Is an IPC a substitute for 6 approaches?

On 2006-08-25, Jim Macklin wrote:

A IPC is valid for 6 months. You need to read legal documents using =
formal rules. The IPC rule says that a pilot who does not meet the 6-6 =
rule may take an IPC, the IPC becomes mandatory 12 months after the date =
currency was established.

Right, and it doesn't say anything about the previous rule, which
independently states that you have to have 6-in-6.

There are clearly many examples were the 6-6 rule is inadequate

Sure, the rules don't equal safety. I was just asking about the rules.

If you don't "see" the meaning of the words, suggest you find a =
qualified high school English teacher or a lawyer and have them show =
you. You carefully snipped the quoted regulation so it couldn't be seen =
by anyone else.

No need to be a jerk. I snipped the quoted regulation because you only
quoted part (d) which is not the whole story. Your comment (snipping
again):

The check is available at any time and fully meets the
requirements of legal currency...

is not supported by the regulation. You then paraphrase it in support:

a person who does not meet the instrument experience
requirements of paragraph (c) until that person passes an
instrument proficiency check

If it *said* that, then I'd agree. *Your* phrasing says you meet (c) if
you pass an IPC. But the reg says that a person who does not meet (c) in
time, or within 6 months, may not serve as PIC under IFR until ... an IPC.
So what passing an IPC does is remove the restriction in (d) about not
serving as PIC under IFR. Independently, section (c) has rules about
recency of experience for IFR. Just like section (b) has rules about
night takeoffs and landings. Just passing the IPC to lift one "may
not serve as PIC" restriction does not lift them all.

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD

http://www.ben.com/