Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
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?
???
???
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
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.
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.
Going for the deck at corner
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
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.
Because it's the experience that's required, not the signature. You should be trustworthy enough to "validate" your own approaches.C-GGGQ wrote: 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?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
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.photofly wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:10 pm 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.
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.
Going for the deck at corner
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
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.
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.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
I do it all the time. Looking out for traffic but inside for flying. In fact, by not looking outside the majority of the time, my brain likely has no idea what a proper outside attitude for straight and level flight is in the current conditions. I use solely the AI to maintain a proper attitude that will result in desired performance.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.
Not quite true. The Instrument Rating Flight Test Guide says the following:
An Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) is to be conducted in accordance with Advisory Circular (AC) 401-004 - Second Edition
There is no mention of the vision limiting device in the aforementionned AC with regards to the conduct of the test itself (although it is mentionned for proficiency flights in preparation for the IPC
Going for the deck at corner
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
From the IFR flt test guide.
Other Equipment
The candidate will supply the following publications and ancillary equipment:
Where the test is conducted in an aircraft, an effective means of excluding outside visual reference to simulate instrument flight conditions, while maintaining a safe level of visibility for the examiner or safety pilot.
Other Equipment
The candidate will supply the following publications and ancillary equipment:
Where the test is conducted in an aircraft, an effective means of excluding outside visual reference to simulate instrument flight conditions, while maintaining a safe level of visibility for the examiner or safety pilot.
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
It says you have to have it, but not that you need to actually use it. The CPL flight test guide does say "Items 24A, B, C and D will require the candidate to wear a suitable view-limiting device."B208 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:45 am From the IFR flt test guide.
Other Equipment
The candidate will supply the following publications and ancillary equipment:
Where the test is conducted in an aircraft, an effective means of excluding outside visual reference to simulate instrument flight conditions, while maintaining a safe level of visibility for the examiner or safety pilot.
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
The IPC is to be conducted IAW the mentionned AC, not the IR Flight Test Guie.B208 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:45 am From the IFR flt test guide.
Other Equipment
The candidate will supply the following publications and ancillary equipment:
Where the test is conducted in an aircraft, an effective means of excluding outside visual reference to simulate instrument flight conditions, while maintaining a safe level of visibility for the examiner or safety pilot.
Going for the deck at corner
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
Are you guys lawyers or pilots? The purpose of an IPC or an IFR flight test is to determine whether or not a candidate can fly without outside references. It stands to reason that some method of denying the candidate said references will be used, be that actual IMC conditions, a hood, or setting the wx conditions to IMC in an simulator. Expecting to be able to look out the window while having your ability to fly IFR assessed is not reasonable.
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
No, it doesn't. I did my initial test with no view limiting device in VMC. You can fly in VMC solely with reference to the instruments, which is what I did.
You're confused. Just because you're not using a view limiting device doesn't mean you're going to be looking out the window. My examiner said I could fly without a hood if I didn't look out the window, and I said that was ok.Expecting to be able to look out the window while having your ability to fly IFR assessed is not reasonable.
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
Your examiner that day was Santa Clausesque. The examiner is not obligated to let you fly it that way
No confusion at all. If your examiner wants to trust that you won't look out the window that is their business. If the examiner wants to put you under the hood to ensure that you don't look out the window that is also their choice. You would wise to be ready for either. I would submit that flying without outside visual references is a much better assessment of your IFR skills than flying with them available.You're confused. Just because you're not using a view limiting device doesn't mean you're going to be looking out the window. My examiner said I could fly without a hood if I didn't look out the window, and I said that was ok.Expecting to be able to look out the window while having your ability to fly IFR assessed is not reasonable.
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
Do you have a reference for that?
I was, of course. It would be very unwise not to be.If the examiner wants to put you under the hood to ensure that you don't look out the window that is also their choice. You would wise to be ready for either.
In my experience, there isn't really much difference flying a late model 172 with foggles vs just looking at the instruments without any view limiting device. With both of them you see only the instruments and the ground out the side windows. Foggles and hoods are a pretty poor substitute for actual IMC.I would submit that flying without outside visual references is a much better assessment of your IFR skills than flying with them available.
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
Two stage amber is the answer it allows you normal vision inside the airplane with zero outside vision.
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
It's overkill.
If you're looking outside, you're just cheating yourself.
If you're doing something like a partial panel unusual attitude recovery, it's going to be really obvious to a good instructor if you aren't doing the correct actions in the correct order referencing the correct instruments.
If you're looking outside, you're just cheating yourself.
If you're doing something like a partial panel unusual attitude recovery, it's going to be really obvious to a good instructor if you aren't doing the correct actions in the correct order referencing the correct instruments.
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
What is overkill?It's overkill.
Can you elaborate on what you are referring to?
Re: Still confused with the new instruments renewal requirements
Of all the subjects we discuss here I consider flight instruction the most important because good instruction techniques will make for better results than poor techniques, which will result in overall better piloting skills in the flying industry.
The subject of teaching flight by reference only to flight instruments is a prime example and I really do not understand why any instructor would choose having the student wear a hood or foggles to simulate zero outside visual clues.
To the best of my recall there are only two ways to properly remove any outside visual clues when training, first is teaching in IMC conditions and second is using two stage amber to prevent the student from getting any outside visual clues.
Having them wear a hood or foggles is lazy teaching because these devices are unorthodox and interfere with the normal visual field of the student.
Flight by reference to instruments only is a normal part of commercial flying and thus the skill should be taught properly from the start.
One of the most difficult take off's and climb outs I ever encountered was on a perfectly clear sunny day with no wind and I was thankful that I was able to do it by reference to instruments only without having a serious or fatal crash.
How many instructors teach take off's and landings without any outside visual clues?
The subject of teaching flight by reference only to flight instruments is a prime example and I really do not understand why any instructor would choose having the student wear a hood or foggles to simulate zero outside visual clues.
To the best of my recall there are only two ways to properly remove any outside visual clues when training, first is teaching in IMC conditions and second is using two stage amber to prevent the student from getting any outside visual clues.
Having them wear a hood or foggles is lazy teaching because these devices are unorthodox and interfere with the normal visual field of the student.
Flight by reference to instruments only is a normal part of commercial flying and thus the skill should be taught properly from the start.
One of the most difficult take off's and climb outs I ever encountered was on a perfectly clear sunny day with no wind and I was thankful that I was able to do it by reference to instruments only without having a serious or fatal crash.
How many instructors teach take off's and landings without any outside visual clues?