Does an IPC have to be done with an FAA instructor?
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does an IPC have to be done with an FAA instructor?
I need to do a Instrument Proficiency Check for my FAA IR since I've fallen out of currency and I was wondering (I'm fairly sure the answer is yes) whether it has to be done with an FAA examiner or whether a JAA equivalently qualified examiner/instructor would be OK?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot see why an FAA CFII cannot do an IPC in a G-reg.
Nothing in the FARs requires any particular aircraft reg for anything to do with training or checkrides.
The ANO might say something about it, but it may hinge on whether an IPC is "flight instruction". I wonder if this has ever been settled.
I know that, years ago until the fatal Cessna twin accident, FAA checkrides were allowed in G-reg planes, with a UK instructor in the RHS and the FAA examiner sitting in the back. Perhaps an IPC is regarded the same way as an initial checkride?
One needs to note that in an IPC the LHS is almost certainly legally PIC (if done in VMC), whereas in say a PPL checkride he might not be (because the US Student Pilot Cert is not valid over here).
Nothing in the FARs requires any particular aircraft reg for anything to do with training or checkrides.
The ANO might say something about it, but it may hinge on whether an IPC is "flight instruction". I wonder if this has ever been settled.
I know that, years ago until the fatal Cessna twin accident, FAA checkrides were allowed in G-reg planes, with a UK instructor in the RHS and the FAA examiner sitting in the back. Perhaps an IPC is regarded the same way as an initial checkride?
One needs to note that in an IPC the LHS is almost certainly legally PIC (if done in VMC), whereas in say a PPL checkride he might not be (because the US Student Pilot Cert is not valid over here).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An IPC is not a test. It is simply training conforming to a syllabus - I.e. it must cover this and it must cover that. If the CFII is happy after covering all the required syllabus then he or she endorses your logbook to say you have done the IPC.
So I'd say yes, it can be done in any reg and yes it is flight training.
So I'd say yes, it can be done in any reg and yes it is flight training.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK if it is "flight training" then the ANO might have something to say about needing a JAA FI Rating if done in a G-reg. However it may depend on whether the CFII is being paid... also (if it was not allowed by the ANO regardless of payment) would such a flight result in an IPC invalid for FAA purposes?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the FAA would care. An IPC can be done in an FAA approved sim on the ground, so really all you are paying for is the endorsement at the end of the day. The CFII cannot give the endorsement without one completing a required training syllabus - to do so they would put their CFII ticket on the line - but however it is completed I don't see the FAA caring too much. Of course the CFII may fall foul of the CAA but that is another matter.
The FARs also allow someone rated on the aeroplane to log PIC as well as the FI. So if one were to do an IPC in VMC with a view limiting device then the pilot under training would actually be PIC for the flight - how does this fit in with the ANO !!
I think a court would have to test this!
The FARs also allow someone rated on the aeroplane to log PIC as well as the FI. So if one were to do an IPC in VMC with a view limiting device then the pilot under training would actually be PIC for the flight - how does this fit in with the ANO !!
I think a court would have to test this!
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my particular case the examiner who I'm now going to use having established the answer to my original in question is both JAA and FAA qualified and the aircraft is G-reg.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much is this guy charging CT?
I'd have probably done it for nothing, as a CFII. You certainly don't need an examiner. The intricacies of the UK ANO would seem to put paid to the idea of an FAA CFI/II flying with you and logging dual given/PIC in a G-reg if he/she holds no JAA Instructor Rating... but if they (JAA/CAA) don't know about it, then as far as the FAA are concerned it follows their rules/regs and gets the job done. The CAA are protecting their own interests, and stopping any Tom, Dick or Hussein with foreign ratings taking business away from JAA trained guys, so nothing wrong in that. But, if you'd have asked around, or knew the right kind of people, you could have sorted something out with a CFII, and done what needed doing. All above board as far as the FAA care. Screw the robbing bastards at the CAA.
If someone is charging simply to write an endorsement in your logbook, they are a cheeky swine and should be ashamed. Sure they may want a bit of money towards travelling to meet you and planning/conducting the IPC (I'd be happy just with the experience) but these places/people charging £30-£50 to write an endorsement aren't doing anyone a favour, and people wouldn't last 5 minutes trying that in the States. I don't know what you are referring to about the "required training syllabus". If you mean conducting the test as per the Instrument PTS, it's not really training, just a demonstration of the pilot to meet the IPC requirements. I personally wouldn't turn up and expect to conduct an IPC with someone I didn't know in one session, but it would be possible. And you're right, the CFII would be responsible should a person he/she endorsed make a mess of things somewhere down the line. So, it's not something to be taken lightly, or as a way of making easy money. Still doesn't justify charging for it (purely for the endorsement) though.
