IFR profecient? 6 apprc / 6 mos???

J

jd winchester

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
8
Location
Oklahoma
Display Name
Display name:
jd winchester
If I fail to get my 6 apprc within 6 months... what then?? Do I just need to go up with a CFII or retest?
Thanks
JD
 
14CFR61.57

http://flash.aopa.org/asf/single_pilot_ifr/site/html/misc/instrument_currency.cfm
(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.
Click to expand...

Basically, you have another 6 months to go up with a safety pilot in VFR conditions. Note that this is to say legal, which is not the same as being proficient!
 
Technically, you need not go up with that safety pilot in VFR conditions. If that safety pilot is IFR-qualified/current, s/he can act as PIC under IFR in either VMC or IMC while you log PIC time and events for IFR currency. Of course, safety considerations may make this a bad idea if your safety pilot is not proficient in detecting errors, determining their criticality, deciding when and how to intervene, and if necessary, take control and recover from the right seat -- pretty much the job description of an instrument-rated flight instructor. But it would still be legal (albeit not necessarily safe) with someone with as little qualification as PP-ASEL-IA acting as PIC in the other control seat.
 
Ron Levy said:
Technically, you need not go up with that safety pilot in VFR conditions. If that safety pilot is IFR-qualified/current, s/he can act as PIC under IFR in either VMC or IMC while you log PIC time and events for IFR currency. Of course, safety considerations may make this a bad idea if your safety pilot is not proficient in detecting errors, determining their criticality, deciding when and how to intervene, and if necessary, take control and recover from the right seat -- pretty much the job description of an instrument-rated flight instructor. But it would still be legal (albeit not necessarily safe) with someone with as little qualification as PP-ASEL-IA acting as PIC in the other control seat.
Click to expand...

In other words -- go up and practice with a hood on in VFR with a safety pilot.

:rolleyes2:

Another reason to practice VFR after a lapse -- gyros tend to fail after sitting (don't spin and stuff dries out). It would be far better to test your airplane in VMC than IMC.

A couple of weeks ago I was flying approaches in the right seat with the hood on. I asked the SP in the left seat, "This seems awfully low this far out, but the glideslope is still indicating we're high...."

"Ummm.. yeah..."

I pulled the hood off -- we were very low. I had to climb up to avoid buzzing the golf course on the approach end of 18.

We took the plane in to the shop a few days later -- it was an intermittent failure of the glideslope. It worked fine the first and third approach, appeared to indicate fine on the second (I flew the last without the hood just to check).

No flag, no other warning.

That type failure in low IMC would have been fatal.
 
dmccormack said:
In other words -- go up and practice with a hood on in VFR with a safety pilot.
Click to expand...
Nope -- I didn't say that. I was just commenting on legalities. From a practical standpoint, even under VFR in VMC, you may not be able to recover lost proficiency without an instrument-rated flight instructor along. If you are concerned about your proficiency, choose wisely in selecting who rides along.
 
Ron Levy said:
Nope -- I didn't say that. I was just commenting on legalities. From a practical standpoint, even under VFR in VMC, you may not be able to recover lost proficiency without an instrument-rated flight instructor along. If you are concerned about your proficiency, choose wisely in selecting who rides along.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Since legal doesn't necessarily mean safe. :cornut:
 
BTW, at an AOPA AFS seminar on IFR presented in Cedar Rapids a couple of weeks ago, the presenter told us specifically that the FAA legal people had determined that to prove IFR currency we had to specifically log the interception and tracking of a course. That is, we have to write the words in our log. In other words, it is not assumed that flying an approach contains by inference the interception and tracking.

(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR only if:

(1) Use of an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship for maintaining instrument experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate, for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device that involves having performed the following—

(i) Six instrument approaches.

(ii) Holding procedures and tasks.

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.

I am not defending, explaining, justifying or discussing this. You know as much as I do. The presenter told us about what I just told you. I haven't seen it any other place, so have no idea if this guy was a rogue or not (but this seminar is sanctioned by the FAA for Wings credit).
 
jnmeade said:
BTW, at an AOPA AFS seminar on IFR presented in Cedar Rapids a couple of weeks ago, the presenter told us specifically that the FAA legal people had determined that to prove IFR currency we had to specifically log the interception and tracking of a course. That is, we have to write the words in our log. In other words, it is not assumed that flying an approach contains by inference the interception and tracking.
Click to expand...
:sigh: Did they say where that interpretation of the regulations was written?
 
dmccormack said:
That type failure in low IMC would have been fatal.
Click to expand...

That's where situational awareness becomes very important. You're right that it probably would have been fatal. Knowing your approach and what your altitudes ought to be depending on where you are is also important. A moving map GPS (I know, watch out lest the magenta line of death smite thee) can also helpful in this regard, especially if you're familiar with the area.

Have a backup. Then have another backup, and watch them on eachother. And use the plane, they like being flown. And don't necessarily accept an approach just because it's what ATC tells you to do. I've had more than one occasion where they told me to do a circling approach and my response was "Yeah, right." They literally can sometimes read you the weather, tell you it's right down to minimums for a straight-in ILS, and clear you for a circle to land approach.

