IFR Currency

[TangoWhiskey]

Reference CFR 61.57(c)

Theoretical:

If my last IPC was 18 months ago, and I've not flown IFR since, nor flown approaches, then it's understood that I can't "act as pilot in command under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR" unless I get current.

61.57(c)(1) says I can do that by going out and flying six approaches, holds, and intercepting and tracking courses in an airplane.

61.57(d) says I need an IPC if I do "not meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section within the 12 calendar months preceding the month of the flight", with "the flight" being described as that which is "under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR."

I've always understood (perhaps incorrectly) that if I'm out of 6 month 6HIT currency, I have six months in which to go do those 61.57(c)(1) maneuvers (assume I don't plan to do this with the other options available such as a flight simulator or ATD), otherwise I have to do an IPC.

But I don't see that when I read 61.57(c)(1) and (d). I understand I can't fly IFR if I'm not current, but I don't see anything preventing me from going out VFR with a safety pilot after 18 months of not doing instrument approaches, shooting and logging the 6HIT procedures, and thus satisfying the conditions of a future 61.57(c) or (d) "flight" under IFR or in conditions less than the minumums prescribed for VFR.

After going out and shooting the 6HIT with a safety pilot, then by a literal reading I do satisfy both 61.57(c)(1) and 61.57(d), in that I do now "meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section within the 12 calendar months preceding the month of the flight", with "the flight" being described as that which is "under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR."

What am I missing? I'm not going on "what the rule intends to say", I'm going on a literal interpretation of how the rule reads. Where does it say that I must do an IPC to regain currency after a six month grace period expires, if I'm not making "the flight", that is, an instrument flight?

P.S. I understand that this would not be SAFE, and that a person 18 months without flying approaches should get with an instructor for a good workout and probably some dual IMC before going solo IFR.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think the regulation could have been worded better. Unless and until that is corrected, experience has proven that the FAA, administrative law judges, and the NTSB don't go by a literal interpretation of a reg if it differs from the meaning that was intended, as indicated in the preamble to the final rule, any FAA chief counsel interpretations that have been issued, and /or the precedents set in previous NTSB appeals cases.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Richard, thanks for the reply. Do you know where can I find the preamble to the final rule, to determine what was intended?

 

[Palmpilot]

I'll see if I can find it. What I have so far is that the language in effect in 2007 did not reference the requirement to 12 calendar months preceding the month of a particular flight:

(d) Instrument proficiency check. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person who does not meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section within the prescribed time, or within 6 calendar months after the prescribed time, may not serve as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR until that person passes an instrument proficiency check consisting of a representative number of tasks required by the instrument rating practical test...

As far as I can tell from the historical FAR page of the FAA Web site, the new language appears to have gone into effect on 10/20/2009.

The 2009 amendment to the instrument currency rules is pretty confusing overall. I'm not sure anyone really understands it.

 

[Palmpilot]

I found the preamble. The following passage uses the confusing reference to the date of the flight which you noted, but the part I put in bold seems to make it clear that if you don't get the required flight experience within the original 12 month period, then the intent was to require you to take the proficiency check to get current again.

Under revised Sec. 61.57(d), if the pilot has not performed and logged the required instrument recent flight experience within the six calendar months preceding the month of the flight, the pilot is given an additional six calendar months to perform and log the required instrument recent flight experience. However, during this six-calendar month period, the pilot may not act as the PIC under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minima prescribed for VFR until the pilot has performed and logged the required instrument recent flight experience of revised Sec. 61.57(c). If during this six-calendar month period, the pilot does not accomplish the required instrument recent flight experience, then he/she must perform an instrument proficiency check to regain his/her instrument currency. [emphasis added]

I also note that in the table earlier in the document, the change is described as a clarification, which supports the notion that it was not intended to be a substantive change.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...72dfc1b3808d2cb486257656006e4d11!OpenDocument

If that link expires, you can get to it by doing the following:

-Go to http://www.faa.gov

-Open the Regulations & Policies menu near the top right.

-Click on FAA Regulations.

-Click on Historical Federal Aviation regulations.

-Under Historical CFR, click on By Section.

-Click on the arrow next to Part 61.

-Click on the arrow next to Sec. 61.57.

-Click on 10/20/2009.

-Scroll all the way to the bottom of the regulation and click on 2006-26661 (the docket No.).

 

[TMetzinger]

Interesting thread. Hope they fix the language so that the actual regulation is consistent with the intent.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I'll see if I can find it. What I have so far is that the language in effect in 2007 did not reference the requirement to 12 calendar months preceding the month of a particular flight:

(d) Instrument proficiency check. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person who does not meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section within the prescribed time, or within 6 calendar months after the prescribed time, may not serve as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR until that person passes an instrument proficiency check consisting of a representative number of tasks required by the instrument rating practical test...

As far as I can tell from the historical FAR page of the FAA Web site, the new language appears to have gone into effect on 10/20/2009.

