Silly question about Instrument Proficiency Check

[Marauder]

Is the answer eject?

Who needs a ballistic parachute?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Super Dave]

Hmm, maybe that's what they were doing at the school referenced above, but I could swear they did Mei first. Maybe the policy has changed.

You got it right. The SCSU Aviation program had a multi engine track as an option. It's where I did all of my piston training, eventually became Chief Flight Instructor, and also taught an aviation class at the University. Basicly, the initial private pilot was done SE with the ME rating added afterward, but every other certificate and rating was first done ME and then the SE was added afterward. So the progression was:

Private Pilot SE, then ME rating

Instrument rating ME

Commercial ME, then SE rating

CFI ME, then SE rating

CFII ME, then SE rating

It was more expensive than the single engine route, but not as much as you might think. The Commercial and Initial CFI must be done in a complex airplane, and back in the day, a Beech Duchess wasn't that much more expensive to rent than a Skylane RG. Also, when it was time to add the SE rating to your Commercial, CFI, and CFII, it could be done in a C-152 since you had already demonstrated a complex aircraft for the initial certificate.

[peevee]

You got it right. The SCSU Aviation program had a multi engine track as an option. It's where I did all of my piston training, eventually became Chief Flight Instructor, and also taught an aviation class at the University. Basicly, the initial private pilot was done SE with the ME rating added afterward, but every other certificate and rating was first done ME and then the SE was added afterward. So the progression was:

Private Pilot SE, then ME rating

Instrument rating ME

Commercial ME, then SE rating

CFI ME, then SE rating

CFII ME, then SE rating

It was more expensive than the single engine route, but not as much as you might think. The Commercial and Initial CFI must be done in a complex airplane, and back in the day, a Beech Duchess wasn't that much more expensive to rent than a Skylane RG. Also, when it was time to add the SE rating to your Commercial, CFI, and CFII, it could be done in a C-152 since you had already demonstrated a complex aircraft for the initial certificate.

Thanks! Plus they got probably 150 hours of multi plus the meis got a ton. Always sounded like a good idea to me.

I went to und, I'm sure I gave you the finger on the way by at some point

[midlifeflyer]

I hold a CFII. I can instruct instruments in my type ratings... But I don't hold a CFI in those ratings. I can't legally teach you to stall, or do TAA or sign off high performance ratings, but I can teach you instruments in ASEL or AMEL

 

Assuming you mean you don't hold any aircraft category/class rating on your CFI certificate ("type ratings" deal with jets and certain other aircraft, so I'm not completely sure what you mean), not since the FAA changed the rules 6 years ago. See the Chief Counsel opinion letter linked earlier.

[midlifeflyer]

If, during an IPC, PTS standards are not met, there isn't a "pink slip" issued, but more instruction suggested prior to signing off as an IPC IAW 61.57(d). Once the tasks are completed with PTS standards are met, a signoff certifying that the pilot has completed a Instrument Proficiency Check can be issued (just did one today). In the event it is unsatisfactory, no logbook entry is necessary to state such. We as instructors, certify the pilot has met standards, just as we do when we send them to a DPE for a practical test for ratings or instructor's certificate. We don't test them, just certify them!

Perhaps you don't quiz and test when you instruct but I do. From the very first primary student lesson, and definitely before they solo (including the FAA-mandated pre-solo "knowledge test." (FAR words, not mine)

 

Besides, I wasn't aware the definition of "test" includes a certificate stating failure. I think there are plenty of tests I've taken during my lifetime which simply meant I could either go further or not.

[mike_elliott]

Perhaps you don't quiz and test when you instruct but I do. From the very first primary student lesson.

Oh, I do quiz and ask questions, but I am not an FAA approved testing entity per se, just a low life CFII that educates via the questions I ask and quizzes I give. I think we are saying the same thing, hung up on FAA speak. 

[midlifeflyer]

Oh, I do quiz and ask questions, but I am not an FAA approved testing entity per se, just a low life CFII that educates via the questions I ask and quizzes I give. I think we are saying the same thing, hung up on FAA speak. 

 

I think you are right. I suspect it's all an outgrowth of the common platitude that a Flight Review has no "pass" or "fail" and therefore is not a "test."

 

It always struck me as a bit of regulatory political correctness. Very nice to hear and may lead to a bit of relaxation to know that not "passing" doesnt mean the FAA or the whole world will be given notice. Bur if I (or I suspect anyone) who was flying somewhat regularly went to a flight review, expecting to get the sign-off in one session and the instructor recommended further training before giving the endorsement, I think they would think of it as a "test."

