IPC guidelines

benyflyguy

benyflyguy

En-Route
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,755
Location
NEPA
Display Name
Display name:
benyflyguy
I have found myself in the unfortunate position that I need to get an IPC. I generally stay current as well as do my best to stay proficient. However, combination of some work related issues as well as plane related issues I put in the position that I have to get one. I was trying to look in the FAR’s For guidelines as what’s required however, when you look it up, the only thing you really find is requirements for when you’re supposed to get an IPC not so much what is done during the actual flight. I don’t think it’s as simple as just going up to six approaches and hold with an instructor although could be. I thought I don’t think it’s as simple as just going up to six approaches and hold with an instructor although could be. I thought it would be more like a check ride experience.
 
Unlike a flight review, there are specific requirements for an IPC. They can be found in the ACS.
 
benyflyguy said:
I have found myself in the unfortunate position that I need to get an IPC. I generally stay current as well as do my best to stay proficient. However, combination of some work related issues as well as plane related issues I put in the position that I have to get one. I was trying to look in the FAR’s For guidelines as what’s required however, when you look it up, the only thing you really find is requirements for when you’re supposed to get an IPC not so much what is done during the actual flight. I don’t think it’s as simple as just going up to six approaches and hold with an instructor although could be. I thought I don’t think it’s as simple as just going up to six approaches and hold with an instructor although could be. I thought it would be more like a check ride experience.
Click to expand...
As @mondtster said, IPC requirements are in the instrument ACS. There's a table of which tasks are required and the Appendix goes into more detail on the breakdown) Comes down to three approaches (one to a DA, two to an MDA using two different types of navigation systems), partial panel, and unusual attitude recovery. There a changes s proposed to get rid of the "different systems" requirement.

It is usually viewed as more of an evaluation than training in contrast to a FR which is specifically defined as training. But CFIIs will differ on how they handle the distinction.

BTW, "unfortunate" is in the eyes of the beholder. Absolutely unfortunate to require an IPC. Not so unfortunate to get one.
 
An IPC is shorter and covers more proficiency and safety stuff than the 6 approach currency requirement. It was more efficient for me time wise to grab an instructor after my currency had lapsed (but before the 1 year limit) to just go out and do an IPC anyway and get my logbook signed. I believe I was safer that way too, more ready for emergencies, but wasn’t gonna go to mins due to proficiency and personal limits. I’m way lapsed now, beyond 1 year.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It is usually viewed as more of an evaluation than training in contrast to a FR which is specifically defined as training. But CFIIs will differ on how they handle the distinction.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting distinction…the FAA states that you can’t “fail” a FR, but technically if you don’t pass an IPC, there’s nothing that says you actually lose instrument privileges.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That’s an interesting distinction…the FAA states that you can’t “fail” a FR, but technically if you don’t pass an IPC, there’s nothing that says you actually lose instrument privileges.
Click to expand...
In neither case do you lose anything other than the renewal of currency. I think the different ways CFIIs handle it – eval vs training – is based on two things. The different wording of the regulations and the fact that the IPC is an ACS creature. Between the two many CFIIs (not including me) think of the instrument proficiency check in purely checkride terms - not instruction, just evaluation like a DPE would.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
An IPC is shorter and covers more proficiency and safety stuff than the 6 approach currency requirement. It was more efficient for me time wise to grab an instructor after my currency had lapsed (but before the 1 year limit) to just go out and do an IPC anyway and get my logbook signed. I believe I was safer that way too, more ready for emergencies, but wasn’t gonna go to mins due to proficiency and personal limits. I’m way lapsed now, beyond 1 year.
Click to expand...
In the current iteration, I agree more than the same approach flown 6 times with the autopilot, but beyond that, I'm not sure I agree. Two reasons. One is that one can easily pass an IPC based on a pretty basic skill level. There are many things which gets pilots in trouble in the real world which do not need to be covered. Then there's the current requirement to find a ground-based navaid nonprecision approach which leads to artificial approaches, especially with a WAAS GPS.

Take your home base as an example. At LAF, you have two nonprecision choices. The Runway 10 LOC, pretending there is a NOTAM that the GS is unreliable and there's a GPS failure. And the VOR-A which involves the same GPS failure and an airplane equipped with real ADF or DME.
 
midlifeflyer said:
As @mondtster said, IPC requirements are in the instrument ACS. There's a table of which tasks are required and the Appendix goes into more detail on the breakdown) Comes down to three approaches (one to a DA, two to an MDA using two different types of navigation systems), partial panel, and unusual attitude recovery. There a changes s proposed to get rid of the "different systems" requirement.

It is usually viewed as more of an evaluation than training in contrast to a FR which is specifically defined as training. But CFIIs will differ on how they handle the distinction.

