would eventually slip up with a "well left of glideslope" cal making you wonder what the hell did he say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top