Potential IPC changes?

Nope, I like being able to log approaches from an aatd to maintain currency, but there is nothing like the real thing. IPCs should be done in an actual aircraft at the private pilot level.
 
Although I value sim time, I do also feel that nothing replaces the real thing - the realization that "I can't just pause this" causes a whole different set of pressures which are important to practice responding to. Plus, although a CFI can try to simulate ATC when in the sim, it isn't the same as the real thing, complete with garbled transmissions, blocked calls, last-minute changes, etc.

If an AATD can be used for an IPC, it is possible that someone could maintain their IFR currency for _years_ without even getting in an actual airplane. That seems like a problem.

However, now having written that, I realize that as it is currently, as long as you don't go more than 6 months (and therefore require an IPC), you could do exactly the same thing - fly a few AATD approaches every few months and maintain currency without ever getting in an airplane.
 
I also note they're lumping in there an elimination of the requirement to log 30-day VOR checks - not to remove the requirement to DO them, just the requirement to LOG them.

Huh? Is this really that onerous of a task?

"AOPA noted that the logging requirement “is an unnecessary burden on pilots and serves no practical safety purpose.”"

Yes, it is such a burden scribbling a VOR check on a random piece of paper I find in the cockpit... I don't understand why they're putting any effort into this at all. Who's pushing for it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: smv
However, now having written that, I realize that as it is currently, as long as you don't go more than 6 months (and therefore require an IPC), you could do exactly the same thing - fly a few AATD approaches every few months and maintain currency without ever getting in an airplane.


Does not even need to be an AATD. Can be a BATD.
 
I also note they're lumping in there an elimination of the requirement to log 30-day VOR checks - not to remove the requirement to DO them, just the requirement to LOG them.

Huh? Is this really that onerous of a task?

"AOPA noted that the logging requirement “is an unnecessary burden on pilots and serves no practical safety purpose.”"

Yes, it is such a burden scribbling a VOR check on a random piece of paper I find in the cockpit... I don't understand why they're putting any effort into this at all. Who's pushing for it?

If the trend toward a "paperless" cockpit continues, Apple will develop a "Sick Sack" app and the only paper you are going to find is the registration and air worthiness documents.

;)
 
If the trend toward a "paperless" cockpit continues, Apple will develop a "Sick Sack" app and the only paper you are going to find is the registration and air worthiness documents.

;)
But paperless cockpit implies electronic paperwork...this request by AOPA is NO paperwork.

documentation is the only “proof” we have that something actually happened. Is AOPA trying to get rid of the logging requirement so that pilots don’t falsify documentation, or are they telling the FAA that these checks don’t happen anyway in the real world, so why log them?
 
However, now having written that, I realize that as it is currently, as long as you don't go more than 6 months (and therefore require an IPC), you could do exactly the same thing - fly a few AATD approaches every few months and maintain currency without ever getting in an airplane.
Yes, there does seem to be an inconsistency on maintaining instruments currency. Why does an IPC after 7 noncurrent months need to be in an airplane, but BATD time every 5 months for 20 years is acceptable? I don’t know if allowing the IPC in the ATD is the right answer or not.
 
documentation is the only “proof” we have that something actually happened. Is AOPA trying to get rid of the logging requirement so that pilots don’t falsify documentation, or are they telling the FAA that these checks don’t happen anyway in the real world, so why log them?
How would you feel about requiring RAIM checks be logged for non-WAAS flights?
 
One of the things which annoys me about AOPA is that they never seem to give us a link to what they are talking about. If they filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the FAA, the article should link to a copy of it so we can talk about what they did rather than what they say they did.
 
How would you feel about requiring RAIM checks be logged for non-WAAS flights?
RAIM isn’t a “system” check of your aircraft...it’s ensuring that the GPS constellation is up to the task. It would be the equivalent of logging the fact that the ILS or VOR identifier was the correct sequence of Morse code characters.

So no, I don’t think it’s necessary (or even comparable.) Pilots don’t log inspections of VOR/ILS transmitters or satellites.
 
Last edited:
One of the things which annoys me about AOPA is that they never seem to give us a link to what they are talking about. If they filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the FAA, the article should link to a copy of it so we can talk about what they did rather than what they say they did.

There is a link in the article to the document they submitted to the FAA:

http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2020/0306_IFR_Fix.pdf
 
... so that pilots don’t falsify documentation, or are they telling the FAA that these checks don’t happen anyway in the real world, so why log them?

You know the answer already, you just want somebody else to speak the quiet parts out loud on here. Nice try FAA! I see you! :D ;)
#snitches#end#up#in#ditches
 
You know the answer already, you just want somebody else to speak the quiet parts out loud on here. Nice try FAA! I see you! :D ;)
#snitches#end#up#in#ditches
I don’t know the answer...I just believe it to be one of those two choices. ;)

and I think AOPA should be expending their effort in more appropriate places...but I’m not a member anymore, so my opinion doesn’t count. Not that it counted when I was a member.
 
There is a link in the article to the document they submitted to the FAA:

http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2020/0306_IFR_Fix.pdf
As the article says, that one is the one "AOPA first proposed ATD-related IPC reforms in 2018", not the current petition. I'm sure there are similarities, but there might be an extended discussion this time in light of the FAA's continued support of ATDs as evidenced by the regulatory changes published later that year.
 
Back
Top