Welcome Guest. Sign in or Signup

6 Answers

IPC validity in a Two Crew Aircraft

Asked by: 5803 views ,
Private Pilot

I fly a G200 requiring 2 crew under part 91, and require an IPC every 12 months, IAW 61.58 . Is there any way I can gain an extnsion and fly beyond the 12month limit into the next month?

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.

6 Answers



  1. John D. Collins on Mar 06, 2012

    61.58 doesn’t apply to my type of flying, so I am just interpreting the rule.  I assume you are talking about the PIC Proficiency Check that is required, not an IPC (Instrument Proficiency Check). It specifies that the proficiency check must have been completed within the 12 preceding calendar months in order for the pilot to act as PIC.  Today is March 6, 2012. The preceding 12 calendar months are Feb, Jan, Dec, Nov, Oct, Sep, Aug, Jul, Jun, May, Apr, and Mar.  So if you last completed your PIC proficiency check on Mar 1, 2011, the first day you would not be able to fly as PIC would be April 1, 2012.  The proficiency check does not have to be accomplished in your type of aircraft, but must be performed in an aircraft for which two pilots are required or a turbojet.  You have to complete the proficiency check every 24 calendar months in your specific type aircraft.

    0 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  2. Kris Kortokrax on Mar 06, 2012

    Everybody quits reading too soon.  See 61.58 (i) which discusses the “grace month” concept as it applies in 14 CFR Part 135 & 121.
     
    Following is a legal interpretation dealing with this question.  Note that 61.58(g) mentioned in 1979 is not 61.58(i).
     
    APR. 24, 1979JOHN J. CONWAYAttorney At LawHillsdale Executive Center Penthouse2555 Flores StreetSan Mateo, CA 94403Dear Mr. Conway:   This is in reply to your letter of April 11, 1979, which requests an interpretation of Sec. 61.58(g) and 91.21(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations.   You explain that your client’s proficiency check, as required by Sec. 61.58, came due in December 1977 and he was scheduled to take it in January 1978.  However, due to adverse weather conditions, he was unable to complete his proficiency check in January.   The FAA interprets Sec. 61.58(g), as it interprets similar provisions in Parts 121 and 135, to permit a crewmember to serve in his position for up to one month following the month a check comes due.  Accordingly, the fact that your client did not take his proficiency check in January did not disqualify him from acting as pilot in command of an aircraft during that month under the provisions of Sec. 61.58(or 91.21(c)).Sincerely,EDWARD P. FABERMANActing Assistant Chief CounselRegulations and Enforcement Division

    +4 Votes Thumb up 4 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  3. Kris Kortokrax on Mar 06, 2012

    Should read “is now 61.58(i).”   Sorry about the bad formatting on the paste of the interp.

    +1 Votes Thumb up 3 Votes Thumb down 2 Votes



  4. Simon Abadjian on Mar 07, 2012

    Thank you for your explanation John.
    Kris, is this a common interpretation or can I see other examples. I am new this ruling and my company is too. re formatting, wd ate talking about 61.58 (g)
    (g) If a pilot takes the pilot-in-command proficiency check required by this section in the calendar month before or the calendar month after the month in which it is due, the pilot is considered to have taken it in the month in which it was due for the purpose of computing when the next pilot-in-command proficiency check is due.

    So; my last PC was signed-off on MAY 23rd 2011. The grace month described in 61.58(g) means I can fly all the way into the month of JUNE 2012, then do my SIM in the last week of JUNE and still be legal; however, the PC will become due again in MAY 2013.
    Is that correct ?

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  5. Kris Kortokrax on Mar 07, 2012

    The interpretation comes from the FAA.  The only other interpretation that might come to bear would need to come from an Administrative Law Judge or Federal Court.  These do not exist to my knowledge.
     
    That’s the way the base month concept works.  I believe your understanding is correct.  Since the regulation allows you the capability of doing the check a month early as well, why not?

    +4 Votes Thumb up 4 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  6. Simon Abadjian on Mar 09, 2012

    Thank you for clarifying the reading of the law. Your tinker assistance has been great. Now the aircraft will not have any down time. Thanks.
    Regards Simon

    -1 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes


The following terms have been auto-detected the question above and any answers or discussion provided. Click on a term to see its definition from the Dauntless Aviation JargonBuster Glossary.

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.