The FAA does not require the ceiling to be at MDA or DA/DH during a flight in IMC. When an aircraft is flying an IAP in IMC, two outcomes are possible: 1. The aircraft will transition from IMC to visual meteorological conditions that allow a landing in accordance with § 91.175; or 2. The aircraft will remain in IMC and execute a missed approach at the missed approach point (MAP) or DA/DH. In either case, a pilot may log the IAP.
@NCYankee can you log an ILS under FAA rules if you intentionally stop your descent at 1200ft agl to join visual pattern? rather than going in hood or cloud straight-in untill DH/MDH as per Jeppsen plates?
What about ILS followed by CTL?
Ibra wrote:
@NCYankee can you log an ILS under FAA rules if you intentionally stop your descent at 1200ft agl to join visual pattern? rather than going in hood or cloud straight-in untill DH/MDH as per Jeppsen plates?What about ILS followed by CTL?
Yes, there is a good info on the topic:
INFO_15012_Logging_Approaches_pdf
In FAA land, for CTL, one needs to fly either a Localizer procedure to an MDA on an ILS or an LNAV on an LPV or LNAV/VNAV. IOW, CTL is not authorized flying a vertically guided procedure, but one may follow the GP/GS down to the Localizer or LNAV MDA required for CTL as long as all minimum or step down altitudes are complied with in the associated LNAV/Localizer procedure.
Thanks a lot for the reference, in France, when weather is good and tower ATC are not around the IAP MDA is raised higher than pattern altitude (1200ft agl in my case) and one has to perform 360deg circling to integrate with any existing traffic
I guess that would comply with logging an approach under FAA rules as long as one puts a view limiting device and take safety pilot?
From the other topic @gallois
Why would it be an easy life? You fly according to the conditons of the day.
You fly to the minima. In case of the RNP approach without ATS you get QNH from the controller, descend to the appropriate minima for the approach. The examiner will decide whether you will treat the approach as a circle to land or whether it will be a “missed approach”. If it is a missed approach the examiner will have discussed what he wants to do with the approach controller first. At some point during the approach or the missed it will be necessary to copy your next clearance because you will now be changing to your following flight plan, unless the examiner decides that the missed is to be followed by going.to your alternate.
I don’t understand your points of 1100 ft minima. At LFFK the minima for an MVL is a little higher than many is 670ft
If weather is good, as you are already aware, you can’t fly straight-in bellow 1000ft agl on GPS approach to LFFK (I am sure an examiner should be able to explain why?), with such high descision height, I am not sure if the resulting approach would count toward maintaining 6/6 IR currency under FAA rules…apparently, it does if you consider 1000ft agl to be the new “FAA MDA” and treat it as circling
Doing LPV followed by landing visual circuit at 1000ft agl or missed from 1000ft agl does not fit into “superior flying skills” but if your examiner is happy with it under EASA rules, why not? an IR skill-test with LNAV & LPV down to 1kft agl is “very light” IMHO 
What is stopping an FAA IR carrying out an approach to MDA and circling to land and logging that as an IAP..
Under the French/EASA you log all flight time under IFR and then there is a column for the approach and you fill in the number of approaches alongside the flight time.
So lets say I fly PIC on a twin, I would fill the time flown in the multi PIC column then fill the IFR time in the IFR column (you don’t count them twice of course when totting up) and then there is a column for the IAP which you would put the number of IAPs in there. So lets say you did an ILS approach go missed and re do the ILS and land you put 2 in this column. It doesn’t matter if it is day or night. Can you count all this time and number of approaches for an FAA currency.
All I am saying is an approach where the MDH is set higher than 1000ft does “butter no parsnips”…I am very surprised it counts under EASA IR exam & FAA IR currency?
Especially, if all obstacles are less than 50ft or OCH less than 200ft
“butter no parsnips”
What is that?
in France, when weather is good and tower ATC are not around the IAP MDA is raised higher than pattern altitude (1200ft agl in my case) and one has to perform 360deg circling to integrate with any existing traffic
Is that relevant to flying an approach for FAA IR rolling currency? You don’t have to land for it to count.
but if your examiner is happy with it under EASA rules
No “examiner” is needed for FAA rolling currency
What is stopping an FAA IR carrying out an approach to MDA and circling to land and logging that as an IAP..
Nothing. Well, the circling MDA will be higher than the straight-in MDA but AFAIK nothing in the FAA regs says that the IAP cannot be a circling one. After all, it may be your only option if the IAP is only on one end of the runway.
Under FAA rules, I do circling at 1500ft agl above airfield after my ILS and it counts? that is ridiculous!
You can’t even descend to the published circling MDA without ATC in France, only when weather is crap…
Where are you getting this from? If there is a procedure you fly it to minimums. Without ATS those minimums will be the circle to land minima. It doesn’t matter what the weather is like, the minimums remain the same. You don’t have to descend to DH before taking the decision, that is not a regulatory requirement.
So if you can log a procedure under FAA for currency, what is the problem? If you don’t want to log it as a procedure because the weather is good, isn’t that up to the PIC?
Sounds you can do whatever you wish and log it as FAA approach
It doesn’t matter what the weather is like, the minimums remain the same
Sorry, without ATC in CAVOK day like today your DA on the RNP to LFFK is 1100ft NOT 670ft, it’s the 1100ft minima from your visual circuit in VAC chart not the 670ft instrument circling minima in IAP plate !
Your examiner should have know better, see 7.2.1.3 here RCA3-2019 , it’s understandable that foreign pilots would miss such details, I am very puzzled than an examiner in France would descend to 670ft without ATC in good day? while, I sometimes don’t give a hoot about this stupid rule and just land straight ahead, at least I know what I am doing !
Note that the section about MVL without ATC was in AIP ENR1.1-11 B7213 and GEN1.1-63 (see old AIP screenshots), these are now removed from French AIP l’arrêté de 2019 (RCA3) is still around though
