During an IPC, is there any alternative to doing a precision approach?

Question

My friend's plane is IFR certified, but does not have either an ILS receiver or a GPS receiver, either one of which is required to fly a precision approach. As he can't fly a precision approach in his plane, and such an approach is required to be flown during an instrument proficiency check (IPC), does that require him to find another plane in which to take the test?

Alternatively, can he take the test in his plane with a limitation being placed on the signoff to the effect that he is not qualified to fly precision approaches? Or does it not matter that a precision approach cannot be flown?

Answer 1

As far as I can see, there's no way to avoid flying a precision approach during an IPC. 61.57(d) says:

The instrument proficiency check must consist of the areas of operation and instrument tasks required in the instrument rating practical test standards.

The instrument ACS requires a precision approach, as you said, and it's also in the checklist in AC 61-98C, Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check, and the FAA's accompanying instructor guidance. So I think it's fairly clear that the FAA requires it as part of an IPC.

As for limitations, the FAA's AC 61-65 Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors doesn't mention any that are specific to an instrument rating. I've never heard of a 'non-precision only' instrument rating.

I can only suggest that your friend finds another aircraft. The 'good' news is that once he's current again, he can maintain currency indefinitely with only non-precision approaches and avoid another IPC.

Answer 2

The most cost effective solution for your friend is to find a Flight Training Device (FTD). A local FBO charges 10/hr for the FTD, and when you want to log time in the device, you pay for an instructor at 40/hr.

The entire IPC can be accomplished with the FTD, EXCEPT: a.) multi-engine ops, b.) circle-to-land and c.) landings.

So practically, your friend would "fly" with an instructor (CFI-I, GI may not), logging that time, and accomplishing tasks relevant to the IPC. Then they would go to his plane and a landing would be performed, possibly with a circle-to-land.

This way your friend doesn't have to rent another plane, and he will reduce the time spent in his plane considerably. It is much less expensive to run a FTD (sim) at $10/hr than it is fly his plane.

To address your question of a restricted endorsement, unfortunately, an IPC is an IPC and there is no recognized way to accomplish a limited IPC. Except he could petition the FAA for a waiver. At one time, requirements for NDB navigation was dropped if the aircraft lacked a NDB. (You can't imagine how often our ADFs became INOP the day before an instrument check ride. I didn't agree with that, but lotsa people felt insecure flying NDB approaches.) So your friend could petition the FAA to, in his case, waive the precision approach requirement. But in my opinion, it is far easier to just run to a school having a FTD, and do part or as much as he wants of the IPC there, and then demonstrate the landing part(s) in his airplane.

Addendum #1: In 1980 the FAA legal team issued a letter clarifying that a Ground Instructor - Instrument could provide instruction in a simulator, meeting the training requirements for Part 61 ratings. In 2010, in a similar letter, they reversed their position. Loosely they stated that simulator (or FTD) training was flight instruction and required a flight instructor rating. Prior to 2010, it was possible for a Ground Instructor - Instrument to perform any approved training in a simulator, but not today. In general, the Ground Instructor rating has been depreciated. However, if one teaches ground courses, where there are lots of attendees, it is convenient to have because it reduces the administrative burden of tracking written test results. This is relevant, because a CFI-I is required for performing the portion of an IPC which might be done in a sim/FTD.