Bfr

[UndauntedFlyer]

Thank you for your reply...

The FAA does not make policy changes on the word of a guy named "Midlifeflyer" or "A Squared" (no disrespect meant) and then act on those, saying that they got this from two anonymous sources on the internet.


So far I have presented you both with text of FAA (Washington) position on this and that is more authoritative than anything you have shown me. Plus I have explained what the FAA’s instructions have been on this subject. So if you now have something authoritative please present it. I would like to hear another point of view from an FAA source.

 

[A Squared]

The FAA does not make policy changes on the word of a guy named "Midlifeflyer" or "A Squared" (no disrespect meant) and then act on those, saying that they got this from two anonymous sources on the internet.

No disrespect interpreted, I agree that if all you had to go on was my say-so, you'd do well to be skeptical. However, I *would* expect you to *listen* to what I'm saying, which apparently you are not. Your words suggest to me that you are not even reading what I and Midlife have written.


I'll try again.


So far I have presented you both with text of FAA (Washington) position on this and that is more authoritative than anything you have shown me. [/QUOTE]

No, it ABSOLUTELY IS NOT!!!!! sorry, for yelling, but you've ignored this every other time it has been explained to you. THe FAQ you quoted has ABSOLUTELY NO OFFICIAL LEGAL STANDING.

In fact the FAA has removed it from thier website, presumably because it was misleading.

THe letter I *HAVE* shown you *IS* more *AUTHORITATIVE* the letter is from FAA's legal counsel. If you think that is not authoritative, you are wrong.

Perhaps you can explain why you beleive that an official letter of interpretation, from the office within the FAA tasked with issuing official legal interpretations (FAA counsel) in not authoritative.

So if you now have something authoritative please present it.

I *HAVE* presented it. A Official Legal interpretation on the subject, from FAA legal counsel. I posted it in post #8 in this thread.

Wich part of "Accordingly, a CFI practical test will not per se fulfill the flight review requirement." do you *not* understand?

I would like to hear another point of view from an FAA source.

You Have heard fropm *the* official FFA source on legal matters. SO far you have chosen to pretend not to notice it.

I am at a loss what to do here.

You have been given *THE* official word, from *the* source in the FAA on legal issues, yet you pretend you haven't seen anything.

WHat does it take to get you to at the very least acknowledge the interpretation I have posted and discuss it's merits rather than pretending you haven't seen it????????


Serious question

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

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

OK guys thanks for your restatements of information but Ms Alkalay's letter really doesn't say anything different than the FAQ on this subject. It says "to insure," implying, just as does Mr. Lynche's FAQ's, that the Flight Review statement is just for additional and optional clarification.

Personally I know of no examiner that adds anything about a Flight Review being completed when he or she does a CFI add-on, renewal or reinstatement. This is because the FR requires both flight and ground INSTRUCTION as is required by the FAR's and instruction is something that is not allowed on practical tests by examiners. Let me say this again, instruction is not allowed on FAA practical tests, yet instruction (both flight and ground) is required as part of a Flight Review. Therefore the FR and a practical test are incompatible in the sense of instruction.

So if it isn't good enough for the examiner to write "Pilot Operations checked and tested - all satisfactory," then just have the recommending CFI, if there is one, add the Flight Review endorsement as you have said would be easy for the instructor to do.

Thank you for the opportunity to correct this confusion that seems to exist.

You should both list yourselves as E-CFI's to get this new rating. And you're right, it won't count as a FR.

 

[midlifeflyer]

WHat does it take to get you to at the very least acknowledge the interpretation I have posted and discuss it's merits rather than pretending you haven't seen it????????

Serious question

Serious answer: nothing.

He's already told us that he "I just find an answer that I like from the FAA or the regulation and I go with it." Some unnamed guy at a FSDO told him this was okay (chances are =not= in writing) and the words of the regulation and the written opinion of a Regional counsel just don't stand up to that type of ultimate authority.

The only thing you can do is hope that the pilots who listen to him never have an incident that subjects their pilot records to inspection at a FSDO that reads the rules the way they have been written and officially interpreted.

I suspect that they'd be okay after having the crap scared out of them because of this guy. Although there =was= that pilot who thought he passed a checkride from an inspector who didn't really have authority to give checkrides.

