Bfr?

[chrisdahut24]

61.56(d) states that anyone who has "passed a pilot proficiency check....for a pilot certificate, rating or operating privelege need not accomplish the flight review required by the section".

Would the instructor proficiency check required (141.79(d)(2)) of 141 instructors fall into the 6156(d) definition as a proficiency check for an operating privelege? I'm pretty sure it does, but would appreciate any opinions.

Thanks all.

 

[avbug]

The proficiency check of it's own accord does not count, as it is not a pilot privilege. It's an instructor privilege. A pilot certificate is different than an instructor certificate.

You can combine a flight review with a proficiency check. What will make the difference is obtaining an endorsement specifically stating that you have met the requirements of a flight review. You need to have this endorsement. That you have taken a proficiency check for your flight instructing privileges is inconsequential.

 

[chrisdahut24]

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated!

 

[bobbysamd]

141 annual ride

Go have your Chief Flight Instructor, Assistant Chief or whoever gave you the ride also sign it off as a flight review. You will have then covered your bases, covered your ass, and there will be no doubt that your BFR is current.

 

[chrisdahut24]

Thanks again all.
Does anyone know if AOPA or some other organization has suggested the FAA change the wording of 61.65 to encompass Flight Instructor checkrides and proficiency checks? Is it just me or is it just ridiculous that one of the most demanding checkrides (as well as yearly proficiency checks) that we take is the only one NOT to be considered "good enough" to be used in lieu of a BFR?

And yes, I know we can just get the BFR sign off, but I'm talking about principle here.

 

[avbug]

Chris,

A flight instructor certificate is a teaching certificate. Not a pilot certificate. A flight review is intended to measure or enhance proficiency pertaining to a pilot certificate.

When the regulation speaks of taking a practical test or checkride for a pilot operating privilege, it means just that; a pilot operating privilege. Utilizing the privileges of a flight instructor certificate means utilizing the privilege to teach, not fly. Accordingly, a flight instructor renewal counts toward the one hour required of a flight review, but not the compete review.

It's not a matter of just getting the signoff. You should get the signoff regardless; the thrust of legality with respect to a flight review is the endorsement in your logbook.

A flight instructor renewal is hardly the most demanding "checkride" you'll ever take, unless you stop advancing your career at elementary flight instructing. Beleive me, you'll experience many more diverse demands on your skill, knowledge, and proficiency in the upcoming years. Those practical tests, checkrides, sim checks, line checks, and reality checks will open your eyes. They'll also be pilot checks, not theory checks as in the flight instructor certificate.

You indicated that yearly proficiency checks should be included. Depending on what check you're talking about, they are. To what are you referring? If you're referring to checks under Part 141, for instructing privileges, then no, these are not pilot checks, but instructing checks. If you're refering to other 12 month checks that involve the examination of pilot proficiency, and these checks are conducted for the purpose of extending or maintaining a pilot operating privilege, then these checks will suffice.

 

[midlifeflyer]

A flight instructor certificate is a teaching certificate. Not a pilot certificate. A flight review is intended to measure or enhance proficiency pertaining to a pilot certificate.

Chris,

I agree with AvBug.

You said

but I'm talking about principle here.

Me too. The FAA has traditionally kept pilot privileges and teaching privileges separate. And on principle, I think that is a good thing. It's that separation, for example, that allows instructors to continue to give flight training without having =any= pilot privileges at all (so long as the CFI doesn't have to act as PIC).

 

[chrisdahut24]

Avbug- I appreciate your insight and realize that you have far more experience in aviation then I do. It may just be that I'm seeing things the wrong way, but, I still don't get it. I see no difference in a CFI checkride and a pilot checkride. I had to demonstrate my proficiency as a pilot to Commercial PTS on my CFI ride (as well as on my yearly eval ride), as well as my ability to instruct. I therefore believe I went above and beyond whats required out of most pilot certification rides. I just don't see how a Private Pilot checkride can exempt one from the requirements of 61.56(c), yet a CFI checkride cannot.

