An examiner's suggestion for instrument currency

[alfadog]

So, on 8/21, I took, and passed, my instrument checkride. During the oral, the inevitable questions on currency came up. After I gave the book answer, the examiner had this suggestion. If you only fly occasionally IFR, his recommendation was to do an IPC every 6 months instead of trying to maintain currency the traditional way. His reasoning was that in an IPC you only have to do two approaches so it doesn't have to take very long and you'll have a CFII with you to work with you on any weak points. So in the end, it won't cost you much more than trying to maintain currency traditionally and may yield better results.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Doing an IPC regularly is a long time, very common suggestion for those of us who don't get a lot of quality instrument time and are interested in maintaining proficiency and not bare currency.

 

[Palmpilot]

When I did an IPC last year, I had to do three instrument approaches. Is that not a requirement?

 

[midlifeflyer]

When I did an IPC last year, I had to do three instrument approaches. Is that not a requirement?

Depends how you want to parse the requirements. There are three required approach tasks in the PC Task Table. (1) A precision/LPV approach, (2) a nonprecision approach, and (3) a nonprecision approach with primary flight instruments failed (aka "partial panel"). That can be parsed as either three separate approaches or as two - combine #2 and #3 - and I've seen both argued.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Doing an IPC regularly is a long time, very common suggestion for those of us who don't get a lot of quality instrument time and are interested in maintaining proficiency and not bare currency.

It’s also what a very large number of professional pilots do, even though they may be getting quality instrument time otherwise.

 

[RussR]

So, on 8/21, I took, and passed, my instrument checkride. During the oral, the inevitable questions on currency came up. After I gave the book answer, the examiner had this suggestion. If you only fly occasionally IFR, his recommendation was to do an IPC every 6 months instead of trying to maintain currency the traditional way. His reasoning was that in an IPC you only have to do two approaches so it doesn't have to take very long and you'll have a CFII with you to work with you on any weak points. So in the end, it won't cost you much more than trying to maintain currency traditionally and may yield better results.

While the basic idea of doing an IPC every six months is excellent, it isn't a real great idea if that's ALL the approaches you fly. It also isn't a good idea if you're just doing it to save money, since it doesn't necessarily work out to be "less" flying. Remember that an IPC is essentially an IFR checkride. If you can't complete the actions without assistance, you don't pass. So if the CFI is having to "work with you on weak points", it likely means you weren't performing up to standards and will therefore need more practice to pass the IPC.

I'm kind of surprised the DPE seems to be endorsing flying FEWER approaches than required. That seems counterintuitive if your goal is to maintain actual proficiency, not just check the box for legal currency.

If a pilot comes to me to fly a couple approaches every couple months and stay current that way, that is great. I can see how they're doing, see what they've forgotten, give advice, correct problems, etc. But if they come to me for an IPC, they need to able to fly the procedure within PTS tolerances without assistance in order to get it signed off.

 

[midlifeflyer]

While the basic idea of doing an IPC every six months is excellent, it isn't a real great idea if that's ALL the approaches you fly. It also isn't a good idea if you're just doing it to save money, since it doesn't necessarily work out to be "less" flying. Remember that an IPC is essentially an IFR checkride. If you can't complete the actions without assistance, you don't pass. So if the CFI is having to "work with you on weak points", it likely means you weren't performing up to standards and will therefore need more practice to pass the IPC.

I'm kind of surprised the DPE seems to be endorsing flying FEWER approaches than required. That seems counterintuitive if your goal is to maintain actual proficiency, not just check the box for legal currency.

If a pilot comes to me to fly a couple approaches every couple months and stay current that way, that is great. I can see how they're doing, see what they've forgotten, give advice, correct problems, etc. But if they come to me for an IPC, they need to able to fly the procedure within PTS tolerances without assistance in order to get it signed off.

You make a good point. But so does the DPE.

