Changes in Instrument Proficiency Check Requirements

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

The FAA has just released a revised version of the instrument rating
practical test standards to become effective October 1, 2004:

http://av-info.faa.gov/data/practica...-s-8081-4d.pdf

Does anybody know where I can download the current instrument PTS, i.e.
the one that's effective today?

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
The FAA has just released a revised version of the instrument rating
practical test standards to become effective October 1, 2004:

http://av-info.faa.gov/data/practica...-s-8081-4d.pdf

Does anybody know where I can download the current instrument PTS, i.e.
the one that's effective today?

I have put it here
http://www.quantity-surveyor.org.uk/AC61-111A.pdf

In article ,
"S Green" wrote:

http://www.quantity-surveyor.org.uk/AC61-111A.pdf

Thanks

Roy: If your email address is legit, it should be in your inbox. If
not, email me. I have it. Enjoy!

Bill


On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:11:17 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

The FAA has just released a revised version of the instrument rating
practical test standards to become effective October 1, 2004:

http://av-info.faa.gov/data/practica...-s-8081-4d.pdf

Does anybody know where I can download the current instrument PTS, i.e.
the one that's effective today?

"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

"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

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

www.flyimc.com
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
ws.com...
The FAA has just released a revised version of the instrument rating
practical test standards to become effective October 1, 2004:



http://av-info.faa.gov/data/practica...-s-8081-4d.pdf



Included in the footnotes of this new PTS is a substantial change in the
requirements for an Instrument Proficiency Check.


Hey, it looks like they greatly reduced the items required for an IPC.
The old IFR PTS included a lot more items on the proficiency check!
This will make IPCs go much faster.

Our local DE claims the FAA is working on a PTS standard for BFRs
right now. It will be from the private/commercial PTS. That will mean
that a commercial rated pilot will have a higher standard BFR than a
private.
-Robert

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

Hey, it looks like they greatly reduced the items required for an IPC.
The old IFR PTS included a lot more items on the proficiency check!
This will make IPCs go much faster.

No, it won't.

Previously the large list was a list from which a CFII could choose
representative items per 61.57(d).

The newest PTS has a new and explicit statement that all IPC items in the
list are required.

--------------------
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.