BTW, "unfortunate" is in the eyes of the beholder. Absolutely unfortunate to require an IPC. Not so unfortunate to get one.
Click to expand...
I’m looking forward to it. The CFI is a friend of mine. I want to get current so I can go up and spend more time doing safety pilot work. We have had a lot of great ‘easy IFR’ days to practice but not being current just gets you further behind.
Don’t plan on going up in harder IMC until current and probably more importantly proficient. Will be going up in IMC with CFI as well after IPC done.
 
midlifeflyer said:
In the current iteration, I agree more than the same approach flown 6 times with the autopilot, but beyond that, I'm not sure I agree. Two reasons. One is that one can easily pass an IPC based on a pretty basic skill level. There are many things which gets pilots in trouble in the real world which do not need to be covered. Then there's the current requirement to find a ground-based navaid nonprecision approach which leads to artificial approaches, especially with a WAAS GPS.

Take your home base as an example. At LAF, you have two nonprecision choices. The Runway 10 LOC, pretending there is a NOTAM that the GS is unreliable and there's a GPS failure. And the VOR-A which involves the same GPS failure and an airplane equipped with real ADF or DME.
Click to expand...
Better hope Purdue is off that day if you want to fly those. :)

Aka, better go over to DNV and do those instead.
 
Don’t overthink it, schedule it and get it done. I generally do a quick brush up on rules before. It’s good stuff.
 
benyflyguy said:
I have found myself in the unfortunate position that I need to get an IPC. I generally stay current as well as do my best to stay proficient. However, combination of some work related issues as well as plane related issues I put in the position that I have to get one. I was trying to look in the FAR’s For guidelines as what’s required however, when you look it up, the only thing you really find is requirements for when you’re supposed to get an IPC not so much what is done during the actual flight. I don’t think it’s as simple as just going up to six approaches and hold with an instructor although could be. I thought I don’t think it’s as simple as just going up to six approaches and hold with an instructor although could be. I thought it would be more like a check ride experience.
Click to expand...

I am very lucky to have a close friend who is a 40+ year pilot, 22 year Captain and senior check airmen who gives check rides to the other check airmens at SW. I fly with him a lot in his arrow and he flys with me in my 172. He knows me. That is his old Cherokee in my signature picture.
I don't think it is bad thing to do a IPC every 6 months. He is a great CFII, very business like when we do BFR IPCs.
He does 4 of us at the airport and makes up a book for each one of us tailored to our aircraft. It is about 3/8" thick.
IMG_2902.JPG

He has it all planned out so I know what we are going to do. I load it in my GPS before take off.
IMG_2905.JPG

We do 2 hours ground and 2+ hrs flight time. He won't take a dime from any of us. He says he does not want to see anything bad happen to us.
IMG_2903.JPG

Then in the back he had 18 NASA reports for me to learn from. I am so lucky and have learned so much more from him then just staying proficient by myself.
IMG_2911.JPG

Plenty of study material that he gives me.
IMG_2910.JPG
 
Last edited:
Gary Ward said:
I am very lucky to have a close friend who is a 40+ year pilot, 22 year Captain and senior check airmen who gives check rides to the other check airmens at SW. I fly with him a lot in his arrow and he flys with me in my 172. He knows me. That is his old Cherokee in my signature picture.
I don't think it is bad thing to do a IPC every 6 months. He is a great CFII, very business like when we do BFR IPCs.
He does 4 of us at the airport and makes up a book for each one of us tailored to our aircraft. It is about 3/8" thick.
Click to expand...
I had to laugh at the list. Are you near the only SDF approach in the US? Pretty's sure you don't have an LDA near you :D

upload_2023-6-29_15-2-15.png
 
We didn't fly them, he was making me aware that they are out there. And as he says there is no pass or fail in a IPC.
The rest of the flight plan.
IMG_2906.JPG

He has plates for each approach and more in each book he makes up. I do 2 a year with him.
 
Gary Ward said:
We didn't fly them, he was making me aware that they are out there. And as he says there is no pass or fail in a IPC.
The rest of the flight plan.
Click to expand...
I was only laughing because there is only one SDF approach left in the us. LDAs are far more plentiful with 28.
 
He is 55 and I am 63 and learned to fly in 2015 with 530 GPS. He is old school and so sharp. But he did learn from my panel as I have had 650 since 2016 in my trainer. At first he was not interested in the GPS, but as time went on he warmed up to it. He put a 175 in his Cherokee and now a 650 in his arrow. Now he knows those better than I probably.
We ate at Bob Evans before the IPC and we spent the whole time on his 650 simulator on his SW I pad in the restaurant. He does not waste any time when we train together.
 
