AOPA Proposes IPC Changes

AOPA has asked FAA to remove two tasks from the requirements to complete an instrument proficiency check (IPC):

• Demonstrate a circle-to-land approach and
• Landing from an instrument approach

Eliminating these two tasks would make it possible to accomplish an IPC entirely in an ATD or FTD. You can read AOPA’s detailed proposal here.

The change would also complement the update to the IFR currency rules that FAA published in 2018. The items required for an IPC are listed in a task table in Appendix A of the Instrument Rating ACS, and the update to the regulations caused some confusion, which I wrote about here and here.

IPC Requirements Table

Another Update on IPCs

Changes to the wording of 14 CFR Part 61.57(d) in July 2018 caused confusion among some flight instructors about which tasks are now required when administering an instrument proficiency check (IPC). I earlier wrote about a question that I posed to FAA and the agency’s response in Clarification of IPC Requirements.

As that post notes, the FAA still requires an IPC to include the tasks listed in Appendix A of the Instrument Rating-Airplane ACS.

FAA released an editorial update to AC 61-98D Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check, but Appendix J of that document still referenced the old language of 14 CFR Part 61.57(d), so I wrote FAA again to point out the error and ask for clarification.

Here’s part of the response that I received via email:

Background. As stated in the preamble discussion addressing the revised regulatory text language in § 61.57(d), “The FAA finds that this revision is not a substantive change because the areas of operation and instrument tasks required for an IPC remain unchanged. Thus, an IPC is still driven by the standards for the instrument rating practical test.” For instance, just as § 61.65(c) describes the areas of operation that a pilot must meet to complete the instrument rating practical test successfully, the ACS provides the required tasks, details, and level of proficiency for successful completion of that practical test. The Instrument Rating ACS also include the tasks that a pilot must accomplish for the successful completion of an IPC, as well as providing the associated proficiency standards applicable to the areas of operation identified in §61.57(d). Bear in mind that § 61.43(a)(3), Practical tests: General procedures, require examiners to conduct evaluations under approved standards. It states, “(a) Completion of the practical test for a certificate or rating consists of—3) Demonstrating proficiency and competency within the approved standards.” Applicable ACS/PTS documents provide FAA approved standards. In this same manner, the FAA provides the standards by which an authorized instructor must conduct an IPC. Therefore, the FAA still requires the use of applicable ACS/PTS to provide the tasks and standards for an IPC. The tasks required for an IPC are still driven by the approved standards for the instrument rating practical test.

Response. In review of your feedback, our office determined that your observation is correct. The FAA did not update the regulatory reference to § 61.57(d) in AC 61-98D, Appendix J, which can cause confusion. To correct this inaccuracy, we will:

1. Revise AC 61-98D by correcting its reference to § 61.57(d) containing obsolete regulatory text and replace it with the current regulatory text in § 61.57(d);
2. Provide additional information explaining the basis for the requirement to use the approved standards provided by ACS/PTS, as applicable, in the conduct of an IPC; and
3. Submit an editorial revision correcting this matter at the time of the next approved revision period for AC 61-98D.

Clarification of IPC Requirements

FAA published several updates to IFR currency requirments in June 2018. One of the changes, to 14 CFR Part 61.57(d), removed the reference to the Instrument Rating ACS, which includes both guidance and a task table in appendix A that specifies the areas of operation that must be completed to accomplish an instrument proficiency check.

The change to the language of 14 CFR Part 61.57(d), however, implied that the task table no longer applied, and I wrote the FAA to ask for clarification. Here is the response that I received on October 17, 2018:

Question 1.

Does the table in the IFR ACS (p. A-12) still apply? In other words, must an IPC candidate demonstrate all of the tasks specified in that table, or does the CFII administering the IPC have discretion (as when conducting a flight review) to select specific tasks from the areas codified in 61.57(d)?

Answer: Yes. The tasks identified on page A-12 of the Instrument ACS, for the successful completion of an Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC), is still applicable. Just as 61.65(c) describes the areas of operation that a pilot must show proficiency in for the instrument rating practical test, the Airman Certification Standards (ACS) provides the tasks, details, and level of proficiency required for successful completion of that practical test. This includes what tasks must be accomplished for the successful completion of a IPC, and the associated proficiency standards applicable to the areas of operation identified in 61.57(d).

Question 2.

Do the limitations on the use of ATDs and FTDs noted in the IFR ACS still apply? For example, most ATDs are not approved for circle-to-land approaches. But if a CFII chooses not to include c-t-l tasks during an IPC, can the instructor the IFR pilot receiving and IPC, complete the IPC in an FTD that is otherwise approved for instrument training and proficiency, especially given the changes to § 67.57(c) that will become effective in November?

Answer: Yes, those limitations still apply. The FAA letter of authorization (LOA) provided for each model ATD, references part 61.57(d) and the ACS/PTS requirements when accomplishing an IPC in an AATD. A flight instructor could complete the IPC in a qualified FTD that is approved for instrument training and proficiency. The revised 61.57 (d) rule that becomes effective November 27, 2018, allows for any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, and/or ATD to accomplish the instrument experience requirements.

Question 3.

Does the FAA plan to update its guidance for conducting IPCs in the IFR ACS, AC 61-98D, and IPC Guidance (v.1.1 March 2010)?

Answer: The guidance for the appropriate and successful conduct of a IPC, as described in AC 61-98D and the IPC Guidance, remains valid. It is possible that updates to this guidance may be provided, as input from the field and industry comes forward. We continue to promote scenario based training to proficiency, to otherwise improve safety during IFR flight operations and reduce the accident rate.

Sincerely,

Marcel Bernard
Aviation Safety Inspector
Aviation Training Device (ATD) National Program Manager

My original email to the FAA, which provided additional background, appears below.