Recommendation for CFIs doing sign-offs: Unlike Undaunted, care about the people who are paying you. Don't even leave it to the examiner. If your CFI candidate needs a FR and the training you've given them satisfies you of their abilities under 61.56, endorse their FR. Don't leave them potentially hanging.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So if it isn't good enough for the examiner to write "Pilot Operations checked and tested - all satisfactory," then just have the recommending CFI, if there is one, add the Flight Review endorsement as you have said would be easy for the instructor to do.

Yes, it would. I have no objection to your refusal to sign off on a FR. None at all. Really. As I said before, if you don't feel that someone you've signed off for an instructor certificate or rating qualifies for a FR, you shouldn't sign the endorsement.

My =only= objection was to the idea of suggesting to a CFI candidate that what you write covers the FR. when it doesn't, potentially exposing the pilot to a certificate action.

If you don't do that, everything else is fine.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Sometimes people make way too much out of something that is really not an issue. This is one of them specifically, and FAR's in general is always part of that too.

Now let me ask, do any of you know of anyone who has taken a CFI checkride and had any kind of violation by the FAA for their non-compliance with the flight review requirement? I never have heard of this and it is only something that has just been talked about in the last few years. Before that, since the Flight Review first started in 1973, a flight instructor test always met the requirement of a Flight Review, no question asked.

So my advice is relax and don't get so wound up over this. No one is getting a violation for this because they didn't understand fully what has been posted here in this thread. I don’t think the FAA is out to get anybody over this issue.

And midlifeflyer, I checked out your website. Looks good, I can see that you really want to do the best possible to be a top notch CFI. You are on the right track but relax a little. One more thing: Your remarks about me were personally unkind and unprofessional from a serious Board member.

 

[schoolio]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but...

The SDL FSDO considers the initial CFI ride acceptable for restarting your flight review clock. Any other CFI rides do not count unless the proper arrangements are arranged and the endorsement is given. The problem with this is that I won't always be flying in the SDL FSDO's area...

 

[midlifeflyer]

One more thing: Your remarks about me were personally unkind and unprofessional from a serious Board member.

Understand that, if I have a =real= soapbox issue, it's people in authority who steer folks the wrong way. When you say you choose the rule interpretations you like and then impose them on others with no regard to the possible consequences, to them, believe me, the terms I use to describe that attitude are mild compared to my thoughts.

How many have been "caught?" How many have been caught in any other currency issue? Not many. It takes another incident that gives the FAA reason to examine the logbook. At that point all bets are off. Or how about an accident where the pilot is sued. You can bet your britches that the plaintiff's attorney will use the technical lack of currency to show that, not only was the pilot careless (which caused the accident) but he also had no regard for the rules (which can substantially increase a damage award). Worse, yet, the pilots insurer might use the lack of currency as an excuse to deny coverage and leave the pilot hanging!

Besides, you're not advocating an "anything is okay so long as you don't get caught" view for compliance with the regs, are you?

 

[nosehair]

I know of a sign that hangs on the wall behind the desk of an (unnamed) FSDO Inspector's office. "Arguing with an FAA Inspector is like wrestling with a pig in the mud - after a while, you figure out the pig likes it."

I see that Undaunted is a DE - not an FAA Inspector, yet, but he sure has the mindset. Hang in there, Undaunted, you'll make it yet.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

OK. Here it is... I have explained why the examiner can not really give a FR endorsement along with any practical test. (Remember the FR requires instruction to be given and the FAA practical test prohibits the giving of instruction on the test). And I have explained that my FSDO, my POI, FAA Inspector John Lynch in Washington (who wrote Part 61), and now I will add the Oklahoma City Examiner Standardization Team, of which all have said to write "Pilot Operations checked and tested - all satisfactory," but that is not good enough you seem to say. You think you are right and they are all wrong. Could be but I do have more confidence in their points of view than yours Midlifeflyer (no disrespect intended.) But just to make you happy, in the future, when I write "FAA Flight Instructor practical test passed, Pilot Operations checked and tested - all were satisfactory," I will tell them that this should serve as a FR as per all the sources I have listed, but just in case, they may want to contact a CFI (like you) to have a FR done to be sure. And the reason is because there is some CFI out in Denver named Midlifeflyer who says this won't work as is.

OK, done. "That was easy". Push the button!

 

[A Squared]

Could be but I do have more confidence in their points of view than yours Midlifeflyer (no disrespect intended.)

Yes, but, it *isn't* midlife's point of view, it *isn't* my point of view. It *IS* the point of view of the FAA's Legal counsel. And in legal matters, the FAA's own legal counsel *is* much higher on the authority ladder than your FSDO, your POI, John Lynch, and the Examiner standardization team.