@Gary Ward , I am fascinated by his thoroughness, although I have a few questions.

You say you do two a year. Is it always the same procedures? If so, that's not very valuable. If not, then he creates a whole new spiral-bound book every six months? I guess the "spiral bound" is the thing that gets me, seems unnecessarily fancy for a one-off event.

I'm also not a big fan of having everything laid out and preplanned like that. Or does he actually make you "think" that's what you're going to do, but then change it in mid flight (which is, of course, far more realistic)? If you do actually march through that list exactly as written, that seems inadequate to me.

Regardless, it seems you have a very conscientious and prepared instructor.
 
RussR said:


I'm also not a big fan of having everything laid out and preplanned like that. Or does he actually make you "think" that's what you're going to do, but then change it in mid flight (which is, of course, far more realistic)? If you do actually march through that list exactly as written, that seems inadequate to me.
Click to expand...

Not to that degree but I do provide a general plan of action - which airports and the type of approaches so we can check the boxes. I will even ask the client to select them if they want to. My general instruction to them is to plan it as though they were going to do the three approaches by themselves in a personal practice session in actual on a clearance. What they do usually tells me a lot. I get people who run with it and people who completely defer, both of which leads to some interesting discussions.

Sometimes things go amiss of course.
 
RussR said:
@Gary Ward , I am fascinated by his thoroughness, although I have a few questions.

You say you do two a year. Is it always the same procedures? If so, that's not very valuable. If not, then he creates a whole new spiral-bound book every six months? I guess the "spiral bound" is the thing that gets me, seems unnecessarily fancy for a one-off event.

I'm also not a big fan of having everything laid out and preplanned like that. Or does he actually make you "think" that's what you're going to do, but then change it in mid flight (which is, of course, far more realistic)? If you do actually march through that list exactly as written, that seems inadequate to me.

Regardless, it seems you have a very conscientious and prepared instructor.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I will tell him this. I thank him all the time.

It is different every 6 months, last time we did the ILS into CVG and other approaches around town. And yes he does mix it up mid flight so it was not flown like he had it laid out including a engine out surprise. He likes to put things in book form as he does it at work. He gave me the same kind of book that is the POH for his arrow before I got to fly it.
This last IPC that you saw in the book was all done with the auto pilot for the first time. He changed the flight plan on me during the flight like if ATC vectored me and made sure I could reprogram the AP in IMC and that I could enter all the approaches in the GPS and the AP followed it. Also made sure I could program the holds into the GPS so the AP would fly them. It was one of the more helpful flights for me. So he changes it up every time.
Normally we didn't use the AP much at all during a IPC.

He is a great guy and so smart about aviation. Like I bragged about he spends most of his time in Dallas giving checkrides to SW pilots. He also is heavily involved in SW new training program that he is heading up for the last 8-9 months. It was stopped during covid and they started it back up last fall. He said it will take until 1st quarter next year to implement.
 
Last edited:
IPC is great, it actually saves time and officially records your hours (if you do IACRA). I don’t remember the requirements but I believe it’s 3 different types of approaches and 1 hold, you can do it in almost an hour. I like it because that date means you’re good for 6 months from that date, no questions or math needed. I’ve done 2 of them recently, means I’m good to go (for a future checkride) and keeps my knowledge up to date.
 
E9CFF7FF-BB5A-400B-A13E-32FB887839CB.jpeg

He put all the V speeds on a index card on front, since they were most important for me to learn.
 
I just get an IPC on a regular basis to maintain currency. It usually takes about 1.5 hours of flight time to get in the 3 approaches, a hold (usually in conjunction with an approach or missed) and other required skills. I usually learn something new each time, and they are a good sanity check on your IFR skills by a third party. It's also a good way to shake off rust, if approrpiate. The good news is that you are good for the 6 calendar months following the month of your IPC. I have about 2-3 different CFIIs I can choose from in the area, and they are all a little bit different in approach, which is refreshing as well.
 
chemgeek said:
I just get an IPC on a regular basis to maintain currency. It usually takes about 1.5 hours of flight time to get in the 3 approaches, a hold (usually in conjunction with an approach or missed) and other required skills. I usually learn something new each time, and they are a good sanity check on your IFR skills by a third party. It's also a good way to shake off rust, if approrpiate. The good news is that you are good for the 6 calendar months following the month of your IPC. I have about 2-3 different CFIIs I can choose from in the area, and they are all a little bit different in approach, which is refreshing as well.
Click to expand...

I really find that great, checks all boxes and is cheap too.
 
Tremendous preparation for the flight. My only observation is that you must do at least two non precision approaches using different Navigation systems, so two RNAV approaches would not meet the current IPC requirement.
 