The 2009 amendment to the instrument currency rules is pretty confusing overall. I'm not sure anyone really understands it.

Now that part that you just quoted from 2007 DOES read how I commonly hear it interpreted. Thanks for finding the preamble: I'm not sure, though, that the preamble supports the original wording; as you stated, it too uses "the flight" and could be interpreted as I originally stated.

I wonder why they changed the wording? What did it clarify? If anything, it doesn't carry the same intent as this 2007 wording.

Now I need to find out where to write a letter. ;-)

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Now I need to find out where to write a letter. ;-)

Found it: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/contacts/?passedOrg=2

I'll draft something this weekend.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm not sure, though, that the preamble supports the original wording; as you stated, it too uses "the flight" and could be interpreted as I originally stated.

It seems very unlikely to me that the interpretation as you originally stated it is what the FAA meant to convey, because that would mean that there would never be a circumstance in which an instrument proficiency check was required. The pilot could always just go up with a safety pilot and fly the approaches, etc., under VFR. That would render 61.57(d) meaningless.

I also don't see how your stated interpretation is consistent with the last sentence I quoted from the preamble.

However, if you plan to point out to them why the new wording is confusing, I think that's a great idea.

 

[nosehair]

What am I missing? This:
"a person who does not meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section within the prescribed time, or within 6 calendar months after the prescribed time, may not serve as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR until that person passes an instrument proficiency check consisting of a representative number of tasks required by the instrument rating practical test..."

means you have to have an IPC, if "within 6 mos of the prescribed time.."

Oh, you're trying to prescribe the time.

They will tell you the time prescribed is within the year of currency.
Or something like that - some more legalese that is equally hard to follow.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

What am I missing? This:
"a person who does not meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section within the prescribed time, or within 6 calendar months after the prescribed time, may not serve as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR until that person passes an instrument proficiency check consisting of a representative number of tasks required by the instrument rating practical test..."

means you have to have an IPC, if "within 6 mos of the prescribed time.."

Oh, you're trying to prescribe the time.

They will tell you the time prescribed is within the year of currency.
Or something like that - some more legalese that is equally hard to follow.

What you quoted is the OLD phraseology, 2007; if you look at a post 2009 copy of the FARs, as quoted or linked in my original post, it doesn't read that way anymore, and instead references currency within the date "of the (IFR) flight" against which currency is being measured.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What you quoted is the OLD phraseology, 2007; if you look at a post 2009 copy of the FARs, as quoted or linked in my original post, it doesn't read that way anymore, and instead references currency within the date "of the (IFR) flight" against which currency is being measured.

Honestly, I don't see a huge problem with the new phrasing.

Yeah, it could be clearer (that's sometimes a problem with non-legalese) and I can see the jailhouse lawyer read that you never have to have an IPC. It probably should be fixed but the likelihood of it being interpreted any way other than, if you go 12 months without currency you need an IPC before acting as PIC under IFR is approximately slim to none.

 

[poadeleted20]

Regardless of what this rule says, just being legal doesn't guarantee safe. If you go even 6 months without doing any significant instrument flying (no less 12), you're probably in need of some time with a CFI-IA even if the FAA doesn't require it. I realize there's this aversion among nonprofessional pilots to flying with an instructor unless absolutely necessary, but often safety requires it before the regs do.

 

[RMCN172RG]

As stated many times before Legal <> Safe.

 

[Palmpilot]

Regardless of what this rule says, just being legal doesn't guarantee safe. If you go even 6 months without doing any significant instrument flying (no less 12), you're probably in need of some time with a CFI-IA even if the FAA doesn't require it. I realize there's this aversion among nonprofessional pilots to flying with an instructor unless absolutely necessary, but often safety requires it before the regs do.

I also think they screwed up when they did away with the six hour portion of the rule. While instrument time by itself may not be all that significant for proficiency purposes if a lot of it is in cruise, I always filled the time as much as possible by flying more approaches than required. I figured that as long as I was required to put in the time, I might as well have it contribute as much to proficiency as possible.

Of course, there's nothing stopping me from doing more than the regulation requires, but I find that "I am required to do X" makes me more likely to do X than "It would be a good idea if I did X." I suspect I am not alone in that.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

J

Found it: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/contacts/?passedOrg=2

I'll draft something this weekend.

What brand of draft would that be, troy (g)

Best Dave

 

[midlifeflyer]

Regardless of what this rule says, just being legal doesn't guarantee safe. .

Darn, And here I was thinking that if I flew the same approach to the same airport once a month only on smooth, windless, CAVU days and used the autopilot every time, I'd be all ready for hard IFR in busy airspace! Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[poadeleted20]

Darn, And here I was thinking that if I flew the same approach to the same airport once a month only on smooth, windless, CAVU days and used the autopilot every time, I'd be all ready for hard IFR in busy airspace!

I've flown with folks who believe that. Like the guy who insisted I didn't have to make him do hand-flown ILS's or a nonprecision approach with his Avidyne PFD blacked out on his IPC because "that's just not how I fly."

