PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ??

gomntwins · November 28th, 2004, 00:42

This came up today with another instructors student at the flight school where I work... I'd like to see if anybody knows an answer that can be backed up with some form of proof. The situation was as follows:

The student goes on the long dual IFR 250nm cross country. They shoot a VOR approach, a GPS approach, and a PAR approach. The student goes to the checkride, and the examiner says that it does not count for the long cross country. The reason is, according to the regs (which I don't have in front of me at the moment, so I'll be paraphrasing) you need to shoot three different types of approaches which utilize navigational systems. The DPE took this to mean that you must utilize three different systems within the aircraft, and with the PAR approach you are not... you're instead using ATC for navigation, not your aircraft. The way I read the regs, I'd say that using any form of navigational system is good... ATC included. I tried reading through the FAA FAQ's, and the only thing I came up with is that an examiner shouldn't use a PAR approach on a checkride... it said nothing about it being bad to use a PAR approach for the long cross-country. Does anybody know?
Thanks!

MikeD · November 28th, 2004, 00:46

[ QUOTE ]
This came up today with another instructors student at the flight school where I work... I'd like to see if anybody knows an answer that can be backed up with some form of proof. The situation was as follows:

The student goes on the long dual IFR 250nm cross country. They shoot a VOR approach, a GPS approach, and a PAR approach. The student goes to the checkride, and the examiner says that it does not count for the long cross country. The reason is, according to the regs (which I don't have in front of me at the moment, so I'll be paraphrasing) you need to shoot three different types of approaches which utilize navigational systems. The DPE took this to mean that you must utilize three different systems within the aircraft, and with the PAR approach you are not... you're instead using ATC for navigation, not your aircraft. The way I read the regs, I'd say that using any form of navigational system is good... ATC included. I tried reading through the FAA FAQ's, and the only thing I came up with is that an examiner shouldn't use a PAR approach on a checkride... it said nothing about it being bad to use a PAR approach for the long cross-country. Does anybody know?
Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with you. PAR is a precision approach. You need to shoot 3 types of approaches. That's been done. I don't know if the specific manner of navigational guidance matters. Regardless, a PAR is an approach, and I believe that ATC for navigation satisfies the requirement.

Curiously, PAR into where?...or is this a hypothetical situation?

edit:

14 CFR 61.65 (iii) (A/B/C) states in-part:

[ QUOTE ]

(iii) For an instrument--airplane rating, instrument training on
cross- country flight procedures specific to airplanes that includes at
least one cross-country flight in an airplane that is performed under
IFR, and consists of--
(A) A distance of at least 250 nautical miles along airways or ATC-
directed routing;
(B) An instrument approach at each airport; and
(C) Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation
systems;

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at C, I would consider ATC to be a navigation system. Either way, you're using your compass/DG/HSI to accomplish this approach, so you are technically navigating via "navigation systems", if you really want to get nitty-gritty.

JEP · November 28th, 2004, 00:46

I hope that DE is wrong. When I did my long XC I did a ASR approach into Rochester,MN. I better be o.k.

MikeD · November 28th, 2004, 00:58

[ QUOTE ]
I hope that DE is wrong. When I did my long XC I did a ASR approach into Rochester,MN. I better be o.k.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the DE is full of it. ASR would fall under the same thing I mentioned in the last part of my post. An approach that is non-precision or precision is good enough, IMO. I believe the intent of 14 CFR 61.65 (iii) (C) is to prevent the use of a visual or contact approach being used to satisfy an "approach" being logged for that purpose.

gomntwins · November 28th, 2004, 01:02

[ QUOTE ]

Curiously, PAR into where?...or is this a hypothetical situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately this isn't a hypothetical situation. The approach was the PAR into Yuma, AZ. It sounds like the student and instructor are going on another long IFR cross-country tomorrow to redo the 'error'. I personally see nothing wrong with it... but I did learn a lesson- every one of my instrument students are going to do three standard approaches, a VOR, ILS, NDB, localizer, or a GPS... then if there's any time left over, I'll go ahead and do a PAR or ASR approach. I still think it's perfectly legal to do a PAR approach for the requirement, but I think I'll stay safe and do the standards instead.

MikeD · November 28th, 2004, 01:06

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Curiously, PAR into where?...or is this a hypothetical situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately this isn't a hypothetical situation. The approach was the PAR into Yuma, AZ. It sounds like the student and instructor are going on another long IFR cross-country tomorrow to redo the 'error'. I personally see nothing wrong with it... but I did learn a lesson- every one of my instrument students are going to do three standard approaches, a VOR, ILS, NDB, localizer, or a GPS... then if there's any time left over, I'll go ahead and do a PAR or ASR approach. I still think it's perfectly legal to do a PAR approach for the requirement, but I think I'll stay safe and do the standards instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. I hate that you're being made to have to "feel safe" and not perform something that's perfectly legal. Same with the IP and stud that have to repeat a seemingly perfectly legal ride. BS, if you ask me.

