Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements

[charles2690]

Hi,

I was not able to find the answer, even using the search feature. Could someone confirm that I understood the instruments renewal requirement please?

1) After the initial rating or any IPC, you are good for a full 12 months without any other requirements.
2) After 12 months, you need to comply with the 6 approach, 6 hours in the last 6 months.
3) If your rating expired for more than 24 months, your only option is a new flight test in an actual plane, but the INRAT is valid forever.

Am I right? Am I missing anything?

Thank you so much

[photofly]

3 is not correct. You can do an IPC, at any time, which is not that different to a new flight test.

[charles2690]

Thank you for the clear answer!

[photofly]

No problem.

I hope it's the right answer.

[Addicted4life]

My understanding is the IPC may be done in an approved simulator, or the Redbird until January 1, 2018. It doesn't have to be in an actual airplane. Please if I am wrong let me know as I am prepping now to get my IFR current/valid and have been planning on the Redbird scenario. If I have to do it in an actual aircraft my cost go up significantly.

[charles2690]

Where did you got that thing about January 1st?

[Addicted4life]

Post subject: Redbird Sim, IPCs and RNAV Approaches

scroll down this index.

[Aviatard]

Please if I am wrong let me know

You are not wrong.

[Addicted4life]

Thank you Aviatard.

[Addicted4life]

I thought I might have missed something in all my research getting ready for my IPC. A lot has changed since I last did my INRAT and subsequent rides. So far I have nothing bad too say about pilotraining.ca and their online ground schools. For an old dog they are proving to be a great refresher. I may not have to write the INRAT again but I felt I had better study and train like I do. Same for the IPC.

[MrAviator19]

Hi,

I was not able to find the answer, even using the search feature. Could someone confirm that I understood the instruments renewal requirement please?

1) After the initial rating or any IPC, you are good for a full 12 months without any other requirements.
2) After 12 months, you need to comply with the 6 approach, 6 hours in the last 6 months.
3) If your rating expired for more than 24 months, your only option is a new flight test in an actual plane, but the INRAT is valid forever.

Am I right? Am I missing anything?

Thank you so much

From what I remember doing the INRAT:

Your instrument rating is valid for 24 months - to renew, you could either do a flight evaluation (almost like a flight test) or sim evaluation (full motion sim like redbird). However, to keep your rating current, you need 6 hours with 6 approaches to minimums in the preceding 6 months. So if you haven't flown IFR in the last 6 months at all or only done 0-5.9 hrs of it, you need to head back in the sim or aircraft with an instructor to get your currency back. I don't remember reading that you're good for the first 12 months without doing anything. The 6-6-6 rule applies after initial flight test up until next renewal, and then you do it all over again.

[photofly]

Not quite.

To meet the recency requirement to exercise the privileges of you IR, you must have done an instrument flight test or instrument proficiency test (or similar) in the last 12 months, or the last 24 months AND meet the 6-6-6 rule.

Instrument ratings no longer expire, so the rule above is good, regardless of when you last flew on intruments or passed your last or initial test ride or currency check. You never have to write the INRAT again.

[dougj]

Additional questions on this topic:
If your currency lapses (6/6/6) do you have to go foggle flying with an instructor as MrAviator19 says above? Can't you log hood time with a pilot friend who is not an instructor?
To log an instrument approach it has to be "to minimums": Everyone seems to have a different interpretation on this: does it have to be in instrument conditions? That would mean breaking out at 201 feet on an ils wouldn't count nor would an approach in vfr. I've been playing it safe and only logging hood time approaches to minimums while relying on my pilot friends to watch put for traffic.
Signed Mr Cautious , but very popular with my pilot friends.

[Aviatard]

If your currency lapses (6/6/6) do you have to go foggle flying with an instructor as MrAviator19 says above? Can't you log hood time with a pilot friend who is not an instructor?

CARS 401.05(3)b says:
... or in a flight training device under the supervision of a person who holds the qualifications referred to in subsection 425.21(9) of the Personnel Licensing and Training Standards respecting Flight Training;

So, only if you're using a flight training device are you required to be under the supervision of an instructor, OR a commercial or ATPL with 500 PIC hours and 100 hours on the aircraft group, and in the case of a multi-engine aircraft, 10 hours on type.
If you are using an aircraft, you do not have to have an instructor on board.

If you're under VFR it would be wise to have a safety person on board, otherwise who is looking outside for traffic? ATC is not obligated to separate you from other traffic, although the vast majority of the time they do a great job of it.

CARS 602.01 says:
602.01 No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.

To log an instrument approach it has to be "to minimums": Everyone seems to have a different interpretation on this: does it have to be in instrument conditions? That would mean breaking out at 201 feet on an ils wouldn't count nor would an approach in vfr.

CARS 401.05(3)b says:
... within the six months preceding the flight, acquired six hours of instrument time and completed six instrument approaches to the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions,

Simulated instrument meteorological conditions means foggles would do. You just have to fly that ILS down to minimums before breaking it off. It doesn't matter where the cloud bases were.