[mike_elliott]

I think you are right. I suspect it's all an outgrowth of the common platitude that a Flight Review has no "pass" or "fail" and therefore is not a "test."

 

It always struck me as a bit of regulatory political correctness. Very nice to hear and may lead to a bit of relaxation to know that not "passing" doesnt mean the FAA or the whole world will be given notice. Bur if I (or I suspect anyone) who was flying somewhat regularly went to a flight review, expecting to get the sign-off in one session and the instructor recommended further training before giving the endorsement, I think they would think of it as a "test."

 Agreed, And I am quick to point out in the very beginning that it (IPC for example) is not a test, but instruction and demonstration of proficiency within PTS standards, in accordance with 61.57(d). Ill explain what we have to do and provide guidance to get that accomplished. DPE's can administer tests that will allow someone to become a pilot, get a rating etc, but not a CFI. Ill also state upfront that if we don't meet standards right off, we can work on the tasks necessary so that we can get there, and It may take more than one session. I let them know I need to feel they are safe enough to allow my most prized treasure, my wife, to fly with them, which is a bit more stringent that 5 degrees of heading and 100' of altitude.

[M20F]

DPE's can administer tests that will allow someone to become a pilot, get a rating etc, but not a CFI.

DPE's can do initial and addon CFI's.

[mike_elliott]

DPE's can do initial and addon CFI's.

let me clarify, a CFI cannot administer a test for someone to become a pilot get a rating etc, but a DPE can. Yes, they (DPE's) can also do an initial CFI and add on

[Marauder]

Let me add some commentary on my experience with IPCs. I have been doing them for years, primarily to make sure that I wasn't getting sloppy or picking up bad habits. Breezed through all of them until 2012...

In 2012, I had all of the new equipment installed and although I knew all of the power & configuration settings needed to fly an approach, the new hardware & the associated buttonology had me behind the plane. I knew this was going to happen and told the CFII beforehand that I expected I would need several flights to become not only competent but also confident with the new equipment. After flying with me for about 5 hours, he said I was flying to the standards of an IPC and would sign me off. I insisted on another 5 hours to make up for the confidence piece I felt was still missing.

Fast forward to my IPC last week. I'm ahead of the plane, setting altitudes in the Aspen for the MDA, configuring the second Aspen's HSI to run a backup ILS indication, setting the timers... Whodathinkitwaspossible?

One thing you guys haven't mentioned is the value added stuff that can come along with an IPC. When I am doing an IPC, I always ask for some value add stuff that I don't routinely practice and that may not always be related to instrument proficiency. Nice to have another set of eyes critique decision making or techniques that don't routinely get practiced.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

One thing you guys haven't mentioned is the value added stuff that can come along with an IPC. When I am doing an IPC, I always ask for some value add stuff that I don't routinely practice and that may not always be related to instrument proficiency. Nice to have another set of eyes critique decision making or techniques that don't routinely get practiced.

 

 

Probably because it wasn't raised along the way. You are absolutely right. An IPC is probably the best opportunity to practice what you don't usually do. Good instrument pilots and good CFIs both know that. I often hear, "You know, I'll probably never have to do a VOR approach again for real, so let's do some." Even a simple, straightforward VOR-A can be a bear when out of practice (especially partial panel )

[Oscar Avalle]

It seems that my silly question was not that silly anyway... but at the end, can a MEI CFII validate my IPC....

[peevee]

Probably because it wasn't raised along the way. You are absolutely right. An IPC is probably the best opportunity to practice what you don't usually do. Good instrument pilots and good CFIs both know that. I often hear, "You know, I'll probably never have to do a VOR approach again for real, so let's do some." Even a simple, straightforward VOR-A can be a bear when out of practice (especially partial panel )

The redbird fmx sim is great for this. They're harder to fly than the airplane and I can do a lot of approaches fairly quickly. I try to run through every few months, I think it's money well spent.

[midlifeflyer]

It seems that my silly question was not that silly anyway... but at the end, can a MEI CFII validate my IPC....

Assuming you mean a flight instructor whose only CFI ratings are multi engine airplane and instrument airplane, yes. In a twin.

[M016576]

Assuming you mean you don't hold any aircraft category/class rating on your CFI certificate ("type ratings" deal with jets and certain other aircraft, so I'm not completely sure what you mean), not since the FAA changed the rules 6 years ago. See the Chief Counsel opinion letter linked earlier.

My instructor certificate says:

Flight Instructor

Instrument Airplane

And that's it. Typically, when I talk to other pilots they refer to that as a "CFII". If it said "Airplane, Single Engine Land". The pilots I know tend to refer to that as a "CFI". If it said "airplane Multi Engine Land" then I hear that referred to as a "MEI".

