IPC every year - how painful?

I print off the list of tasks from the PTS and give it to my instructor. He tells me to demonstrate each one and he ticks them off. When we're done he just endorses the bottom. It's not painful other than getting our schedules in sync so we can fly together.
 
I always thought this was the list that was suggested.

Do you use the practical test standards or the IPC guidance list?
 

Attachments

  • ipc_guidance.pdf
    583.6 KB · Views: 8
Of course there is also this one.
 

Attachments

  • AC 61-98B.pdf
    454.6 KB · Views: 2
I always thought this was the list that was suggested.

Do you use the practical test standards or the IPC guidance list?

The PTS is what is required by law:

61.57(d)
The instrument proficiency check must consist of the areas of operation and instrument tasks required in the instrument rating practical test standards.

Furthermore, the above guidance you linked to contains the following:
To ensure that the IPC serves the purpose for which it was intended, the current version of the Practical Test Standards (PTS) for the instrument rating (FAA-S- 8081-4D effective October 1, 2004) stipulates that the flight portion of an IPC must include certain aeronautical tasks specific to instrument flying.

Which again references the PTS.

That guide is helpful, but that guide itself, is not what the regulations point towards. It's just a tool to help pilots and instructors. Some of whats in there may not be necessary to do with every pilot. For example, I'm not going to do a bunch of ground with someone that I know is competent and is flying in IMC on a very regular basis.

The PTS is also what tests you to determine if you're proficient enough to hold an instrument certificate in the first place. As a result the PTS contains what needs to be done on an IPC (by law) and is most certainly what an instructor should ultimately be referencing.

When I sign an IPC I state the approaches we flew, and that all required tasks for an IPC in the current PTS were performed to standards.
 
Last edited:
Good information to have, but what about going out and flying approaches and holds with a safety pilot to maintain currency, or for that matter the 6 approaches and hold during normal operation. We all know that the approaches you fly may or may not really challenge your instrument capabilities.

Not asking to be a smart ass, but recently had an IPC in a simulator after not flying IFR for 25 years. Told the instructors that is was nice the FAA said I could do it that way, but it wasn't good enough for me. I really feel I need some tough work in an aircraft to have the feeling of competency.

Thoughts?
 
My real question stands though. What is a guarantee of full proficiency and does that really exist? For those of us that do not fly enough IFR to maintain currency through our daily flights what is the task list that if performed correctly would demonstrate full proficiency.
If you're not going to fly enough to maintain that level of proficiency, then what you need is a thorough wringing-out with a good instrument instructor including both flight and ground training (and a sim, if possible, as there are things you simply can't do in the plane, like failing a vacuum pump). Such a full refresher training program may take a lot more than just the required elements of an IPC, but how much more is impossible to say without knowing your actual level of knowledge and skill going in. FWIW, PIC schedules three days for the full standard safety/refresher course including aircraft systems and normal/emergency procedures ground training, VFR/IFR and day/night rules and procedures, instrument procedures training in the sim, and day/night visual/instrument flight training including flight review and IPC. Many PIC clients do that course either annually or biennially, although I've found that those who fly often (say, over 100 hours a year including a good bit of IFR) can complete it in two days.
 
Good information to have, but what about going out and flying approaches and holds with a safety pilot to maintain currency, or for that matter the 6 approaches and hold during normal operation. We all know that the approaches you fly may or may not really challenge your instrument capabilities.
Nothing wrong with that to maintain proficiency, although a check every year or two with an instructor might be wise to make sure no bad habits are creeping in. OTOH, I do quite a few instrument refresher training sessions where the client hasn't flown a real approach in real instrument conditions (simulated or actual) in more than a year, and sometimes not in many years. In such cases, "going out and flying approaches and holds with a safety pilot" isn't likely to get you to where you want to be.

Not asking to be a smart ass, but recently had an IPC in a simulator after not flying IFR for 25 years. Told the instructors that is was nice the FAA said I could do it that way, but it wasn't good enough for me. I really feel I need some tough work in an aircraft to have the feeling of competency.
I think you are wise to accept the counsel of Clint "Dirty Harry" Eastwood: "A man's got to know his limitations." You clearly knew yours, and weren't going to settle for less than you knew you needed even if the FAA said less was good enough to meet the regulation. IOW, it's all about knowing that what is legal isn't always safe (and what is safe isn't always legal), but striving to remain both legal and safe.
 
