IPC every year - how painful?

stratobee

stratobee

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
1,112
Display Name
Display name:
stratobee
My new insurance requirements require an IPC in type each year. I'm relatively new IR pilot, so still current and have not done one yet. I know they're outlined in the PTS, but what's the real world here? Is it more of an BFR-type thing, shoot the breeze, can't really fail, or is it an IR do-one-wrong-move-you-sucka-and-fail-checkride?

And, does IPC replace BFR need if done yearly then?
 
Last edited:
Depends on who's checking you out.

You already read the PTS so..

I have to take two IFR checkrides a year for work, if you're flying IFR frequently it shouldn't be a issue.

Learn good flows, follow them up with a checklist, know your systems and emergency memory items, have that checklist handy (checklists should be one folded sheet or less), keep yourself organized and make sure you have good situational awareness, never rush that's what holds and delay vectors are for.
 
It's more like a BFR type thing, you can't really fail but if you're rusty the CFII might want to keep working with you until he's comfortable signing you off. My advice, use a CFII that'll give you a good workout.
And no, an IPC doesn't count as a BFR but have the instructor give you one of those at the same time if you're due. For just a little bit extra you should get signed off for both.
 
All depends on the CFII. If the instructor is a good friend that has flown with you, it will be no different than taking him up as a safety pilot. You can ask him if he will sign it off as a BFR. If he is a nice guy, it shouldn't be a problem. You can't "fail" an IPC. It's more of a "learn from the mistakes" and "that's why we have these IPCs" type of things.

The FAA has a good guide on IPCs: http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/media/ipc_guidance.pdf
 
Just had my first ever IPC after getting the instrument rating around four years ago.

I thought it would be much more difficult, but I will tell you I think I am going to do that annually just to reset the clock on currency. Was not painful at all, and frankly getting some tips and another opinion from the instructor was a great experience. Obviously like a BFR really depends on who you fly with but it was good for me.
 
stratobee said:
My new insurance requirements require an IPC in type each year. I'm relatively new IR pilot, so still current and have not done one yet. I know they're outlined in the PTS, but what's the real world here? Is it more of an BFR-type thing, shoot the breeze, can't really fail, or is it an IR do-one-wrong-move-you-sucka-and-fail-?
Click to expand...

Yea, no real need to actually show proficiency, I mean really, what do they expect? :dunno: :eek:

Just do a "$100 hamburger run", sorta fly an approach at both ends and call it good. :rolleyes2:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Yea, no real need to actually show proficiency, I mean really, what do they expect? :dunno: :eek:

Just do a "$100 hamburger run", sorta fly an approach at both ends and call it good. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
so....that's what you guys do with each other? :yikes::nono::lol::lol::lol:
 
I did mine at 1 year even though insurance did not require it, I did it just to get a refresher. Was not that bad.....3 approaches one with a hold and circle to land....was actually pretty fun to run through all again.
 
Gucci Pilot said:
All depends on the CFII. If the instructor is a good friend that has flown with you, it will be no different than taking him up as a safety pilot. You can ask him if he will sign it off as a BFR.
Click to expand...
Since by regulation a flight review requires things not included in an IPC (starting with the hour of ground training on Part 91 rules), make sure you discuss that with your instructor in advance if you want both at the same time.

Beyond that, think of it as a "train to proficiency" instrument practical test flight portion. You can't fail, but depending on your proficiency level, it may take more than just three approaches, one hold, and one unusual attitude recovery to complete it successfully. And personally, I try to get the client to also accept some refresher training beyond that, including chart interpretation (especially SID's and STAR's, which many GA pilots use only rarely), Part 61 instrument currency rules, and Part 91 legal requirements for IFR flight, even those aren't required by 61.57(d) for the IPC -- they're usually amazed at what they've forgotten on those areas.
 
Last edited:
Flymeariver said:
I did mine at 1 year even though insurance did not require it, I did it just to get a refresher. Was not that bad.....3 approaches one with a hold and circle to land....was actually pretty fun to run through all again.
Click to expand...
A Primary Flight Instrument Inoperative ("partial-panel") unusual attitude recovery is also required for an IPC. See the Rating/Task Table in the IR PTS.
 