 

[Weasil]

Chrisdahut24, instead of believing hearsay from random people on a website go directly to the source. Here's what John Lynch writes regarding this topic. And if you want you can ask him yourself at [email protected]

____________________________________________

QUESTION: The particular question is whether a flight instructor who passes a flight instructor practical test (for initial issuance or a CFI rating addition or for a reinstatement) is or is not exempt from needing a § 61.56 Flight Review for the next two years, since the reg. specifically says PILOT proficiency check.” § 6l.56 d - allows this exemption for a person who has”... passed a PILOT proficiency check..” not needing to accomplish a flight review for the next 2 years.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.56(d); If the examiner also evaluates the applicant’s piloting skills then yes, “. . . a flight instructor practical test (for initial issuance or a CFI rating addition or for a reinstatement) . . .” would meet the requirements of a § 61.56 Flight Review. However, to make sure the applicant gets credit for successful completion of the Flight Review, the examiner should record that the § 61.56 Flight Review was satisfactorily completed in the applicant’s logbook.

§ 61.56(d) states:

(d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review required by this section.

QUESTION: Does a Part 141 annual check also count in lieu of a flight review?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.56(d); As is the case in the Answer to Question 1 above, if the Chief Instructor, Assistant Chief Instructor, or Check Instructor evaluates the flight instructor’s piloting skills then the answer is yes, a Part 141 annual check would count for a § 61.56 Flight Review. However, to make sure the applicant gets credit for successful completion of the Flight Review, the Chief Instructor, Assistant Chief Instructor, or Check Instructor who conducts the check should record that the § 61.56 Flight Review was satisfactorily completed in the applicant’s logbook.
_______________________________________________

So quite clearly avbug is wrong a 141 annual check can count as a flight review! I guarantee you if an instructor could not demonstrate satisfactory piloting skill to pass a flight review then he would not pass an annual 141 check with me. In addition to that you are required to demonstrate teaching ability... not just teaching ability alone.

 

[avbug]

Weasil,

For one who holds out as an instructor of pilots (and a Chief Instructor, if I'm not mistaken?), you really need to hunker down, learn to listen, and read a whole lot more. Get to know what you're talking about.

For starters, the site proffered by John Lynch, while informative and fun, is NOT authoritative, nor does it represent the Administrator.

Having said that, the quote by Mr. Lynch is exactly what I've said several times now. The practical test for an instructor certificate or rating thereon, or for a "proficiency" exam for a flight instructor does NOT qualify for a flight review. However, if the examiner conducting the review or practical test has determined that the applicant has completed all the requirements for a flight review, and is willing to endorse you for the review, then it can be granted in CONJUNCTION with the proficiency exam or practical test.

The practical test doesn't count for a flight review, but if the examiner is willing to provide an endorsement, which is SEPARATE AND DISTINCT from the practical test, then you have met the requirements for a flight review (there is no such thing as a "BFR."). Simply taking the practical test for a flight instructor certificate, or a flight for instructor proficiency, of it's own accord does NOT meet the requirements of 61.56.

Next, you stated:

Not if that annual check was done in a simulator. And even if it is in an aircraft, if it is for SIC privileges on an aircraft the pilot doesn't hold a type rating in then it doesn't apply either.

You're quite wrong. A simulator check can and does count for a flight review; it need not be conducted in an airplane in flight. Perhaps you didn't read 61.56(I), which specifically states that a simulator may be used.

Further, a pilot may pass a SIC check under Parts 121 or 135, and qualify that proficiency check for a flight review, even if one is NOT type rated in the airplane. Imagine that. Or perhaps you didn't read 61.56(d)?

Rather than trying to argue a subject you obviously don't understand, take the time to at least read the regulation. It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear foolish, rather than open it, and remove all doubt.

 

[Weasil]

hahahahaha

avbug,


You posted that 141 checks do not count and yet they do!
You are correct though when you say you should get the endorsement in order to receive credit for it though, if the flight that you did was an instructor proficiency check.
That is what I'm talking about...

 

[Weasil]

hahahahaha...

