Is an IPC a substitute for 6 approaches?

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:40:01 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .
FAR 61.57 (d) sets the requirements to act as PIC if (c) is not met.

No, it asserts *a* requirement that has to be met if (c) is not met (or
rather, if c has not been met for six months).

It does not state that (c) must also be met.

Of course not. Why should (d) reaffirm (c)? Or reaffirm any other FARs? The
point is that nothing says that (c) *doesn't* still have to be met.

In general, you're required to obey *every* regulation. You can't decide
that because you're complying with one, you can ignore another one (unless
the wording explicitly says that).

(d) is the controlling paragraph for one out of currency, not (c).

There's nothing in the FARs that says (c) doesn't apply too.

(d) takes over and stands alone.

But it doesn't say that anywhere in the FARs.

This is how it was explained to me.

Did the explainers say how they arrived at their interpretation that (d)
sets forth a substitute requirement rather than an additional requirement?
If so, would you tell us their explanation?

If one can assume that 6 approches are also
needed, then the verbiage of (d) could also be construed to mean that
you must be 6 months out of currency in order to do an IPC.

How would that follow? Where does (d) say that?

There are questions in the instrument knowledge test question pool
whose correct answers support this. The faq's, that by letter of
memorandum were once stated as FAA policy, used to support this.
Advisory Circular 61-98A, although out of date, supports this.

It may well be that the FAA takes that position. All I'm saying is that if
so, they're contradicting what the FARs clearly state.

--Gary
Yes, the FAR's are clear here, if you read the paragraph that applies
to what you are seeking.
How much simpler can it be than to read the titles of (c) and (d)

(c) Instrument experience: This is what you have to do to determine
your current state of required instrument experience. This is all it
addresses and nothing more. IF you decide that you are not current,
you are done with this paragraph and it does not apply to you any
longer (for the moment). Go to paragraph (d) for further guidance.

(d) IPC: This is what you have to look at and do to GET current,
depending on whether you are out of currency by more than 6 months,
(IPC), or less than six months, (do the damn approaches OR do an IPC
anyway). It says "a person who does not meet (c)", can't be PIC
until you do the stuff spelled out in (d), (not necessarily the
paragraph (c) stuff, unless you qualify). If you are doing an IPC,
you are not bound by the requirements of (c) or it would be included
in the verbage. This refers you back to (c), but only gives relief via
approaches if you are within 6 months of your last currency, and
provides the option of completing the 6 approaches. It is the
guideline for getting current, and the IPC does not mandate anything
outside of the task table in the Instrument PTS. Although it doesn't
state so, an IPC is ALWAYS an option, regardless of currency status,
Paragraph (d) is clearly relief from paragraph(c) via the IPC route
alone. It in no way suggests that you have to do both.

Since I am always willing to listen and learn, let me pose this to
the logic that applies to intrepretation of the FAR's.

Is it a violation of 91.126 (b) (1) when you make a right turn to join
a left downwind from a 45 degree entry? Strict interpretation says
yes, common sense says no.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
(c) Instrument experience: This is what you have to do to determine
your current state of required instrument experience. This is all it
addresses and nothing more. IF you decide that you are not current,
you are done with this paragraph and it does not apply to you any
longer (for the moment).

Of course it still applies. It applies by saying you can't be PIC under IFR
or IMC. And it keeps saying that as long as you haven't completed six
approaches within the past six months.

The whole crux of our disagreement is that you keep repeating that (c) stops
applying at some point, but you don't say *why* you think it stops applying.
That is, you don't cite any wording in the FARs saying that (c) stops
applying.

(d) IPC: This is what you have to look at and do to GET current,

It's *one* of the things you have to do in order to be PIC under IFR or IMC.
Nothing says that all the *other* requirements don't still apply. For
instance, you'd still have to be medically qualified/certified, even though
(d) doesn't explicitly reaffirm that requirement. You agree with *that*,
don't you? So why don't you agree that the requirement in (c) also still
applies?

It says "a person who does not meet (c)", can't be PIC
until you do the stuff spelled out in (d),

Almost. It refers to a person who does not meet (c) *and* who has not done
so for six months. Let's say you're such a person. So now (d) says that if
you *don't* do the stuff in (d), you can't be PIC in IFR/IMC. But it never
says that if you *do* the stuff in (d), you can be PIC in IFR/IMC without
*also* meeting all *other* stated requirements (for example, the medical
requirement, or the six-in-six requirement). No requirement is waived unless
the wording *says* it's waived.