 

[midlifeflyer]

I've flown with folks who believe that. Like the guy who insisted I didn't have to make him do hand-flown ILS's or a nonprecision approach with his Avidyne PFD blacked out on his IPC because "that's just not how I fly."

I figure Darwin will eventually take care of some of those folks (others just have dumb luck). Hopefully those folks won't similarly take care of someone else in the process.

 

[Palmpilot]

I've flown with folks who believe that. Like the guy who insisted I didn't have to make him do hand-flown ILS's or a nonprecision approach with his Avidyne PFD blacked out on his IPC because "that's just not how I fly."

Yikes!

Among other issues, I guess it didn't occur to him that you would be signing him off for flight in any IFR airplane that he was legally qualified to fly, not just ones that are equipped as his is, and not just ones where all the equipment is working.

I'd also be happier with the currency reg's effectiveness if it required hand-flown approaches.

 

[poadeleted20]

I figure Darwin will eventually take care of some of those folks (others just have dumb luck).

Perhaps, but I don't want my signature in their logbook when it happens.

 

[poadeleted20]

Among other issues, I guess it didn't occur to him that you would be signing him off for flight in any IFR airplane that he was legally qualified to fly, not just ones that are equipped as his is, and not just ones where all the equipment is working.

There are limits to that kind of thinking. It would be unreasonable to demand that a guy who shows up in an SR22 to also bring an old 172 to demonstrate steam gauge and ADF proficiency, or for the guy in that old 172 to also bring a G1000 172R to demonstrate glass panel/GPS/autopilot proficiency. I'm satisfied (and so is the FAA) if they demonstrate proficiency in the plane they fly, but both the FAA and I demand that proficiency be demonstrated in certain degraded modes as well as "full system."

I'd also be happier with the currency reg's effectiveness it it required hand-flown approaches.

Me, too -- and a "primary flight display inoperative" approach, too, just like on the IPC and practical test. Probably a lot more important than demanding that folks explicitly log "interception and tracking" in addition to the approaches they've flown.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Perhaps, but I don't want my signature in their logbook when it happens.

Mine either. But you can't cover everything and that kind of thinking goes beyond IPCs and FRs.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Found it: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/contacts/?passedOrg=2

I'll draft something this weekend.

Well, maybe not THAT weekend, but...

Letter to the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel for clarification has been written; will post their reply when I receive it. Here's what I wrote:

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1BIfL2FMCcbNJkRgNByPqlUwNTlJh1f7dhMccKLZVYHg

 

[gismo]

Well, maybe not THAT weekend, but...

Letter to the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel for clarification has been written; will post their reply when I receive it. Here's what I wrote:

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1BIfL2FMCcbNJkRgNByPqlUwNTlJh1f7dhMccKLZVYHg

Looks good. Be sure to let us know when they send you a meaningful reply next year.

 

[jason]

Well, maybe not THAT weekend, but...

Letter to the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel for clarification has been written; will post their reply when I receive it. Here's what I wrote:

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1BIfL2FMCcbNJkRgNByPqlUwNTlJh1f7dhMccKLZVYHg

I think your currency example is off by one month.

As an example, let’s presume that I was current as of January 15th, 2010; my six-month calendar currency would end the last day of June, 2010. Assuming I didn’t regain 6HIT currency with a safety pilot or via IPC from July through December, then as of December 31, 2010, under the old regulation’s wording, an IPC would be mandatory.

I'm pretty sure that your currency would be up as of July 31 (not June).

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I think your currency example is off by one month.

I'm pretty sure that your currency would be up as of July 31 (not June).

You're a good proofreader, and correct. ;-)

 

[jason]

You're a good proofreader, and correct. ;-)

...and I've been studying for my instrument oral.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

...and I've been studying for my instrument oral.

Now I wish the envelope wasn't sealed and in the mail already. LOL. Think they'll make me take the exam again?

 

[EdFred]

I think your currency example is off by one month.



I'm pretty sure that your currency would be up as of July 31 (not June).

You have learned the FARs well Grasshoppa.

Now I wish the envelope wasn't sealed and in the mail already. LOL. Think they'll make me take the exam again?

You are just a noisy cricket.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

You are just a noisy cricket.

They'll squash me, then?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Looks good. Be sure to let us know when they send you a meaningful reply next year.

Pretty close. The acknowledgement letter I received today says to expect a reply by October 11, 2011, based on their current backlog of requests for 14 CFR interpretations.

 

[denverpilot]

Pretty close. The acknowledgement letter I received today says to expect a reply by October 11, 2011, based on their current backlog of requests for 14 CFR interpretations.

That's not perchance, sometime after their latest temporary budget ends again, is it?

 

[shenanigans]

No idea on the budget, but it's 10 days before the next end of the world. I'm glad we're going to get this settled before that happens. I'd hate to leave behind such loose ends.