 

[bobbysamd]

Lynch legal "opinions"

You say that John Lynch does not represent the administrator, well then why are his opinions published on afs600.faa.gov . . . . In fact on many visits to the Regional FSDO Inspectors have sat in front of me and deferred to John Lynch's opinions when they are unsure themselves or can find no guidance in their own materials.
It may not be high on the list of regulatory material but I guarantee his opinions have frequently been applied in front of the NTSB and stood the test.

John Lynch's comments and $0.02 opinions on an FAQ are sometimes instructive, but in a strict legal sense cannot be relied upon as black-letter law. It is generally agreed that FAA Assistant Chief Counsel opinion letters are the closest thing to black-letter law for regs interpretation short of published cases. This short thread is on another subject, but read Midlifeflyer's comments on John Lynch FAQs.

Also, don't rely upon FSDO ASIs for legal opinions. As far as I know, very few of them are lawyers, much less attorneys whom the FAA employs. They are copping-out by sending people to the Lynch FAQ instead of more credible sources.

 

[Weasil]

..

 

[avbug]

it would hold more weight in front of the ntsb

No, you dingbat. It wouldn't. And it doesn't. It doesn't hold ANY weight at all. Again, shut up and appear a little less ignorant (before you remove all doubt), and stop arguing what you don't understand.

I told you to read the previous posts. You didn't do that. Otherwise, you'd note that I specifically stated that SIC proficiency checks for Parts 121 or 135 DO count. In your effort to create a case, you restated what I had posted, and attempted to present it as an arguement. You're trying to argue about Part 61 training and qualification for SIC, where I specifically stated that my commentary applied to proficiency checks conducted under Parts 121 and 135. Can you not read? What is your point?

I stated that a simulator may be used to accomplish a flight review, and so it can. You stated that a proficiency check ("annual") conducted in a simulator cannot be substituted for a flight review. You were wrong. I corrected you. Let it drop.

You stated that an instructor practical test or 141 proficiency check may be substituted for a flight review, and again, you are clearly wrong. Let it drop. A flight instructor practical test may be applied toward the separate issue of an endorsement for a flight review, but never substituted. Reading Mr. Lynch's comments in plain English state this same thing. You are clearly wrong, stop arguing the issue. You are passing from ignorance to stupidity. Let it drop.

Further, Mr. Lynch's commentary that a Part 135 SIC proficiency check may not be counted as a pilot privilege in meeting the Flight Review requirements of 61.56, is incorrect. SIC operations privileges are pilot privileges and operating privileges, and most certainly count for a flight review without requirement for further endorsement. Now stop arguing, start studying, and shut up.

 

[Weasil]

..

 

[avbug]

Weasy, weasy, weasy. Give it up, already.

Quote the entire legal precendent including dates and names, if you will. Cite the NTSB case numbers, or FAA case numbers as applicable. Cite the parties involved, dates, etc.

Tell me, what authoritative position do you hold with the faa that you are able to hand down legal decisions. Are you not aware that quite a few of the opinions on John Lynch's FAQ are approved by the Office of the Chief Counsel and therefor are considered regulatory? When was the last time one of your ridiculous opinions were developed in conjunction with Andrew Steinberg's office? What's that ... never? ... that's what I thought.. but keep blowing hot air.

Show me a single time I have ever made a legal opinion or stated law without backing it up with a regulation reference and quote, or a legal interpretation. Your accusations are without basis.

On the few occasions I voice a personal opinion on a subject, I will specifically state that it is my opinion. Never have I offered my opinion as authoritative. The only interpretations I have quoted have been those of the FAA Chief Legal Counsel, or Assistant Chief Legal Counsel. These are accepted as being fully representative of the Administrator, and for your purposes and mine, are beyond contestation.

The FAQ to which you refer has never, I repeat NEVER, been approved as regulatory. Your answer only belies the great depths of your own ignorance. Clearly you are attempting flame bait; you are wasting my time. I'll leave it to others to carry on your foolishness if you wish to debate. Your ignorance on this topic (and apparently others) seemingly knows no bounds. Why not just shut up on the subject, before you reveal the truth depths of that ignorance any further?

