New CFI, CFII, have a question for IPC..

[MidlifeFlyer]

How can you say "suggests" when the words "act as" are in there?

Because of the entire phrase.

==============================
(3) A certificated flight instructor may log pilot in command flight time for all flight time while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation if the instructor is rated to act as pilot in command of that aircraft.
==============================

It does't say "qualified to act as pilot in command."

It doesn't say "rated and endorsed to act as pilot in command."

It just says "rated to act as pilot in command." Endorsements are not ratings. If I have at least a private certifciate with an ASEL rating, I am "rated to act as pilot in command" of any single-engine land aircraft that does not require a type rating. I may not be qualified to act as pilot in command, I may not be endorsed to act as pilot in command. I may not be current to act as pilot in command. I may not have the medical required to act as pilot in command. But I am definitely "rated" to act as pilot in command.

That's why I think it is a strange turn of phrase.

 

[willpilot]

Call another FAA inspector and you'll get another answer.

Ever watch two FAA inspectors argue during an investigation about whether someone's conduct broke a reg?

hahaha I bet ...

 

[nosehair]

I think it is a strange turn of phrase.

Yes, I agree. I think it is another weak attempt at correcting the unintentional phrasing in the original wording, which was "rated".

The original term 'rated' was in the original wording before endorsements were required. They failed to add "and endorsed" to the phrase "rated' when speaking of pilot/flight instructor privileges, so they are attempting to correct that.
Also, I think there may be some situations where an "endorsement", per se, is not required, such as in military comp certifications, or 'other' Administrators authorizations.

 

[Ziggyfuzz]

Lets look at what the guy is really asking, we can arugue legalities all day. But an IPC is a proficiency check that involves not just some IFR flying skill but knowledge and use of the aircraft and it's systems as well. Reference "IPC Guidance" from the FAA website as a PDF file. My main question for all of you who argue the letter of the endorsement law is really this,; If you are going to give an IPC in an airplance, do you know that airplane well enough to really give a good IPC and could you do it fluently yourself? If you don't know the plane and it's systems that well, then don't be giving any sort of proficiency check in it until you are proficient yourself! And I would say you should have the endorsement. If you aren't qualified to fly it, you certainly aren't qualified to give proficiency checks in it IMHO...

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

I sent a CFI applicant for a checkride. Got a call from the inspector asking what was this garbage about signing off the applicant's flight review after the checkride. He insisted the CFI checkride counted as a flight review... until I had him pull up the letter on his computer. He had never heard of that LOI.

We sent a CFII applicant to the FSDO. He did his instrument rating in the UK and then did a US checkride for the instrument rating. The FSDO inspector sent him back saying he wasn't eligible to take his instrument checkride because he didn't have 15 hours of instruction from an authorized instructor. He had never seen 61.41. I told this to a DPE that we use and he had a chuckle and said "Hadn't he ever heard of ICAO?!?!".