Is an IPC a substitute for 6 approaches?

Its just a case of a poorly worded FAR. Certainly the FAA has always
held that an IPC meets the instrument currency requirements of 61.56 as
does an instrument checkride (which is also not stated in the FAR,
after your instrument checkride are you not instrument current???).
BTW: A CFII checkride does not automatically reset your clock.

-Robert

wrote:
Interesting. That an IPC would make a pilot current for IFR for 6
months, regardless of the number of approaches done, is something that
I've always just thought I've "known". But looking at the regs, to my
surprise, they just don't seem to say that.

So where did the notion come from? Well, I think I know where it got
stuck in my head, at least, namely from an FAA IR knowledge test bank
question, which goes a little something like this:

4021 A20
How long does a pilot meet the recency of experience requirements
for IFR flight
after successfully completing an instrument proficiency check if no
further
IFR flights are made?
A. 90 days.
B. 6 calendar months.
C. 12 calendat months.

I think the "intent" is that the IPC resets the clock, regardless of
number of approaches. It would be "nice", though, if the rules actually
stated what many of us are assuming they mean.
-harry

Its just a case of a poorly worded FAR.

Why is it that regulations, which are presumably written by lawyers, who
are well versed in the English language and have more schooling than
most, are so often so poorly worded?

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

Jose asked,

Why is it that regulations, which are presumably written by lawyers, who
are well versed in the English language and have more schooling than most,
are so often so poorly worded?

I asked that question at a convention to two gentlemen who identified
themselves as lawyers who both previously worked at the FAA. They both
agreed that regulations are INTENTIONALLY written to be ambiguous. They
weren't kidding, either. The less clear a regulation (or law) is, the more
liberally it can be interpreted -- by lawyers -- whose job depends on the
need for interpretation.

Jon

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Its just a case of a poorly worded FAR. Certainly the FAA has always
held that an IPC meets the instrument currency requirements of 61.56 as
does an instrument checkride (which is also not stated in the FAR,
after your instrument checkride are you not instrument current???).

As the regs are written, passing a checkride does not make you current
unless you've completed six approaches within the past six months. (Again,
that may not be how the FAA interprets the regs, but that's what they say.)

--Gary

"Jon Woellhaf" wrote in message
. ..
Jose asked,

Why is it that regulations, which are presumably written by lawyers, who
are well versed in the English language and have more schooling than
most, are so often so poorly worded?

I asked that question at a convention to two gentlemen who identified
themselves as lawyers who both previously worked at the FAA. They both
agreed that regulations are INTENTIONALLY written to be ambiguous. They
weren't kidding, either. The less clear a regulation (or law) is, the more
liberally it can be interpreted -- by lawyers -- whose job depends on the
need for interpretation.

I don't see how that theory could explain the matter at hand. Here, the regs
clearly (not ambiguously) say one thing, and the FAA (reportedly) interprets
them to mean something *more generous*. That is, the FAA's interpretation is
less restrictive on pilots than what the regs actually say, leading to
strictly *fewer* opportunities to prosecute pilots and involve lawyers.

--Gary

wrote:
Interesting. That an IPC would make a pilot current for IFR for 6
months, regardless of the number of approaches done, is something
that I've always just thought I've "known".

It works the other way too. Let's say you've only got 3 approaches
logged in the last 6 months and come to me for an IPC. We fly 3 more
approaches, I decide that you suck at instruments and decline to sign
you off for an IPC.

You're now legally current anyway, by virtue of having flown 6
approaches.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Interesting. That an IPC would make a pilot current for IFR for 6
months, regardless of the number of approaches done, is something
that I've always just thought I've "known".

It works the other way too. Let's say you've only got 3 approaches
logged in the last 6 months and come to me for an IPC. We fly 3 more
approaches, I decide that you suck at instruments and decline to sign
you off for an IPC.

You're now legally current anyway, by virtue of having flown 6
approaches.

Not if the approaches were flown in VMC and you do not sign as safety pilot.

Allen wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Interesting. That an IPC would make a pilot current for IFR for 6
months, regardless of the number of approaches done, is something
that I've always just thought I've "known".

It works the other way too. Let's say you've only got 3 approaches
logged in the last 6 months and come to me for an IPC. We fly 3 more
approaches, I decide that you suck at instruments and decline to sign
you off for an IPC.

You're now legally current anyway, by virtue of having flown 6
approaches.

Not if the approaches were flown in VMC and you do not sign as safety pilot.

There's no such thing as "sign as safety pilot".

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Allen wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Interesting. That an IPC would make a pilot current for IFR for 6
months, regardless of the number of approaches done, is something
that I've always just thought I've "known".

It works the other way too. Let's say you've only got 3 approaches
logged in the last 6 months and come to me for an IPC. We fly 3 more
approaches, I decide that you suck at instruments and decline to sign
you off for an IPC.

You're now legally current anyway, by virtue of having flown 6
approaches.

Not if the approaches were flown in VMC and you do not sign as safety
pilot.

There's no such thing as "sign as safety pilot".

Whether you write or he writes it your name will be in his logbook.

A one paragraph regulation has dozens and even hundreds of
pages of legal opinion and testimony, as part of its
adoption.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jon Woellhaf" wrote in message
| . ..
| Jose asked,
|
| Why is it that regulations, which are presumably
written by lawyers, who
| are well versed in the English language and have more
schooling than
| most, are so often so poorly worded?
|
| I asked that question at a convention to two gentlemen
who identified
| themselves as lawyers who both previously worked at the
FAA. They both
| agreed that regulations are INTENTIONALLY written to be
ambiguous. They
| weren't kidding, either. The less clear a regulation (or
law) is, the more
| liberally it can be interpreted -- by lawyers -- whose
job depends on the
| need for interpretation.
|
| I don't see how that theory could explain the matter at
hand. Here, the regs
| clearly (not ambiguously) say one thing, and the FAA
(reportedly) interprets
| them to mean something *more generous*. That is, the FAA's
interpretation is
| less restrictive on pilots than what the regs actually
say, leading to
| strictly *fewer* opportunities to prosecute pilots and
involve lawyers.
|
| --Gary
|
|