IPC - Instrument Proficiency Check - Question

[UndauntedFlyer]

Unlike the Flight Review where the regs say that the instructor must endorse the log certifying that the pilot has satisfactorily completed the review, the IPC has no such requirement that I have ever found in the actual regulations. So I would presume then that the applicant COULD endorse his/her own flight record that they have satisfactorily completed the IPC check on whatever date and maybe write the CFI-I's name there but I don't think that (the name) would be required either. Does anyone have any more information on anything that says this is not proper or that the CFI must endorse the log him/herself? I realize that AC61-65 has always given an example of an IPC (ICC) endorsement suggesting that the CFI must certify this and place it in the log, but that is not what any reg says that I have ever found.

Comments please.

 

[mattpilot]

Unlike the Flight Review where the regs say that the instructor must endorse the log certifying that the pilot has satisfactorily completed the review, the IPC has no such requirement that I have ever found in the actual regulations. So I would presume then that the applicant COULD endorse his/her own flight record that they have satisfactorily completed the IPC check on whatever date and maybe write the CFI-I's name there but I don't think that would be required either. Does anyone have any more information on anything that says this is not proper or that the CFI must endorse the log him/herself? I realize that AC61-65 has always given an example of an IPC (ICC) endorsement suggesting that the CFI must certify this and place it in the log, but that is not what any reg says that I have ever found.

Comments please.

you serious?


First of all... if your A CFII, you can't endorse your own logbook, because self-endorsement is prohibited by the limitations reg in the flight instructor section.

Second, 61.57whatever (i think) requires you to have an IPC to be current (for this scenario). How would you prove you had an IPC if you don't have a little endorsement in your logbook?

Third, if ya sign the logbook saying someone else gave ya an IPC, without their signature, then how would you go about proving THAT is true? It has to be proven true before the flight takes place, not after. Kinda like making sure the aircraft is repaired and airworthy before a flight, not afterwards. What i'm saying is, if ya get ramp checked ya can't call your buddy spike and have him confirm to the examiner you had an IPC.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

First of all... if your A CFII, you can't endorse your own logbook, because self-endorsement is prohibited by the limitations reg in the flight instructor section.

Second, 61.57whatever (i think) requires you to have an IPC to be current (for this scenario). How would you prove you had an IPC if you don't have a little endorsement in your logbook?

Third, if ya sign the logbook saying someone else gave ya an IPC, without their signature, then how would you go about proving THAT is true? It has to be proven true before the flight takes place, not after. Kinda like making sure the aircraft is repaired and airworthy before a flight, not afterwards. What i'm saying is, if ya get ramp checked ya can't call your buddy spike and have him confirm to the examiner you had an IPC.

Maybe you don't understand my question or the point. Please re-read what I have posted.

In the case I have stated the pilot is simply putting in his log that he passed the IPC on whatever date. Maybe this was done in a FTD on a date when you didn't have your logbook. So you as the pilot enter the results of the IPC. Such as, "IPC passed on 3-25-06." And then enter the CFI-I name. As I have said here, there is no requirement for a CFI to endorse this and enter it in the log as there is for the FR. Can you show me specific wording that says this is required as it does for the FR?

This is an anomaly in the regs.

No where does it say that any second person must certify this. Just as when you log 3 takeoffs and landings in the last 90 days no one certifies this. Or if you work for an airline and meet the Flight Review requirements by a line check or such, you would just enter that in your personal log to show compliance with that requirement if you want to rent an airplane and the FBO wants to see your Flight Review.

 

[mattpilot]

No where does it say that any second person must certify this. Just as when you log 3 takeoffs and landings in the last 90 days no one certifies this. Or if you work for an airline and meet the Flight Review requirements by a line check or such, you would just enter that in your personal log to show compliance with that requirement if you want to rent an airplane and the FBO wants to see your Flight Review.

i agree with ya. I don't believe it states that exactly anywhere in the regs. However, It does state a IPC is required. Then, using my thinking skills (which may indeed be flawed, as i'm on medication), i'd apply my 'third' point above. How would you go about proving this particular person gave you an IPC?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

i agree with ya. I don't believe it states that exactly anywhere in the regs. However, It does state a IPC is required. Then, using my thinking skills (which may indeed be flawed, as i'm on medication), i'd apply my 'third' point above. How would you go about proving this particular person gave you an IPC?

Well, just like I think I have said, you don't need to prove this any more than you prove the 3 takeoffs and landings or the airline check ride, just put it in the log. The log is mostly on the honor system.

Now I'm not advocating this idea of not having the CFI sign your log when you get a IPC and thus entering it yourself because someone will always challenge this. But I think if you read it closely, as you have now done, you see that the reg was written wrong, in my opinion. This may be a legislative oversight to omit the part about the CFI-I endorsing the log to show satisfactory completion of the check.

Maybe someone can find more on this, but that’s is all I can find on this subject.

