Is an IPC a substitute for 6 approaches?

Years ago, before the USGPO decided that the pages were
printed on solid gold, I subscribed to the FARs. It took 4
4 inch ring binders for parts 61 and 91, there were at least
a dozen pages of comments for each regulation...why it was
needed, what it meant and what the NPRM comments had said
and any revision made in response. Just reading a two or
three sentence regulation is only a small part of the law.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:50:07 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| see
|
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/e...ncy%20check%22
|
| Which say in part...
| (b) an IFR currency record, a copy of
|
| logbook endorsement for 14 CFR § 61.57 instrument
|
| competency check, or a record of instrument currency
|
| (6 hours and 6 approaches) obtained within the past
|
| 6 months.
|
|
| Good job, Jim. An FAA order is law for inspectors.
Granted the order
| is outdated, but the intent is clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Gary Drescher" wrote in message
| ...
| | "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
| |
| |
|
|

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:29:53 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

Years ago, before the USGPO decided that the pages were
printed on solid gold, I subscribed to the FARs. It took 4
4 inch ring binders for parts 61 and 91, there were at least
a dozen pages of comments for each regulation...why it was
needed, what it meant and what the NPRM comments had said
and any revision made in response. Just reading a two or
three sentence regulation is only a small part of the law.


Yup, the preamble usually tells more about the intent than the
finished product ever could. I have all of them via ATP IA software.

Somewhere on-line, the FAA has them all, just haven't found
it yet. I think I need to go to the Library of Congress
ands the Congressional Record, that's where it is all
published. I'll find it and post a link before 2012.



"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:29:53 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| Years ago, before the USGPO decided that the pages were
| printed on solid gold, I subscribed to the FARs. It took
4
| 4 inch ring binders for parts 61 and 91, there were at
least
| a dozen pages of comments for each regulation...why it
was
| needed, what it meant and what the NPRM comments had said
| and any revision made in response. Just reading a two or
| three sentence regulation is only a small part of the
law.
|
|
| Yup, the preamble usually tells more about the intent than
the
| finished product ever could. I have all of them via ATP
IA software.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:m8vJg.6450$SZ3.2460@dukeread04...

Somewhere on-line, the FAA has them all, just haven't found
it yet. I think I need to go to the Library of Congress
ands the Congressional Record, that's where it is all
published. I'll find it and post a link before 2012.


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...l=%2Findex.tpl

That link just leads back to the FAA website, it does not
include the annotated or NPRM discussion.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
in message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:m8vJg.6450$SZ3.2460@dukeread04...
|
| Somewhere on-line, the FAA has them all, just haven't
found
| it yet. I think I need to go to the Library of Congress
| ands the Congressional Record, that's where it is all
| published. I'll find it and post a link before 2012.
|
|
|
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...l=%2Findex.tpl
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:SQAJg.6465$SZ3.3563@dukeread04...

That link just leads back to the FAA website, it does not
include the annotated or NPRM discussion.


It's a link to the Code of Federal Regulations.

Yep, select chapter 14 and it goes to the FAA site
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
in message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:SQAJg.6465$SZ3.3563@dukeread04...
|
| That link just leads back to the FAA website, it does
not
| include the annotated or NPRM discussion.
|
|
| It's a link to the Code of Federal Regulations.
|
|

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...l=%2Findex.tpl

This may be all the regulations, but what would be interseting is the
FAA regulations with all the commentary.

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