And we wonder why GA is dying, Ron?
 
I always thought this was the list that was suggested.

Do you use the practical test standards or the IPC guidance list?

The flight part of that checklist is pretty much the same as the PTS (which is what the REGULATIONS imply should determine the scope).
 
Nothing wrong with that to maintain proficiency, although a check every year or two with an instructor might be wise to make sure no bad habits are creeping in. OTOH, I do quite a few instrument refresher training sessions where the client hasn't flown a real approach in real instrument conditions (simulated or actual) in more than a year, and sometimes not in many years. In such cases, "going out and flying approaches and holds with a safety pilot" isn't likely to get you to where you want to be.

Im definitely with Ron on this one...the example I always throw out is the guy who called to ask if I wanted to be a safety pilot because he was a couple of approaches short. I suggested that a full IPC would solve the problem for 6 months rather than 2, and since he was less than two months from his Flight Review, maybe we should do the full smash.

He agreed, and didn't see any problems, and had 450 hours in the airplane over the last year and a half, so we went flying. He could fly a great ILS and circle-to-land better than most professional pilots I've worked with over the years, but a nonprecision approach or engine failure probably would've been fatal in real life. He was horribly lacking in proficiency on the things he never did, but didn't know it because he WAS proficient the last time he did them.

I see the same thing on a regular basis in simulator training...guys either come in confident and dig themselves into a hole because they don't know what they don't know, or they come in dragging because they know it's going to be tough on them but they have no idea how to prepare.

sometimes it takes a second, impartial set of eyes to see some obvious deficiencies.
 
And we wonder why GA is dying, Ron?
I don't think the IPC is unreasonable at all. I think it makes sense that after 1 year you have to demonstrate you can still fly instruments to PTS standards. I wouldn't want to go full deflection on an approach in mountainous areas so I would want to be held to a strict standard.
 
Yeah I don't think an annual IPC is that unreasonable either. Our company IFR helo guys fly on a regular basis and have to have the IPC every 6 months. A private part 91 guy could use the instruction annually, especially if they're just barely staying current. It should be an opportunity to learn something new and knock a little bit of the rust off.
 
Yeah I don't think an annual IPC is that unreasonable either. Our company IFR helo guys fly on a regular basis and have to have the IPC every 6 months. A private part 91 guy could use the instruction annually, especially if they're just barely staying current. It should be an opportunity to learn something new and knock a little bit of the rust off.
Nailed it. We can always learn something new. After all, my life is on the line so I want to be as proficient as possible.
 
Even with IPC we get a few instrument pilots who lose it in IMC. I don't know if anybody has done any research on this but I suspect that most either are not current or they have pencil whipped currency. What is involved in the textbook currency or the "letter of the law" IPC is minimal.

I kind of put it on the line of just about anything that's a high stress, high stakes training situation. A good example is those who concealed carry. In this state you can get a CHP with just watching a video telling you not to point the gun at anything you don't want shot. Even those who take a course, often don't maintain any proficiency in operating their weapons. This ends up with either them not being able to defend themselves, or more commonly, negligently harming themselves or someone else with their weapon.
 
And we wonder why GA is dying, Ron?
I have little doubt as to why GA pilots are dying in accidents. Most of the time, it's because they don't accept Dirty Harry's maxim, so they try something beyond their capabilities and it kills them. There are two ways to fix that -- get pilots to accept their limitations and stay within them, or get pilots to obtain the training necessary to improve/maintain/expand their capabilities to the level of flying they want to do. Personally, as a professional training provider, I prefer the latter, but I can accept the former. :wink2:
 
Last edited:
Tim, I find the best thing to do is find an instructor you trust to go flying with on a plan of "continuous improvement." I used to do this regularly with some students and it always did wonders for their confidence and skill level. Someone who's not afraid to fail things on you and knows how to challenge you.
 
:eek:Are you suggesting a ride with a Cessna driver? Perish the thought.
 
:eek:Are you suggesting a ride with a Cessna driver? Perish the thought.
Hey -- I'm about the biggest Grumman guy in the world, and I ride with Cessna and Piper drivers all the time (as long as I'm being paid to do it :D).
 
I did an IPC without even trying last weekend.