I think this may be where the DPE is coming from. Strictly anecdotal, and kudos to those who have created and follow a personal proficiency plan, but I come across many pilots who do their 6-in-6 to dot the "currency" i's and cross the t's in their logbook. They stick around the home drome and fly the same precision approach, which they know like the back of their hand, again and again, until they get the 6. Maybe once in a while they venture to a neighboring airport where they do a familiar approach or two. Rarely, if ever, do they do unusual attitude recoveries, partial panel approaches, or create other challenges to the familiar. At least with an IPC, even if they only do two approaches, they have to be different, and those other tasks need to be covered.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Depends how you want to parse the requirements. There are three required approach tasks in the PC Task Table. (1) A precision/LPV approach, (2) a nonprecision approach, and (3) a nonprecision approach with primary flight instruments failed (aka "partial panel"). That can be parsed as either three separate approaches or as two - combine #2 and #3 - and I've seen both argued.

I should add this: Personally, I think three is correct. That's because the ACS itself (and the PTS before it) says in the Appendix,

 

[Tantalum]

his recommendation was to do an IPC every 6 months instead of trying to maintain currency the traditional way

I'm a big fan of this approach.. proper instrument flying, esp IMC, is no joke. It's easy to pick up some sloppy habits just keeping your currency organically, or by grabbing your safety pilot buddy and shooting a sloppy hold and a barely-in-tolerance ILS approach with the foggles on and your friend in the right seat talking about the girl he met at the bar last night

I would say anyone who fits the criteria below is better off doing an IPC to stay current
-fly less than 100 hrs per year as PIC
-file IFR less than half the time
-under 5 actual per year

 

[MauleSkinner]

While the basic idea of doing an IPC every six months is excellent, it isn't a real great idea if that's ALL the approaches you fly. It also isn't a good idea if you're just doing it to save money, since it doesn't necessarily work out to be "less" flying. Remember that an IPC is essentially an IFR checkride. If you can't complete the actions without assistance, you don't pass. So if the CFI is having to "work with you on weak points", it likely means you weren't performing up to standards and will therefore need more practice to pass the IPC.

I'm kind of surprised the DPE seems to be endorsing flying FEWER approaches than required. That seems counterintuitive if your goal is to maintain actual proficiency, not just check the box for legal currency.

If a pilot comes to me to fly a couple approaches every couple months and stay current that way, that is great. I can see how they're doing, see what they've forgotten, give advice, correct problems, etc. But if they come to me for an IPC, they need to able to fly the procedure within PTS tolerances without assistance in order to get it signed off.

Can you show something that says it’s not acceptable to train areas that are not proficient and then recheck them on an IPC?

 

[CMongoose]

I have always taken the approach of the 6 monthly IPC. As @midlifeflyer suggested, it is a good opportunity to try out new items, fail different instruments (especially interesting as my plane becomes increasingly technical), and make sure one is broadly current, rather than just able to fly the "usual candidates" of approaches. For example, I would never normally fly the VOR-B into my home airport, but I did on the last IPC.

I don't know whether it works out cheaper or not, as someone suggested, but it certainly helps highlight the weak spots and leaves me feeling sharper.

 

[Palmpilot]

You make a good point. But so does the DPE.

I think this may be where the DPE is coming from. Strictly anecdotal, and kudos to those who have created and follow a personal proficiency plan, but I come across many pilots who do their 6-in-6 to dot the "currency" i's and cross the t's in their logbook. They stick around the home drome and fly the same precision approach, which they know like the back of their hand, again and again, until they get the 6. Maybe once in a while they venture to a neighboring airport where they do a familiar approach or two. Rarely, if ever, do they do unusual attitude recoveries, partial panel approaches, or create other challenges to the familiar. At least with an IPC, even if they only do two approaches, they have to be different, and those other tasks need to be covered.

My recent vacation in Oregon and Washington definitely showed me the proficiency benefit in flying unfamiliar approaches. Flying the OTH ILS to near minimums woke me up from my complacency.

 

[asicer]

My recent vacation in Oregon and Washington definitely showed me the proficiency benefit in flying unfamiliar approaches. Flying the OTH ILS to near minimums woke me up from my complacency.

What aspect of that approach did you find challenging?

 

[Palmpilot]

What aspect of that approach did you find challenging?

The first challenge was briefing an unfamiliar approach during single-pilot hand-flying in IMC, with no autopilot. From that experience, I resolved to study any approaches that I could conceivably need to use before engine start, even if the forecast is for VFR weather at my ETA (which it was in this case). This goes double for coastal airports, whose weather is notoriously difficult to predict.

