Welcome Guest. Sign in or Signup

10 Answers

New wording of the instrument proficiency check requirements

Asked by: 15827 views ,
FAA Regulations, Instrument Rating

Hi all,

I'm just wondering how long you have until you are required to complete an instrument proficiency check under the new regulation/wording in the FAR.

 

Here is the way the reg is worded now:

"61.57 (d) Instrument proficiency check. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person who has failed to meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) for more than six calendar months may reestablish instrument currency only by completing an instrument proficiency check. The instrument proficiency check must consist of the areas of operation and instrument tasks required in the instrument rating practical test standards."

 

It seems to imply that you no longer have the 12 months grace period to become proficient (i.e. 6 months actual/sim then another 6 months with a safety pilot). Or does the section saying "... requirements of paragraph (c) for more than six calendar months..." imply that the six calendar months are in addition to the six calendar months of paragraph (c)?

 

Dave

Ace Any FAA Written Test!
Actual FAA Questions / Free Lifetime Updates
The best explanations in the business
Fast, efficient study.
Pass Your Checkride With Confidence!
FAA Practical Test prep that reflects actual checkrides.
Any checkride: Airplane, Helicopter, Glider, etc.
Written and maintained by actual pilot examiners and master CFIs.
The World's Most Trusted eLogbook
Be Organized, Current, Professional, and Safe.
Highly customizable - for student pilots through pros.
Free Transition Service for users of other eLogs.
Our sincere thanks to pilots such as yourself who support AskACFI while helping themselves by using the awesome PC, Mac, iPhone/iPad, and Android aviation apps of our sponsors.

10 Answers



  1. John D. Collins on May 22, 2012

    Your last statement is what they mean.  An example follows.  Say a pilot did the six approaches, holds, and tracking a course on January 1 of 2011. For a flight on July 31st, the pilot is still current, as the six calendar months prior to a July flight would be Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, and June. The first day the pilot “has failed to meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c)” is Aug 1, 2011. For the six calendar months of Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec, and Jan, up until Jan 31, 2012, the pilot may use a safety pilot and accomplish the 6 approaches, etc. to regain currency. On Feb 1, 2012 or later, they must complete an instrument proficiency check to regain currency. 

    +5 Votes Thumb up 6 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  2. Lucas on May 22, 2012

    Well actually Dave you are correct here is the article with clarification:
    Discussion of Technical Amendment to Sec. 61.57(d)
    Section 61.57(c) sets forth the instrument recent flight experience requirements for a pilot to act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR. Under that provision, a pilot must have performed and logged certain tasks and maneuvers within six calendar months preceding the month of the flight on which the pilot intends to serve as pilot in command. Section 61.57(d) sets forth the time when a pilot who does not meet the instrument recent experience requirements of paragraph (c) must accomplish an instrument proficiency check (IPC) before serving as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR.
    In the 2009 final rule, the FAA modified the language in Sec. 61.57(d) to remove confusing language (“within the prescribed time, or within 6 calendar months after the prescribed time”) and replaced it with language that a pilot must perform the instrument recent flight experience within a period of 12 months to avoid having to accomplish an IPC. The FAA acknowledges that the language as modified allows for interpretations inconsistent with the intent of the rule and contrary to the manner the rule has been historically applied.
    In this technical amendment, the FAA is revising the language in paragraph (d) to clarify the intent of the rule. The revised language makes it clear that a pilot who has failed to maintain instrument currency for more than six calendar months may not serve as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR until completing an instrument proficiency check. A pilot whose instrument currency has been lapsed for less than six months may continue to reestablish instrument currency by performing the tasks and maneuvers required in paragraph (c).
    I also just talked to a dear friend of mine that has actually worked on this revision and is now working on revisions to AC-61.98 and has confirmed that the FAA has removed the grace period all together.
    So if you look in your logbook and have done no IFR work in the past 6 months you need to do an IPC.
     
    Lucas
    http://www.passfaaexams.com

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  3. Lucas on May 22, 2012

    And again because I am the main developer of our software that prepares you for the written exams, I enquired with the testing branch of the FAA to see weather they were going to update the questions reflecting the change, and according to them the rule has stayed the same and although the regulation is pretty clear to me, he pointed me to this link in which it is stated that the regulation has not changed.
     
    http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/noticeView.aspx?nid=3489
     
    So I ended up talking to about 10 people between examiners and the FAA. As a result I can tell you that about half of them said that there is no grace period and the other half stated no change to the rule.
    I would save the link above and print its contents and if you ever get into a discussion with anyone regarding currency, I would show them the document.
     