What frustrates me as a new twin owner is my old CFII can’t do my IPC anymore because he isn’t an MEI despite there being no requirement for multi specific training in an IPC. And the other couple of MEI/CFII guys don’t have enough hours in my type to do instruction (have to have 5h in type to instruct). None of that makes sense if instruction is limited to IPC skills.
 
Tokirbymd said:
What frustrates me as a new twin owner is my old CFII can’t do my IPC anymore because he isn’t an MEI despite there being no requirement for multi specific training in an IPC. And the other couple of MEI/CFII guys don’t have enough hours in my type to do instruction (have to have 5h in type to instruct). None of that makes sense if instruction is limited to IPC skills.
Click to expand...
What is requiring the 5 hours in type to give an IPC?
 
Tokirbymd said:
What frustrates me as a new twin owner is my old CFII can’t do my IPC anymore because he isn’t an MEI despite there being no requirement for multi specific training in an IPC. And the other couple of MEI/CFII guys don’t have enough hours in my type to do instruction (have to have 5h in type to instruct). None of that makes sense if instruction is limited to IPC skills.
Click to expand...
If the IPC is given in a twin the single-engine emergencies become a required tasks. It's a little weird since you don't have to do in IPC in a twin (unless maybe if you don't have a single engine rating). There's a similar issue for using an AATD for parts of an IPC.

On the other point, the "other couple of MEIs" may be reading 61.195(f) more conservatively than what it says. OTOH, the orphaned Part 61 FAQ did also with the loose language typical from Lynch, so that might be the source.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
If the IPC is given in a twin the single-engine emergencies become a required tasks. It's a little weird since you don't have to do in IPC in a twin (unless maybe if you don't have a single engine rating). There's a similar issue for using an AATD for parts of an IPC.

On the other point, the "other couple of MEIs" may be reading 61.195(f) more conservatively than what it says. OTOH, the orphaned Part 61 FAQ did also with the loose language typical from Lynch, so that might be the source.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I wasn’t aware that single engine maneuvers were required part of an IPC. Which makes no sense, although most twin owners including myself could stand to do additional engine out training.
As to the time in type requirement there was another thread on here somewhere that discussed it and my conclusion from reading that was, it does apply. But if you can give me a good explanation to take to my MEI, I would appreciate it.
 
A flight instructor may not give training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane, a helicopter, or a powered-lift unless that flight instructor has at least 5 flight hours of pilot-in-command time in the specific make and model...

Seems pretty clear to me it doesn't apply to an IPC.
 
Tokirbymd said:
Interesting. I wasn’t aware that single engine maneuvers were required part of an IPC.
Click to expand...
It's right there in the table.
upload_2023-7-8_12-58-32.png

Which makes no sense, although most twin owners including myself could stand to do additional engine out training.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure requiring the performance of the only instrument tasks which differentiate a multi from a single makes no sense, but it does seem strange since you can bypass it entirely by doing the IPC in a single.

As to the time in type requirement there was another thread on here somewhere that discussed it and my conclusion from reading that was, it does apply. But if you can give me a good explanation to take to my MEI, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...
I think @dmspilot covered it. Despite some weird language in the old FAQ, I agree with him. When you give a flight review or IPC, you are not giving "training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane," unless you take the position that the regulation applies to the maneuvers required for a certificate or rating even if the pilot already has them, rather than training in order to meet the requirements to obtain a certificate or rating not already held (which is what the old FAQ appears to contemplate).
 
Last edited:
Tokirbymd said:
Which makes no sense,
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this doesn't make sense. Even if it wasn't required in the IPC, it's my opinion that any MEI who doesn't include at least one single-engine approach on an IPC is doing a great disservice to the client.

I'm also curious why it "frustrates" you that your SINGLE-engine CFI can't sign you off for a MULTI-engine proficiency check. Seems perfectly sensible to me.
 
Yup. I was the recipient fo an IPC recently. The "Dance Card" was really, a ATP checkride.....
 
RussR said:
I'm not sure how this doesn't make sense. Even if it wasn't required in the IPC, it's my opinion that any MEI who doesn't include at least one single-engine approach on an IPC is doing a great disservice to the client.

I'm also curious why it "frustrates" you that your SINGLE-engine CFI can't sign you off for a MULTI-engine proficiency check. Seems perfectly sensible to me.
Click to expand...
Well I was assuming (incorrectly) that the IPC didn’t require any maneuvers specific to multi engine. In which case any CFII multi or not would seem sufficient. But I stand corrected. If it requires engine out procedure under simulated instrument conditions then i would expect not an MEI to be appropriate. Thank you.
 
I fell behind on instrument currency during commercial training, while working on comm. multi add-on, I told my instructor to roll an IPC into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top