14 CFR Part 61.57(d) governing IPCs was revised effective July 27, 2018. The text of the regulation now reads:

(d) Instrument proficiency check. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person who has failed to meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for more than six calendar months may reestablish instrument currency only by completing an instrument proficiency check. The instrument proficiency check must consist of at least the following areas of operation:

(i) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;

(ii) Flight by reference to instruments;

(iii) Navigation systems;

(iv) Instrument approach procedures;

(v) Emergency operations; and

(vi) Postflight procedures.

When the new regulations were published in the Federal Register, the discussion of the changes to § 61.57(d) included the following text:

In § 61.57(d), the FAA is removing the reference to the PTS. The FAA recognizes that it was inappropriate for § 61.57(d) to state that the areas of operation and instrument tasks were required in the instrument rating PTS. The PTS and ACS do not contain regulatory requirements. Therefore, rather than referencing the instrument rating ACS in § 61.57(d), the FAA is codifying in § 61.57(d) the areas of operation for an IPC. The FAA finds that this revision is not a substantive change because the areas of operation and instrument tasks required for an IPC remain unchanged. Thus, an IPC is still driven by the standards for the instrument rating practical test.

I am among the instructors who are confused by the above statement. As you know the current Instrument-Airplane ACS includes a table (p. A-12) that outlines the specific Tasks required to accomplish an IPC. Those Tasks include a circle-to-land approach, recoveries from unusual attitudes, and other “flight activities” that are also described, for example, in the checklist in AC 61-98D Appendix J.

The background text from the Federal Register notes that “…an IPC is still driven by the standards for the instrument rating practical test” (emphasis added). I take that to mean that pilots must meet the ACS standards for maintaining altitude, heading, speed, tracking courses, etc. while performing various tasks.

I note that the background text in the Federal Register says that “the areas of operation and instrument tasks required for an IPC remain unchanged.”

But the language of the revised language and the background text in the Federal Register support the idea that § 61.57(d) now codifies the areas of operation for an IPC. However, the list in the updated regulation does not specifically include a circle-to-land approach, recoveries from unusual attitudes, and other details listed in the ACS table and AC 61-98D. This disagreement raises two important questions:

1)     Does the table in the IFR ACS (p. A-12) still apply? In other words, must an IPC candidate demonstrate all of the tasks specified in that table, or does the CFII administering the IPC have discretion (as when conducting a flight review) to select specific tasks from the areas codified in 67.57(d)?

2)     Do the limitations on the use of ATDs and FTDs noted in the IFR ACS still apply? For example, most ATDs are not approved for circle-to-land approaches. But if a CFII chooses not to include c-t-l tasks during an IPC, can the instructor the IFR pilot receiving and IPC, complete the IPC in an FTD that is otherwise approved for instrument training and proficiency, especially given the changes to § 67.57(c) that will become effective in November?

Finally, to clarify the above questions, does the FAA plan to update its guidance for conducting IPCs in the IFR ACS, AC 61-98D, and IPC Guidance (v.1.1 March 2010)?

New AC for ATDs

FAA has published AC 61-136B, FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices and Their Use for Training and Experience, an update to the previous edition of the advisory circular.

I wrote about the earlier update to this AC in 2013, here. See also New IFR Currency Rules and Other Changes to 14 CFR Part 61.

The Foundation from one-G, an AATD based on the C172, is among the newest FAA-approved ATDs.

This AC provides information and guidance for Aviation Training Device (ATD) manufacturers seeking Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval of a basic aviation training device (BATD) or advanced aviation training device (AATD)…

This AC also provides information and guidance for those persons who intend to use a BATD or AATD for activities involving pilot training and experience, other than for practical tests, aircraft-type-specific training, or an aircraft type rating.

For most pilots, flight schools, and flight instructors, the most relevant section is Appendix D, Training Content and Logging Provisions, which includes a syllabus for integrated training using ATDs.

That appendix also clarifies how pilots and CFI should log time when using ATDs.

Logging Training Time and Experience. Authorized instructors utilizing an FAA-approved ATD for airmen training, pilot time, and experience requirements are required to log the time as dual instruction and as basic aviation training device (BATD) or advanced aviation training device (AATD) time appropriately. Any columns that reference flight time should remain blank when logging ATD time. ATD time can only be logged as Instruction Received (Dual), Instrument Time, or Total Time as reflected on the pilot time section of FAA Form 8710-1, Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application. Simulated instrument time can be logged in an ATD, but only during the time when the visual component of the training session is configured for instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and the pilot is maintaining control solely by reference to the flight instruments. Logging time in this fashion will allow a pilot to credit this time towards the aeronautical experience and instrument experience requirements as specified in part 61 or part 141. It is required under § 61.51(b)(1)(iv) that the type and identification of the ATD be included when logging pilot time as described in the letter of authorization (LOA)….

Note: There are no restrictions on the amount of training accomplished and logged in training devices. However, the regulatory limitations on maximum credit allowed for the minimum pilot certification requirements are specified by parts 61 and 141 and in the LOA. No approvals or authorizations are provided for aircraft type ratings using ATDs.

New IFR Currency Rules and Other Changes to 14 CFR Part 61

On June 27, 2018, FAA published an extensive revision to sections of 14 CFR Part 61 governing IFR currency with the use of aviation training devices, the role of technically advanced aircraft (TAA) in training for certain certificates and ratings, and many other important changes. You can download the PDF of the final rule here.

This rule is result of an NPRM published in May 2016, which you read about at BruceAir here.

Some of the new regulations should become effective July 28, 2018. Others will be effective later; the details of the effective dates are in the final rule and provided later this article.

The September/October 2018 issue of FAA Safety Briefing includes a summary of key provisions in the new regulations and their effective dates. See p. 28.

The new regulations of primary interest to general aviation pilots:

• Allow instrument-rated pilots to maintain IFR currency using an ATD, FTD, or FSS without having an instructor present. The IFR currency rules also now make no distinction between tasks performed in an ATD, FTD, or FSS and an aircraft.
• Change some provisions related to the completion of an instrument proficiency check (IPC).
• Allow the use of technically advanced aircraft in lieu of or in combination with complex aircraft to acquire 10 hours of flight time formerly required in a complex aircraft for commercial pilot applicants.