Paragraph (d) is clearly relief from paragraph(c) via the IPC route
alone. It in no way suggests that you have to do both.

Of course it doesn't say you have to do both, just like it doesn't say you
have to have a medical certificate. Those requirements are stated
*elsewhere*, and there's no need for (d) to repeat or reaffirm them. But
(d)--like any other regulatory paragraph--applies *in addition* to all the
other stated requirements, unless there's wording that specifically waives
those requirements. And there isn't.

(Again, I'm just addressing what the FARs actually say, which can be
different from how the FAA interprets or enforces them.)

--Gary

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:13:23 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .
(c) Instrument experience: This is what you have to do to determine
your current state of required instrument experience. This is all it
addresses and nothing more. IF you decide that you are not current,
you are done with this paragraph and it does not apply to you any
longer (for the moment).

Of course it still applies. It applies by saying you can't be PIC under IFR
or IMC. And it keeps saying that as long as you haven't completed six
approaches within the past six months.

The whole crux of our disagreement is that you keep repeating that (c) stops
applying at some point, but you don't say *why* you think it stops applying.
That is, you don't cite any wording in the FARs saying that (c) stops
applying.

(d) IPC: This is what you have to look at and do to GET current,

It's *one* of the things you have to do in order to be PIC under IFR or IMC.
Nothing says that all the *other* requirements don't still apply. For
instance, you'd still have to be medically qualified/certified, even though
(d) doesn't explicitly reaffirm that requirement. You agree with *that*,
don't you? So why don't you agree that the requirement in (c) also still
applies?

It says "a person who does not meet (c)", can't be PIC
until you do the stuff spelled out in (d),

Almost. It refers to a person who does not meet (c) *and* who has not done
so for six months. Let's say you're such a person. So now (d) says that if
you *don't* do the stuff in (d), you can't be PIC in IFR/IMC. But it never
says that if you *do* the stuff in (d), you can be PIC in IFR/IMC without
*also* meeting all *other* stated requirements (for example, the medical
requirement, or the six-in-six requirement). No requirement is waived unless
the wording *says* it's waived.

Paragraph (d) is clearly relief from paragraph(c) via the IPC route
alone. It in no way suggests that you have to do both.

Of course it doesn't say you have to do both, just like it doesn't say you
have to have a medical certificate. Those requirements are stated
*elsewhere*, and there's no need for (d) to repeat or reaffirm them. But
(d)--like any other regulatory paragraph--applies *in addition* to all the
other stated requirements, unless there's wording that specifically waives
those requirements. And there isn't.

(Again, I'm just addressing what the FARs actually say, which can be
different from how the FAA interprets or enforces them.)

--Gary

I have explained it to you exactly as it was explained to me by FAA
personel at the top of the regulatory chain. I understand it and
accept it. Do what you please.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
I have explained it to you exactly as it was explained to me by FAA
personel at the top of the regulatory chain.

Sure, and I'm not disputing the accuracy of your report of what they said. I
just wanted to know if they ever explained how they get from what 61.57d
says (long-lapsed currency *not* reestablished *unless* IPC) to their
interpretation that an IPC *alone* suffices to reestablish long-lapsed
currency. Your report confirms that, as I expected, they asserted their
interpretation without ever justifying it.

--Gary

Turn it around...
example 61.57 a. No pilot may my fly under IFR or in
conditions less than basic VFR unless they have passed an
IPC.

b. Not withstanding a., if the pilot has flown 6 hours and 6
approaches within the previous 6 calendar months the IPC
need not be completed.

Gary, we have been doing this IFR thing for over 30 years
and we have taken many checkrides from the FAA for part 141
and 135 [and other parts] and this is a question that is
always covered.


The IPC replaces the 6 and 6. Every IPC starts the 6 month
clock again.