I asked my CFII to go up with me last weekend to do some approaches with me under the hood. I can't easily find safety pilots, but I can easily ask him, so I did. When we landed, he signed my logbook with an IPC, even though I didn't ask for it. He said we did everything required for it.

This is what I do. Where I fly I just seldom get my 66HITs in the course of my own flying so I just plan every 6 months to go do IFR practice with my instructor. We do all the stuff and he signs it off as the IPC that it is. And he always reminds of things or adds things that a VFR safety pilot wouldn't so I like it and it isn't that much additional money anyway.

I don't think an IPC is that "big" a deal, having had one (and soon to be two) in the year since my check ride. If it's an instructor you get along with it can be a really good practice session.
 
Last edited:
My response was not to the IPC each year, but to aviation's and Ron's mantra about training to proficiency. No matter how much one flies, how many checkrides, that case can always be made. Non-proficiency.

Why don't we have a checkride with a DPE after each hour flown? Why not just ban single piloted flight altogether and have every flight be with a CFI? Why not ban GA from carrying passengers? Why not ban GA period? We're obviously not as safe.

The more we make pilots feel like they're incompetent, inferior, less experienced and a threat to themselves and everyone else, cut them down to size, the less GA we will have. It will be gone in our lifetime. At some point you have to let the kid you brought up learn from his own mistakes and trust that the education you gave him, is good enough.

How much is enough protection from ourselves?
 
Last edited:
My response was not to the IPC each year, but to aviation's and Ron's mantra about training to proficiency. No matter how much one flies, how many checkrides, that case can always be made. Non-proficiency.

Why don't we have a checkride with a DPE after each hour flown? Why not just ban single piloted flight altogether and have every flight be with a CFI? Why not ban GA from carrying passengers? Why not ban GA period? We're obviously not as safe.

The more we make pilots feel like they're incompetent, inferior, less experienced and a threat to themselves and everyone else, cut them down to size, the less GA we will have. It will be gone in our lifetime. At some point you have to let the kid you brought up learn from his own mistakes and trust that the education you gave him, is good enough.

How much is enough protection from ourselves?
I don't think an IPC every year should be required by law.

That said, it's a pretty damn good idea for most weekend pilots. Considering how you'll pay me less than $40 to give you an IPC, or nothing at all if you buy dinner afterwords...seems like quite the bargain for the safety bang.

Every local pilot that has ever came to me for an IPC, still comes to me for an IPC today, EVERY SINGLE ONE. From time to time I'll tell them they didn't perform to the standards required and we'll need to do some more flying. They admit their mistakes, we fly again, and they're happy they improved.

And no..I'm not typically "easier" than whomever they went to before.

Had they not came to me for an IPC, they wouldn't know they weren't proficient, and they recognize and appreciate that.
 
Last edited:
I don't think an IPC every year should be required by law.

That said, it's a pretty damn good idea for most weekend pilots. Considering how you'll pay me less than $40 to give you an IPC, or nothing at all if you buy dinner afterwords...seems like quite the bargain for the safety bang.

Every local pilot that has ever came to me for an IPC, still comes to me for an IPC today, EVERY SINGLE ONE. From time to time I'll tell them they didn't perform to the standards required and we'll need to do some more flying. They admit their mistakes, we fly again, and they're happy they improved.

Had they not came to me for an IPC, they wouldn't know they weren't proficient, and they recognize and appreciate that.

But how do I know you're a proficient CFI? Are you more proficient than a pilot that flies more than you? You catch my drift?
 
My response was not to the IPC each year, but to aviation's and Ron's mantra about training to proficiency. No matter how much one flies, how many checkrides, that case can always be made. Non-proficiency.

It's called standards. When you take a check ride for a rating, you are demonstrating you can perform the task to a set standard. Are we to assume that standard is for the check ride only? Of course, the answer is "no".

Are you advocating that non proficiency of a pilot should be allowed?

Why don't we have a checkride with a DPE after each hour flown? Why not just ban single piloted flight altogether and have every flight be with a CFI? Why not ban GA from carrying passengers? Why not ban GA period? We're obviously not as safe.

Here's a novel concept, "maintain proficiency". The regulations do not mandate an IPC each year, but allow a pilot who maintains proficiency to continue to operate.

In your instance, the insurance company is mandating an IPC to allow you to insure your airplane. Perhaps you should direct your argument towards them as being "unfair", after all, there is no regulation requiring you to purchase insurance.