SUMMARY: This rulemaking relieves burdens on pilots seeking to obtain aeronautical experience, training, and certification by increasing the allowed use of aviation training devices. Use of these training devices has proven to be an effective, safe, and affordable means of obtaining pilot experience. This rulemaking also addresses changing technologies by accommodating the use of technically advanced airplanes as an alternative to the use of older complex single engine airplanes for the commercial pilot training and testing requirements. Additionally, this rulemaking broadens the opportunities for military instructor pilots or pilot examiners to obtain civilian ratings based on military experience, expands opportunities for logging pilot time, and removes a burden from sport pilot instructors by permitting them to serve as safety pilots. Finally, this rulemaking includes changes to some of the provisions established in an August 2009 final rule. These actions are necessary to bring the regulations in line with current needs and activities of the general aviation training community and pilots.

The following is an analysis of the new rules that are of interest primiarly to pilots operating under 14 CFR Parts 61 and 91. To understand all of the new regulations and how they affect certain commercial operators and flight training programs, you should review the entire text of the final rule.

CFI No Longer Required when using FFS, FTD, or ATD to Maintain IFR Currency

The FAA is amending § 61.51(g) by revising paragraph (g)(4) and adding a new paragraph (g)(5) to allow a pilot to accomplish instrument recency experience when using a FFS, FTD, or ATD without an instructor present, provided a logbook or training record is maintained to specify the approved training device, time, and the content as appropriate.

To learn more about the definitions of FSS, FTD, and ATD, see the final rule and AC 61-136.

A pilot will still need to have an instructor present when using time in a FFS, FTD, or ATD to acquire instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate or rating.

And the new rule does not changes the provisions of § 61.51 that require an instrument proficiency check if a pilot does not maintain IFR currency.

Here’s the revised language:

§ 61.51 (g) (5) A person may use time in a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for satisfying instrument recency experience requirements provided a logbook or training record is maintained to specify the training device, time, and the content.

(h) Logging training time. (1) A person may log training time when that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device.

The new language for § 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command is:

(c) (2) Use of a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for maintaining instrument experience. A pilot may accomplish the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section in a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device provided the device represents the category of aircraft for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained and the pilot performs the tasks and iterations in simulated instrument conditions. A person may complete the instrument experience in any combination of an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device.

The FAA’s analysis of the comments on the proposal notes that:

…[B]ecause instrument recency experience is not training, the FAA no longer believes it is necessary to have an instructor present when instrument recency experience is accomplished in an FSTD or ATD. The FAA is therefore removing the requirement for an authorized instructor to be present when a pilot accomplishes his or her instrument recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD…

As with instrument recency experience accomplished in an aircraft, § 61.57(c) requires the pilot to log the required tasks in his or her logbook and § 61.51(b) requires certain information to be logged, including the type and identification of the FSTD or ATD. Additionally, § 61.51(g)(5) requires the pilot to maintain a logbook or training record that specifies the training device, time, and content. The FAA therefore emphasizes the importance of clearly documenting in one’s logbook the type and identification of the FFS, FTD, or ATD used to maintain recency and a detailed record of the specific tasks completed.

The FAA discussion points out that pilots have long been able to maintain IFR currency in aircraft by flying with a safety pilot, and the FAA addressed several comments about the efficacy of using ATDs and FTDs to maintain instrument currency.

Because instructor supervision is not required when a pilot satisfies the instrument recency experience in an aircraft, similarly, it should not be required when a pilot satisfies the same instrument recency experience in a FFS, FTD, or ATD. A pilot must perform and log the required tasks regardless of whether the tasks are accomplished in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD. As several commenters noted, pilots who satisfy the instrument recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD should be trusted in the same fashion as those pilots who satisfy the requirements in an aircraft. While there is a potential for falsification in both scenarios, the FAA finds that the current penalties for falsifying pilot logbooks and records, which include suspension or revocation of one’s airman certificate, are a sufficient deterrent to falsifying the logging requirements…

Furthermore, the FAA is not requiring the FFS, FTD, or ATD to produce a flight track and log pilot activities as proof of performing the required tasks for maintaining instrument recency; nor is the FAA imposing more stringent recordkeeping requirements on the flight schools who own such FFS, FTD, or ATDs or on the pilots who use the FFS, FTD, or ATD to maintain instrument recency…

The FAA finds that satisfying instrument recency experience requirements in an FFS, FTD or ATD is as beneficial as satisfying the requirements in an aircraft regardless of whether an instructor is present. FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs are specifically designed to allow a person to replicate and execute instrument tasks just as they would in an aircraft…

Section 61.57(c) requires a pilot to perform and log minimum tasks to maintain instrument recency; § 61.57(c) does not impose training or proficiency requirements. An instrument-rated pilot has already demonstrated his or her proficiency during a practical test with an examiner. The purpose of the instrument recency experience requirement is to ensure the pilot maintains his or her instrument proficiency by performing and logging the required instrument experience. Therefore, the FAA expects pilots accomplishing the instrument recency experience to already be at an acceptable level of proficiency. The FAA recommends, however, that a pilot seek additional training if he or she is uncomfortable with his or her performance of the required tasks under § 61.57(c)…

FAA believes that new § 61.51(g)(5) will likely increase the public’s use of FFSs, FTDs or ATDs and notes that the majority of comments supported this conclusion…

As a general matter, the FAA notes that ATDs allow programming and practice of many instrument situations, scenarios, and procedures. The current capabilities of ATDs, FTDs, and FFSs allow an instrument rated pilot to program and successfully practice simulated low visibility weather conditions, multiple approaches in a shorter period of time, emergency procedures, equipment failures, and other various flight scenarios that cannot necessarily be accomplished in an aircraft safely. Allowing the use of ATDs, FTDs and FFSs without the requirement (and therefore the cost) of having an instructor present can result in more pilots being better prepared. This benefit could include executing flight scenarios they may not normally experience when accomplishing instrument recency in an aircraft, or in locations where they do not normally fly, or when practicing emergency procedures that are likely too dangerous to accomplish in an aircraft. This includes the unique capability of practicing identical instrument approach procedures to an airport the pilot may not have otherwise flown to before.