As has been said, legal does not mean proficient. Of course, there are different kinds of instrument days, and that is the big thing. A day when you've got a broken cloud layer that you'd be going through with each VMC above and below is a lot different than a day with hard IMC down to at or near minimums with lots of turbulence.
 
Ted, I am never bashful about requesting the approach with which I am most comfortable, and I have never been denied.
 
SCCutler said:
Ted, I am never bashful about requesting the approach with which I am most comfortable, and I have never been denied.
Click to expand...

An important thing that many people forget.

I've been denied the approach I want on a few occasions, but they've given me an approach that can get me in. When they give me an approach that won't get me in is when I will argue otherwise. Typically, though, I request the approach that gets me in the fastest, sometimes based on weather concerns (i.e. a storm is coming in and they want to vector me to the ILS that takes me through the storm).
 
jnmeade said:
I am not defending, explaining, justifying or discussing this. You know as much as I do. The presenter told us about what I just told you. I haven't seen it any other place, so have no idea if this guy was a rogue or not (but this seminar is sanctioned by the FAA for Wings credit).
Click to expand...

I was at the ASF Seminar in St. Louis ("Real World IFR") and got the same requirement.

I'm thinking of just adding the word "HIT" to all my hood time. (Holding, Interception, Tracking).
 
AdamZ said:
I just took that seminar in PA tonight and they said something similar.
Click to expand...

I attended the one in Fort Worth hosted by Mike Grady; he said the opposite.

Specifically, he said that logging the approach name (KFTW ILS 34, for example) covers "tracking and intercepting", as you can't fly the approach without doing those things.

His caution was the HOLD--he said there have been cases in which the FAA inspectors have found that a pilot was out of IFR currency because, while they logged the approaches, there was no evidence of HOLDS being logged to prove currency. Since proving currency or requirements of a rating are the only LEGAL reasons you need to log a flight, make sure you note which HOLDS you perform during your six every six, too.
 
AdamZ said:
I just took that seminar in PA tonight and they said something similar.
Click to expand...

I heard something similar a few years ago from an FAA type in Texas. And the same from various instructors and DPEs along the way.
 
I log the approaches by name, but log holds separately. I put in a field in Logbook Pro for holds, and in my paper log I just write down "1 hold" or "3 holds".
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's where situational awareness becomes very important. You're right that it probably would have been fatal. Knowing your approach and what your altitudes ought to be depending on where you are is also important. A moving map GPS (I know, watch out lest the magenta line of death smite thee) can also helpful in this regard, especially if you're familiar with the area.
Click to expand...

I probably should have stated it "It may have been fatal..."

But, flying an ILS to mins I'm focused on heaidng and descent rate. It would be very difficult to recognize and troubleshoot an intermittently failed glideslope that provides no other warning (no flag, no weird behavior).

This particular ILS has a 3:04 time at 90 knots from FAF to MAP. That's not a lot of time.

I might have caught it at this airport given how familiar I am with the approach. But an unfamilar airport with towers and whatnot below the glidepath?

Would likely be a very bad end.
 
If you fall out of 6x6 month window you have to take an Instrument Proficiency Checkride (IPC) with a flight instructor; it is not a test. If he/she feels you are competent they'll sign your log and you're good for another 6 months.

Don't forget the holds must be documented - make sure you note the holds in your logbook. I routinely forget to do so. The hold as part of a procedure turn counts. So when you have the option; vectors to final or the full approach, take the full approach including the course reversal spin around the hold. When IFR in VMC use the opportunity to fly the approach instead of cancelling to visual.

If you are flying real IMC so little that the 6x6 becomes a factor you shouldn't even think about flying hard IFR.
 
Who's running these seminars where they're putting out this word about logging, and what document did they cite as a basis?
 
Baron2PG said:
If you fall out of 6x6 month window you have to take an Instrument Proficiency Checkride (IPC) with a flight instructor; it is not a test. If he/she feels you are competent they'll sign your log and you're good for another 6 months.

.
Click to expand...
Not correct

If you fall out of the six month window, you may not act as PIC under IFR. During the next six months, you may regain currency by either:

Logging the required approaches and holds while NOT acting as PIC under IFR (under IFR with a current IFR pilot or under VFR with a safety pilot, or in a sim)
or
Passing in Instrument Proficiency Check with an authorized instructor.

After you've been out of currency for 12 months, the only way to regain currency is to pass the IPC.

Hope this clears it up for you.
 
Any definitive word on whether you have to do a full lap in the hold or whether you can just do the course reversal when the approach uses a hold in lieu of a procedure turn?
 
ElliotR said:
Any definitive word on whether you have to do a full lap in the hold or whether you can just do the course reversal when the approach uses a hold in lieu of a procedure turn?
Click to expand...
Not to my knowledge. Personally, I go with the line in the AIM about HPILPT's which says, "The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry." If the FAA thinks otherwise for 61.57(c) logging, they should put it in writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top