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Bill Zaleski" wrote in
message
| ...
| (c) Instrument experience: This is what you have to do
to determine
| your current state of required instrument experience.
This is all it
| addresses and nothing more. IF you decide that you are
not current,
| you are done with this paragraph and it does not apply
to you any
| longer (for the moment).
|
| Of course it still applies. It applies by saying you can't
be PIC under IFR
| or IMC. And it keeps saying that as long as you haven't
completed six
| approaches within the past six months.
|
| The whole crux of our disagreement is that you keep
repeating that (c) stops
| applying at some point, but you don't say *why* you think
it stops applying.
| That is, you don't cite any wording in the FARs saying
that (c) stops
| applying.
|
| (d) IPC: This is what you have to look at and do to GET
current,
|
| It's *one* of the things you have to do in order to be PIC
under IFR or IMC.
| Nothing says that all the *other* requirements don't still
apply. For
| instance, you'd still have to be medically
qualified/certified, even though
| (d) doesn't explicitly reaffirm that requirement. You
agree with *that*,
| don't you? So why don't you agree that the requirement in
(c) also still
| applies?
|
| It says "a person who does not meet (c)", can't be PIC
| until you do the stuff spelled out in (d),
|
| Almost. It refers to a person who does not meet (c) *and*
who has not done
| so for six months. Let's say you're such a person. So now
(d) says that if
| you *don't* do the stuff in (d), you can't be PIC in
IFR/IMC. But it never
| says that if you *do* the stuff in (d), you can be PIC in
IFR/IMC without
| *also* meeting all *other* stated requirements (for
example, the medical
| requirement, or the six-in-six requirement). No
requirement is waived unless
| the wording *says* it's waived.
|
| Paragraph (d) is clearly relief from paragraph(c) via
the IPC route
| alone. It in no way suggests that you have to do both.
|
| Of course it doesn't say you have to do both, just like it
doesn't say you
| have to have a medical certificate. Those requirements are
stated
| *elsewhere*, and there's no need for (d) to repeat or
reaffirm them. But
| (d)--like any other regulatory paragraph--applies *in
addition* to all the
| other stated requirements, unless there's wording that
specifically waives
| those requirements. And there isn't.
|
| (Again, I'm just addressing what the FARs actually say,
which can be
| different from how the FAA interprets or enforces them.)
|
| --Gary
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:JvDJg.6481$SZ3.2118@dukeread04...
Turn it around...
example 61.57 a. No pilot may my fly under IFR or in
conditions less than basic VFR unless they have passed an
IPC.

b. Not withstanding a., if the pilot has flown 6 hours and 6
approaches within the previous 6 calendar months the IPC
need not be completed.

Yes, that would be totally different. In your hypothetical rewriting of the
FARs, the second clause explicitly states an *exception* to a requirement
("need not be completed"). But in the *actual* wording, the second clause
instead explicitly states a *requirement* ("may *not* serve *unless*").

That's been my point all along: you're trying to construe a *requirement* as
an *exception to other requirements*, but the wording doesn't express an
exception. Your hypothetical rewriting is actually a good illustration of
how an exception would be worded; that wording is precisely what's missing
from the actual FARs in question.

Gary, we have been doing this IFR thing for over 30 years
and we have taken many checkrides from the FAA for part 141
and 135 [and other parts] and this is a question that is
always covered.

As I have explained many, many times, that just tells us what the FAA's
position is. But I've never disputed what their position is. I just maintain
that their position does not match what the FARs say. Nothing about your 30
years of experience addresses *that* question. Rather, that question is
addressed by analyzing the wording of the FARs, as I have done here in
detail.

--Gary

Then I suggest that you write the FAA and your congressman
to require that the FAA clarify, in the regulations, what
has been the regulation, policy and interpretation of FAR
61.57, so that you're pleased with the resulting text.
Understand that nothing will change, just an expenditure of
a few $100,000 for public hearings, and printing.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:JvDJg.6481$SZ3.2118@dukeread04...
| Turn it around...
| example 61.57 a. No pilot may my fly under IFR or in
| conditions less than basic VFR unless they have passed
an
| IPC.
|
| b. Not withstanding a., if the pilot has flown 6 hours
and 6
| approaches within the previous 6 calendar months the IPC
| need not be completed.
|
| Yes, that would be totally different. In your hypothetical
rewriting of the
| FARs, the second clause explicitly states an *exception*
to a requirement
| ("need not be completed"). But in the *actual* wording,
the second clause
| instead explicitly states a *requirement* ("may *not*
serve *unless*").
|
| That's been my point all along: you're trying to construe
a *requirement* as
| an *exception to other requirements*, but the wording
doesn't express an
| exception. Your hypothetical rewriting is actually a good
illustration of
| how an exception would be worded; that wording is
precisely what's missing
| from the actual FARs in question.
|
| Gary, we have been doing this IFR thing for over 30
years
| and we have taken many checkrides from the FAA for part
141
| and 135 [and other parts] and this is a question that is
| always covered.
|
| As I have explained many, many times, that just tells us
what the FAA's
| position is. But I've never disputed what their position
is. I just maintain
| that their position does not match what the FARs say.
Nothing about your 30
| years of experience addresses *that* question. Rather,
that question is
| addressed by analyzing the wording of the FARs, as I have
done here in
| detail.
|
| --Gary
|
|

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:43:51 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

Then I suggest that you write the FAA and your congressman
to require that the FAA clarify, in the regulations, what
has been the regulation, policy and interpretation of FAR
61.57, so that you're pleased with the resulting text.
Understand that nothing will change, just an expenditure of
a few $100,000 for public hearings, and printing.