The FAQ is really considered regulatory? Show us the NPRM that made it so. Show us the authoritative precedents that make them regulatory, or that would indicate in any way that the statements from Mr. Lynch's and Mr. Pinkston's FAQ are in any way considered or recognized as having any weight or bearing with equivilency to regulation. Pretty hard pull, considering the authors preface their own web site by stating otherwise...isn't it now? Can you do it? Care to back that up?

 

[bobbysamd]

I'm from Missouri, show me

There are several cases on record where ALJ's have stated that YES the instructor proficiency check can count in lieu of a flight review . . . . It is case law . . . . .

Can you provide a specific citation to a case reporter and/or WESTLAW so it can be looked up, please?

If, indeed, it is case law, then it is legal precedent that can be used in support of a formal legal argument.

i would begin with [John Lynch's] opinion then over one from some guy on flightinfo. i guarantee it would hold more weight in front of the ntsb

(emphasis added)

Unless some member of Flightinfo.com is an FAA and/or NTSB ALJ or higher and has published cases, then, no, an opinion from the board would hold no weight. Neither would a John Lynch "opinion" from his FAQ. No aviation attorney on earth would dare cite to a Lynch FAQ if he/she were presenting a case to an ALJ.

 

[Weasil]

I've got a better idea. If this is an issue for someone out there than don't take the word of anybody on this forum. Contact the Office of regional counsel in your area, they will be happy to answer this question for you.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Here is an excerpt from a recent opinion letter received from the Office of Chief Counsel.

2. Which operations exempt a pilot from the flight
review requirements?
The following serve as exemptions:...

Can you make a copy of that available? I've seen a opinion from the FAA (Eastern) Regional Counsel that is a bit different and supports the generally accepted view (including Lynch) that while a CFI test =can= meet the requirements, it does =not automatically=, but requires the additional act of an endorsement specifically saying so.

==============================
1 Aviation Plaza
Room 561
Jamaica, NY 11434

RE: Interpretation of FAR 61.56(d)

Dear Mr. Dennstaedt:

This is in response to your letter dated August 25, 2001, wherein you ask whether an airman can satisfy the flight review requirement under 14 C.F.R. (Federal Aviation Regulation [FAR]) 61.56 by passing a practical test to become a certified flight instructor (CFI), as required by FAR 61.183.

Under FAR 61.56(c)(1), one may not act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, he has "accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor." Under FAR 61.56(c)(2), the airman must receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor certifying that he has satisfactorily completed the review. Under FAR 61.56(a), a flight review must include: (1) a review of the current general operating and flight rules of Part 91; and (2) a review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.

Under FAR 61.56(d), however, the flight review requirement of FAR 61.56(c)(1) does not apply to one who has "passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate rating, or operating privilege."

The issue you raise is whether passing a practical test to become a CFI can fall within the exception to the flight review requirement that is provided by FAR 61.56(d). Under FAR 183(h), to be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating, the applicant must "pass the required practical test that is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought." The FAA Practical Test Standards (PTS) for the airplane flight instructor examiner (sic) requires that the examiner ensure that the flight instructor applicant has the "ability to perform the procedures and maneuvers included in the standards to at least the commercial pilot skill level."

Thus, the instructor has broad discretion in conducting a flight review. A CFI practical test encompasses the demonstration of various basic maneuvers that an instructor is likely to cover in a flight review. Incorporating a flight review into the CFI practical test could be accomplished, therefore, with little, if any difficulty.

Accordingly, a CFI practical test will not per se fulfill the flight review requirement. A practical test for a CFI rating under FAR 61.183, taken within 24 months of a prior flight review, can readily meet the flight review requirement of FAR 61.56(d), however, if the examiner is satisfied that a flight review endorsement can be given. To ensure that the CFI applicant gets credit for successful completion of the flight review, however, he or she should ask the examiner to conduct the CFI oral and practical test so as to satisfy the flight review requirements as well, and to make a logbook endorsement for the flight review upon completion of the examination.

If you have additional inquiries, please contact Zachary M. Berman of this office at (718) 553-3258.

Sincerely,


Loretta E. Alkalay
==============================