Instrument Recency Experience Requirements

The new rules will simplify § 61.57(c) which describes how pilots can use ATDs, FTDs, and FSS alone or in combination with flight time in an aircraft to maintain IFR currency.

The FAA is aligning the requirements for accomplishing instrument experience in an ATD with the requirements for accomplishing instrument experience in an FSTD or aircraft. Prior to this final rule, a person accomplishing instrument recency experience in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or a combination, was required to, within the preceding 6 months, have performed: (1) Six instrument approaches; (2) holding procedures and tasks; and (3) intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems. Persons accomplishing instrument recency experience exclusively in an ATD, however, were required to have performed, within the preceding 2 months, the same tasks and maneuvers listed above plus “two unusual attitude recoveries while in a descending Vne airspeed condition and two unusual attitude recoveries while in an ascending, stall speed condition” and a minimum of three hours of instrument recency experience. This final rule amends § 61.57(c) to allow pilots to accomplish instrument experience in ATDs by performing the same tasks required for FSTDs and aircraft, and at the same 6-month interval allowed for FSTDs and aircraft.

In support of the change, the FAA notes that:

FAA believes that the current design and technology of ATDs has advanced and provides a greater opportunity for the advancement of instrument skills and improved proficiency, as well as a wider range of experiences and scenarios, which justifies their increased use in § 61.57(c)(2)…

While the FAA stated in the NPRM that a pilot would be permitted to complete instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD, the proposed rule would not have expressly allowed this. The FAA is therefore adding language to proposed § 61.57(c)(2) to expressly state that a person may complete the instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD…

FAA disagrees with [comments] requiring a pilot to accomplish the instrument recency experience in an aircraft. The FAA has allowed the instrument recency tasks to be accomplished in an FFS, FTD, or ATD since 2009. The FAA did not propose to change the allowance of an ATD to satisfy instrument recency experience. Rather, given the technological advancements that have occurred in ATDs since 2009, the FAA proposed to align ATD use to the 6-month task completion interval and the required tasks consistent with FSTDs and aircraft…

FAA finds that an ATD adequately replicates an aircraft for purposes of maintaining instrument recency. Section 61.57(c) does not require a pilot to experience variables and additional stressors that one may experience in an aircraft to maintain instrument recency. The FAA recognizes the importance of familiarity with these conditions and events; however, they are more attributable to training. An instrument-rated pilot maintaining instrument recency under § 61.57(c) has already accomplished the required instrument training and has already demonstrated his or her proficiency during a practical test with an examiner.

Furthermore, the FAA disagrees with the comment that requiring more flight time in an aircraft will result in fewer accidents. The FAA finds that allowing a pilot to accomplish instrument recency requirements in an ATD or FSTD encourages more pilots to remain instrument current and provides the necessary experience to enable safe operation of an aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)…

FAA believes that training in FSTDs and ATDs in combination with training in an aircraft reinforces the necessary pilot skill to rely solely on the flight instruments to successfully operate an aircraft in IMC. This mitigates any reliance on postural senses, sounds, or feelings that can otherwise lead to loss of control. The FAA further described that training devices do not require motion to be approved and that training devices cannot completely train the pilot to ignore certain erroneous sensory perceptions, but pilots develop this skill during the flight portion of their instrument training. Consistent with the final rule, “Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification,” the FAA believes that instrument experience accomplished in ATDs is an effective procedural review and reinforces the necessary skills to properly interpret the aircraft’s flight instruments, allowing successful operation of an aircraft in IMC.

Change to IPC Requirements

The final rule also revises § 61.57(d) to remove the reference to the practical test standards (or ACS) for the tasks required to complete an IPC.

In § 61.57(d), the FAA is removing the reference to the PTS. The FAA recognizes that it was inappropriate for § 61.57(d) to state that the areas of operation and instrument tasks were required in the instrument rating PTS. The PTS and ACS do not contain regulatory requirements. Therefore, rather than referencing the instrument rating ACS in § 61.57(d), the FAA is codifying in § 61.57(d) the areas of operation for an IPC.

The new § 61.57(d) reads:

Instrument proficiency check. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person who has failed to meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for more than six calendar months may reestablish instrument currency only by completing an instrument proficiency check. The instrument proficiency check must consist of at least the following areas of operation:

(i) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;

(ii) Flight by reference to instruments;

(iii) Navigation systems;

(iv) Instrument approach procedures;

(v) Emergency operations; and

(vi) Postflight procedures.

FAA has clarified that the task table for an IPC in the IFR ACS still applies. For the detailed response to my questions about IPCs under the new regulations, see Clarification of IPC Requirements here at BruceAir.

Completion of Commercial Pilot Training and Testing in Technically Advanced Airplanes

The new rules, effective August 28, 2018, will complement the recent changes in FAA policy that no longer require the use of complex aircraft for certain practical tests (more on this topic at BruceAir here).

The final rule substantially changes the definition of TAA in the NPRM.

§ 61.129 Aeronautical experience.

(ii) 10 hours of training in a complex airplane, a turbine-powered airplane, or a
technically advanced airplane (TAA) that meets the requirements of paragraph (j) of this section, or any combination thereof. The airplane must be appropriate to land or sea for the rating sought;…

(j) Technically advanced airplane. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a technically advanced airplane must be equipped with an electronically advanced avionics system that includes the following installed components:
(1) An electronic Primary Flight Display (PFD) that includes, at a minimum, an airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, attitude indicator, heading indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator;
(2) An electronic Multifunction Display (MFD) that includes, at a minimum, a moving
map using Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation with the aircraft position displayed;
(3) A two axis autopilot integrated with the navigation and heading guidance system; and
(4) The display elements described in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section must be
continuously visible.

