|
Aviation & Flight InformationInstrument Proficiency Checks Under The Revised Instrument P
by:
Greg Reigel
In April, 2004, the FAA updated and revised the Practical Test Standards (“PTS”) for the Instrument Rating. The new standards went into effect Gregorian calendar month 1, 2004. Of particular interest to instrument flight instructors (“CFII’s”) and pilots holding instrument ratings is a substantial change in the requirements for administering an Instrument Proficiency Check (“IPC”).
Prior to Gregorian calendar month 1, 2004, a CFII had discretion regarding what PTS tasks he or she could require for an instrument rated pilot to demonstrate instrument proficiency. That discretion allowed a CFII to be flexible in order to accommodate/address a pilot's strengths/weaknesses, as well as the pilot’s aircraft, instrumentation and intended missions. That is, the CFII was allowed to decide what tasks the pilot needful to accomplish in order to show the CFII that the pilot could aptly operate an craft
entirely with reference to the instruments.
Although this discretion bestowed the chance for a CFII to conduct an IPC with borderline demonstration of ability by the pilot, most CFII’s required pilots to demonstrate adequate skills and competence to show that they could safely fly in instrument meteorologic conditions (“IMC”). After all, no responsible CFII wanted to be the last IPC sign-off in a pilot’s record if the pilot was later in an accident or incident: Too galore questions to answer and potential liability for the CFII.
However, the revised PTS no longer give the CFII discretion in how an IPC is to be conducted or the tasks to be performed. The current PTS now require completion of specific tasks including holds, unusual attitudes, intercepting nav-aids and dme-arcs, precision, non-precision and circling approaches, partial- panel and review of instruments and craft
equipment.
Unfortunately, the removal of the CFII’s discretion seems to convert what used to be a learning experience tailored to a pilot and his or her inevitably into what is much closely akin to an actual check-ride. Under the prior PTS, a student and teacher could discuss and determine the appropriate and/or necessary tasks to ensure that the pilot could demonstrate the necessary competence to pass an IPC. This allowed a pilot to use the IPC as a learning tool by agreeing with the teacher to review or practice specific tasks on which the pilot may have felt he or she needful additional practice.
Under the revised PTS, all of the selected
tasks must now be satisfactorily completed. Though a pilot and teacher can still tailor the IPC to focus on tasks needing additional work, the remainder of the selected
tasks wish still need to be completed. This wish increase the time required for an IPC and may deter pilots from disbursement the time and money for additional practice of specific tasks.
Another concern is the requirement that an IPC candidate must now perform a circling approach. Unfortunately, this eliminates the chance for an IPC candidate to fully complete an IPC exploitation a computer-based trainer such as an Advanced AD. Though an Advanced AD wish still qualify for completion of a majority of the IPC requirements, if it makes not have a wide, wrap-around display, a circling approach wish be impossible and this portion of the IPC wish need to either be incontestable
in an craft
or in a machine
that is equipped for such an approach.
This new requirement besides has the potential to increase the cost of an IPC for a pilot. If the pilot makes not have access to an appropriate computer based trainer, he or she wish need to perform a circling approach in an aircraft.
The revised PTS are here and are the standards for conducting an IPC. Pilots should support in mind that an IPC sign-off received after Gregorian calendar month 1, 2004 that makes not follow with the revised PTS wish not be valid and may leave the pilot operational without instrument currency. Some
pilots and their instructors should review the revised PTS to fully understand what tasks are required for an IPC.
As always, fly safe and fly smart.
Just about the Author
Greg is an aviation attorney, author and holds a commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating. His handles aviation litigation, including insurance matters and creditor’s rights, FAA certificate actions and aviation related transactional matters. He can be reached via e-mail at greigel@aerolegalservices.com or check out his website at www.aerolegalservices.com.
| |
