Bfr?

[Weasil]

exactly. it can count. so can a 141 check. so long as you get the endorsement. this was the opinion of John Lynch which i quoted earlier. this is what I'm saying.

Further to that. Several cases indicate that the instructor/checkairman/examiner must also believe that they are being asked to give a flight review at the same time. In one example that i can think of the respondent later on wrote into his logbook that his proficiency check was also a flight review but the instructor disagreed and so he was found in violation of 61.56.

now keep in mind that every case i have seen or read (and that doesn't mean it's all of them) where a pilot has had certificate action taken against him for violating 61.56 has been in conjunction with some other event. Example, flying a plane not rated for and having a gear up landing.

 

[midlifeflyer]

exactly. it can count. so can a 141 check. so long as you get the endorsement. this was the opinion of John Lynch which i quoted earlier. this is what I'm saying.

Since that's also what everyone else who answered the question was saying, I'm at a complete loss to understand the argument and insults that have been tossed around.

The only difference I can see in the posts is whether one wants to emphasize "it can. get the endorsement to formalize it" or "it doesn't, so get the endorsement to have it."

Bottom line is that, unlike, say getting a commercial pilot certificate, the CFI-related stuff doesn't reset the BFR clock without some other memorialization. Anything else is semantics.

 

[avbug]

Still waiting for all that hard, solid, "caselaw" sited by mr. weasil. Or have we renegged and gone right to "ask the FAA?"

The semantic issue isn't so semantic. The truth is, and is stated by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Alkalay, et al, that a practical test for a flight instructor certificate, or a flight instructor proficiency exam, does NOT count for a flight review, and may not be substituted for a flight review. This is unequivocal, and indisputable.

If the inspector or examiner conducting the review or practical test believes that adequate material has been covered, or he she may issue a separate and distinct endorsement showing that a flight review has been peformed IN ADDITION to and IN CONJUNCTION with the practical test or proficiency check.

The practical test or proficiency check may not be substituted for, and does not count for a flight review (not a BFR, which does not exist). A flight review may be conducted simultaneously or in conjunction with a practical test for a flight instructor certificate, but the practical test does NOT count. What does count is the endorsement by the check airman, inspector, or examiner showing that a flight review has been accomplished. This endorsement, and the training/examination implied thereof, is an entirely separate function from the practical test or proficiency flight. The two are not the same, and one may not be substituted for another.

Therefore, it's a matter of semantics so long as one can suggest that two entirely different functions and acts are still the same thing, called by different names. It's not semantics; it's two separate and distinct functions, in the which one may under no circumstances be substituted for the other.

Exactly as has been stated by every legal official source sited herein, exactly as I have stated all along, and exactly as is the case...and exactly as is correct and cannot be disputed.

All semantics aside.

Now where's that case law weasil was talking about. It seemed such a big deal before...where is it?

 

[Weasil]

..

 

[Weasil]

.

 

[Weasil]

?

 

[bobbysamd]

Legal authority

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.

No, sir/ma'am, you are the one who is raising all the issues about what is or what is not legal authority. As I wrote above, why don't you direct us to your source of legal authority.

Once more, by that I mean a published case(s) that one can find in a West reporter, Westlaw, or even something in CJS, AmJur, ALR or the Federal Register. Sources normally available to practitioners of aviation law.

Finally, I've worked for a few Chief Flight Instructors. From your written comments and attitude, you certainly do not comport yourself like any Chief Instructor or Chief Pilot I have known.

Flamebait?!?

Thanks to Mr. DMS for the proofreading session.

 

[bobbysamd]

Citations, please, and not the Cessna variety

Several cases indicate that the instructor/checkairman/examiner must also believe that they are being asked to give a flight review at the same time . . . .

Once more, please direct us to your source of legal authority which carries legal precedent and is black-letter law.

I have a law library near where I live. I'd be happy to go through the stacks and verify your cites.