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.:sad:

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.

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.

What is an IPC?

Instrument Proficiency Check - the new name for an instrument rating renewal.

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.

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...

"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.