Changes in Instrument Proficiency Check Requirements

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...

the current PTS became effective in March 1999. AFS 640, the branch
of the FAA that sets training policy, told me during the last examiner
recertification seminar that the PTS is binding, and the task table

Bill,

The question of whether the PTS is legally binding upon a CFII is a bit more
complex than this, as is often the case for areas where law and
administrative regulations overlap.


Your answer is sort of like saying you called a specific division of the IRS
for a ruling on a complex taxation and that gave you a definitive answer.
Actually, getting a definitive answer on federal tax regulations is quite
complex and often has gray areas until a court reaches a final decision.
Sometimes courts even give different answers in different districts around
the country.

It is very clear that the Advanced ATD concept was introduced after the 1999
PTS and that the Advanced ATD was intended for completing a full IPC. Yet
if the PTS is considered to be legally binding, the Advanced ATD cannot be
used for an IPC because a literal interpretation of the PTS requires landing
out of an approach for an IPC, yet no Advanced ATD and no FTD is approved
for landings. Thus if the PTS is legally binding then a huge percentage of
piston IPCs done at virtually every major simulator center in the past 5
years are invalid. And if the PTS is legally binding then the whole concept
of approving the Advanced ATD is inconsistent within the FAA's regulatory
framework.

I think the best answer is that there are some unclear or gray areas here
which need to be resolved.

Saying the PTS is obviously legally binding rather than advisory is like
saying the AIM is obviously legally binding. Do you believe items in the
AIM are advisory or binding?



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Do you believe items in the
AIM are advisory or binding?


They are advisory until there is an accident. Then they were binding.

I say this tongue in cheek, but it does seem to be the FAA way.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:48:39 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .

the current PTS became effective in March 1999. AFS 640, the branch
of the FAA that sets training policy, told me during the last examiner
recertification seminar that the PTS is binding, and the task table

Bill,

The question of whether the PTS is legally binding upon a CFII is a bit more
complex than this, as is often the case for areas where law and
administrative regulations overlap.


Your answer is sort of like saying you called a specific division of the IRS
for a ruling on a complex taxation and that gave you a definitive answer.
Actually, getting a definitive answer on federal tax regulations is quite
complex and often has gray areas until a court reaches a final decision.
Sometimes courts even give different answers in different districts around
the country.

It is very clear that the Advanced ATD concept was introduced after the 1999
PTS and that the Advanced ATD was intended for completing a full IPC. Yet
if the PTS is considered to be legally binding, the Advanced ATD cannot be
used for an IPC because a literal interpretation of the PTS requires landing
out of an approach for an IPC, yet no Advanced ATD and no FTD is approved
for landings. Thus if the PTS is legally binding then a huge percentage of
piston IPCs done at virtually every major simulator center in the past 5
years are invalid. And if the PTS is legally binding then the whole concept
of approving the Advanced ATD is inconsistent within the FAA's regulatory
framework.

I think the best answer is that there are some unclear or gray areas here
which need to be resolved.

Saying the PTS is obviously legally binding rather than advisory is like
saying the AIM is obviously legally binding. Do you believe items in the
AIM are advisory or binding?



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com


So, in effect, you are saying that those who wrote the PTS are not in
a position to provide accurate information on it's use, validity, or
legality. Again, laughable. Who do you plan to go to for any
meaningful guidance? You've already said that the FSDO's don't know
how to handle queries on this issue. I recall giving you information
on the use of the FTD without an instructor present for currency that
you were steadfast against until the simulator branch confirmed to you
what you didn't want to hear. Time to use common sense here. It
wouldn't be called an STANDARD (PTS). if it wasn't a standard. Yup,
it's binding. Call 'em up like you finally did last time.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...


recertification seminar that the PTS is binding, and the task table
provided within sets the minimum areas of operation required to
complete an IPC. The term "representative tasks" are not at the

I have now spoken with most of the simulator/FTD manufacturers in the
industry. The consensus overall based upon multiple contact with various
FAA sources is that existing FTDs will remain legal for a full IPC. The
basis for this is that in the newest PTS there is a footnote to Appendix 1-1
indicating that FTDs which are now operating via a letter from the FAA
Administrator may continue to be used for their original acceptable use. In
other words, my FTD was originally approved for an IPC and therefore it will
remain approved for an IPC even with then new PTS goes into effect.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

I have now spoken with most of the simulator/FTD manufacturers in the
industry. The consensus overall based upon multiple contact with various
FAA sources is that existing FTDs will remain legal for a full IPC. The
basis for this is that in the newest PTS there is a footnote to Appendix 1-1
indicating that FTDs which are now operating via a letter from the FAA
Administrator may continue to be used for their original acceptable use. In
other words, my FTD was originally approved for an IPC and therefore it will
remain approved for an IPC even with then new PTS goes into effect.

There are two relevant notes in that appendix:

NOTE: Users of the following chart are cautioned that use of the chart alone
is incomplete. The description and Objective of each TASK as listed in the
body of the practical test standard, including all NOTEs, must also be
incorporated for accurate simulation device use.

NOTE: 1. Level 1 FTDs that have been issued a letter authorizing their use by
the FAA Administrator, may continue to be used only for those TASKs originally
found acceptable.

It seems to me that these notes are intended to RESTRICT FTD use, by
preventing someone with a Level 1 FTD from doing something that wasn't
originally approved. I don't see how it would grandfather in all FTDs for any
original acceptable use.

Barry

Roy Smith wrote in message ...
In article m,
"Richard Kaplan" wrote:

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

I"m not sure how far back you're going. My IFR PTS is pretty old but
still includes a table of things required for a PC. I think that a lot
of CFIIs just didn't know what an IPC was.

The difference is that the prior PTS versions did not state that all the IPC
items in the table are required for an IPC; thus a reasonable interpretation
has been that 61.57(d) givet a CFII the discretion to choose among those
items.

The newest PTS now explicitly states that all IPC items in the table must be
included in an IPC.

I seem to remember there used to be wording to the effect that an
ICC/IPC needed to include a "representative sample" of the PTS checkride
tasks. I can't remember if that was in the PTS itself or part 61/91
somewhere. Or maybe it's just a faulty memory circuit?

That being said, I'm about to give my first IPC in an plane with an
approach certified GPS. I spent some time re-reading the PTS to make
sure my plan is up to snuff, and here's what I came up with for the
flight portion:


Actually, if you read the current PTS, you will notice that in the
table of tasks to be done, there is a column for IPC. Today, the PTS
spells out the IPC. You can call AOPA and hear it for yourself. Of
course you can argue the PTS is not regulatory. One guy tried to argue
that the AIM wasn't regulatory too. The NASA admin law judge didn't
seem to buy that story either. Right or wrong doesn't make any
difference, its all what the judge is going to say when you plead to
keep your ticket.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

Actually, if you read the current PTS, you will notice that in the
table of tasks to be done, there is a column for IPC. Today, the PTS
spells out the IPC. You can call AOPA and hear it for yourself. Of

There is nothing in the current PTS which states that the ENTIRE table has
to be conducted on every IPC; 61.57(d) allows a CFII the discretion to
select representative tasks from that list.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

There is nothing in the current PTS which states that the ENTIRE table has
to be conducted on every IPC; 61.57(d) allows a CFII the discretion to
select representative tasks from that list.

Page 2 of the current PTS states:

Applicants for an instrument proficiency check required by 14 CFR section
61.57, must perform to the standards of the TASKS listed under PC in the
Rating Task Table on page 15.

The Rating Task Table heading states:

Required TASKS are indicated by either the TASK letter(s) that apply(s) or an
indication that all or none of the TASKS must be tested.

Note the word "required". These two statements, taken together, indicate to
me that the intent was to require all items on the table. (The FAA's Part 61
FAQ, though admittedly not regulatory, also supports this view.) One can
claim that there's some ambiguity, and that the list is not legally binding.
However, if this interpretation is wrong, the CFII jeopardizes not just
himself, but also the pilots to whom he provides the endorsement. Is this
something a conscientious CFII should do? In the absence of a formal FAA
interpretation, I feel obligated to make a good faith effort to comply by
including all the "required" items.

Barry

"Barry" wrote in message ...

himself, but also the pilots to whom he provides the endorsement. Is
this
something a conscientious CFII should do? In the absence of a formal FAA
interpretation, I feel obligated to make a good faith effort to comply by
including all the "required" items.

How about if I do an IPC in an airplane on a day when weather is below
circling minimums at the aiport where the IPC is conducted?

That seems like an excellent way to assess an instrument pilot's
capabilities, yet there is no way to conduct a circling approach.

Should the conscientious CFII not do the IPC and thus miss this opportunity?

Should the conscientious CFII require a return to conduct a circling
approach on another day to complete the IPC?

And how do we reconcile this with the FAA Inspector's Handbook clearly
approves of an IPC in a Level 1 FTD which cannot perform circling
approaches?



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:41:32 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:



"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
. com...

Actually, if you read the current PTS, you will notice that in the
table of tasks to be done, there is a column for IPC. Today, the PTS
spells out the IPC. You can call AOPA and hear it for yourself. Of

There is nothing in the current PTS which states that the ENTIRE table has
to be conducted on every IPC; 61.57(d) allows a CFII the discretion to
select representative tasks from that list.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com




Once again, READ the info at the top of the current rating task table.
It states"AREA
OF
OPERATION
Required TASKS are indicated by either the TASK letter(s)
that apply(s) or an indication that all or none of the TASKS
must be tested.

What does the word "MUST" mean to you?