That's what I mean- If my terminology wasnt pristine in my initial post. I don't know if I was confusing you because I wasn't using the exact terminology or you're just giving me a hard time for some reason.

Do you refer to your instructor's quals by anything other than the shorthand I described above? (CFI, MEI, CFII)

The whole point of my post was that I find it funny that you can be issued an instrument instructor rating without an underlying Cat/Class rating.

I know what a type rating is- that was a slip- in Naval Aviation we used to call it Type/Model/Series. Old habits die hard. I meant Category in FAA terms.

[carusoam]

Summary, if I got this correctly......

Oscar did the best he can do in the environment he is in...

He performed an IPC in his plane with a CFII of the ME variety...

Does that count?, or does he need to complete an IPC with somebody that is a CFII of the SE variety.

For the instructors,

1) when it comes to the IFR part, what are the additional things to be aware of that are instrument related to flying a multi engine airplane. (I have no twin experience).

2) where would I find the standard expectations for a SEL IPC? (It's been a really long time since I flew IFR)

Best regards,

-a-

[mike_elliott]

Summary, if I got this correctly......

Oscar did the best he can do in the environment he is in...

He performed an IPC in his plane with a CFII of the ME variety...

Does that count?, or does he need to complete an IPC with somebody that is a CFII of the SE variety.

For the instructors,

1) when it comes to the IFR part, what are the additional things to be aware of that are instrument related to flying a multi engine airplane. (I have no twin experience).

2) where would I find the standard expectations for a SEL IPC? (It's been a really long time since I flew IFR)

Best regards,

-a-

 Here is the FAA doc...

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

 

Bottom line, your doing a check ride for an instructor.

[midlifeflyer]

My instructor certificate says:

Flight Instructor

Instrument Airplane

And that's it. Typically, when I talk to other pilots they refer to that as a "CFII". If it said "Airplane, Single Engine Land". The pilots I know tend to refer to that as a "CFI". If it said "airplane Multi Engine Land" then I hear that referred to as a "MEI".

That's what I mean- If my terminology wasnt pristine in my initial post. I don't know if I was confusing you because I wasn't using the exact terminology or you're just giving me a hard time for some reason.

Do you refer to your instructor's quals by anything other than the shorthand I described above? (CFI, MEI, CFII)

The whole point of my post was that I find it funny that you can be issued an instrument instructor rating without an underlying Cat/Class rating.

I know what a type rating is- that was a slip- in Naval Aviation we used to call it Type/Model/Series. Old habits die hard. I meant Category in FAA terms.

I am not trying to give you a hard time. I generally understand the shorthand terminology but I have though the years heard different people use some of the therms with variations in meaning.  So, since we are discussing a somewhat complex regulatory topic, I just prefer to use the official regulatory terminology, just for the purposes of precision.  That way there is zero misunderstanding.

 

But now that you have cleared it up. I agree it's a little funny that one can be issued a CFI certificate with no aircraft rating. But what it essentially means these days is that you may give instrument ground instruction.

 

As interpreted since the 2009 change in the regulations, a CFII with no aircraft rating ins not authorized to instruct an aircraft (2010 Grayson Interpretation, previously mentioned). He is also not authorized teach instruments in a simulator or other ground training device (2012 Beard Interpretation). 

[midlifeflyer]

Summary, if I got this correctly......

Oscar did the best he can do in the environment he is in...

He performed an IPC in his plane with a CFII of the ME variety...

Does that count?, or does he need to complete an IPC with somebody that is a CFII of the SE variety.

If the FAA is consistent in its interpretation, the current version of FAR 61.193( and © and the 2010 Grayson Interpretation say he needs a CFII that has a single engine airplane instructor rating in order to have a valid IPC given in a single-engine airplane.

 

I was not being facetious in my "valid in a twin comment." While instructor limitations say that the instructor must have the "applicable category and class rating, the IPC reg says that the IPC may be given "In an aircraft that is appropriate to the aircraft category," at least suggesting that a pilot who is only single-engine rated may receive an IPC in a twin.

[midlifeflyer]

For the instructors,

1) when it comes to the IFR part, what are the additional things to be aware of that are instrument related to flying a multi engine airplane. (I have no twin experience).

2) where would I find the standard expectations for a SEL IPC? (It's been a really long time since I flew IFR)

Best regards,

-a-

 

1. Instrument approach with the critical engine inop. That's pretty much what makes a twin different from a single and the ME PTS tasks different from the SE.

 

2. The Instrument a Practical test Standards. There's a table that lists the tasks that need to be covered.