I'm with englishal... it doesn't necessarily "fit-in" with the ANO, but it certainly does with the FAA way of doing things. If it was taken to court we might finally get a good answer, instead of speculating. Maybe someone should ask AOPA or something? There was a thread on here somewhere, and the answer from Oklahoma was that, yes, Flight reviews and IPC's can be done in foreign registered aircraft, providing the pilot's were FAA rated and were current (recency of experience and medical) to fly. This came about as the FAR's do not mention using an N-reg aircraft at all.
If you were to ask the CAA, they would point you to the ANO (article 26 I think) and make excuses. Obviously, us FAA guys shouldn't go breaking laws and bending the rules, as it does nothing for the bad attitude that many JAA people (who don't understand the FAA system) have towards the FAA way of doing things. Also, we don't want to be undercutting people who've spent thousands doing silly ATPL exams and JAA ratings by flying G-reg's and taking work away from them, especially if they are dual rated. But, as there are no definite answers, and we are dealing with FAA certificate holders, there is nothing in our FAR/AIM to hold us back, or any references saying that a foreign countries rules/regs override the FAA ones.
If you're flying on an FAA certificate, you are under the FAR's.
Let us know how you get on "contacttower", and what the dual-rated examiner's view is on this.
- I can't either... 
I might just do one for the laugh and see what the CAA do to me. 
And another thing... I regularly fly with my mates here in the right-seat of various G-reg airplanes, I also fly a nice little aerobatic jobby, and take my mates for a jolly in that. I don't log anything when they log P1, and likewise, when I'm P1 (PIC in my logbook), they don't. In the first instance; They log P1, I am a passenger. I may have a little fly too, and demo some manoeuvres, give tips etc. I don't log this here in the UK, as apparently I cannot. If I was back in America, we'd both be logging the PIC quite happily, and when we go fly aerobatics, they would get some instruction, and dual time, even if they don't have complex/high perf/tailwheel endorsements... we'd both get something out of it. Over here, this isn't possible. What a load of nonsense.
I'm not in it just to build hours, as when I flew in the US, my flight school (where I rented from) only allowed their instructors to instruct in their airplanes... so, as a CFI when I flew my mates, and could have logged time, I didn't. My loss I guess, but I'm not one for upsetting people.
It's all very sad actually, as I believe (as do many others) that for GA flying (even here in the UK) the FAA system is superior to the JAA one, and the instrument rating far more "usable", and attainable (no numerous silly written exams) should people want to go down that route. It is a system designed with safety in mind, and in the knowledge that people will use their training in anger in light airplanes.
To get back to the point though, the issue is only with the CAA here in the UK, and the rules concerning their airspace/aircraft. It even covers N-reg too, so no, you can't have full privileges in one of those over here either. The FAA don't care. Or rather, they "may" care, but nothing in their rules/regs reflect this... so interpret that how you want... and expect that it probably wouldn't stand up in court!
I'd have probably done it for nothing, as a CFII. You certainly don't need an examiner. The intricacies of the UK ANO would seem to put paid to the idea of an FAA CFI/II flying with you and logging dual given/PIC in a G-reg if he/she holds no JAA Instructor Rating... but if they (JAA/CAA) don't know about it, then as far as the FAA are concerned it follows their rules/regs and gets the job done. The CAA are protecting their own interests, and stopping any Tom, Dick or Hussein with foreign ratings taking business away from JAA trained guys, so nothing wrong in that. But, if you'd have asked around, or knew the right kind of people, you could have sorted something out with a CFII, and done what needed doing. All above board as far as the FAA care. Screw the robbing bastards at the CAA.
so really all you are paying for is the endorsement at the end of the day. The CFII cannot give the endorsement without one completing a required training syllabus - to do so they would put their CFII ticket on the line - but however it is completed I don't see the FAA caring too much.
