Changes in Instrument Proficiency Check Requirements

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
How helpful do you think practicing a circling approach on a CAVU day is in
preparing you to fly a circling approach on a low visibility day?

Better than nothing, but far from optimal. On the other hand, you can
get about a 90% simulation on an overcast night with a little haze
and/or mist. Even a clear night gets you a good simulation if you
pick your airport carefully (meaning in a poorly lit area).

Circling in CAVU weather is basically a matter of flying a tight pattern at
a lower than usual pattern altitude. There is somewhat of a learning curve
needed especially in a hilly or mountainous area, but this is not
particularly challenging in my opinion for it to take precedence over any
number of other items not mandated in the new PTS.

I have two issues with this argument. First, there is the transition
issue. There's a pretty big difference between circling in a
Skyhawk-class airplane and a Bonanza-class airplane, and much of that
difference can be taught in CAVU. Practically all of it can be taught
at night.

Second, I can't think of anything more important than circling (even
in CAVU) that is not already required.

On the other hand, a circling approach in low visibility is indeed a
challenge even in a piston airplane. One of the reasons it is a challenge
is that it is so difficult to train for this effectively either in the
airplane or in a piston FTD/simulator. I do not think the new PTS solves
this problem.

The FAA doesn't ever solve problems. At best, by taking action it
might raise awareness that the problem exists without making it
substantially worse. The new PTS has, in fact, raised awareness -
people are discussing this, and that's positive. The question is, has
the FAA made the problem substantially worse. I'm not sure about
that. I doubt that the people getting recurrent sim training really
NEED an IPC from a regulatory standpoint anyway, so I doubt much
damage is being done.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
"Richard Kaplan" wrote
(1) By granting discretion to a CFII, an IPC can currently serve not only
as a proficiency check but also as an opportunity for instruction or for a
pilot to try a new skill relevant to his IFR operations.

True. On the other hand, it can also allow a CFII to sign off an ICC
that consists of a single full-panel vectors-to-final ILS approach.
I've seen it done. There is a very real reason why the discretion
CFII's have on an IPC has been reduced - too many CFII's were abusing
it, and signing off people who did not meet even the very minimal PTS
standards.


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.

-Robert, CFI

Robert:

I mentioned this same thing when the thread was new, however my
comments fell on deaf ears. There has even been an article on Avweb
stating how the "new requirements" will impact the process. The
process has been in place since 1999 when the task pable came into
existance. Yes, the IPC is actually being relaxed as of October, not
expanded, as the original poster stated. Just shows you how alert
some of the CFII's are. There has not been any descretion in the IPC
process for a long time. As it stands now, an IPC is an instrument
practical test in it's entirety except for X-C flight planning, WX
information, timed turns, and steep turns. The dreaded circling
approach is nothing new in the requirement. The IPC is an open book
test, but nobody is reading the book.


On 4 Jun 2004 21:42:28 -0700, (Robert M. Gary) wrote:

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
"Richard Kaplan" wrote
(1) By granting discretion to a CFII, an IPC can currently serve not only
as a proficiency check but also as an opportunity for instruction or for a
pilot to try a new skill relevant to his IFR operations.

True. On the other hand, it can also allow a CFII to sign off an ICC
that consists of a single full-panel vectors-to-final ILS approach.
I've seen it done. There is a very real reason why the discretion
CFII's have on an IPC has been reduced - too many CFII's were abusing
it, and signing off people who did not meet even the very minimal PTS
standards.


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.

-Robert, CFI

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...

some of the CFII's are. There has not been any descretion in the IPC
process for a long time. As it stands now, an IPC is an instrument

The current PTS does NOT explicitly state that all IPC items in the task
list are required. The newest PTS effective in October DOES state that;
thus it is a substantial change IF one is of the opinion that the PTS is
regulatory instead of advisory.



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

www.flyimc.com

It appears that there is a written basis to support an IPC containing a
representative number of items from the PTS rather than the complete list.

The inspector's handbook 8700.1 allows approval of a Level 1 FTD (clearly
not approved for circling approaches or for landing out of an instrumetn
approach) to be used for a COMPLETE IPC. This order remains valid today
with the current PTS:


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

www.flyimc.com
"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
Robert:

I mentioned this same thing when the thread was new, however my
comments fell on deaf ears. There has even been an article on Avweb
stating how the "new requirements" will impact the process. The
process has been in place since 1999 when the task pable came into
existance. Yes, the IPC is actually being relaxed as of October, not
expanded, as the original poster stated. Just shows you how alert
some of the CFII's are. There has not been any descretion in the IPC
process for a long time. As it stands now, an IPC is an instrument
practical test in it's entirety except for X-C flight planning, WX
information, timed turns, and steep turns. The dreaded circling
approach is nothing new in the requirement. The IPC is an open book
test, but nobody is reading the book.