Ron Levy said:
A Primary Flight Instrument Inoperative ("partial-panel") unusual attitude recovery is also required for an IPC. See the Rating/Task Table in the IR PTS.
Click to expand...

Ron, I am Sorry that I did not provide the whole play by play. I believe I mentioned enough of the IPC to show it was no big deal. :rolleyes:

OP: more refresher flights than required are always nice and useful :)
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Since by regulation a flight review requires things not included in an IPC (starting with the hour of ground training on Part 91 rules), make sure you discuss that with your instructor in advance if you want both at the same time.

Beyond that, think of it as a "train to proficiency" instrument practical test flight portion. You can't fail, but depending on your proficiency level, it may take more than just three approaches, one hold, and one unusual attitude recovery to complete it successfully. And personally, I try to get the client to also accept some refresher training beyond that, including chart interpretation (especially SID's and STAR's, which many GA pilots use only rarely), Part 61 instrument currency rules, and Part 91 legal requirements for IFR flight, even those aren't required by 61.57(d) for the IPC -- they're usually amazed at what they've forgotten on those areas.
Click to expand...

Just had a real IPC with a new instructor. We reviewed EVERYTHING on the ground, since he didn't know me from Adam. (Just one of the joys of moving!) I'd not done much IFR in the previous 18 months and was surprised at how rusty I was. Maybe it was just a really bumpy day? It was, but not bumpy enough to blame everything on.

This was definitely the most work I had done since checkride prep. With done more practice, I now feel proficient. May have to do this again from time to time just to keep from becoming complacent.
 
Look at it as a learning opportunity. I try for an IPC every 6 months. You have to do the approaches and holds anyway, I submit that it takes less time to do an IPC and thus less money even with the CFII FEE. AND I think you get a heck of a lot more out of it.
 
You're a new IR pilot in a turboprop and all they want is an IPC every year? That's the most lax requirement I've heard on a turboprop. Most require some sort of formal initial and recurrent training on something like what you're flying. So I can tell you know it could be much "worse", although the extra training really isn't a bad thing.

An IPC is no big deal if you're proficient in instruments. As a new instrument pilot, this should be a good thing for you. I would try to find an instructor who has Commander time who can actually provide you some good instruction in the plane as well. Keep in mind that if you're PIC in 135, you need an IPC every 6 months.
 
Friend of mine has it down. Takes off climbs up to altitude over the home field which is the hold for the airport to the east. Shjots the approach to that field , misses then to a field to the west for an approach, misses then back to shoot an approach at the home field. Three approaches and a hold. Does this every three months. Has this flight down to about 45 minutes
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You're a new IR pilot in a turboprop and all they want is an IPC every year? That's the most lax requirement I've heard on a turboprop. Most require some sort of formal initial and recurrent training on something like what you're flying. So I can tell you know it could be much "worse", although the extra training really isn't a bad thing.

An IPC is no big deal if you're proficient in instruments. As a new instrument pilot, this should be a good thing for you. I would try to find an instructor who has Commander time who can actually provide you some good instruction in the plane as well. Keep in mind that if you're PIC in 135, you need an IPC every 6 months.
Click to expand...

I need initial with insurance approved guy (standard practice), but only IPC in type after that each year. More bizarrely, it was $1385 for liability only - that's $500 less than I paid for the Aerostar. I didn't expect that. Maybe my previous piston Commander time counted for something.
 
Last edited:
tmyers said:
Friend of mine has it down. Takes off climbs up to altitude over the home field which is the hold for the airport to the east. Shjots the approach to that field , misses then to a field to the west for an approach, misses then back to shoot an approach at the home field. Three approaches and a hold. Does this every three months. Has this flight down to about 45 minutes
Click to expand...