The discussion of the new rule expands on the reasoning behind and comments on the NPRM.

Prior to this final rule, a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating was required to complete 10 hours of training in either a complex or turbine-powered airplane. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to add a definition of technically advanced airplane (TAA) to § 61.1 and amend the training requirements to allow a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating to complete the 10 hours of training in a TAA instead of a complex or turbine-powered airplane. In addition to these regulatory changes, the FAA proposed to revise the practical test standards for commercial pilot applicants and flight instructor applicants seeking an airplane category single engine class rating to allow the use of a TAA on the practical tests.

Several comments on the NPRM highlighted problems with the FAA’s original defintion of TAA. In response, the FAA notes that:

The FAA recognizes that the proposed definition would have been too prescriptive. …FAA has revised the proposed language in response to industry’s concerns to make it more flexible and accommodating of new technologies. Furthermore, the FAA recognizes that the definition of TAA would have inappropriately embedded requirements, which may have inhibited future technologies from falling under the definition of a TAA. The FAA is therefore revising the definition of TAA in § 61.1 to contain a more general description of a TAA. TAA is now defined as an airplane equipped with an electronically advanced avionics system. The FAA is relocating the requirements regarding what a TAA must contain to § 61.129 by adding new paragraph (j). The FAA is also adding language to § 61.129(j) to allow the FAA to authorize the use of an airplane that may not otherwise meet the requirements of a TAA. This additional language is intended to provide flexibility by allowing the FAA to accommodate future technologies that do not necessarily meet the confines of the regulatory requirements for a TAA in § 61.129(j).

The discussion of the final rule includes a detailed response to comments about the use of such terms as PFD and MFD and the description of the autopilot required in a TAA. The basic requirements are described in the FAA discussion:

FAA is retaining the terms “Primary Flight Display,” “Multifunction Display,” and “advanced” in the TAA requirements. The FAA disagrees that the terms PFD and MFD will cause confusion. These terms are currently used and described in several FAA publications that are recognized by the aviation industry…

PFD is defined as “a display that provides increased situational awareness to the pilot by replacing the traditional six instruments used for instrument flight with an easy-to-scan display that provides the horizon, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, trend, trim, and rate of turn among other key relevant indications.” MFD is defined as a “small screen (CRT or LCD) in an aircraft that can be used to display information to the pilot in numerous configurable ways. Often an MFD will be used in concert with a primary flight display.”

The FAA believes the terms PFD and MFD add clarity to the TAA requirements by describing and prioritizing the display features and elements for TAA avionics a nd their respective functions. For example, the term PFD is specific to the use of the primary flight controls to maintain aircraft attitude and positive control. The PFD is used by the pilot to execute appropriate use of the control stick or yoke for pitch and bank, rudder pedals for yaw, and throttle for engine power. The PFD is designed specific to controlling the aircraft attitude and altitude relative to the horizon and the surface of the earth, especially when outside visibility is poor or unavailable. The MFD has a different priority; its function is secondary to the PFD. The MFD is designed for navigational use and position awareness information, even though it may include some PFD features for redundancy. Furthermore, the FAA is requiring certain minimum display elements for both a PFD and MFD, respectively, thereby clarifying what will be considered a PFD or MFD…

Section 61.129(j)(2) requires only the minimum elements of a MFD; it does not preclude the use of a split-screen display or two independent screens contained within a single physical unit. Therefore, a manufacturer may use a split-screen display or two independent screens for the PFD and MFD provided the displays contain the minimum elements required for each…

FAA is clarifying the MFD requirements by first describing what the display shows (i.e., a moving map) and then describing how the display is facilitated (i.e., using GPS navigation). Accordingly, § 61.129(j)(2) now requires the MFD to include, at a minimum, a moving map using GPS navigation. The FAA believes this revision to the proposed language clarifies that a system with a moving map display common to GPS/WAAS navigators would satisfy the MFD requirement. Additionally, the FAA is requiring the aircraft position to be displayed on the moving map…

FAA removing the phrase “independent additional” from the proposed language to allow a single piece of equipment or single display to satisfy the requirement for both a PFD and MFD. However, to ensure that both displays are visible at the same time, the FAA is requiring the display elements for both the PFD and MFD (paragraphs (j)(1) and (2)) to be continuously visible…

FAA did not intend to exclude systems that provide autopilot functions separate from the MFD. The FAA is therefore separating the “two-axis autopilot” requirement from the MFD requirement. Accordingly, under new § 61.129(j)(3), the two axis autopilot is no longer required to be included as part of the MFD. This change from what was proposed allows the use of independent/aftermarket autopilot systems…

The TAA requirements in no way restrict the use of peripheral or supporting equipment that enables the display functionality described for the PFD and MFD in the TAA requirements…

While there may be different TSOs for the various functions of GPS, moving map, and navigation resulting in separate pieces of underlying equipment, this equipment can support the MFD requirements so long as the MFD includes a moving map that uses GPS navigation with the aircraft position displayed…

The TAA requirements of § 61.129(j) do not require the autopilot to have GPSS. However, § 61.129(j) specifies only the minimum requirements for a TAA. Therefore, an autopilot may have additional features, including GPSS. The “two axis” requirement refers to the lateral and longitudinal axes. The autopilot at a minimum must be able to track a predetermined GPS course or heading selection, and also be able to hold a selected altitude. The autopilot is not, however, required to control vertical navigation other than holding a selected altitude…

Revised Definition of Pilot Time

The new rule changes the definition of pilot time in § 61.1 to read:

Pilot time means that time in which a person—
(i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember;
(ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device; or
(iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device.

