Flying approaches in sim without instructor for currency

M

meritflyer

Well-Known Member
I was told tonight that the regs were amended to allow this?

It was pretty clear that an authorized instructor was required to fly such approaches for currency.

Is this true?
 
meritflyer said:
I was told tonight that the regs were amended to allow this?

It was pretty clear that an authorized instructor was required to fly such approaches for currency.

Is this true?
Click to expand...

Can you give us the specific regulation that someone told you was ammended?
 
The regulation change you're looking for is the October 22 change of 61.57(c)3. The part about not requiring an instructor came from the comments contained within the final NPRM, which stated the following.

A person would not need a flight instructor or ground instructor present when accomplishing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks of §61.57(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) in an approved flight training device or flight simulator. Only when a person is required to submit to an instrument proficiency check must a flight instructor or ground instructor be present. The rationale is that a person is not required to have a flight instructor or ground instructor present when performing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks in an aircraft. If the person is using a view-limiting device (i.e., hood device) when performing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/ tracking tasks in an aircraft, only a safety pilot is required to be present. If a person is performing approaches, holding, and course intercepting/ tracking tasks in an aircraft in IMC, it is permissible to log the tasks without a flight instructor being present. Therefore, a person who is instrument current or is within the second 6-calendar month period (See § 61.57(d) for currency) need not have a flight instructor or ground instructor present when accomplishing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/ tracking tasks of § 61.57(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) in an approved flight training device or flight simulator.
Click to expand...
 
Crism said:
This finalized?
Click to expand...
That's a quote from the explanatory information from the final rule. There was actually no substantive change to the underlying rule.

The problem is that this flies directly in the face of the brand new language of 61.51(g)(4):

==============================
(4) A person can use time in a flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate, rating, or instrument recency experience, provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session.
==============================

Sounds like the language in the "Explanatory Material" for 61.57 is one of those "shoot from the hip" statements that John Lynch has become famous for
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
That's a quote from the explanatory information from the final rule. There was actually no substantive change to the underlying rule.

The problem is that this flies directly in the face of the brand new language of 61.51(g)(4):

==============================
(4) A person can use time in a flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate, rating, or instrument recency experience, provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session.
==============================

Sounds like the language in the "Explanatory Material" for 61.57 is one of those "shoot from the hip" statements that John Lynch has become famous for
Click to expand...

Yeah, that regulation sounds pretty clear. I'd definitely side on the regulation rather than the non-regulatory explanation on this one.
 
The way I think of it is if you can fly an airplane IFR without an instructor then you don't need an instructor in the simulator. If you need an instructor to fly IFR, or sign your logbook then you need an instructor in the simulator.

As a sidenote in the NPRM that was mentioned above I believe it said somewhere in an explanation that an instructor doesn't need to be physically present at the simulator if it has some sort of playback device. I can't remember what part of the NPRM it was in though.
 
Easiest way to answer the question would probably be to just write a letter to FAA legal. Granted, it would probably take forever to get something back, but at least it would tell us something, eventually.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Easiest way to answer the question would probably be to just write a letter to FAA legal. Granted, it would probably take forever to get something back, but at least it would tell us something, eventually.
Click to expand...


My FSDO has been really quick with my questions, I just don't like to write them because their answers usually are the opposite of what I wanted.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The regulation change you're looking for is the October 22 change of 61.57(c)3. The part about not requiring an instructor came from the comments contained within the final NPRM, which stated the following.
Click to expand...


Can you post a link for the comments? I've been looking for it but haven't been able to locate it.

Thanks
 
I look at it this way. If you have use of a frasca or FTD of some sort, whos to say your not just screwing around in the sim? In the aircraft it's do or do not. No pause button. I go with the regs and have a CFII present, and you actually learn stuff too. Good to have a second set of eyes to critique.
 
pilot4higher said:
I look at it this way. If you have use of a frasca or FTD of some sort, whos to say your not just screwing around in the sim? In the aircraft it's do or do not. No pause button. I go with the regs and have a CFII present, and you actually learn stuff too. Good to have a second set of eyes to critique.
Click to expand...

On the same note, who's to say a student pilot actually flew to the intended destination on those solo X/C's? Or if somebody's logbook is actually representative of what they have flown, and not padded. It comes down to the honor system, and personal integrity.
 
Interesting...

I wrote to John Lynch about it. According to him, the error is in the writing of the rule, not the comment.

61.51(g)(4) currently reads:
==============================
(4) A person can use time in a flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate, rating, or instrument recency experience, provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session.
==============================

according to Lynch, it should read
==============================
(4) A person can use time in a flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate, rating, or instrument proficiency check or flight review, provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session.
==============================

He says that there will be a technical amendment coming along.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Who cares?

You don't really need ATC or anyone to play ATC when practicing approaches in an airplane either.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: Besides, who really wants to deal with those glorified crossing guards anyways. They are the reason we have power switches on the radios.
 
PA44-LUV said:
My only question is who is playing ATC during these pilot-only sim sessions? :sarcasm:
Click to expand...

It was a joke. I forgot the sarcasm tag in the above post. I tried to fix it in the original post but it wouldn't let me edit it. Deep breaths, I wasn't trying to get everyone worked up, honest. :cool:

Fixed it in my quoting myself.
 
PA44-LUV said:
It was a joke. I forgot the sarcasm tag in the above post. I tried to fix it in the original post but it wouldn't let me edit it. Deep breaths, I wasn't trying to get everyone worked up, honest. :cool:

Fixed it in my quoting myself.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone got bunched up.

It would not be unusual to make that comment seriously. I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone who was trained in busy airspace and always used TRACON for practice approaches was never exposed to something different thought it was a requirement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top