To be fair, though, that's not really an effective IPC from a learning perspective. To actually get a benefit out of it, I'd pick different airports each time, different approaches, try to do something new, different, or challenging. The fact that so many pilots just go the easy route is why we see the accident statistics not making any real headway.
 
stratobee said:
I need initial with insurance approved guy (standard practice), but only IPC in type after that. Not only that, it was $1385 for liability only. That's $500 less than I paid for Aerostar! I didn't expect that. Maybe the previous piston Commander time counted.
Click to expand...

I'm still surprised about the IPC only afterwards. That is particularly lax on a turboprop. Maybe you're getting away with that since you have an oddball/low value turboprop, especially if you're doing liability only insurance. I think you're the only person I know who does liability only on an aircraft with 6-figure hull value.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm still surprised about the IPC only afterwards. That is particularly lax on a turboprop. Maybe you're getting away with that since you have an oddball/low value turboprop, especially if you're doing liability only insurance. I think you're the only person I know who does liability only on an aircraft with 6-figure hull value.
Click to expand...

That's probably it. I'll add hull down the line perhaps. My main concern is that third parties are covered. Planes can be replaced or fixed.

I tried AOPA Insurance Services like I'd done with my previous aircrafts. They had a kniption. Totally outside of their comfort zone and they didn't get a single quote back. In the end I used the previous owners broker, Aviators Insurance and had a quote in 24hrs… I always thought the brokers hit the same underwriters up, but apparently not. Learn something each day.
 
Look at it this way, if you can't pass an IPC each year, you shouldn't be flying in IMC. Period. :)
 
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.
 
All of us in the partnership, including the partner who is a part 121 pilot, have a requirement for an annual IPC in the plane. Not a big deal, just something else to keep track of. Every other year, those of us who need it, extend it into a BFR/IPC.
As recurrent training requirements go, it is pretty minimal.
 
tmyers said:
Friend of mine has it down. Takes off climbs up to altitude over the home field which is the hold for the airport to the east. Shjots the approach to that field , misses then to a field to the west for an approach, misses then back to shoot an approach at the home field. Three approaches and a hold. Does this every three months. Has this flight down to about 45 minutes
Click to expand...
That will certainly keep your friend IFR-current per 61.57(c). Whether that keeps him/her fully instrument-proficient and -knowledgeable or not is another question, the answer to which cannot be ascertained from that information.
 
Ron Levy said:
A Primary Flight Instrument Inoperative ("partial-panel") unusual attitude recovery is also required for an IPC. See the Rating/Task Table in the IR PTS.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find that requirement. I'm looking in the 2010 PTS including up to change 5 in 2013, which is the one on the FAA website.

Partial-panel unusual attitudes were removed in the 2004 version of the PTS, and I don't see that they've been added back in.
 
I have a checkride friday and am intimately familiar with the current PTS. Partial panel recovery from unusual attitude is not a required task.
 
RussR said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find that requirement. I'm looking in the 2010 PTS including up to change 5 in 2013, which is the one on the FAA website.

Partial-panel unusual attitudes were removed in the 2004 version of the PTS, and I don't see that they've been added back in.
Click to expand...
The Change 5 edition table on page 21 still says Area IV Task B is part of the IPC, and the preface (page 16) still says Area IV must be done with primary flight instrument inop.

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/instrument_rating_pts_change5.pdf
 
I have practiced them! I'm also not as up on the PTS as I thought I was, thanks for pointing that out. I find it annoying the way that the FAA spells these out. Why throw a single line in preface and not add it to the task description?
 
Ron Levy said:
The Change 5 edition table on page 21 still says Area IV Task B is part of the IPC, and the preface (page 16) still says Area IV must be done with primary flight instrument inop.

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/instrument_rating_pts_change5.pdf
Click to expand...

(Note it's page 18.)

If this is what that sentence means, then the wording is inconsistent with the rest of the PTS. (In addition, it should be placed IN the task, not the preface.)

The wording to which I think you're referring:

"Area of Operation IV requires the evaluation of basic instrument flight maneuvers under both full-panel and references to backup primary flight instruments/electronic flight instrument displays."

