PDA

View Full Version : Should an annual IPC be mandatory and require use of simulators?



Radek.cfi
02-23-2016, 03:46 PM
Should an annual Instrument Proficiency Check be mandatory,require a minimum flight time and use of a simulators?

Auburntsts
02-23-2016, 04:10 PM
Although I see goodness in an IPC, I'm not for making it an annual requirement. But if I did I would definitely be against setting min hours and use of a sim.

Mike M
02-23-2016, 09:41 PM
Should an annual Instrument Proficiency Check be mandatory,require a minimum flight time and use of a simulators?

No.

dougbush
02-24-2016, 01:42 AM
No.

gmatejcek
03-01-2016, 11:18 PM
Um, NO.

JIM FLYNN
03-02-2016, 10:02 AM
Should an annual Instrument Proficiency Check be mandatory,require a minimum flight time and use of a simulators?

No.

martymayes
03-02-2016, 10:17 AM
no





Good discussion.

Radek.cfi
03-02-2016, 02:49 PM
It is funny, somehow I was expecting this kind of response after I included "mandatory" in my question. I am not going to tell you yet if I agree or disagree with this question but would you mind telling me: why not?... anybody?

Auburntsts
03-02-2016, 03:50 PM
It is funny, somehow I was expecting this kind of response after I included "mandatory" in my question. I am not going to tell you yet if I agree or disagree with this question but would you mind telling me: why not?... anybody?

I simply don't see how adding more seemingly arbitrary requirements adds any value to the process.

martymayes
03-02-2016, 05:19 PM
I think the question is asking too much at one time. I'm not against an annual IPC. I'm not against a minimum hourly training requirement. I'm not against the use of simulators. But when it's all rolled into one question with no wiggle room, the answer is no.

Mayhemxpc
03-02-2016, 09:01 PM
Short answer: NO

However…my insurance company requires one

FAR 61.56 requires "A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate." If the pilot certificate includes instrument privileges, then the review should include maneuvers and procedures demonstrating that you can fly the needles.

JIM FLYNN
03-03-2016, 07:10 AM
It is funny, somehow I was expecting this kind of response after I included "mandatory" in my question. I am not going to tell you yet if I agree or disagree with this question but would you mind telling me: why not?... anybody?

My "no" response was related to any additional requirement (regulation) directed by FAA or any other government agency. I already get periodic IPC's when I am current, without the FAA telling me to do so. I do get most Instrument training in an aircraft but am not in anyway opposed to simulator training, only a requirement to.

MEdwards
03-03-2016, 12:44 PM
A requirement for simulator training is absurd. I have no access to an approved simulator within at least 50 miles, and I'm not even sure about that. Possibly 250 miles if there isn't one short of Albuquerque.

Bob Dingley
03-05-2016, 09:50 PM
As ME says, Sim availability can be an issue. Also, a semi annual IPC is a lot simpler than digging through your logs and counting approaches. I never really came around to logging holding either.

ssmdive
03-09-2016, 09:48 PM
Should an annual Instrument Proficiency Check be mandatory,require a minimum flight time and use of a simulators?


No. The FAA is trying hard enough to stop aviation, lets not give them more power to do it.

Mike M
03-10-2016, 08:05 AM
A requirement for simulator training is absurd.

Concur. An allowance for recurrent sim training/proficiency in lieu of aircraft recurrent training/proficiency, not absurd. DEPENDING ON THE SIMULATOR.

Most people can benefit from using X-plane or Microsoft Flight Sim for IFR practice. Consider using the services of an instructor when you do. Seriously. But don't even consider logging it to substitute for a "real" simulator.

wxbrieferz001
03-12-2016, 08:10 AM
Concur. An allowance for recurrent sim training/proficiency in lieu of aircraft recurrent training/proficiency, not absurd. DEPENDING ON THE SIMULATOR.

Most people can benefit from using X-plane or Microsoft Flight Sim for IFR practice. Consider using the services of an instructor when you do. Seriously. But don't even consider logging it to substitute for a "real" simulator.

These software bundles do serve a purpose for instrument rated and current pilots. They help the pilot with his constant scanning technic to keep the aircraft going where he want it to in a safe manor. This is an inexpensive aid to a pilot keeping his skills up to safe levels needed for actual instrument flight. Other than that issue. It is a fun game and no more. Do not put yourself in a position that you have to explain and defend your logbook to an FAA Designated inspector. It has happened in the past and it never ends well for the pilot. Be safe, first , last, and always. Fly with your flight instructor two, four, or six times a year so he/she can help you maintain and be a safe IFR current pilot. Later, wx.

Mike M
03-12-2016, 06:55 PM
... This is an inexpensive aid to a pilot keeping his skills up to safe levels needed for actual instrument flight.....

Thanks. I never considered helping the scan. I find the PC-based "simulators" very helpful for learning how to mess with the nav radios. Make up a flight plan for an in-aircraft lesson, run it in on the computer, hit all the checkpoints and holding and channel changes etc etc. Use 'PAUSE' as needed to talk everything over as it happens. Then go do it the next day for real. No 'PAUSE' button. Procedures and flow pattern. That's what I meant. Guess I've been under-utilizing the capabilities.