 

[A Squared]

Is this some sort of a bizarre joke? I mean Am I being a chump and biting on some really ridiculous flame bait here?

OK, to begin with, try 61.195 (i) Prohibition aginst self endorsements.

It makes it pretty clear that you can't endorse your own logbook.

Now, as far as whether an endorsemnet is required, no it's not explicitly required as such in 61.57, but. if there's no record, it didn't happen. Aside from that, the IPC (assuming it's not given by a check airman for other purposes) is performed by an instructor. That instructor is required by 61.189 to sign the logbook of any person he instructs. So if you as an instructor give an IPC, you do have to sign hte logbook. Now I suppose you could argue that a requirement to "sign" is not the same as a requirement to "endorse", but if I hired an instructor for an IPC, and he just signed his name in my logbook, I'd encourage him to write a little more, perhaps noting that an IPC was accomplished.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Is this some sort of a bizarre joke? I mean Am I being a chump and biting on some really ridiculous flame bait here?

OK, to begin with, try 61.195 (i) Prohibition aginst self endorsements.

It makes it pretty clear that you can't endorse your own logbook.

Now, as far as whether an endorsemnet is required, no it's not explicitly required as such in 61.57, but. if there's no record, it didn't happen. Aside from that, the IPC (assuming it's not given by a check airman for other purposes) is performed by an instructor. That instructor is required by 61.189 to sign the logbook of any person he instructs. So if you as an instructor give an IPC, you do have to sign hte logbook. Now I suppose you could argue that a requirement to "sign" is not the same as a requirement to "endorse", but if I hired an instructor for an IPC, and he just signed his name in my logbook, I'd encourage him to write a little more, perhaps noting that an IPC was accomplished.

A Squared: 61.195 (i) only applies to CFI's endorsing themselves for a FR and maybe an IPC that they administered to themselves. In the case of the instrument pilot in this thread, he may or may not even be a CFI so clearly 61.195 doesn't apply here.

The pilot may have been given the check by a CFI-I, maybe in an FTD and the instrument pilot doesn't have his log book. So maybe the instrument pilot doesn’t have an opportunity to have the CFI physically write in the pilot's log. So the pilot just writes the results of the IPC in his own log, just as he might write the 6 approaches or whatever. There is no requirement that I can find for the CFI to endorse the result of the test to make this pilot qualified.

As I have said, this is not something I am advocating that anyone do, I am pointing this out as an anomaly in the regulations.

So is the pilot legal? I can not find anything in the REGS that says otherwise.

Comments are welcome

 

[aucfi]

Most all logbooks these days have ICC/IPC endorsements in the back of them. If they do not, you can write whatever you want just so it implies the successful completion of the check. My question is why wouldnt a CFI specifically state the ICC/IPC or Flight Review was compelted?

The endorsements in AC61-65D (I think updated to 61-65E) are all just recommended ways to word them. You can write the endorsement out however you want but be sure to reference the FAR part which you are trying to satisfy.


EDIT:

Just saw your updated post Undaunted...

Would those 6 approaches qualify for currecny without the CFI-I's signature? Any work done in an approved sim must have an approved instructor right? Its been a while...

 

[mattpilot]

The pilot may have been given the check by a CFI-I, maybe in an FTD and the instrument pilot doesn't have his log book. So maybe the instrument pilot doesn’t have an opportunity to have the CFI physically write in the pilot's log. So the pilot just writes the results of the IPC in his own log, just as he might write the 6 approaches or whatever. There is no requirement that I can find for the CFI to endorse the result of the test to make this pilot qualified.

As I have said, this is not something I am advocating that anyone do, I am pointing this out as an anomaly in the regulations.

So is the pilot legal? I can not find anything in the REGS that says otherwise.

Comments are welcome

IMO, that pilot is NOT legal, as he can NOT prove the IPC took place.

If the situation were to happen that an 'intrument pilot' didn't have his logbook with him at the time of the check, he should get a piece of paper from the instructor with an endorsement on it, which he later 'adds' (as in glues, not copies down) in his logbook.


I do believe the case is pretty clear. JMO

 

[flyer172r]

IMO, that pilot is NOT legal, as he can NOT prove the IPC took place.

If the situation were to happen that an 'intrument pilot' didn't have his logbook with him at the time of the check, he should get a piece of paper from the instructor with an endorsement on it, which he later 'adds' (as in glues, not copies down) in his logbook.


I do believe the case is pretty clear. JMO

If you do get an endorsement on a piece of paper, make dang sure you get it permanently in your logbook. Nearly got in trouble with a DPE about that once. Some instructors I know keep sheets of labels that they write out endorsements on for scenarios like that, works pretty well.

As for the original question, I can't find anything that would say that you absolutely need the endorsement, although I wouldn't recommend not getting one. AC 61-65E (yeah, it's been updated) is pretty vague on instrument endorsements.