Changes in Instrument Proficiency Check Requirements

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
...


What does the word "MUST" mean to you?

Take a look at page 4 of the current PTS or page 6 of the October 2004 PTS:

"All TASKs in these practical test standards are required for the issuance
of an instrument rating in airplanes, helicopters, and powered lift.
However, when a particular element is not appropriate to the aircraft, its
equipment, or operational capability, that element may be omited."

Thus in the current PTS not all tasks are required.

Actually, this is yet another argument supporting an IPC in an FTD in the
October 2004 PTS. The confusion comes about with the new paragraph on page
16 stating that the table comprises the minimum standard. But then the
footnote in the Appendix reverses this again and clarifies that an FTD
previously approved for a complete IPC remains approved for a complete IPC.

So I conclude that an IPC in an FTD after October 2004 will be "not not not
unauthorized" and thus will be legal.



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

www.flyimc.com

"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

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.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:04:42 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .


What does the word "MUST" mean to you?

Take a look at page 4 of the current PTS or page 6 of the October 2004 PTS:

"All TASKs in these practical test standards are required for the issuance
of an instrument rating in airplanes, helicopters, and powered lift.
However, when a particular element is not appropriate to the aircraft, its
equipment, or operational capability, that element may be omited."

Thus in the current PTS not all tasks are required.

Actually, this is yet another argument supporting an IPC in an FTD in the
October 2004 PTS. The confusion comes about with the new paragraph on page
16 stating that the table comprises the minimum standard. But then the
footnote in the Appendix reverses this again and clarifies that an FTD
previously approved for a complete IPC remains approved for a complete IPC.

So I conclude that an IPC in an FTD after October 2004 will be "not not not
unauthorized" and thus will be legal.



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

www.flyimc.com

"for the issuance
of an instrument rating"

Seems like they are not talking about an IPC here.
Your point?

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...

This does not apply to IFR arrivals desiring to circle in instrument
conditions. The approach chart limitations/notations are the only
limitation. What are you teaching your students? You should read the
TERPS.

I agree with you completely and I do not teach my students any differently
than you suggest.

I am simply giving an example of how FAA publications/documents/regulations
need to be interpreted in an overall context rather than in isolation.


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

www.flyimc.com

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:20:51 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:


"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

This does not apply to IFR arrivals desiring to circle in instrument
conditions. The approach chart limitations/notations are the only
limitation. What are you teaching your students? You should read the
TERPS.

I am simply giving an example of how FAA publications/documents/regulations
need to be interpreted in an overall context rather than in isolation.


They all need to be interpted in overall context. As long as there isn't an
accident, your interpretation is probably fine (with the FAA). If there's an
accident, then the FAA can choose to bring the AIM and the "careless and
reckless" clause into play. It might not always pass, but it's always above
you.

Here's a better one. Flight into known icing is prohibited (for a certain
subset of aircraft). Known icing and forecast icing are identical (to the
FAA).

So, you get a briefing, and find that the freezing level is forecast to be
6000. Freezing level at your destination will be at the surface three hours
after your arrival (before which the freezing level is 6000). You file for and
get 4000. You take off into the soup, and find that the weather is moving
faster. The temperature at 4000 is plus one. You get no ice. The minimum IFR
altitude is 2000, the cloud tops are 6000. You have several outs should you
pick up ice.

You continue (it's one of the options) to your destination which is reporting
clear and 6, and is an hour away. The temperature at 4000 drops to zero and you
start picking up a little ice. You ask to descend, ATC says unable. You ask
to climb, they clear you to 8000. This is above the clouds, and your
destination is clear. You accept, it being only a 2000 foot climb.

By doing so you are explicitly flying into known icing conditions.
Nonetheless, this is one of the recommended options in the new FAA Icing video.
IT doesn't appear to me to be a bad option, and turning around might not be
any better. You could declare an emergency, but you decide the situation
doesn't really warrant it yet.

You climb. Something Bad Happens. Nonetheless you survive, and after you get
out of the hospital, you face the FAA.

Did you violate the FARs? I bet they are lighting the grill for your goose.

In your example (IFR circling and the AIM) the case is weaker. But the AIM
recommends certain procedures (like altitudes and such), and if failure to
adhere to those recommendations causes grief, I bet they magically become
regulatory.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...

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.


I do appreciate your help regarding the prior issue. Your advice was quite
correct and was confirmed by my inquiry to multiple FAA sources, by my
cross-check with multiple FAA written documents, and by inquiry to my FTD
manufacturer.

In this case the situation is different: every FTD manufacturer in
existence without exception supports the use of an FTD for a complete IPC
today, several FAA documents and personnel do support the use of an FTD for
an IPC, and every FTD manufacturer I have spoken with so far initially was
puzzled by the new PTS but has ultimately come to the conclusion that an IPC
will indeed remain legal in an FTD.


--------------------
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