IPC requirements

[AdamZ]

Don't have my FARs handy but I seem to recall that a precision approach is required for and IPC. Am I correct? If so would a LOC approach count?

 

[KennyFlys]

Here's a good guide to help out...

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/media/IPC_Guidance.pdf

A LOC is non-precision. Precision requires vertical guidance such as ILS or GPS with VNAV.

 

[bbchien]

Nearly 100% Ken. Noplace in any of the FAA stuff does it call an LPV a "precision" approach. But I think it's going to change next spring....it's apparently a "harmonizing JAA issue".

My IPCs are compliant with the document. The pilot gets, in 1.0 -> steep turns, unusual attitudes, an ILS, a partial panel VOR approach, and an LPV. A "representative sample" from the PTS.

Bruce

 

[AdamZ]

The reason I ask is that I had the Nav lose the GS on the approach turing it into a LOC approach. It didn't start that way but then Poof were'd the GS go. Glad I was keeping the time from the FAF.

 

[poadeleted20]

Flight Standards has said that IPC's must include all the Areas/Tasks listed under IPC in the IR PTS in the Additional Instrument Rating Table. One of the required Tasks is "Precision Approach," which is described elsewhere as being an ILS. Since a LOC approach lacks vertical guidance, it is a nonprecision approach, which is a different required Task.

In your case, based on the Chief Counsel letter about what counts for currency, since you didn't fly the GS all the way to DH, I think the FAA would say you could not count that approach for the Precision Approach Task.

 

[ScottM]

In your case, based on the Chief Counsel letter about what counts for currency, since you didn't fly the GS all the way to DH, I think the FAA would say you could not count that approach for the Precision Approach Task.

Since when does one have to fly an approach all the way to the DH for it to count?

My instrument rating check ride had me stop the precision approach 200 feet above DH at the request of the tower for them to fit in other landing aircraft on a crossing runway. Still the approach counted.

I would think that if you flew the procedure to the FAF, captured GS and started the descent it would count. Just as in actual IMC when we approach if we break out above minimums we can still log the approach.

Unless of course you broke off the approach early for safety. That's my answer and I'm stickin' with it.

I agree.

 

[poadeleted20]

Unless of course you broke off the approach early for safety. That's my answer and I'm stickin' with it.

Agreed, but based on the FAA interpretation, that would mean a situation like personnel and equipment working on the runway resulting in a 500 AGL limitation on the approach. Loss of the GS is another situation entirely.

 

[dmccormack]

The reason I ask is that I had the Nav lose the GS on the approach turing it into a LOC approach. It didn't start that way but then Poof were'd the GS go. Glad I was keeping the time from the FAF.

I know it's something many of us were taught to do, but I still don't get the timing requirement for an ILS...

First, DH is an altitude, not a time.

Second, if I'm visual when I lose the GS, so what?

Third, if I lose GS while on an ILS with weather at Minimums (where I need the GS down to or close to DH), my immediate reaction will be a missed approach.

Why?

If a critical component (which rarely fails independent of the LOC) of the Nav system has just died, what's next?

I want time to troubleshoot, re-group, etc.

It's tossing too much into the mix to do a sudden transition from precison to non-precision, IMHO.

I also want time for ATC to know the GS was lost and then to find out if it my problem or theirs? Did they have a power outage? Mower run into the facility? What?

Timing might certainly be good technique, but it's not a requirement.

 

[poadeleted20]

Since when does one have to fly an approach all the way to the DH for it to count?

Since the FAA Chief Counsel said it does.

My instrument rating check ride had me stop the precision approach 200 feet above DH at the request of the tower for them to fit in other landing aircraft on a crossing runway. Still the approach counted.

That's breaking off early for safety, which the FAA Chief Counsel said does not keep the approach from counting.

I would think that if you flew the procedure to the FAF, captured GS and started the descent it would count.

You might think that, but the FAA Chief Counsel doesn't see it that way.

Just as in actual IMC when we approach if we break out above minimums we can still log the approach.

The Chief Counsel's letter said only that the approach must be flown to the DH/MDA (unless broken off early for safety), not that you mst be in actual/simulated instrument conditions all the way (an issue we really don't want to raise, since that would make it practically impossible to count approaches in actual conditions unless we missed the approach).

For those unfamiliar, here's the relevent portion of the Slater interpretation, with emphasis added:

Legal Interpretation # 92-5
January 28, 1992
Mr. Timothy Slater

Dear Mr. Slater:

This is in response to your October 24, 1991, letter in which you asked several questions about certain Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
...

Second, you questioned how low a pilot must descend (i.e., minimum descent altitude or decision height or full-stop landing) on the six instrument approaches he must log to meet the recent IFR experience requirements specified in FAR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) (14 CFR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i)). You also asked if an instrument approach "counts" if only part of the approach is conducted in actual IFR conditions. Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) states that: No pilot may act as pilot in command under IFR, nor in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless he has, within the past 6 calendar months - (i) In the case of an aircraft other than a glider, logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved, including at least six instrument approaches, or passed an instrument competency check in the category of Ò aircraft involved. For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height.
...

Sincerely,
/s/ Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel

 

[poadeleted20]

I know it's something many of us were taught to do, but I still don't get the timing requirement for an ILS...Timing might certainly be good technique, but it's not a requirement.

Actually, it is, if you want to know when to make the turn for the missed approach after you lose the GS on an ILS. Sure, you can start climbing as soon as you decide to go missed, but without timing, how else would you know when you reached the missed approach point and could start the turn (assuming no ILS-DME or GPS)? I know ILS approaches where an early/late turn can take you into a big rock, so if I don't have a GPS, I time every ILS.

 

[ScottM]

For those unfamiliar, here's the relevent portion of the Slater interpretation, with emphasis added:

The way that reads one could be in IMC the whole flight, fly the whole procedure and break out 100 feet above minimums, fly the rest visually and one could not log that approach for currency. That does not pass the common sense test.

 

[dmccormack]

Actually, it is, if you want to know when to make the turn for the missed approach after you lose the GS on an ILS. Sure, you can start climbing as soon as you decide to go missed, but without timing, how else would you know when you reached the missed approach point and could start the turn (assuming no ILS-DME or GPS)? I know ILS approaches where an early/late turn can take you into a big rock, so if I don't have a GPS, I time every ILS.

I should have added that very important bit of data -- with GPS.

 

[poadeleted20]

The way that reads one could be in IMC the whole flight, fly the whole procedure and break out 100 feet above minimums and one could not log that approach for currency. That does not pass the common sense test.

True, so read it again -- see that word "Further"? The requirement to fly the approach down to MDA/DH is a separate requirement from flying the approach in instrument conditions. It's a fine distinction, but it is there. And we really don't want to press the Counsel further on the issue or it might become almost impossible to maintain currency by flying in actual instrument conditions -- the only approaches you could count would be the ones you missed.

 

[poadeleted20]

I should have added that very important bit of data -- with GPS.

...which many planes don't have. In any event, as a big believer in the Law of Exercise, I time 'em all, even with my Garmin 530, and teach it that way to my IR trainees. That way, I won't forget when I'm in a plane without GPS, and neither will my trainees.

 

[dmccormack]

...which many planes don't have. In any event, as a big believer in the Law of Exercise, I time 'em all, even with my Garmin 530, and teach it that way to my IR trainees. That way, I won't forget when I'm in a plane without GPS, and neither will my trainees.

Hmm....

I use GUMPS in fixed gear for that reason, but still not convinced on the ILS timing...

 

[poadeleted20]

Hmm....

I use GUMPS in fixed gear for that reason, but still not convinced on the ILS timing...

After a thousand hours or so of instrument instructing, you probably will be.

 

[dmccormack]

After a thousand hours or so of instrument instructing, you probably will be.

I'll give you a jingle on that occasion.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hmm....

I use GUMPS in fixed gear for that reason, but still not convinced on the ILS timing...

I agree with Ron on the timing as habit. 1 second as you cross an FAF/GS intercept to touch and verify the timer whether or not the specific approach required timing is a very small thing. You might be much more precise in your determination of whether or not to time, but I've seen an awful lot of pilots who primarily fly untimed approaches who almost always forget that tiny simple step when they fly a timed one.

I see that one as similar to whether you signal for a turn in a car on a deserted road at 3 am. I do. Create a habit. I got into an argument with a friend over it - he thought it was stupid and unnecessary. Some time later, I wrote as a passenger in his car. He =never= signaled for turns.

OTOH, I do =not= teach GUMPS in a fixed gear airplane (at least until the pilot also flies retracts) since I think it teaches that when you pay no attention to the gear, nothing happens.

 

[dmccormack]

I agree with Ron on the timing as habit. 1 second as you cross an FAF/GS intercept to touch and verify the timer whether or not the specific approach required timing is a very small thing. You might be much more precise in your determination of whether or not to time, but I've seen an awful lot of pilots who primarily fly untimed approaches who almost always forget that tiny simple step when they fly a timed one.

I see that one as similar to whether you signal for a turn in a car on a deserted road at 3 am. I do. Create a habit. I got into an argument with a friend over it - he thought it was stupid and unnecessary. Some time later, I wrote as a passenger in his car. He =never= signaled for turns.

OTOH, I do =not= teach GUMPS in a fixed gear airplane (at least until the pilot also flies retracts) since I think it teaches that when you pay no attention to the gear, nothing happens.

Again, let me be clear -- my point about the timer is that it is being taught as a requirement for ILS approaches -- it is not (as long as you have a means to determine the MAP, whether GPS or cross fix, etc).

What is also taught is that the timer will allow a seamless transition from Precision to Non-Precision if the GS fails.

In the Army we had a saying -- "Fight as you train and train as you fight."

When the feces hit the fan you will revert to training, not some esoteric discussion in a pilot lounge. With all due respect to the authors of the FAA's Instructor Handbook, practice to standard in realistic conditions assures task mastery (thus the FAA's (belated) adoption of Scenario Based training). Very often these tasks consists of a string of well developed habit patterns, certainly.

But the learner should be able to consciously explain why he/she did X, not just perform mindlessly.

Primacy, effect, et al all have a place, but we're training humans, not baboons. An example -- when my oldest was 6 months old we gave her peas for the first time. She had more peas on the floor than eaten. According to the Law of Primacy, she'd be bad company at a nice restaurant.

But over time, as skills developed and accuracy improved, the standards were raised and she achieved use of knife and fork.

In my own IR training I witnessed this first hand. My CFII insisted I tune Nav 2 to the ILS once established as a backup in case of the loss of Nav 1.

OK...

Until we flew an approach with cross radials as fixes.

I quickly learned that rule was not absolute (even though my primary exposure was "Always tune a backup")

Thus practice to standard under realistic conditions is the trump card in training. All the rest support or detract from this goal.

Thus my point is that loss of the GS is cause for a miss, an evaluation of the cause of the loss of the GS, reflection/consultation, and then a re-start of the entire procedure or flight to VFR conditions.

 

[bbchien]

After a thousand hours or so of instrument instructing, you probably will be.

A agree with Ron on this one.

Many many moons ago in the North Pacific, the GS went down as we were trying to land in the fringe of a North Pacific depression. We were able to time to the MAP.

You also should start the timer when the area controller says, "5 miles from the VOR, maintain 2000 until established, tower at the VOR 119.1". So now vacuum goes tummy up, you REALLY want to to make this approach. So at 90 knots you fly along intercept, make a 10 second standard rate turn (in the CORRECT direction) and now you're flying the VOR needle. Need a hint as to when to just hold heading? Well how about when you get to about 3 min and 10 seconds and you're less than 10 secs to the VOR (which you can tell by rate of response anyway one you've done it a zillion times). It really helps. Cross the VOR, start the timer again....

"Time and heading" - which is one of the chapter titles in Elrey Jeppesen's monograph, written while he was still a young man.

I'm really happy that my most recent IR grad times EVERYTHING. And he threw out that five button portable timer. He just has the push to zero, push to restart thing in his panel. KISS.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thus my point is that loss of the GS is cause for a miss, an evaluation of the cause of the loss of the GS, reflection/consultation, and then a re-start of the entire procedure or flight to VFR conditions.

Maybe, and maybe not. I can think of a number of situations in which a mandatory miss for loss of GS on final would only make a bad situation worse. Sure, if you're below the LOC MDA, climbing back to MDA and continuing the approach as a localizer approach is almost certainly a waste of time, but just because that's true doesn't mean you shouldn't be timing the approach. Further, I've had the GS seem to be acting normally (no flags, good signal and ID, needle moving more or less appropriately), but be out to lunch, and only my timing gave me the knowledge that something was amiss (several hundred feet higher than I should have been approaching the MAP).

The point I've been trying to make is that punching the clock can't hurt, and it can help, so I teach folks to do it as a matter of course. Saying it's not required may be legally correct, but that isn't helping folks fly instruments more safely.

 

[bbchien]

Dan, you don't fly in ice very much, do you?
You NEVER want to climb back into it on a "mandatory" miss.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan, you don't fly in ice very much, do you?
You NEVER want to climb back into it on a "mandatory" miss.

No, I don't, so that is a consideration, certainly.

But how often are the following conditions met:

• Lose the GS only during an ILS approach
• Above MDA
• In IMC
• Descending from icing conditions
• At min fuel (or some other "gotta land" condition

No, that combination has not happened to me (yet).

But, If I'm flying an a/c capable of flying in icing, how the $$$$ does it not have an IFR GPS?

 

[dmccormack]

Maybe, and maybe not. I can think of a number of situations in which a mandatory miss for loss of GS on final would only make a bad situation worse. Sure, if you're below the LOC MDA, climbing back to MDA and continuing the approach as a localizer approach is almost certainly a waste of time, but just because that's true doesn't mean you shouldn't be timing the approach. Further, I've had the GS seem to be acting normally (no flags, good signal and ID, needle moving more or less appropriately), but be out to lunch, and only my timing gave me the knowledge that something was amiss (several hundred feet higher than I should have been approaching the MAP).

The point I've been trying to make is that punching the clock can't hurt, and it can help, so I teach folks to do it as a matter of course. Saying it's not required may be legally correct, but that isn't helping folks fly instruments more safely.

Agreed.

 

[bbchien]

No, I don't, so that is a consideration, certainly.

But how often are the following conditions met:

• Lose the GS only during an ILS approach
• Above MDA
• In IMC
• Descending from icing conditions
• At min fuel (or some other "gotta land" condition

No, that combination has not happened to me (yet).

But, If I'm flying an a/c capable of flying in icing, how the $$$$ does it not have an IFR GPS?

Well, before 1998 I didn't have one in my FIKI Seneca, either....

And there are an amazing # of 414s and 421s without anything made by GARMIN in them, too.

 

[AdamZ]

Kind of a sidenote to this timing issue and Bruces comment regarding A/C w/o a GNS what I am really amazed at is the number of very new aircraft with a traditional clock and sweep second hand vs. a digital clock/timer. The digital is SOOOO much easier to use on approaches. one less thing to remember.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Again, let me be clear -- my point about the timer is that it is being taught as a requirement for ILS approaches -- it is not (as long as you have a means to determine the MAP, whether GPS or cross fix, etc).

Agreed. Although I was reading the posts in this thread as recommending timing as a standard, not as a requirement.

I don't agree, though, on the "mindless baboon" comment. There was an article in IFR recently entitled "Habits not checklists." The article itself was disappointing, but the premise was sound – things we create habits about free our minds for more important tasks both when the feces hits the fan and when they do not.

 

[dmccormack]

Agreed. Although I was reading the posts in this thread as recommending timing as a standard, not as a requirement.

I don't agree, though, on the "mindless baboon" comment. There was an article in IFR recently entitled "Habits not checklists." The article itself was disappointing, but the premise was sound – things we create habits about free our minds for more important tasks both when the feces hits the fan and when they do not.

First, my comment relative to timing the ILS should have included "in a IFR GPS equipped airplane."

Timing is certainly a good habit and can be categorized a well-proven, well accepted, solid technique, and still not be a requirement.

The context was the loss of glideslope while conducting an ILS IAP. My question was -- why would you switch midstream from ILS to LOC in a real world situation?

Bruce mentioned icing, and that would be an occasion where the switch might make sense.

But in most cases going missed and re-grouping may be the better option. At the very least find out why the GS failed and determine what might be next.

The Baboon comment was relative to the various laws of learning in the FAA's AIH. While Primacy, Effect, Intensity, and the rest certainly affect and help expedite (or in some cases hinder) the required training effect, people can adapt and be taught new things in spite having "learned it wrong the first time."

Thus my example of two learners learning it "wrong" the first time and then adjusting.

Baboons and other primates don't do that well.

Humans do.

 

[wsuffa]

Actually, it is, if you want to know when to make the turn for the missed approach after you lose the GS on an ILS. Sure, you can start climbing as soon as you decide to go missed, but without timing, how else would you know when you reached the missed approach point and could start the turn (assuming no ILS-DME or GPS)? I know ILS approaches where an early/late turn can take you into a big rock, so if I don't have a GPS, I time every ILS.

Do you do the math and time the ones that have no time-chart on the plate?

 

[tlglenn]

This thread makes me wonder how people would feel about logging an approach where the procedure turn or course reversal was performed in IMC, but it was VMC from the IF or IAF to the FAF. For example: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00071R14R.PDF (KCNM Cavern City NM GPS RWY 14R). Imagine crossing BICNA in VMC, entering IMC during the course reversal, and then crossing BICNA again in VMC while inbound.

 

[Bob Noel]

>Do you do the math and time the ones that have no time-chart on the plate?

There are ILS approaches without the time? Really? Can you give an
example?

 

[nosehair]

But in most cases going missed and re-grouping may be the better option. At the very least find out why the GS failed and determine what might be next.

In all seriousness, 'going missed' would be the more risky action in the case of a GS failure.

If you fly a lot of 'time-scheduled' actual, you will find yourself in lots of situations, (tstms-ice-gas-pax-atc-tired, etc) where a 'missed' is driving you deeper into the 'unsafe zone'.

And if you fly enough ILS's, you will find a not-uncommon occurance of sudden mystical GS temporay outages.

There is usually only a couple-three hundred feet difference, anyway. The whole argument is, for practical purposes, moot.

 

[AdamZ]

In all seriousness, 'going missed' would be the more risky action in the case of a GS failure.

If you fly a lot of 'time-scheduled' actual, you will find yourself in lots of situations, (tstms-ice-gas-pax-atc-tired, etc) where a 'missed' is driving you deeper into the 'unsafe zone'.

And if you fly enough ILS's, you will find a not-uncommon occurance of sudden mystical GS temporay outages.

There is usually only a couple-three hundred feet difference, anyway. The whole argument is, for practical purposes, moot.

Nose you bring up an intersting point. My concern in my situation ( had it not just been shooting an approach for the hell of it and practice is, how do I know it it is the ILS transmitter that went goofy or my receiver. An since I had the LOC needle pegged I wouldln't want to test it by swinging off course.

I do however, disagree that for practical purposes the argument is moot 300' is 300' If I slam in to a hill 20' below the top its no worse than if I slam into it 600' from the top .Rock is rock. I certainly never thought my OP would generate this discussion but thats the great thing about this board. Some where sometime this may acually happend in IMC so at least someone realitivly low time like me can have some info to make a decision. Good discussion everyone!

 

[poadeleted20]

No, I don't, so that is a consideration, certainly.

But how often are the following conditions met:

• Lose the GS only during an ILS approach
• Above MDA
• In IMC
• Descending from icing conditions
• At min fuel (or some other "gotta land" condition

No, that combination has not happened to me (yet).

But, If I'm flying an a/c capable of flying in icing, how the $$$$ does it not have an IFR GPS?

Icing ain't the only reason for not want to go around, and I've flown lots of planes that were capable of flight in icing conditions but didn't have an IFR GPS.

That said, while I have had a bad glide slope, I've never had the glide slope fail between GS intercept and DH, which is why this question is largely academic. However, it is a popular one for discussion, and also not uncommon on IR practical tests, so I guess it has to be covered.

 

[poadeleted20]

Do you do the math and time the ones that have no time-chart on the plate?

I time them all regardless, but as for the math, I can do it in my head in less time than it takes to talk about it, since 90 knots is 40 seconds per mile.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

>Do you do the math and time the ones that have no time-chart on the plate?

There are ILS approaches without the time? Really? Can you give an
example?

Sure...

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00245ILD18.PDF

But that's cheating, because DME is required.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The Baboon comment was relative to the various laws of learning in the FAA's AIH. While Primacy, Effect, Intensity, and the rest certainly affect and help expedite (or in some cases hinder) the required training effect, people can adapt and be taught new things in spite having "learned it wrong the first time."

Thus my example of two learners learning it "wrong" the first time and then adjusting.

Baboons and other primates don't do that well.

Humans do.

Dan,

You don't seem to believe in the Law of Primacy. It is a MUCH stronger effect than you think. I'm not a CFI but I do have several thousand hours of "dual given" in large trucks. There's a reason I hate the "driver mill" trucking schools - I had to try to beat all the bad habits out of 'em.

Learn wrong, practice wrong, and you'll do wrong. The saying "Practice makes perfect" is completely incorrect. "Practice makes PERMANENT" is what it should be. Ron, Bruce, et al have an awful lot of instruction given and have seen this for themselves. If it's a good idea to time the approach sometimes, you probably want to teach it all the time. I personally forget the ones I should be timing a lot more often than I time the ones I don't need to. That point in the approach, there's not a whole lot of extra bandwidth available to think about whether or not to time the approach, so it'd be best if we were all taught to do it every single time.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan,

You don't seem to believe in the Law of Primacy. It is a MUCH stronger effect than you think. I'm not a CFI but I do have several thousand hours of "dual given" in large trucks. There's a reason I hate the "driver mill" trucking schools - I had to try to beat all the bad habits out of 'em.

Learn wrong, practice wrong, and you'll do wrong. The saying "Practice makes perfect" is completely incorrect. "Practice makes PERMANENT" is what it should be. Ron, Bruce, et al have an awful lot of instruction given and have seen this for themselves. If it's a good idea to time the approach sometimes, you probably want to teach it all the time. I personally forget the ones I should be timing a lot more often than I time the ones I don't need to. That point in the approach, there's not a whole lot of extra bandwidth available to think about whether or not to time the approach, so it'd be best if we were all taught to do it every single time.

Ummm....

Did you actually read what I wrote?

I didn't say I didn't "believe in the law of primacy."

I said it is not, however, irreversible. Things learned poorly or incorrectly can be corrected, which makes people unique (as compared to baboons).

The Law of Primacy simply means that if you learn something incorrectly, you will have to unlearn/relearn, and thus it will take longer to acquire the Knowledge /Skill /Ability -- not that it cannot be corrected.

(If we're going to trot out CVs ... in addition to CFI, I have 15 years Ed Tech LMS and curriculum Design, 5 years Secondary Ed teacher (Including AP courses), 20+ years military training, Officer Candidate School Senior Training Officer, IEEE and ADL WG member, Presenter at various education and training conferences, yada, yada, yada)

Anyway...

I'll repeat what I wrote:

Repeated practice to standard in realistic conditions trains best.

While the laws of learning can shed light on the learning/training process, only Repeated practice to standard under realistic conditions is what trains people.

I say again: Repeated practice to standard under realistic conditions is the most efficacious means to train.

People can be re-trained/ un-trained/ whatever, thus Law of Primacy is not absolute.

If it were we would need to train pilots in 4 engine turbine transports due to all the "bad habits" they picked up in those silly SEL with carburetors.

 

[wsuffa]

Sure...

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00245ILD18.PDF

But that's cheating, because DME is required.

Not cheating at all.....

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sure...

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00245ILD18.PDF

But that's cheating, because DME is required.

Not cheating since all it really shows is that timing won't be required for an ILS under exactly the same conditions that timing is not required for any other IAP - when there is some other way to identify the MAP.

In this approach, I don't think it's the DME that removes the need to time – it's the simpler fact that the MAP is identified by a VOR.