Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Why is cyclic training considered not an IPC?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Why is cyclic training considered not an IPC?

Old 22nd Jul 2016, 07:53
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Why is cyclic training considered not an IPC?

With the occasional movement of pilots leaving Australian airlines for overseas jobs, an interesting point arises where the overseas operator requires the candidate to have a current Australian IPC.

Most Australian airlines have a cyclic training programme that includes an `imbedded` IPC for want of a better description. Yet, it seems CASA refuses to accept the cyclic training schedule as equivalent to an IPC for anyone leaving the airline. The situation thus exists where pilots who have been taking part in their airline cyclic training are forced to go to the expense of undergoing a separate IPC to present to their overseas employer.

To an outside observer this seems an unfair impost on airline pilots who are considered perfectly safe to crew Australian registered aircraft on the basis of their CASA approved cyclic training. But, the day they leave their parent airline, CASA deems them unsafe to hold an IPC until they prove their competency by undergoing an IPC outside of their cyclic training.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2016, 15:33
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not an answer to your question but....

My company's cyclic is almost word perfect for an IPC.. except for the paperwork.
I have had a few sim partners 'asking' for an IPC as oppose to following the company cyclic programme and to be honest, it makes no difference to me.

Without exception, all those that asked for an IPC, all left within a few months for various jobs overseas...

Just an observation.
Monopole is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2016, 20:20
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the water
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I had a quick scan of Part 61 but quickly got bored!

I'm sure there is something hidden in there that an OPC will cover and IPC if it is under a training system approved under some other part... I could however be completely wrong!

Not sure if CASA would need to be notified of the OPC in order for it to cover the IPC requirement.
WannaBeBiggles is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2016, 22:26
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 311
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is an IPC?
allthecoolnamesarego is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2016, 00:14
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the water
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
What is an IPC?
Instrument Proficiency Check - the new name for an instrument rating renewal.
WannaBeBiggles is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2016, 05:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OPC and IPC

The main difference between the OPC and IPC is that when conducting an IPC no repeats are permitted. That means that if on the first exercise the candidate did not meet the standard required then the test is terminated.
With an OPC it is done under the companies check and training standard which in many cases will allow repeats to demonstrate required standard.
So if combining both OPC and IPC one would have to terminate the whole exercise if say within the first 10 minutes the candidate flew outside tolerance on say an SID.
ANCIENT is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2016, 07:11
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 265
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
The "why" answer is probably that in CASA's rush to make everything ICAO compliant (must be more than one bonus resting on that) we're now doing lots of stuff that is inappropriate, or was justified on hypothetical "safety" basis (because it doesn't cost CASA), or was someone's bee-in-their-bonnet, or sometimes just a mistake or typo!

The thrust of the CASR/rewrites seems to be ICAO-compliance and bee-bonnet syndrome, combined with a huge dose of legal-branch - then claim that "industry is not ready" when the various drafts are appearing (with substantial changes) only weeks before the regs became active! Don't blame industry, we were not ready because you were unable to tell us what to get ready for (part 61, I'm talking about you).

Enough bitching about the past, now if CASA were sensibly overseen by people who knew what was happening, then we could start cleaning up the mess...
drpixie is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2016, 07:30
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Enough bitching about the past, now if CASA were sensibly overseen by people who knew what was happening, then we could start cleaning up the mess..."

By finally accepting that we completely screwed it up, scap the whole thing and adopt New Zealand regulations. We've pissed half a billion $$ away, lets not waste another half billion trying to fix it. We can go on smearing lipstick on it for another twenty years, at the end of the day its still a pig.
thorn bird is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.