On 4 Jun 2004 21:42:28 -0700, (Robert M. Gary) wrote:

(Michael) wrote in message
. com...
"Richard Kaplan" wrote
(1) By granting discretion to a CFII, an IPC can currently serve not
only
as a proficiency check but also as an opportunity for instruction or
for a
pilot to try a new skill relevant to his IFR operations.

True. On the other hand, it can also allow a CFII to sign off an ICC
that consists of a single full-panel vectors-to-final ILS approach.
I've seen it done. There is a very real reason why the discretion
CFII's have on an IPC has been reduced - too many CFII's were abusing
it, and signing off people who did not meet even the very minimal PTS
standards.


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.

-Robert, CFI

This is the text in the inspector's handbook authorizing use of an FTD for a
COMPLETE IPC -- it remains valid today.


B. For use under 14 CFR§ 61.57(d)(1)(ii). Regulatory authorization for pilot
use of a level 1 FTD to conduct all or part of an instrument competency
check, consisting of a representative number of tasks required for the
instrument rating practical test when given by an authorized instructor:
. Aviation Simulation Technology, Inc.: AST 201 and 300 Models
. ATC Flight Simulator Company: ATC 112H, 610, 710, 810, and 920 Models
. Frasca International, Inc.: 121, 122, 131, 132, 141, 142, 241, 242,
242T, and 342 Models
. Pacer Systems Corporation: MK II Models


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

www.flyimc.com

"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.



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

www.flyimc.com

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:

------------
Two flight legs, each with full route clearance on ground, flight to
another airport, at least one approach, and full stop landing. One
leg done with NAV radio only, another with GPS.

VOR leg will include airway intercept and tracking, partial panel VOR
approach, p/p missed, and p/p hold. Partial panel unusual attitudes.
Full panel ILS to a full stop.

GPS leg will include programming flight plan, constant airspeed and
rate climbs and descents, in-flight reroute, GPS approach, full
procedure, circle-to-land to a full stop.
------------

The rest of the PTS material will be covered in the oral.

The bizarre thing is that, AFAICT, the PTS lets me have the guy do a
VOR, LOC, and ILS, and never touch the GPS once. Given that all our club
planes are now equipped with approach-certified GPS, I just can't see
doing that. The hard question is where to draw the line.

If I require a GPS approach at all, the PTS would be perfectly happy to
have us punch in Direct Destination and get vectors to the approach.
But that only exercises a miniscule portion of what you really need to
know to fly IFR with the box. I think the selection of GPS tasks listed
above is a reasonable compromise, but it still leaves a lot untouched.
I guess at some point you need to trust the checkee's PIC judgement to
practice on his own and not attempt things in IMC that are beyond his
abilities.

Roy Smith wrote:

In article m,
"Richard Kaplan" wrote:


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

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:

------------
Two flight legs, each with full route clearance on ground, flight to
another airport, at least one approach, and full stop landing. One
leg done with NAV radio only, another with GPS.

VOR leg will include airway intercept and tracking, partial panel VOR
approach, p/p missed, and p/p hold. Partial panel unusual attitudes.
Full panel ILS to a full stop.

GPS leg will include programming flight plan, constant airspeed and
rate climbs and descents, in-flight reroute, GPS approach, full
procedure, circle-to-land to a full stop.
------------

The rest of the PTS material will be covered in the oral.

The bizarre thing is that, AFAICT, the PTS lets me have the guy do a
VOR, LOC, and ILS, and never touch the GPS once. Given that all our club
planes are now equipped with approach-certified GPS, I just can't see
doing that. The hard question is where to draw the line.

If I require a GPS approach at all, the PTS would be perfectly happy to
have us punch in Direct Destination and get vectors to the approach.
But that only exercises a miniscule portion of what you really need to
know to fly IFR with the box. I think the selection of GPS tasks listed
above is a reasonable compromise, but it still leaves a lot untouched.
I guess at some point you need to trust the checkee's PIC judgement to
practice on his own and not attempt things in IMC that are beyond his
abilities.

Based on my flight yesterday, depending on which GPS you have, I'd want
to see the approach with the IAF being the fix in the middle of the "T",
and I'd want to see the MAP flown as well rather than a full stop
landing. The reason being that, at least with the King 89B radio, there
are a couple of things that come into play in these two circumstances.
If you fly to one of the fixes at the ends of the "T", you don't fly the
PT for reversal an thus can fly the approach in leg mode. This is very
straightforward. However, to fly a course reversal you must enter OBS
mode prior to arriving at the IAF. If you don't, it gets very
confusing. Same with flying the missed. The 89B stops autosequencing
at the MAP and you have to manually select the fix that defines the
hold. These are both easy to overlook in the heat of battle. :-)


Matt

"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.