Another thing that stands out is that there was about a ten-knot crosswind at about 70 degrees from runway heading. That's something that I don't usually encounter on my practice approaches near home. So that's something I need to be sure and program in when I'm doing simulator practice.

I was also taken by surprise by the fact that the ceiling where I broke out was a couple hundred feet lower than what the ATIS was saying. I used to pooh-pooh the advice to expect to have to fly the missed approach, but no more! As luck would have it, I spotted the runway just before I would have had to start a climb.

In summary, I got through it, but it wasn't pretty.

 

[chemgeek]

I've used the periodic IPC route since earning my IR almost 30 years ago. I learn something interesting from every instructor, including but not limited to technique, alternate knobology for the 430W, and IFR operation tips. I enjoy these sessions, and appreciate the feedback.

And yes, if you are not trained to fly safely and comfortably to minimums, you are not current.

 

[chartbundle]

Another thing that stands out is that there was about a ten-knot crosswind at about 70 degrees from runway heading. That's something that I don't usually encounter on my practice approaches near home. So that's something I need to be sure and program in when I'm doing simulator practice.

How on earth did you find a day with only a 10 knot wind on the coast...

 

[RussR]

Can you show something that says it’s not acceptable to train areas that are not proficient and then recheck them on an IPC?

Never said you couldn't do that. I've done exactly that - repeat an ILS, say, because the first one wasn't good enough. But if you do, you are going to be doing more than the required 3 approaches on the flight. The OP's DPE suggested the every-six-month-IPC method because it takes less time, which is not necessarily the case and is a poor reason anyway.

If you are somewhat proficient, flying approaches at least semi-regularly, and do an IPC every 6 months to make sure you're on top of your game, it's a great idea.

But if you're not flying any approaches between those IPC's, and are doing an IPC in an effort to save time or money and get current in one flight, I don't see how it's going to work out that way, especially over the long term.

 

[midwestpa24]

I was also taken by surprise by the fact that the ceiling where I broke out was a couple hundred feet lower than what the ATIS was saying. I used to pooh-pooh the advice to expect to have to fly the missed approach, but no more! As luck would have it, I spotted the runway just before I would have had to start a climb.

This has been the case for every actual approach I have been required to do. The lesson I have learned is to always brief and plan for the approach with the lowest minimums, don't voluntarily give up anything lower.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Never said you couldn't do that. I've done exactly that - repeat an ILS, say, because the first one wasn't good enough. But if you do, you are going to be doing more than the required 3 approaches on the flight. The OP's DPE suggested the every-six-month-IPC method because it takes less time, which is not necessarily the case and is a poor reason anyway.

If you are somewhat proficient, flying approaches at least semi-regularly, and do an IPC every 6 months to make sure you're on top of your game, it's a great idea.

But if you're not flying any approaches between those IPC's, and are doing an IPC in an effort to save time or money and get current in one flight, I don't see how it's going to work out that way, especially over the long term.

What I took from the OP’s post was that it wouldn’t cost much more, so saving money wasn’t the object. Getting feedback was really the object, and if you’re having to work to get your six approaches for currency, you’ll be better off with IPCs, regardless of how many approaches you need to do.

 

[RussR]

What I took from the OP’s post was that it wouldn’t cost much more, so saving money wasn’t the object. Getting feedback was really the object, and if you’re having to work to get your six approaches for currency, you’ll be better off with IPCs, regardless of how many approaches you need to do.

I think we are in agreement then.

 

[tspear]

Any thoughts on practicing coupled approaches on an IPC? I usually try to fly every other approach as a coupled approach in IMC, but if it’s really bad I hand fly it. I thought the IPC was a great way to see how George flew the approach. Sometimes it’s really nice (like a DME arc) and sometimes it just does the wrong thing (like when you forget to hit “Enable APR output on the GTN).
As far as not passing the IPC and the cost involved, if you can’t pass the IPC you probably shouldn’t be flying in IMC...

Define really bad.
Also what A/P? As much as I do not want to admit it, George is better than hand flying in steady winds up to cross wind around 15 knots. Above that or with gusty wind hand flying works better for me.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

 

[benyflyguy]

I didn’t realize that it was commonly done. I just kinda planned on taking lessons at lease a few times a year. Kind of a good way to always nip the new bad habits as they arise.

