Sal’s Law
N.M. @ HPN Sal, I am a recently minted Instrument Pilot and have worked on maintaining my currency for the past six months. I now read that the FAA has changed the rule and that a pilot must now obtain a new Instrument Proficiency Check if we should lapse the currency standards. However an experienced pilot at our flying club said the old rule was that the actual period of lapse has to be a year. Who’s correct?
Sal’s Law: NM, under the law the FAA is always correct. OK, well at least they think so. As in so many things with governmental agencies, the minute the agency sets out to simplify a rule and it’s language, the more they muddy the waters. The answer is that there is not a new standard for maintaining instrument proficiency. In the old days (last year) the standard was to complete six instrument approaches, a few holding patterns and fly airway courses within six months of an IFR flight. If you let your instrument currency lapse, all you had to do was complete those same minimum requirements within a year with a safety pilot in the seat next to you and you were back current again.
However, the FAA has changed the language of Rule 61.57 to read:
(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.
Therefore, many people took the change to mean that once your experience requirements have lapsed, you have to schedule an IPC or Instrument Proficiency Check with a CFII. The FAA tells us that this is not the case. If you read it the way they meant it – the first six months after the lapse can be cured by flying the necessary requirements with a safety pilot. If you go beyond the next six month period of actual lapse then the IPC become necessary. The truth of the matter is that it is of great importance to maintain currency and more importantly, proficiency which are not necessarily the same thing. An IPC is always a great idea, but the rule requiring an Instrument Proficiency Check after an initial lapse has not changed.
P.D. @ OXC When I fly VFR I almost always ask for flight following from Air Traffic Control. On a recent flight I received the advisories all the way to my destination, which is a Class “C” Airport. Do I have to get specific permission to enter the Class “C”, or is communicating with the flight following controller automatically sufficient.
Sal’s Law: This is a good opportunity to review the hierarchy of the various classes of airspace. When flying into Class “B” airspace, you will always need a separate clearance even if you are on flight following and speaking with Air Traffic Control (unless you are on an IFR flight plan). Class “C” and “D” do not require a separate clearance, however. In Class “D” airspace it is only required that you be in communication with the facility that has control over the underlying airport.
Class “C” airspace requires that ATC actually identifies your aircraft. Therefore, if you are entering Charlie airspace and ATC tells you to “stand by”, you have not been identified and therefore may not enter. If, on the other hand ATC answers “29Victor please stand by”, they have identified you and you may proceed into the Charlie. The obvious difference is that now they have been specific with your identity through the use of your tail number.
Given the information you provided, flight following has already identified your aircraft and therefore you do not specifically need any clearance into C or D airspace. I guess my answer sounds more like a Sesame Street episode.
Blue Skies all!
Sal Lagonia Esq., is an Aviation Attorney, Professor of Aviation Law and frequent speaker on aviation safety issues. Questions may be sent to Sal@LagoniaLaw.com or to his main office at 914-245-7500.