The more we make pilots feel like they're incompetent, inferior, less experienced and a threat to themselves and everyone else, cut them down to size, the less GA we will have. It will be gone in our lifetime.

So the answer is to ditch all standards, throw out all regulations and let pilots govern themselves accordingly? :dunno:


At some point you have to let the kid you brought up learn from his own mistakes and trust that the education you gave him, is good enough.

How much is enough protection from ourselves?

So are you willing to forgo proficiency, training and standards to go "learn from your mistakes"? :eek:

Aviation is very unforgiving. It does not suffer fools. Statistics will show that time and time again.

One of those "learning mistakes" will ultimately wind up as a smoking hole.
 
How much is enough protection from ourselves?
Beyond what R&W said, if no life or property other than your own were at risk, I'd say it's up to you. But that's not the case here. Even if you crash your plane on your own property and nobody else gets injured and nobody else's property is damaged, GA in general takes a hit every time someone prangs.
 
Not painful at all. I never get 6 approaches in 6 months so I just do an IPC to make sure that no bad habits have crept in. Any excuse to fly is fine with me.
 
My response was not to the IPC each year, but to aviation's and Ron's mantra about training to proficiency. No matter how much one flies, how many checkrides, that case can always be made. Non-proficiency.

Why don't we have a checkride with a DPE after each hour flown? Why not just ban single piloted flight altogether and have every flight be with a CFI? Why not ban GA from carrying passengers? Why not ban GA period? We're obviously not as safe.

The more we make pilots feel like they're incompetent, inferior, less experienced and a threat to themselves and everyone else, cut them down to size, the less GA we will have. It will be gone in our lifetime. At some point you have to let the kid you brought up learn from his own mistakes and trust that the education you gave him, is good enough.

How much is enough protection from ourselves?
You sound like some people I've flown with...legally-required training to the appropriate standard is all that's necessary, not a bit beyond. No matter that they can't keep the ailerons of a 54-ft wing on opposite sides of the centerline and want to land on a 50-ft wide runway. The inability to stay on the runway is "not a safety issue!"

Training requirements and the PTS are far from all-inclusive with regard to day-to-day operations, and all of us should have a second set of eyes on what we do occasionally. If you feel you're not getting value from an instructor, you're not flying with the right instructor.
 
My response was not to the IPC each year, but to aviation's and Ron's mantra about training to proficiency. No matter how much one flies, how many checkrides, that case can always be made. Non-proficiency.

Why don't we have a checkride with a DPE after each hour flown? Why not just ban single piloted flight altogether and have every flight be with a CFI? Why not ban GA from carrying passengers? Why not ban GA period? We're obviously not as safe.

The more we make pilots feel like they're incompetent, inferior, less experienced and a threat to themselves and everyone else, cut them down to size, the less GA we will have. It will be gone in our lifetime. At some point you have to let the kid you brought up learn from his own mistakes and trust that the education you gave him, is good enough.

How much is enough protection from ourselves?
It's not about making them feel incompetent. It's about a standard of safety. Nobody is cutting anyone down. The FAA sets the rules and as instructors and pilots we have to abide by them. If you don't fly an approach to standards I'm going to lie to your face and say you did. I'm going to tell you you need more work and give you waysto improve your piloting.
 
The standards are quite lenient, really. You can maintain basically as low of a level of safety as you want, and many pilots choose to do so. I see very little belittling or making pilots feel inadequate. What I do see typically is pilots who lack confidence and feel inadequate themselves feel a lot better after a challenge.

Why is GA dying? Because costs are high, and pilots keep on crashing.
 
:eek:Are you suggesting a ride with a Cessna driver? Perish the thought.

As a Twin Cessna driver, I'm trained in the most sophisticated and awesome aircraft that GA has ever seen. Gulfstream owners regularly offer to trade their G650s for old Sugar Pop, but I say "No thanks, you can't put a price on happiness."
 
Actually your suggestion of a progressive recurrent training for continuous improvement makes a lot of sense. Since it is warming up a bit we will have to plan a lunch soon and discuss.
 
Just back on the ground from my annual IPC. I would do it even if insurance didn't require it.
 
Actually your suggestion of a progressive recurrent training for continuous improvement makes a lot of sense. Since it is warming up a bit we will have to plan a lunch soon and discuss.

Sounds like a great plan.
 
Back
Top