IPC - Instrument Proficiency Check - Question

[UndauntedFlyer]

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...

The 6 approaches may have been in actual so no CFI needs to be part of that.

Paraphrasing 61.57(d) No pilot may act as PIC under IFR until that person has passed an IPC (unless that pilot uses other currency requirements).

In this case he passed his IPC and a statement to that effect is in the log. Looks like that meets the specific requirements of the reg.

So the questions are only these:
1. Did he do the IPC? Answer, Yes.
2. Is it logged? Answer, Yes.
3. Is this different from the flight review? Answer, Yes.
4. Does it make sense that the instructor was not required to endorse the satisfactory completion of the IPC? Answer, NO.
5. Is the FAA required to make sense? Answer, NO.
6. Is the FAA required to make policy and regulations? Answer, Yes.
7. Do I think this regulation should be changed to be more in line with the wording for the Flight Review? Answer, Yes.
8. Do I make FAA policy? Answer, No.
9. Do I have any more authority regarding these regs than anyone else on this Board. Answer, No. (As a DPE my authority begins when I say, "The test has begun" and it ends when I hopefully say, "Congratulations you have passed your test.")
10. Has this pilot met the requirements for recent experience to act as PIC under IFR? Answer, Yes.
11. Did this pilot make a self endorsement (in case he was a CFI)? No he made an entry in this log as to the fact that he had passed a IPC, not an endorsement.
12. Is he legal to file IFR? Looks like he is. I can not find anything to the contrary.
13. Might he get hasseled by someone if this came to the attention of othes like the FAA? Probably yes because everyone thinks as if this is similar to a BFR. It is not worded the same with regards to an endorsement.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Why is there air?

 

[CJCCapt]

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.

It may not be specifically required by part 61, but it is required in FAA order 8700.1 - FAA Inspectors Handbook. Section 8.13 (a) "Logbook Endorsement When Satisfactory. When a pilot has satifactorily accomplished a flight review or competency check, the pilot's logbook or personal record must be endorsed by the person who gave the review..."

That's why the example is in AC61-65. It is also implied in 14 CFR Part 61.195(d)(6) "Limitations on endorsements. A flight instructor may not endorse a: ...(6) Logbook of a pilot for an instrument proficiency check, unless that instructor has tested that pilot in accordance with the requirements og 61.57(d) of this part."

 

[flyer172r]

Why is there air?

so that pilots can breathe it in, and then expel it in the form of complaining about everything imaginable.

 

[IHateMgmt]

Okay, I think a little commen sense needs to come into play here. If/when you get ramp checked, do you really think the FAA is gonna buy that load of BS? If you try to use their own book of laws against them, thats not gonna make them very happy. They will find a way to violate your a**.

Secondly, there IS a specific list of what an IPC is to cover. Grab the nearest instrument PTS. Flip it open to the rating task table and in the legend you will see "proficiency check" listed. Under the "PC" column it lists all the tasks required in each area of operation that need to be performed in the IPC.

Maybe this has been covered in some other thread, but it seems like nobody on this knew. Now in a typical flightinfo fashion, please tell me how wrong I am.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Okay, I think a little commen sense needs to come into play here. If/when you get ramp checked, do you really think the FAA is gonna buy that load of BS? If you try to use their own book of laws against them, thats not gonna make them very happy. They will find a way to violate your a**.

Secondly, there IS a specific list of what an IPC is to cover. Grab the nearest instrument PTS. Flip it open to the rating task table and in the legend you will see "proficiency check" listed. Under the "PC" column it lists all the tasks required in each area of operation that need to be performed in the IPC.

Maybe this has been covered in some other thread, but it seems like nobody on this knew. Now in a typical flightinfo fashion, please tell me how wrong I am.

Of course if you were ramp checked who would volunteer there log book for inspection anyway? Or the A/C logs either? No one I know.

But anyway, if he completed the check and it was entered in the log by the pilot with a reference to the date and who did the check he is legal, as long as what he was writing was truthful. Maybe the pilot has a IPC competion certificate writen by Flight Safety or Simulite or some airline. Even if this is not in the log as an IPC endorsement then he is legal if the pilot enters these facts himself. This is my opinion.

So to take this one step further, what is the difference between Flight Safety issuing an IPC course completion graduation certificate under part 61 or just any CFI-I? Nothing in my opinion.

Comments....

 

[MauleSkinner]

But anyway, if he completed the check and it was entered in the log by the pilot with a reference to the date and who did the check he is legal, as long as what he was writing was truthful. Maybe the pilot has a IPC competion certificate writen by Flight Safety or Simulite or some airline. Even if this is not in the log as an IPC endorsement then he is legal if the pilot enters these facts himself.

Doesn't matter whether he enters it in the logbook or not...he's got a certificate signed by the instructor and/or whatever the school does for IPC completion documentation. Whether it's in the logbook or not doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that he's got proof from the instructor or school that the IPC was passed.

Fly safe!

David

 

[charter dog]

It seems entirely possible that you will eventually win the NTSB appeal of the FAA imposed sanctions on this point of law! You appear to be correct that the CFI endorsement of your pilot records indicating successful completion of an IPC is not specifically required by regulation, perhaps by regulatory ommission. (mistake) However, your local Friendly Aviation Assistance representative will likely follow the guidance provided by his aviation safety inspector's handbook, which as allready pointed out, leaves the distinct impression that the endorsement is required.

I realize the original poster only brought this issue up as a point of interest and as such, it is yet another illustration of the fact that the regulations are not always completely clear and unambiguous. In fact, discretion and well reasoned interpretation are often required in order to apply them to the real world. When pushing into gray areas of the regs without case law or official interpretations to support personal or company interpretations of FARs, it seems wise to default to a conservative position. So from a practical standpoint, I'll just continue to do the prudent thing and keep all records that show compliance with any training and qualification requirements. Nobody will ever check these records unless something happens, yet there is no absolute guarantee that nothing will ever happen, so I keep the records since I have little extra money and time for lawyers or law school. I suspect many other pilots in today's environment will arrive at a similar strategy for avoiding trouble with the feds. If you ever have to deal with them, the feds will base some of their discretionary judgement on whether a "compliance attitude" is exhibited by the airman in question. The argument that that the regs are flawed will not promote this impression. Some of us have enough pressure from employers to push the regs right to the limit without heaping more on ourselves. Thanks for pointing out yet another loophole in the regs!

Best,

 

[midlifeflyer]

It seems entirely possible that you will eventually win the NTSB appeal of the FAA imposed sanctions on this point of law!

As Michael Myers used to say on Saturday Night Live, "and it's also possible that monkeys might fly out of my butt!"

 

[charter dog]

As Michael Myers used to say on Saturday Night Live, "and it's also possible that monkeys might fly out of my butt!"

And it it is a certainty that I would not care to test either possibility!

Best,