Is an IPC a substitute for 6 approaches?

I was just
trying to point out that if the pilot who was declined the IPC logged the
three approaches to return to currency and then craters in the instructors
name will be in the logbook and will be sought out for questioning.

.... and he will say that he did not believe the pilot was up to snuff
for instrument flight, which is why (as documented in the logbook) he
was not signed off.

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

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.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:IvDJg.6480$SZ3.18@dukeread04...
If the CFI doesn't endorse, the FAA has no action on the CFI
as long as the rules were followed. If a CFI endorses
without doing the IPC properly according to the PTS, then
the CFI is in violation. But if the CFI declines to
endorse and the time spent includes basic 61.57 6 and 6,
then that is the pilot's sole responsibility.


That's the way I see it also, no violation, but, the CFI's name is still in
the pilot's logbook.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:KvDJg.6482$SZ3.3506@dukeread04...
Actually, the FAR does say that, you just don't know how to
read law.

Jim, it's pointless for you to make statements like that while you refuse to
address any of the details of my argument (for instance, you still have not
addressed my analysis of 'not-P unless Q' as it applies to the current
question). Either debate or don't.

--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

Allen wrote:
I know that Jim, it was a poor choice of words on my part. I was just
trying to point out that if the pilot who was declined the IPC logged the
three approaches to return to currency and then craters in the instructors
name will be in the logbook and will be sought out for questioning.

And what kind of questions will those be? I suppose I might be asked
to prove that I was properly qualified to act as safety pilot and to
instruct, but neither of those are hard to do.

If asked what we did on that flight, I would state that we had worked
towards completing an IPC but the pilot's performance was not up to
PTS standards. I would further state that I thus declined to endorse
his logbook for an IPC and advised the pilot that he should seek
additional instruction before flying IFR.

In article ,
Allen wrote:

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:IvDJg.6480$SZ3.18@dukeread04...
If the CFI doesn't endorse, the FAA has no action on the CFI
as long as the rules were followed. If a CFI endorses
without doing the IPC properly according to the PTS, then
the CFI is in violation. But if the CFI declines to
endorse and the time spent includes basic 61.57 6 and 6,
then that is the pilot's sole responsibility.


That's the way I see it also, no violation, but, the CFI's name is still in
the pilot's logbook.

If (after the flight) we go get some burgers and a couple of beers and
I pick up the tab, my name's going to be on the credit card receipt
too. So what?

That's the way I see it also, no violation, but, the CFI's name is still in
the pilot's logbook.

So?

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

Give that link again, I'll try it again.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
in message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:HvDJg.6479$SZ3.5382@dukeread04...
|
| Keep going, it goes to the FAA.
|
|
| Nope. It never leaves the GPO site.
|
|

Flight reviews and IPC are never signed off as failures,
they are just logged as dual.


"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
| I was just
| trying to point out that if the pilot who was declined
the IPC logged the
| three approaches to return to currency and then craters
in the instructors
| name will be in the logbook and will be sought out for
questioning.
|
| ... and he will say that he did not believe the pilot was
up to snuff
| for instrument flight, which is why (as documented in the
logbook) he
| was not signed off.
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.