I'm with englishal... it doesn't necessarily "fit-in" with the ANO, but it certainly does with the FAA way of doing things. If it was taken to court we might finally get a good answer, instead of speculating. Maybe someone should ask AOPA or something? There was a thread on here somewhere, and the answer from Oklahoma was that, yes, Flight reviews and IPC's can be done in foreign registered aircraft, providing the pilot's were FAA rated and were current (recency of experience and medical) to fly. This came about as the FAR's do not mention using an N-reg aircraft at all.
If you were to ask the CAA, they would point you to the ANO (article 26 I think) and make excuses. Obviously, us FAA guys shouldn't go breaking laws and bending the rules, as it does nothing for the bad attitude that many JAA people (who don't understand the FAA system) have towards the FAA way of doing things. Also, we don't want to be undercutting people who've spent thousands doing silly ATPL exams and JAA ratings by flying G-reg's and taking work away from them, especially if they are dual rated. But, as there are no definite answers, and we are dealing with FAA certificate holders, there is nothing in our FAR/AIM to hold us back, or any references saying that a foreign countries rules/regs override the FAA ones.
If you're flying on an FAA certificate, you are under the FAR's.
Let us know how you get on "contacttower", and what the dual-rated examiner's view is on this.
I cannot see why an FAA CFII cannot do an IPC in a G-reg.
I might just do one for the laugh and see what the CAA do to me. And another thing... I regularly fly with my mates here in the right-seat of various G-reg airplanes, I also fly a nice little aerobatic jobby, and take my mates for a jolly in that. I don't log anything when they log P1, and likewise, when I'm P1 (PIC in my logbook), they don't. In the first instance; They log P1, I am a passenger. I may have a little fly too, and demo some manoeuvres, give tips etc. I don't log this here in the UK, as apparently I cannot. If I was back in America, we'd both be logging the PIC quite happily, and when we go fly aerobatics, they would get some instruction, and dual time, even if they don't have complex/high perf/tailwheel endorsements... we'd both get something out of it. Over here, this isn't possible. What a load of nonsense.
I'm not in it just to build hours, as when I flew in the US, my flight school (where I rented from) only allowed their instructors to instruct in their airplanes... so, as a CFI when I flew my mates, and could have logged time, I didn't. My loss I guess, but I'm not one for upsetting people.
It's all very sad actually, as I believe (as do many others) that for GA flying (even here in the UK) the FAA system is superior to the JAA one, and the instrument rating far more "usable", and attainable (no numerous silly written exams) should people want to go down that route. It is a system designed with safety in mind, and in the knowledge that people will use their training in anger in light airplanes.
To get back to the point though, the issue is only with the CAA here in the UK, and the rules concerning their airspace/aircraft. It even covers N-reg too, so no, you can't have full privileges in one of those over here either. The FAA don't care. Or rather, they "may" care, but nothing in their rules/regs reflect this... so interpret that how you want... and expect that it probably wouldn't stand up in court!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone is charging simply to write an endorsement in your logbook, they are a cheeky swine and should be ashamed. Sure they may want a bit of money towards travelling to meet you and planning/conducting the IPC (I'd be happy just with the experience) but these places/people charging £30-£50 to write an endorsement aren't doing anyone a favour, and people wouldn't last 5 minutes trying that in the States. I don't know what you are referring to about the "required training syllabus". If you mean conducting the test as per the Instrument PTS, it's not really training, just a demonstration of the pilot to meet the IPC requirements. I personally wouldn't turn up and expect to conduct an IPC with someone I didn't know in one session, but it would be possible. And you're right, the CFII would be responsible should a person he/she endorsed make a mess of things somewhere down the line. So, it's not something to be taken lightly, or as a way of making easy money. Still doesn't justify charging for it (purely for the endorsement) though.
I disagree it is a test though. The job of the CFII is to bring the candidate up to the required standard, not to test that they are at the required standard. The FAA are very clear as to what has to be covered in an IPC (for example partial panel, holds. NPA, PA etc...) and as long as this is covered and the candidate is at the required standard by the end of the IPC then they get the endorsement in their logbook.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@englishal
The IPC is a check of a pilot's operating abilities, the idea being that the pilot taking the IPC is assessed as to whether they can perform to the levels required in the Instrument Practical Test Standards. My bad for writing "test".
If they meet these standards, then they would be deemed by the person conducting the IPC to be worthy of receiving the endorsement.
Don't perform at the required level, you don't get the endorsement. And... only an idiot would endorse someone not at the required standard, as it's their ass on the line.
I'm sure you know that anyway but others may not.