 

[old cfi]

"Currency goes in your logbook. Proficiency keeps you alive!" I've posted my little saying before. No set number of instrument maneuvers makes you proficient. You work on it until you feel good about HAND FLYING on the gauges.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I didn’t realize that it was commonly done. I just kinda planned on taking lessons at lease a few times a year. Kind of a good way to always nip the new bad habits as they arise.

A good philosophy for any pilot, instrument rated or not.

 

[Pat Elliott]

I was also taken by surprise by the fact that the ceiling where I broke out was a couple hundred feet lower than what the ATIS was saying

The AWOS is in the middle of the field, where as the missed AP is a lot closer to the ocean, That marine layer can be problematic, I've seen the field reporting VFR but the approach end of the runway at 100' ceilings. I'll sometimes query the tower about the ceilings to the east.

 

[Palmpilot]

The AWOS is in the middle of the field, where as the missed AP is a lot closer to the ocean, That marine layer can be problematic, I've seen the field reporting VFR but the approach end of the runway at 100' ceilings. I'll sometimes query the tower about the ceilings to the east.

Next time I'll have a better idea what to expect!

 

[Betmerick]

On an Instrument checkride...... if the plane is equipped with a 430WAAS and an Aspen, what instrument do you think he will block out for the "partial panel"? Also I have an STec50 so will he want me to do an approach using my AP?

 

[MauleSkinner]

On an Instrument checkride...... if the plane is equipped with a 430WAAS and an Aspen, what instrument do you think he will block out for the "partial panel"?

Do you have any standby instruments?

Also I have an STec50 so will he want me to do an approach using my AP?

The ACS says one NPA will be with AP...the examiner may or may not let you fly the other(s) without the autopilot. So...depends.

 

[RussR]

On an Instrument checkride...... if the plane is equipped with a 430WAAS and an Aspen, what instrument do you think he will block out for the "partial panel"?

Well it's actually called "Approach with loss of primary flight instrument indicators", so if I was the DPE I'd likely just fail the whole Aspen. The failure mode should be realistic, and that seems a realistic failure mode to me.

The side effects of this, of course, are that you've now also lost your HSI (which is probably configured as your #1 CDI), so if your's is like most installations I've seen you now have one of two choices:

1) Use your #2 CDI, which is likely only connected to your #2 NAV/COM. If this is a non-GPS unit, then you won't be able to do a GPS approach.
2) Use the CDI on the 430W, which is on the NAV1 page. If you've never flown using this one, you might practice it some. The side issue here, of course, is that it doesn't display a GS indication, so you will have to fly to either LP or LNAV minimums.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

You should be able to use TC if all AIs fail?
You can impress the CFI by setting up the CDI#2 to VOR or ILS even if on GPS approach if there’s multiple approaches for a runway.

 

[benyflyguy]

Do you have any standby instruments?

The ACS says one NPA will be with AP...the examiner may or may not let you fly the other(s) without the autopilot. So...depends.

Oh boy! I have standard vacuum/steam gauges with a 430w and an electric HSI. I also have an autopilot. Have a backup nav/com. We haven even practiced an autopilot appproach. Done a hold or two using the autopilot with Heading bug. Have done an approach with the autopilot really. I guess should work on that. Can’t be that hard right. For partial panel I’ve practiced vacuum failure and gps failure.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I was also taken by surprise by the fact that the ceiling where I broke out was a couple hundred feet lower than what the ATIS was saying. I used to pooh-pooh the advice to expect to have to fly the missed approach, but no more! As luck would have it, I spotted the runway just before I would have had to start a climb.

I ran into that situation myself not long ago. Flying into Saipan, the initial weather report was VFR. We briefed up the RNAV approach to Runway 7 because it was the preferred approach for that runway but it had slightly higher minimums than the ILS. Before we got to the final approach fix, center reported the field as 2,000 and 2. No problem, well above minimums. But at 1000 feet we were still solidly in the clouds. We got down to minimums and no field in sight. Executed the missed and actually saw the lights as we went around.

We did the ILS the second time around and went almost to minimums. Landed in heavy rain.

Complacency is really insidious. One should ALWAYS be ready to go around.