Effective Dates

The changes to the regulations become effective as follows:

This rule is effective July 27, 2018, except for the amendments to §§ 61.31(e)(2) and (f)(2), 61.129(a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii) and (j), 61.197, 61.199, 61.412, 61.415, 91.109, and appendix D to part 141, which are effective August 27, 2018; the amendments to §§ 61.1 (amendatory instruction 10 revising the definition of ‘‘Pilot time’’), 61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.57(c), 61.159(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f), 61.161(c), (d), and (e), 135.99, and 141.5(d) which are effective November 26, 2018; and the amendments to §§ 61.3, 63.3, 63.16, 91.313, 91.1015, 121.383, and 135.95, which are effective December 24, 2018.

New Simulation and Training Rules Due in June 2018

The final rule is set for publication on June 27, 2018 (see this notice at the Federal Register). I’ll provide a summary here at BruceAir.

You can read more about the NPRM published in May 2016 at my blog, here.

Comments on Proposed Rule Changes

The FAA recently proposed several significant changes to regulations that expand the use of aviation training devices, training for the commercial pilot and certified flight instructor certificates, maintaining instrument currency, and other issues of interest to many general aviation pilots and flight instructor.

Below are my comments on some portions of the proposed rules, which I have submitted to the docket.

Use of TAA for Commercial and Flight Instructor Certificates

For all the reasons outlined in the proposal, I support the option to substitute a TAA (as redefined in the proposed rule) for the training and practical tests required for the commercial pilot and certified flight instructor certificates with single-engine-land ratings.

One commenter objects that pilots won’t gain experience “with higher performing engine[s], retractable gear, constant speed propeller, etc.” But most flight schools offering training for those certificates rely on aircraft such as the C172RG or Piper Arrow, which have at most 200-hp engines. These are hardly high-performance aircraft, either as defined by FAA regulation or by their speed, sophisticated avionics and equipment, or handling characteristics. Pilots who want to fly aircraft with retractable landing gear, constant-speed propellers, turbocharged engines, and other characteristics typically associated with high-performance aircraft will still, as a practical matter, require checkouts and operating experience mandated by regulations (e.g., the endorsement required to act as PIC in an aircraft with an engine rated at more than 200 HP), insurance, flight school policies, commercial operator specifications, and common sense (a refreshing concept endorsed in the recent proposal to revise 14 CFR Part 23 aircraft certification rules—viz., “The part 23 regulations should not need to prescribe basic physical principles, sound engineering judgment, and common sense.”).

The checkout required for aircraft like the C172RG or Piper Arrow is hardly a leap from a Skyhawk or Warrior. Instead, it’s a small step, and learning to operate and confirm the configuration of, for example, retractable landing gear, is only a small part of a complete commercial pilot or CFI training syllabus, and that basic training hardly prepares a pilot to fly a truly high-performance “complex” aircraft such as Cirrus SR22 (which has fixed landing gear) or a Beechcraft Bonanza.

Similar examples: (1) Pilots with MEL ratings on their pilot certificates legally can fly any multiengine aircraft that doesn’t require a type rating. But in the real world, they must receive training and gain operating experience in specific makes and models to obtain insurance, fly rental aircraft, or act as PIC in a commercial operation; (2) Regulations require only a single logbook endorsement to fly tailwheel aircraft. But the handling characteristics of tailwheel aircraft vary widely (even among those that don’t have big engines, constant-speed propellers, etc.). Again, insurance, rental policies, and common sense oblige pilots who fly tailwheel aircraft to receive training and gain operating experience in specific makes and models.

Maintaining IFR Currency with ATDs

I applaud the proposed changes that would allow instrument-rated pilots to maintain currency with in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD without requiring an instructor to be present. The current regulations are a deterrent to pilots who use ATDs. They must parse the rules and carefully review their logbooks to ensure that they have met the arcane requirements for various tasks, time limits, and calendar constraints. Instead of using training devices, today most pilots hop in their aircraft with a safety pilot (not necessarily an instructor) and repeatedly fly the same familiar procedures in their local areas, missing opportunities to practice the important skills of briefing and setting up a variety of DPs, arrivals, and approaches that include such elements as DME arcs and course reversals. They also typically don’t gain experience handling realistic equipment failures, challenging weather, and so forth. As the FAA notes, the proposed changes would encourage pilots to maintain their instrument skills.

My experience as an instructor strongly suggests that it’s the mental, puzzle-solving side of IFR flying that deteriorates most quickly over time. Use of training devices is the most effective, efficient way to hone and maintain those mental skills.

Pilots who want to use a training device at a flight school will still require at least an initial checkout on the equipment to ensure that they can use it effectively. Those checkouts are an opportunity for pilots to work with instructors to deficiencies in both their understanding of IFR flying and specific piloting skills, and those encounters will help instructors to develop relationships with pilots who otherwise might not be receiving training.

Pilots are upgrading aircraft to include sophisticated avionics (even if the panel doesn’t meet the revised definition of a TAA). They are increasingly using tablets and other devices as substitutes for charts and to provide information about weather, traffic, and other details. Allowing pilots wider, creditable use of training devices that include, for example, GPS navigators, will help them develop and maintain the essential skills described in such publications as the Advanced Avionics Handbook and Instrument Procedures Handbook. Using training devices also gives pilots opportunities to practice using new technology and develop good operating procedures.

Definition of ATD

The notice includes a new definition of aviation training device (ATD):

The FAA is now proposing to define ATD in § 61.1 as a training device, other than a full flight simulator or flight training device, that has been evaluated, qualified, and approved by the Administrator.

It’s not clear, however, if the proposed changes would eliminate the basic aviation training device (BATD) and advanced aviation training device (AATD) categories as described in AC 61-136 FAA Approval of Basic Aviation Training Devices (BATD) and Advanced Aviation Training Devices (AATD). The language in various sections of the proposed rules is ambiguous and should be clarified, and AC 61-136 and related policy guidance should be revised to ensure that both FAA and airmen throughout the system have a clear understanding of distinctions among the devices. I understand that for the purposes of FAA approval the existing categories may remain desirable—especially for manufacturers. But FAA inspectors, pilots, and instructors should not be confused about the practical application of ATDs for training and maintaining currency.