I wouldn't say the IPC is useless without an endorsement, as if someone wasn't up to it, they wouldn't receive the endorsement, but would hopefully get something out of it. I personally, as a CFII in this instance, would not give the endorsement, but write the flight up as instrument training, with a list of areas covered. I wouldn't for example write IPC failed, as it's not really a pass/fail thing.
I also wanted to put another point across to avoid the £££/$$$=endorsement idea that some people (not you, as I know now) may have. True, the endorsement is the end goal for the person wanting an IPC, but I don't think cost should be associated with the actual signature. If that makes sense?? I mean, you shouldn't have to pay for any endorsement, as it is just part and parcel of the training you have conducted with an FAA CFI/II, and we are legally required to sign your logbook anyway, for all instruction given. It is a silly British (money grabbing) idea, to pay for an endorsement.
The point I was trying to make, is that I disagree with the idea of selling endorsements... True, the end goal of someone wanting an IPC, is to get endorsed, but if they think they are paying for a signature (and some UK flight schools offering FAA training state £xx per endorsement) then, that would be nonsense. You don't buy one, you pay to fly dual and do an IPC with a qualified person, then they sign you off once they are happy.
Indeed it is, and we were made clear of that when we took our CFI/II practical tests. I am not saying we suddenly go into DPE mode, but in the context of a "check", I would want to do just that, if I was to sign someone off afterwards.
The job of any instructor is to bring someone up to the required standard. However, by the stage of the IPC itself, we are no longer talking about instruction. When a CFII does an IPC, his/her job isn't to teach and walk someone through the manoeuvres. What sort of a check would it be if you were telling them what to do?? If I'm conducting the IPC, and potentially endorsing someone, I would expect them to perform to the required PTS standard without needing any pointers/help along the way.
I'm not trying to sound like a cold/hard/callous sod, but that would be my view on the IPC itself. Ideally, prior to that, I would have worked with and got to know somebody, to train them towards, and ensure they were at the required level to complete it.
The IPC is a check of a pilot's operating abilities, the idea being that the pilot taking the IPC is assessed as to whether they can perform to the levels required in the Instrument Practical Test Standards. My bad for writing "test".
If they meet these standards, then they would be deemed by the person conducting the IPC to be worthy of receiving the endorsement.
Don't perform at the required level, you don't get the endorsement. And... only an idiot would endorse someone not at the required standard, as it's their ass on the line.
I'm sure you know that anyway but others may not.
an IPC is worthless without an endorsement, so the endorsement is the IPC
You misunderstand my post.
The point I was trying to make, is that I disagree with the idea of selling endorsements... True, the end goal of someone wanting an IPC, is to get endorsed, but if they think they are paying for a signature (and some UK flight schools offering FAA training state £xx per endorsement) then, that would be nonsense. You don't buy one, you pay to fly dual and do an IPC with a qualified person, then they sign you off once they are happy.
The job of the CFII is to bring the candidate up to the required standard
The job of any instructor is to bring someone up to the required standard. However, by the stage of the IPC itself, we are no longer talking about instruction. When a CFII does an IPC, his/her job isn't to teach and walk someone through the manoeuvres. What sort of a check would it be if you were telling them what to do?? If I'm conducting the IPC, and potentially endorsing someone, I would expect them to perform to the required PTS standard without needing any pointers/help along the way.
I'm not trying to sound like a cold/hard/callous sod, but that would be my view on the IPC itself. Ideally, prior to that, I would have worked with and got to know somebody, to train them towards, and ensure they were at the required level to complete it.
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much is this guy charging CT?
Let us know how you get on "contacttower", and what the dual-rated examiner's view is on this.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, call it it what you want, but the Instructor will not sign off if the individual exceeded the criteria stipulated in the PTS.
This is one reason why an IPC could be as short or as long as it takes. As mentioned you would never "fail" and IPC - you simply wouldn't get the endorsement until you met the required standard. Without the endorsement the IR is not current and the only reason to do a proper IPC is to re-validate an uncurrent IR (or to re-validate a UK IMCr
).....I try and do one once per year, mainly for my own safety but also to ensure I comply with the FARs and there is no ambiguity. My last one took a couple of hours - after an hour of sim time and an hour in the aeroplane I was back up to speed and got the IPC endorsed in my logbook. Conversely I know someone who hadn't flown in instruments for years and it took him significantly longer and cost him ~$1000 to get up to speed. If you never achieved the required standard then you should never receive the IPC endorsement.