But I believe the "navigation" requirement really is for making visual and contact approaches not allowed to count as approaches for this purpose. Just my interpertation, though. But I see nothing wrong with the PAR.

Ask the higher ups my question I pose: Is a DG/HSI not a piece of navigational equipment? Ask them too about the visual approach thing.

Nitwit higher-ups. Do I need to come down there? I am in town for a couple of days.....

mtsu_av8er · November 28th, 2004, 02:08

PAR approaches are pretty damn cool!

I had an examiner (and several flight instructors) tell me that I couldn't do my CFI-I as my initial.

Idiots.

MidlifeFlyer · November 28th, 2004, 10:21

[ QUOTE ]
I hope that DE is wrong. When I did my long XC I did a ASR approach into Rochester,MN. I better be o.k.

[/ QUOTE ]Current FAA Designee standardization policy is that the "precision approach" that meets 61.65(a) and (d) requirement is an ILS.

You'll find references to the policy in the Part 61 FAQ.

gomntwins · November 28th, 2004, 11:10

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope that DE is wrong. When I did my long XC I did a ASR approach into Rochester,MN. I better be o.k.

[/ QUOTE ]Current FAA Designee standardization policy is that the "precision approach" that meets 61.65(a) and (d) requirement is an ILS.

You'll find references to the policy in the Part 61 FAQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... I just found the list of 'approved' approaches.

Here's straight from the FAA FAQ's:

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).

I must have looked over it prior... it's a pain searching those damn FAQ's. Sorry to ruin the person's day who used the ASR approach to satisfy this requirement.

Ralgha · December 3rd, 2004, 20:56

[ QUOTE ]
Nitwit higher-ups. Do I need to come down there? I am in town for a couple of days.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should...

November 28th, 2004, 00:42	#1
gomntwins Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Dakota Posts: 477	PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ?? This came up today with another instructors student at the flight school where I work... I'd like to see if anybody knows an answer that can be backed up with some form of proof. The situation was as follows: The student goes on the long dual IFR 250nm cross country. They shoot a VOR approach, a GPS approach, and a PAR approach. The student goes to the checkride, and the examiner says that it does not count for the long cross country. The reason is, according to the regs (which I don't have in front of me at the moment, so I'll be paraphrasing) you need to shoot three different types of approaches which utilize navigational systems. The DPE took this to mean that you must utilize three different systems within the aircraft, and with the PAR approach you are not... you're instead using ATC for navigation, not your aircraft. The way I read the regs, I'd say that using any form of navigational system is good... ATC included. I tried reading through the FAA FAQ's, and the only thing I came up with is that an examiner shouldn't use a PAR approach on a checkride... it said nothing about it being bad to use a PAR approach for the long cross-country. Does anybody know? Thanks!

November 28th, 2004, 00:46	#2
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ?? [ QUOTE ] This came up today with another instructors student at the flight school where I work... I'd like to see if anybody knows an answer that can be backed up with some form of proof. The situation was as follows: The student goes on the long dual IFR 250nm cross country. They shoot a VOR approach, a GPS approach, and a PAR approach. The student goes to the checkride, and the examiner says that it does not count for the long cross country. The reason is, according to the regs (which I don't have in front of me at the moment, so I'll be paraphrasing) you need to shoot three different types of approaches which utilize navigational systems. The DPE took this to mean that you must utilize three different systems within the aircraft, and with the PAR approach you are not... you're instead using ATC for navigation, not your aircraft. The way I read the regs, I'd say that using any form of navigational system is good... ATC included. I tried reading through the FAA FAQ's, and the only thing I came up with is that an examiner shouldn't use a PAR approach on a checkride... it said nothing about it being bad to use a PAR approach for the long cross-country. Does anybody know? Thanks! [/ QUOTE ] I would agree with you. PAR is a precision approach. You need to shoot 3 types of approaches. That's been done. I don't know if the specific manner of navigational guidance matters. Regardless, a PAR is an approach, and I believe that ATC for navigation satisfies the requirement. Curiously, PAR into where?...or is this a hypothetical situation? edit: 14 CFR 61.65 (iii) (A/B/C) states in-part: [ QUOTE ] (iii) For an instrument--airplane rating, instrument training on cross- country flight procedures specific to airplanes that includes at least one cross-country flight in an airplane that is performed under IFR, and consists of-- (A) A distance of at least 250 nautical miles along airways or ATC- directed routing; (B) An instrument approach at each airport; and (C) Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems; [/ QUOTE ] Looking at C, I would consider ATC to be a navigation system. Either way, you're using your compass/DG/HSI to accomplish this approach, so you are technically navigating via "navigation systems", if you really want to get nitty-gritty.

