The Reddit post highlights a recurring and practical challenge faced by FAA-certificated pilots who live and work outside the United States: locating a qualified instructor to administer an Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) under FAR 61.57(d) while based in Asia. Though the original post is briefâessentially a crowdsourced request for recommendationsâit points to a real gap in the FAA's global support infrastructure. Unlike EASA or ICAO-standard recurrent training, which is widely available through major flight training organizations and airline-affiliated centers across Asia, FAA-specific IPCs require either a CFII, an FAA-designated pilot examiner, or an authorized check airman, none of which are common outside North America. This creates a logistical bottleneck for pilots who need to keep their FAA instrument currency valid but who do not have easy access to a Part 61-compliant training environment locally.
For working pilots, this matters because FAA instrument currency lapses quicklyâsix calendar months of flying under IFR with the required approaches, holds, and interceptsâafter which an IPC is legally required to resume acting as pilot-in-command under IFR on an FAA certificate. Pilots flying for Asia-based charter operators, business aviation departments, cargo carriers, or contract flying jobs (a segment that has grown substantially as US-trained pilots pursue overseas opportunities with airlines in China, Southeast Asia, and the Gulf-adjacent corridor) often hold FAA certificates as a backup or primary credential even while their day-to-day flying may be conducted under a foreign AOC using ICAO-based licensing. Maintaining dual currencyâlocal license requirements plus FAA recencyâbecomes an administrative and financial burden, particularly when the nearest FAA-authorized examiner or approved training device may be a multi-day trip away in Japan, Korea, Australia, or back in the US.
This scenario reflects a broader trend in aviation's increasingly globalized pilot workforce, where flight crews routinely hold and maintain multiple certificates and ratings across regulatory jurisdictions to preserve career flexibility. As airlines and business aviation operators recruit internationally and pilots pursue opportunities in emerging Asian markets, demand has grown for portable, FAA-compliant training solutions abroadâwhether through visiting DPEs, FAA-approved simulator centers affiliated with training providers like FlightSafety International or CAE (which do maintain some FAA-approved locations in the region), or pilots timing IPCs around trips home. Some larger flight schools and business jet completion centers in Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar hubs have begun offering FAA-recognized training tracks to meet this demand, but availability remains inconsistent and heavily dependent on aircraft type and instructor credentialing.
The underlying issue also touches on FAA policy limitations regarding remote and foreign-based certificate holders, an area regulators have been slow to modernize despite the rise of distance learning, AATD-based training, and virtual ground instruction. Pilots increasingly rely on peer networks, forums, and professional associations to identify contacts who can conduct compliant IPCs abroad, underscoring a gap that training providers and possibly the FAA itself may need to address as the expat and contract pilot population continues to expand. For operators managing crews with FAA credentials in Asia-Pacific bases, proactively identifying vetted, FAA-authorized training resourcesârather than leaving pilots to source them individually through social mediaârepresents a meaningful risk-management and retention consideration.