IPC endorsement

[stensonb]

So...for the sake of argument, do I have to endorse a log book when I give an IPC...not according to FARs...not according to AC 61-65E...strange huh?

Is it just up to the pilot to assume they "passed" the IPC?!

[sus_pilot]

Being really lazy tonight, I'll go with your research and assume you're right. On the flip side, there's nothing that says you can't or shouldn't. I've always given one. In fact, the Jeppesen Professional Pilot Logbook has a pre-printed one in the back - I know because my instructor put me through my paces last time I was in St. Louis and signed that one.

No, I wasn't out of currency, but, since he's my mentor and we've become pretty good friends, we go out and play "make 'em sweat" whenever I'm back home. In fact, I do his biennials and the games always start with "remember how tough I was when you were getting your CFI?" Last time I put about 30 sticky-notes in obscure spots of the plane marked with things like "hole in bottom of fuselage" and "bird droppings on prop" - just to remind the old son-of-a-gun of all the pre-flights I did in the rain during my IFR...

[AK]

Originally posted by stensonb
So...for the sake of argument, do I have to endorse a log book when I give an IPC...not according to FARs...not according to AC 61-65E...strange huh?

Is it just up to the pilot to assume they "passed" the IPC?!

Endorsement #57 in Appendix 1 of AC 61-65E?

[sus_pilot]

Originally posted by AK
Endorsement #57 in Appendix 1 of AC 61-65E?

Bingo - I thought there was one, but, like I said, I was feeling lazy. Besides, these more freshly-minted instructors still have the regs seared into their eyeballs. I need to look more stuff up anymore, and I thought I my memory was wrong.

[stensonb]

Thank you, thank you, thank you....I thought I was going crazy...I still am, but now I know where the endorsment is...

[ErikW]

Think about it for a minute. How else would the pilot be able to prove currency. If under 6 mo, then his log book should show 6 instrument approaches, holds, etc. Between 6 - 12 mo, the pilot should have an IPC. If it weren't an endorsement, then how would the pilot prove it? After 12, a checkride, again with an endorsement....

now the question back to you is, is being a CFI sufficient to do an IPC or do you need to be a double-I?

[AK]

Originally posted by ErikW
Think about it for a minute. How else would the pilot be able to prove currency. If under 6 mo, then his log book should show 6 instrument approaches, holds, etc. Between 6 - 12 mo, the pilot should have an IPC. If it weren't an endorsement, then how would the pilot prove it? After 12, a checkride, again with an endorsement....

what checkride? you should reread 14 CFR 61.57 (d).

You get 6 months to get back to currency on your own after that IPC.

[alpha06]

Originally posted by ErikW
Think about it for a minute. How else would the pilot be able to prove currency. If under 6 mo, then his log book should show 6 instrument approaches, holds, etc. Between 6 - 12 mo, the pilot should have an IPC. If it weren't an endorsement, then how would the pilot prove it? After 12, a checkride, again with an endorsement....

now the question back to you is, is being a CFI sufficient to do an IPC or do you need to be a double-I?

A checkride again? So, you mean when I was gone to Iraq for a year and returned I have to do another Instrument checkride because its been 18 months since I shot an approach?

[ErikW]

Looks like you're right accoring to 61.57d!

So where did I pick up the post 12 month rule? Talk about primacy! I would have bet money on that one... I even looked at the 1996 FARs so see if it was possibly an old reg, and nope. Scratching my head on this one.. whew.. That's what I like about this board....

[stensonb]

No checkride required...an IPC is required...that IPC can be given by:

(i) An examiner (why would you willingly choose this?!

(ii) A person authorized by the US Armed Forces to conduct instrument flight tests, provided the person being tested is a member of the US Armed Forces

(iii) A company check pilot...[blah blah blah]...Part 121, 125, or 135...[blah blah blah]

(iv) An authorized instructor; or

(v) A person approved by the Administrator to conduct instrument practical tests.

So...its not a complete checkride, but the IPC must be given by one of these individuals...and you must perform the TASKS required as descrbed in the Instrument Airplane PTS...

As for the CFII...don't really know. I'm still looking for a good explanation on this one...

[AK]

Originally posted by stensonb
...

As for the CFII...don't really know. I'm still looking for a good explanation on this one...

As you qoute in your message, it has to be an authorized instructor, i.e. current CFI-I or current IGI.

[cfb]

So now that you have figured out the endorsement, how about using the PTS to perform the IPC?

Our local FSDO (Baltimore) says because the words are printed in the PTS, then it is regulatory in nature.

FAA-S-8081-4D

Page 2.

Applicants for an instrument proficiency check required by 14 CFR section 61.57 must perform to the standards of the TASKs listed in the guidance provided on page 16.


Page 16.

(Chart Displayed)

Instrument Proficiency Check. 14 CFR part 61.57(d) sets forth the requirements for an instrument proficiency check. The person giving that check shall use the standards and procedures contained in this PTS when administering the check. A representative number of TASKs, as determined by the examiner/instructor, must be selected to assure the competence of the applicant to operate in the IFR environment. As a minimum, the applicant must demonstrate the ability to perform the
TASKs as listed in the above chart. The person giving the check should develop scenarios to assess the pilot’s ADM and risk management skills during the IPC.


So.....how many CFI's are religiously using the PTS to perform your IPC's before you endorse?

[midlifeflyer]

Originally posted by cfb
So.....how many CFI's are religiously using the PTS to perform your IPC's before you endorse?

With the number of discussions that went on about this during the two PTS changes that added the "PC" column (after the first change, the "common wisdom" was that it was optional for CFIs and one of the more heavily-discussed results of the change was that you could no longer do an IPC completely in an FTD), hopefully everyone.