November 28th, 2004, 00:46	#3
JEP Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Eden Prairie, MN (KFCM) (KMSP) Posts: 10,670 Blog Entries: 1	Re: PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ?? I hope that DE is wrong. When I did my long XC I did a ASR approach into Rochester,MN. I better be o.k.

November 28th, 2004, 00:58	#4
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ?? [ QUOTE ] I hope that DE is wrong. When I did my long XC I did a ASR approach into Rochester,MN. I better be o.k. [/ QUOTE ] I think the DE is full of it. ASR would fall under the same thing I mentioned in the last part of my post. An approach that is non-precision or precision is good enough, IMO. I believe the intent of 14 CFR 61.65 (iii) (C) is to prevent the use of a visual or contact approach being used to satisfy an "approach" being logged for that purpose.

November 28th, 2004, 01:02	#5
gomntwins Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Dakota Posts: 477	Re: PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ?? [ QUOTE ] Curiously, PAR into where?...or is this a hypothetical situation? [/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately this isn't a hypothetical situation. The approach was the PAR into Yuma, AZ. It sounds like the student and instructor are going on another long IFR cross-country tomorrow to redo the 'error'. I personally see nothing wrong with it... but I did learn a lesson- every one of my instrument students are going to do three standard approaches, a VOR, ILS, NDB, localizer, or a GPS... then if there's any time left over, I'll go ahead and do a PAR or ASR approach. I still think it's perfectly legal to do a PAR approach for the requirement, but I think I'll stay safe and do the standards instead.

November 28th, 2004, 01:06	#6
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ?? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Curiously, PAR into where?...or is this a hypothetical situation? [/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately this isn't a hypothetical situation. The approach was the PAR into Yuma, AZ. It sounds like the student and instructor are going on another long IFR cross-country tomorrow to redo the 'error'. I personally see nothing wrong with it... but I did learn a lesson- every one of my instrument students are going to do three standard approaches, a VOR, ILS, NDB, localizer, or a GPS... then if there's any time left over, I'll go ahead and do a PAR or ASR approach. I still think it's perfectly legal to do a PAR approach for the requirement, but I think I'll stay safe and do the standards instead. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you. I hate that you're being made to have to "feel safe" and not perform something that's perfectly legal. Same with the IP and stud that have to repeat a seemingly perfectly legal ride. BS, if you ask me. But I believe the "navigation" requirement really is for making visual and contact approaches not allowed to count as approaches for this purpose. Just my interpertation, though. But I see nothing wrong with the PAR. Ask the higher ups my question I pose: Is a DG/HSI not a piece of navigational equipment? Ask them too about the visual approach thing. Nitwit higher-ups. Do I need to come down there? I am in town for a couple of days.....

November 28th, 2004, 02:08	#7
mtsu_av8er Old Skool Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Utopia Posts: 12,468	Re: PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ?? PAR approaches are pretty damn cool! I had an examiner (and several flight instructors) tell me that I couldn't do my CFI-I as my initial. Idiots.

November 28th, 2004, 10:21	#8
MidlifeFlyer Old Skool Join Date: May 2003 Location: Denver Colorado Posts: 2,952	Re: PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ?? [ QUOTE ] I hope that DE is wrong. When I did my long XC I did a ASR approach into Rochester,MN. I better be o.k. [/ QUOTE ]Current FAA Designee standardization policy is that the "precision approach" that meets 61.65(a) and (d) requirement is an ILS. You'll find references to the policy in the Part 61 FAQ.

November 28th, 2004, 11:10	#9
gomntwins Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Dakota Posts: 477	Re: PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ?? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I hope that DE is wrong. When I did my long XC I did a ASR approach into Rochester,MN. I better be o.k. [/ QUOTE ]Current FAA Designee standardization policy is that the "precision approach" that meets 61.65(a) and (d) requirement is an ILS. You'll find references to the policy in the Part 61 FAQ. [/ QUOTE ] Well... I just found the list of 'approved' approaches. Here's straight from the FAA FAQ's: 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). I must have looked over it prior... it's a pain searching those damn FAQ's. Sorry to ruin the person's day who used the ASR approach to satisfy this requirement.

December 3rd, 2004, 20:56	#10
Ralgha Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fresno, CA Posts: 912	Re: PAR approach to satisfy requirements... ?? [ QUOTE ] Nitwit higher-ups. Do I need to come down there? I am in town for a couple of days..... [/ QUOTE ] I think you should...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode