Changes in Instrument Proficiency Check Requirements

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

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

That wording is in 61.57(d). If the PTS is advisory and not binding, then
the CFII's discretion will not have been significantly hampered.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 02:30:39 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:




"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

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

That wording is in 61.57(d). If the PTS is advisory and not binding, then
the CFII's discretion will not have been significantly hampered.


The current FAR 61,57(d) was last revised in 1997. The change 2 of
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
provided within sets the minimum areas of operation required to
complete an IPC. The term "representative tasks" are not at the
descretion of the CFI, but are the tasks already set out and dictated
by the task table. Nothing has changed with the upcomming change of
the task table except that the tasks have been reduced, not increased.

Don't take my word for it, call Oak City if you like, but don't hide
your head in the sand and say it isn't so out of wishful thinking. To
say that a Practical test STANDARD is not binding is laughable. Read
the top of the current task table. It specifically states which tasks
are required and MUST be tested during an IPC. You just never read it
before.

"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)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

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

OK, then let me ask a question which is now extremely appropriate to this
thread.

Suppose I am flying a real circling approach to minimums at an uncontrolled
field and the only way I can safely comply with the circling visibility and
runway distance requirements is by flying a non-standard pattern. Is it
OK to consider the AIM advisory only in this case?
--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:16:55 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

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

OK, then let me ask a question which is now extremely appropriate to this
thread.

Suppose I am flying a real circling approach to minimums at an uncontrolled
field and the only way I can safely comply with the circling visibility and
runway distance requirements is by flying a non-standard pattern. Is it
OK to consider the AIM advisory only in this case?
--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

What do you mean by "non-standard pattern"? Outside of any circling
restrictions placed on the approach chart, there are no restrictions
to type of pattern or direction, as long as you stay within circling
visibility radius. Left/right traffic is irrelevant. You can circle
the field multiple times in both directions, if you really want to.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:16:55 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"

What do you mean by "non-standard pattern"? Outside of any circling
restrictions placed on the approach chart, there are no restrictions
to type of pattern or direction, as long as you stay within circling
visibility radius. Left/right traffic is irrelevant. You can circle
the field multiple times in both directions, if you really want to.

From AIM 4-3-4 -- Is this regulatory or advisory?

c. Preparatory to landing at an airport without a control tower, or when the
control tower is not in operation, pilots should concern themselves with the
indicator for the approach end of the runway to be used. When approaching
for landing, all turns must be made to the left unless a traffic pattern
indicator indicates that turns should be made to the right. If the pilot
will mentally enlarge the indicator for the runway to be used, the base and
final approach legs of the traffic pattern to be flown immediately become
apparent. Similar treatment of the indicator at the departure end of the
runway will clearly indicate the direction of turn after takeoff.

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

www.flyimc.com

That is like saying that "Speed Limits are advisory, unless a cop is
around"....

Come to think of it, I guess they are!

Rich



Teacherjh wrote:
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

"Rich" wrote in message
...
That is like saying that "Speed Limits are advisory, unless a cop is
around"....

Come to think of it, I guess they are!


In some states, speed limits _were_ advisory (in the 30's and so)...until
they realized what a treasure trove they could be.

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.