Logging Instrument Approaches as a Flight Instructor

I recently acted as a flight instructor for a customer who is learning new avionics (especially an Aspen Evolution PFD and a Garmin GTN750) recently installed in his 1970s vintage Cessna Turbo Centurion (T210).

For more information about logging flight time, see this item here at BruceAir.

Typical autumn weather prevailed in Seattle, so we conducted the entire flight under IFR, and we were in the clouds for most of the 1.5 hour flight. The owner flew two ILS approaches and one RNAV (GPS) procedure with LPV minimums. We also flew a hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn (see AIM 5-4-9).

Now, IFR pilots generally must meet the requirements of 14 CFR 61.57(c) to maintain their IFR currency. That regulation states:

…(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR only if:

…Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate,…

(i) Six instrument approaches.

(ii) Holding procedures and tasks.

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.

The question, often asked, is whether I, as the flight instructor, can log the approaches flown by the owner. FAA issued a legal interpretation on this specific issue in 2008 (Levy 2008). (You can search the FAA website for legal interpretations here.)

The Levy 2008 letter states in part:

Am I correct in understanding that a CFII may log approaches that a student flies when the approaches are conducted in actual instrument conditions? Is there a reference to this anywhere in the rules?

Ref. § 61.51(g)(2); Yes, a CFII may log approaches that a student flies when those approaches are conducted in actual instrument flight conditions. And this would also permit that instructor who is performing as an authorized instructor to “log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight instructions” and this would count for instrument currency requirements under § 61.67(c).

The letter elaborates by noting that:

The FAA views the instructor’s oversight responsibility when instructing in actual instrument flight conditions to meet the obligation of 61.57(c) to have performed the approaches.

Although the letter does not specifically address the other requirements for IFR currency–holding procedures and tasks and intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems–the reasoning of the interpretation seems to support allowing an instrument instructor also to log those tasks when the aircraft is operating in actual IMC.

Simulating Partial-Panel with a G500/G600

I schedule an annual instrument proficiency check before the Pacific Northwest skies turn gray as fall arrives. The tasks that you must accomplish to complete an IPC are outlined in the practical test standards for the instrument rating and in an appendix to Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) Guidance, published by FAA.

Instrument Proficiency Check. 14 CFR part 61, section 61.57(d), sets forth the requirements for an instrument proficiency check. The person giving that check shall use the standards and procedures contained in this PTS when administering the check. A representative number of Tasks, as determined by the examiner/instructor, must be selected to assure the competence of the applicant to operate in the IFR environment. As a minimum, the applicant must demonstrate the ability to perform the Tasks as listed in the [chart below]. The person giving the check should develop a scenario that incorporates as many required tasks as practical to assess the pilot’s ADM and risk management skills during the IPC. See Appendix 2 for IPC AATD Credit Table. (FAA-S-8081-4E with Changes 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5)

As you can see, the required items include VII–Emergency Operations, Task D: Approach with Loss of Primary Flight Instrument Indicators. The notes for that task in the PTS specify that the pilot, “Demonstrat[e] a non-precision instrument approach without the use of the primary flight instrument using the objectives of the non-precision approach Task (Area of Operation VI, Task A).”

In an airplane with conventional instruments (the so-called steam gauges), the instructor covers the attitude indicator with a suction cup, business card, or sticky note.

Like many pilots, however, I’ve updated my instrument panel. It now features a Garmin G500 electronic display that replaces six traditional primary flight instruments (airspeed indicator, attitude indicator, altimeter, vertical speed indicator, heading indicator, and turn coordinator). I have a backup attitude indicator, ASI and altimeter in the self-contained Mid-Continent SAM.

Now, avionics manufacturers and the FAA have advised against pulling circuit breakers to simulate failures of electronic displays and the behind-the-scenes gizmos that drive them (e.g., attitude-heading reference systems). Plastering expensive displays—especially touch-screens–with sticky notes isn’t a good idea. So, how to simulate the failure of the PFD (the left side of the G500)—or, indeed the entire GDU 620, the two-panel display that shows the flight instruments and a map?

For more information about using CBs to simulate failures, see Garmin’s G1000 Guide for Designated Pilot Examiners and Certified Flight Instructors. That document notes in part:

Cessna does not recommend pulling circuit breakers as a means of simulating failures on the Garmin G1000. Pulling circuit breakers—or using them as switches—has the potential to weaken the circuit breaker to a point at which it may not perform its intended function. Using circuit breakers as switches is also discouraged in Advisory Circulars 120-80, 23-17B, and 43.13-1B. Additionally, a circuit breaker may be powering other equipment (such as avionics cooling fans) that could affect the safe operation of other equipment.

For the map side, it’s easy—select a page that shows, say, A/FD information or one of the AUX pages. They’re useless as references during an approach.

After much deep thought, I came up with the following solution for the PFD side: A piece of cardboard taped above the display. Here’s the item lying in wait in the holder that I use for my iPad.

And here it is in place, covering most of the PFD.

Inelegant to be sure. I’ll trim it to size next time. But it’s simple, non-destructive, cheap, and easy to put in place and remove. In a aircraft used primarily for training, I’d consider a strip of Velcro above the PFD.

If you wanted to “fail” just the attitude indicator and leave the ASI, altimeter, VSI, HI, CDI, bearing pointers, and other information visible, you could trim the cardboard so that it covers only the AI portion of the PFD.

Today, however, I wanted to simulate a complete failure of the GDU 620 to see how well I could fly an approach using the SAM and the navigation information on the GTN750 and the chart on my iPad. Per the PTS, I was flying a non-precision approach, so I didn’t need a glideslope indicator.

To set up descents on each segment of the approach, I applied the Pitch+Power+Configuration=Performance equation, knowing that at a specified power setting and pitch in a given configuration (flaps and landing gear positions), I would descend at approximately 600 fpm at a stable airspeed. Tracking the courses was a bit more difficult than when using the HSI, but this was a simulated emergency, so I used all available sources, including the depiction of my airplane on the GTN750 moving map and the approach chart displayed (via ForeFlight) on my iPad. By making small, coordinated turns based on the SAM, I never wandered more than about a dot off the centerline of any segment of the approach. The graphical information made meeting altitude restrictions easier. And the trend vectors that show how your current track relates to the required course were also a big help in making smooth, small heading changes.

I plan to use this high-tech failure simulator in the future when I practice flying instrument procedures (in VMC, of course) to maintain my proficiency. Note that this device would also work well in ATDs and FTDs that feature glass cockpits.

More on using Flight Training Devices to maintain IFR currency

Much confusion followed the last major update to 14 CFR Part 61 in 2009, especially the provisions in 61.57 that specify the requirements for maintaining IFR currency when using a flight training device (FTD) or simulator.

On May 12, 2016, FAA published Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions, which would update several regulations that apply to the use of aviation training devices (ATD). The proposed changes to the rules would allow instrument-rated pilots to log time in an ATD without having an instructor present. And the new regulations would allow instrument-rated pilots to use ATDs alone or in combination with time in an aircraft to maintain IFR currency. For more information, see FAA Proposes Significant Rule Changes here at BruceAir.

As I discussed in a post at the time, the initial notice of the changes the in the Federal Register on August 21, 2009 (Vol. 74, No. 161) included comments in the preamble that suggested that pilots who do not yet require an instrument proficiency check (IPC) to restore IFR currency could use an appropriate FTD to log approaches and other required tasks without having an instructor present. According that preamble:

Provided the person is instrument current or is within the second 6-calendar month period’’ (See § 61.57(d) for currency). A person would not need a flight instructor or ground instructor present when accomplishing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks of § 61.57(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) in an approved flight training device or flight simulator. Only when a person is required to submit to an instrument proficiency check must a flight instructor or ground instructor be present. The rationale is that a person is not required to have a flight instructor or ground instructor present when performing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks in an aircraft. If the person is using a view-limiting device (i.e., hood device) when performing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks in an aircraft, only a safety pilot is required to be present. If a person is performing approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks in an aircraft in IMC, it is permissible to log the tasks without a flight instructor being present. Therefore, a person who is instrument current or is within the second 6-calendar month period (See § 61.57(d) for currency) need not have a flight instructor or ground instructor present when accomplishing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks of § 61.57(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) in an approved flight training
device or flight simulator.

The FAA issued a revision to the new rules on October 20, 2009 to clarify several issues. That revision included the following statements about using FTDs and simulators:

27. This revision of Sec. 61.51(g)(4) conforms the rule for logging of instrument time in a flight simulator, flight training device, and aviation training device to existing policy.

This final rule amends Sec. 61.51(g)(4) to allow logging of instrument time in a flight simulator (FS), flight training device (FTD), or aviation training device (ATD) conforming to existing regulation or policy. An authorized instructor (See Sec. 61.1(b)(2)) must be present in the FS, FTD, or ATD when instrument training time is logged for training and aeronautical experience for meeting the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review (See Sec. 61.51(a)) [emphasis added]. The instructor must sign the person’s logbook verifying training time and session content. Examples of situations in which an authorized instructor will be considered present would be where an authorized instructor is seated at a center control panel in a flight simulation lab and is monitoring each student’s performance from control panel display. Another example would be a situation where an instructor assigns a student several instrument tasks and then leaves the room. In such cases, if the flight training device has a monitoring and tracking system that allows the authorized instructor to review the entire training session, the instructor need not be physically present. Another example would be a situation where one authorized instructor monitors several students simultaneously in the same room at a flight simulation lab.

That update contradicted the preamble in the original publication of the new regulations, more questions followed, and the FAA Office of Chief Counsel ultimately replied to one inquiry on August 6, 2010. That letter (PDF), addressed to Terrence K. Keller, Jr., offers the following guidance:

This responds to your request for a legal interpretation clarifying whether a flight instructor must observe an individual using a flight training device or flight simulator to maintain instrument recency experience under 14 C.F.R. §61.51(g)(4)…. The preamble language you quote states, “a person who is instrument current or is within the second 6-calendar month period … need not have a flight instructor or ground instructor present when accomplishing the approaches, holding, and course intercepting/tracking tasks of §61.57 (c )(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) in an approved flight training device or flight simulator.”

 …Preambles to final rules serve two purposes; they explain the reasons for adopting the new rule, including responses to public comments, and they provide interpretive guidance on operation of the rule. However, when the rule and the preamble conflict, the rule controls. Accordingly, the regulatory text of §61.51(g)(4) is clear that in order to log the time an instructor must be present to observe an individual using a flight training device or flight simulator to maintain instrument recency experience [emphasis added]. We acknowledge that the preamble language indicates some intent to change the rule. For that reason, this issue has been forwarded to the Flight Standards Service.

The final sentence seems to hold out some hope that FAA may reconsider its interpretation of the rules, but at present, the the letter seems to be official FAA policy on the matter.

As noted above: The FAA is now proposing to amend § 61.51(g) by revising paragraph (g)(4) and adding a new paragraph (g)(5) to allow a pilot to accomplish instrument recency experience when using an FAA-approved FFS, FTD, or ATD—just as he or she might do when completing instrument recency experience in an aircraft—without an instructor present. Because instrument recency experience is not training, the FAA no longer believes it is necessary to have an instructor present when instrument recency experience is accomplished in an FSTD or ATD. An instrument-rated pilot has demonstrated proficiency during a practical test with an examiner. It can be expensive to hire an instructor to observe a pilot performing the instrument experience requirements solely to verify that the instrument recency experience was performed.

(If you’re interested in reading other legal opinions from the FAA, see the FAA Legal Interpretations & Chief Counsel’s Opinions website.)