Jim: I am done now giving free ground school. How about you?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:JvDJg.6481$SZ3.2118@dukeread04...
| Turn it around...
| example 61.57 a. No pilot may my fly under IFR or in
| conditions less than basic VFR unless they have passed
an
| IPC.
|
| b. Not withstanding a., if the pilot has flown 6 hours
and 6
| approaches within the previous 6 calendar months the IPC
| need not be completed.
|
| Yes, that would be totally different. In your hypothetical
rewriting of the
| FARs, the second clause explicitly states an *exception*
to a requirement
| ("need not be completed"). But in the *actual* wording,
the second clause
| instead explicitly states a *requirement* ("may *not*
serve *unless*").
|
| That's been my point all along: you're trying to construe
a *requirement* as
| an *exception to other requirements*, but the wording
doesn't express an
| exception. Your hypothetical rewriting is actually a good
illustration of
| how an exception would be worded; that wording is
precisely what's missing
| from the actual FARs in question.
|
| Gary, we have been doing this IFR thing for over 30
years
| and we have taken many checkrides from the FAA for part
141
| and 135 [and other parts] and this is a question that is
| always covered.
|
| As I have explained many, many times, that just tells us
what the FAA's
| position is. But I've never disputed what their position
is. I just maintain
| that their position does not match what the FARs say.
Nothing about your 30
| years of experience addresses *that* question. Rather,
that question is
| addressed by analyzing the wording of the FARs, as I have
done here in
| detail.
|
| --Gary
|
|

Yes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him
learn. Or, don't waste your time teaching a pig to sing, it
annoys the pig and wastes your time.




"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:43:51 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| Then I suggest that you write the FAA and your
congressman
| to require that the FAA clarify, in the regulations, what
| has been the regulation, policy and interpretation of FAR
| 61.57, so that you're pleased with the resulting text.
| Understand that nothing will change, just an expenditure
of
| a few $100,000 for public hearings, and printing.
|
|
| Jim: I am done now giving free ground school. How about
you?
|
| "Gary Drescher" wrote in message
| ...
| | "Jim Macklin"
wrote
| in message
| | news:JvDJg.6481$SZ3.2118@dukeread04...
| | Turn it around...
| | example 61.57 a. No pilot may my fly under IFR or in
| | conditions less than basic VFR unless they have
passed
| an
| | IPC.
| |
| | b. Not withstanding a., if the pilot has flown 6
hours
| and 6
| | approaches within the previous 6 calendar months the
IPC
| | need not be completed.
| |
| | Yes, that would be totally different. In your
hypothetical
| rewriting of the
| | FARs, the second clause explicitly states an
*exception*
| to a requirement
| | ("need not be completed"). But in the *actual* wording,
| the second clause
| | instead explicitly states a *requirement* ("may *not*
| serve *unless*").
| |
| | That's been my point all along: you're trying to
construe
| a *requirement* as
| | an *exception to other requirements*, but the wording
| doesn't express an
| | exception. Your hypothetical rewriting is actually a
good
| illustration of
| | how an exception would be worded; that wording is
| precisely what's missing
| | from the actual FARs in question.
| |
| | Gary, we have been doing this IFR thing for over 30
| years
| | and we have taken many checkrides from the FAA for
part
| 141
| | and 135 [and other parts] and this is a question that
is
| | always covered.
| |
| | As I have explained many, many times, that just tells
us
| what the FAA's
| | position is. But I've never disputed what their
position
| is. I just maintain
| | that their position does not match what the FARs say.
| Nothing about your 30
| | years of experience addresses *that* question. Rather,
| that question is
| | addressed by analyzing the wording of the FARs, as I
have
| done here in
| | detail.
| |
| | --Gary
| |
| |
|
|

Then I suggest that you write the FAA and your congressman
to require that the FAA clarify, in the regulations...

Be careful what you wish for.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.