I don't know what "backup primary flight instruments" are, emphasis on "backup PRIMARY". The rest of the PTS, when referring to what used to be called "partial panel", talks about "without the use of primary flight instruments", such as a couple paragraphs later on page 19. Or "loss of primary flight instrument indicators" as in task VII(D).

Interestingly, the same wording is used in the 2004 PTS, which is also ambiguous about partial-panel unusual attitudes.

Also, page 8, last sentence going onto page 9, when talking about glass cockpits, states: "The abnormal or emergency procedure for loss of the electronic flight instrument display appropriate to the aircraft will be evaluated in the Loss of Primary Instruments Task." The "Loss of Primary Instruments Task" can only be reasonably construed to mean task VII D, "Approach with Loss of Primary Flight Instrument Indicators", and it is telling that they use the singular word "task" when referring to when "partial panel" will be tested.

In general, I find the PTS's reasonably well written and straightforward to follow. If they intended to actually include partial-panel unusual attitudes in the test, it really should be clearer.

I'd be interested in how many people have recently taken their checkrides and had to do this.

(The argument as to whether or not these should be in the PTS or if they should be trained on is a completely separate issue.)
 
Ron Levy said:
That will certainly keep your friend IFR-current per 61.57(c). Whether that keeps him/her fully instrument-proficient and -knowledgeable or not is another question, the answer to which cannot be ascertained from that information.
Click to expand...
So what do you suggest? I think most of us take a safety pilot and fly near our home field for approaches and holds.

Not very likely to fly to a far away airport for that unless we tack an approach onto a hamburger run.

Just curious what meets Rons requirements.
 
uncreative said:
I have practiced them! I'm also not as up on the PTS as I thought I was, thanks for pointing that out. I find it annoying the way that the FAA spells these out. Why throw a single line in preface and not add it to the task description?
Click to expand...
Because it's the FAA? :dunno:
 
RussR said:
In general, I find the PTS's reasonably well written and straightforward to follow. If they intended to actually include partial-panel unusual attitudes in the test, it really should be clearer.

I'd be interested in how many people have recently taken their checkrides and had to do this.
Click to expand...
I won't disagree with you that it's not particularly clear if you're not used to FAA-ese, but it's there, it's tested, and every Examiner I've seen in the last 10 years has done the unusual attitudes on the IR practical test "partial panel" (and in my job as a roving instrument instructor, I see a lot of different Examiners all over the US, although primarily east of the Mississippi).
 
tmyers said:
So what do you suggest? I think most of us take a safety pilot and fly near our home field for approaches and holds.

Not very likely to fly to a far away airport for that unless we tack an approach onto a hamburger run.

Just curious what meets Rons requirements.
Click to expand...
I was merely saying that going out and doing that as described ("climbs up to altitude over the home field which is the hold for the airport to the east. Shjots the approach to that field , misses then to a field to the west for an approach, misses then back to shoot an approach at the home field") is not a guarantee of full proficiency. To determine someone's true level of preparedness to safely operate under IFR, I'd have to see considerably more than just flying three approaches with which they are intimately familiar and one turn in a hold.
 
Now that the flyin is over I have time to respond....

Perhaps I misstated what I was referring to. You all were talking about an IPC, I was referring to a friend that was going up with a safety pilot to log some approaches and holds. He does this periodically to maintain currency. Is it a full and complete test of his ability, probably not, but no different than heading out to the airport to log three takeoffs and landings at night. Not the same as flying several hours to a night landing when your tired.

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.
 
tmyers said:
Now that the flyin is over I have time to respond....

Perhaps I misstated what I was referring to. You all were talking about an IPC, I was referring to a friend that was going up with a safety pilot to log some approaches and holds. He does this periodically to maintain currency. Is it a full and complete test of his ability, probably not, but no different than heading out to the airport to log three takeoffs and landings at night. Not the same as flying several hours to a night landing when your tired.

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.
Click to expand...

This is as close as you're going to get:
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/faa-s-8081-4e.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top