It's not well defined what happens in the case where you're in actual conditions, without foggles, and you break out of cloud before reaching minumums. A reasonable assumption would be that approach would still count, but reason doesn't necessarily apply to the CARS.

[C-GGGQ]

, only if you're using a flight training device are you required to be under the supervision of an instructor, OR a commercial or ATPL with 500 PIC hours and 100 hours on the aircraft group, and in the case of a multi-engine aircraft, 10 hours on type.
If you are using an aircraft, you do not have to have an instructor on board.

If you're under VFR it would be wise to have a safety person on board, otherwise who is looking outside for traffic? ATC is not obligated to separate you from other traffic, although the vast majority of the time they do a great job of it.

If you are in an aircraft with no instructor on board who is to say you were "under the hood" or not? So would that even count?

[photofly]

If you are in an aircraft with no instructor on board who is to say you were "under the hood" or not?

You are.

So would that even count?

Yes.

[AuxBatOn]

Where does it say you even need a hood?

[photofly]

It says “simulated instrument time”. Yes, we know you have a fancy head-up display that you wouldn’t be able to see if you wore a hood.

[AuxBatOn]

It says “simulated instrument time”. Yes, we know you have a fancy head-up display that you wouldn’t be able to see if you wore a hood.

Do you have to have a hood to count simulated instrument time?

[C-GGGQ]

That's what I'm wondering. If you do require hood/ foggles then you would think an instructor to "validate" the approaches/ be safety lookout would be require. However, if no instructor is required and I'm not dumb enough to foggle up solo and just fly 6 instrument approaches in vmc to minimums what's the point of even having the requirement? Other than maybe the 6 hours instrument flight nullifies the whole 6 approaches vmc cause your still need legit ifr flight time? I'm happy I never have to write an inrat again, but it feels like they went about this in the dumbest way (havent flown in a few years and had no idea that the ifr had changed)

[marakii]

So I can go up in a real multi and shoot 6 aproaches and landings as long as I have a safety pilot beside me with 500 hours and 100 hours on twins and 10 on type and they'll validate my IPC?

???

[AuxBatOn]

An IPC has to be conducted by an ACP. So, no.

The rules are perfectly clear conduct 6 hrs of actual or simulated IMC and shoot 6 approaches every 6 months or have completed the IPC in the last 6 months.

Actual IMC time is whenever the flight is conducted in weather conditions other than VMC (and this changes with airspace class)

Simulated IMC is time when in VMC but solely using the instruments to control the aircraft. No need for hood or safety pilot (except when conducting a flight test)

Approaches have to be flown to MDA/DH/DA. This doesn't mean they have to be conducted in actual IMC with weather to minima. It means you have to complete the procedure (it: get to MDA/DH/DA and either continue to landing or conduct a missed approach.

[photofly]

Simulated IMC is time when in VMC but solely using the instruments to control the aircraft. No need for hood or safety pilot (except when conducting a flight test)

Arguably, if you're controlling the aircraft solely by reference to the instruments, you can't be looking outside, so if it's VMC then you need a safety person to look for other planes. That person doesn't have to be a pilot though. A hood is one way to make sure you don't "cheat", but it's not mentioned in the CARs so hard to say it's required.

I didn't wear one for my last three Instrument Rating re-rides and latterly IPCs.

you would think an instructor to "validate" the approaches/ be safety lookout would be require. However, if no instructor is required and I'm not dumb enough to foggle up solo and just fly 6 instrument approaches in vmc to minimums what's the point of even having the requirement?

Because it's the experience that's required, not the signature. You should be trustworthy enough to "validate" your own approaches.

[AuxBatOn]

Arguably, if you're controlling the aircraft solely by reference to the instruments, you can't be looking outside, so if it's VMC then you need a safety person to look for other planes. That person doesn't have to be a pilot though. A hood is one way to make sure you don't "cheat", but it's not mentioned in the CARs so hard to say it's required.

I didn't wear one for my last three Instrument Rating re-rides and latterly IPCs.

You can easily look out for other purposes than controlling the aircraft, such as looking out for traffic, and looking inside for aircraft control. I do this pretty much anytime I fly by myself on a training flight and log it as sim instrument (and TC never raised the issue when I applied for the ATPL), even in aircraft without HUD.

As far as hood goes, I have never done a instrument rating flight test with TC but did an IPC somewhat recently. It was without a hood too. I'd have to search through CARs 421 to see if it is applicable to IPCs.

[photofly]

I think it would be impossible to look outside of the front window of an aircraft in VMC and not subconsciously mentally integrate the sight picture one is presented with, with the information from the instruments - and thereby no longer be flying only by reference to the instruments. At least, I am not Zen-master enough both to see the horizon and not see the horizon at the same time.

The flight test guide for instrument rating flight tests (which is adopted for IPCs) requires the candidate to provide a "view-limiting device" as a prerequisite for entry to the test.