    Lucas
     

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes

  4. Best Answer


    Kris Kortokrax on May 23, 2012

    Take a look at this legal interpretation dated February 28, 2012.
     
    http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2012/Whistman.pdf
     
    The rule has not changed.  This means that half of the people on whom you rely are mistaken.

    +4 Votes Thumb up 5 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  5. Lucas on May 26, 2012

     
    Well Kris
    I have worked as 141 chief pilot under several FSDOs, such as FSDO 15 (Orlando International Airport), FSDO 25 (Teterboro NJ) 11 (Farmingdale NY), also DALLAS, Chicago, etc.
    Now I work closely with OK City and Washington DC for the approval under part 141 of our software, and can assure you that each of them has their own interpretation of many rules. So maybe its just my bad luck, or maybe you are the lucky one but I have found it very difficult if not impossible to get everyone to agree and interpret every rule the same way.
     
    Lucas

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  6. Heliman on May 26, 2012

    If you are current ( within 6 months) jump in and fly IFR. Over 6 months, get current before flying actual IFR, after 1 year, take an IPC. Simple and easy that way.

    +2 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  7. Kris Kortokrax on May 28, 2012

    Lucas,
     
    I, too, have been chief instructor of a 141 school and D/O of a 135 operation and as such have had many dealings with the FAA.  I never chose to leave matters to luck.  If I thought there was the possibility of someone having a conflicting opinion with mine, I took the initiative and contacted the Office of Legal Counsel in D.C.  I then contacted the inspector and advised him of legal’s opinion.
     
    As we all know, examiners are independent contractors authorized by the FAA to administer practical tests.  The are not authorized to offer legal interpretations.  Likewise, FSDO inspectors are not permitted to offer legal interpretations.  Even John Lynch, who wrote Part 61 and certainly knew what he meant when he wrote the rules, was overruled by Legal Counsel.
     
    Everyone is entitled to an opinion.  Few are in a position to offer a legal interpretation.  That’s why I posted the legal interpretation.  It trumps the opinions of examiners, FSDO inspectors and FAASafety.gov.

    +3 Votes Thumb up 4 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  8. Dave M on May 29, 2012

    Thanks for the feedback fellas.
     
    As you can imagine, this is exactly the kind of discussion that’s been going on around the office (i.e. school) although we had less former Chief Flight Instructors. lol!  Seems that the FAA made the regulation even more confusing, not less, by changing the wording.
     
    Heliman: Your suggestion is valid, if the regulation has not changed otherwise you’d have to take an IPC after those first 6 months.
     
    After viewing both links provided by Lucas and Kris, the consensus around the “office” is that the regulation has not changed and we still have the 6+6 months. Of course the easy solution is to just remain current within those first 6 months, but we were worried about what we were teaching the students (and our own legalities should we lapse, of course).
     
    Thanks again, guys.

    -1 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  9. Kris Kortokrax on May 29, 2012

    Interesting thing is that no one appeared to misunderstand the regulation as it was formerly written.
     
    The FAA chose to exercise the maxim “If it isn’t broke, fix it till it is”.

    +3 Votes Thumb up 3 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  10. Matthew Waugh on May 30, 2012

    When you “talk to the FAA” and they give you an opinion just say “that shounds great, could you drop me an e-mail saying that?” If they don’t decline on the phone they’ll forget and you won’t get your e-mail.
     
    They’re not stupid – they know only the Chief Counsel has the final word – and they won’t commit to anything in writing. My experience is that an “FAA” opinion will be as varied as the opinions you can get in a room full of pilots. The phrase “I called the FSDO, and this is what they said” might was well say “I called my hairdresser, and this is what he said”.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes


Answer Question

Our sincere thanks to all who contribute constructively to this forum in answering flight training questions. If you are a flight instructor or represent a flight school / FBO offering flight instruction, you are welcome to include links to your site and related contact information as it pertains to offering local flight instruction in a specific geographic area. Additionally, direct links to FAA and related official government sources of information are welcome. However we thank you for your understanding that links to other sites or text that may be construed as explicit or implicit advertising of other business, sites, or goods/services are not permitted even if such links nominally are relevant to the question asked.