You have yet to address that point. You dismiss it as if it was a letter to the editor from somone's grandmother. It's not. It an official interpretation from the FAA's legal authority, saying in no uncertain terms that a CFI ride does not qualify for the 61.56(d) exemption.

I see that we're still stuck in the second stage from your tag line.

 

[A Squared]

But just to make you happy, in the future, when I write "FAA Flight Instructor practical test passed, Pilot Operations checked and tested - all were satisfactory," I will tell them that this should serve as a FR as per all the sources I have listed, but just in case, they may want to contact a CFI (like you) to have a FR done to be sure. And the reason is because there is some CFI out in Denver named Midlifeflyer who says this won't work as is.

Well, not quite accurate. To be accurate and truthful, you would have to tell the applicant that the FAA's legal authority has said in an official interpretation that it won't work as is, not some CFi in Denver..

 

[A Squared]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but...

The SDL FSDO considers the initial CFI ride acceptable for restarting your flight review clock. Any other CFI rides do not count unless the proper arrangements are arranged and the endorsement is given.

Hmmmmm, that's an interesting twist, the first one counts, but subsequent ones do not.

The problem with this is that I won't always be flying in the SDL FSDO's area...

Yeah, therin lies the rub. Aviation regulations are not supposed to be local phenomenon. Perhaps the FAA, as a public service, cound publish a list of hte FSDOs which consider the CFI ride to fulfil the requyirements of 61.56(d) then you could plan to only fly in those areas, or if you fly into one of the other areas, you could plan not to have a blown tire on landing or other incident that might lead to a logbook review.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The FAA's legal authority that you referenced wrote,

"Incorporating a flight review into the CFI practical test could be accomplished, therefore, with little, if any difficulty."

But that means providing 2 hours of instruction during the practical test when such instruction is prohibited per the Examiners Handbook, "The examiner must not give an applicant training during the practical test." (Ref: 8710-3D, page 5-7) There is a conterdiction here.

Does this letter to which you reference so often give the authority for examiners to now give dual instruction during FAA Flight Instructor Practical Tests? It does not.

An examiner's authority is through his or her supervising office and no one else.

In any event I will still endorse CFI applicants as follows: "FAA Flight Instructor practical test passed, Pilot Operations checked and tested - all were satisfactory," I will tell them that this should serve as a FR as per all the sources I have listed, but just in case, they may want to contact a CFI (like you and Midlifecrisis) to have a FR done to be sure.

How is that?

But no matter what I say, legal counsel and all, I doubt that any applicants will contact a CFI for a FR. They will probably just act on whatever source suits them best.

Did you notice my new E-type rating?

Push the Easy button!

 

[midlifeflyer]

But that means providing 2 hours of instruction during the practical test

Actually, it's 1 hour of instruction. The CFI ride does count, in a backhanded way, for the ground requirement:

==============================
61.56(f) A person who holds a current flight instructor certificate who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, satisfactorily completed a renewal of a flight instructor certificate under the provisions in § 61.197 need not accomplish the 1 hour of ground training specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
==============================

That avoids the need for the ground portion in most CFI rating add-on rides. And to the extent that you don't feel that you should be signing off on an FR, as I said before, that's fine - so long as you don't lead the pilot to believe that he's covered anyway.

I have a suggested modification for your post-endorsement "disclosure":

==============================
I will tell them that this should serve as a FR as per all the sources I have listed, except for those that are actually written somehwhere
==============================


(BTW, schoolio, this provision is probably the source of the SF FSDO's differentiation between the initial and later rides, although, if anything, the provision is just one of many that shows how the FAA treats "pilot certificates" as separate and distinct from "instructor certificates. In fact, I haven't come across one FAR in which they are treated as the same)

It's truly amazing what you learn when you read rather than take things on faith.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Actually, it's 1 hour of instruction. The CFI ride does count, in a backhanded way, for the ground requirement.

It is 2-hours for initial CFI and for reinstatements but in any event it is a mute point because any amount of instruction on a CFI practical test, or any test for that matter, is not permitted. Therefore the FR sign-off you have been advocating from the examiner is NOT PERMITTED following a CFI practical test unless the applicant and the examiner complete the entire process by issuing the temporary certificate and signing the log book. Then they can start at the beginning on the FR, including the ground in most cases and the flight in all cases. This seems to be what you want.

Really, it seems to me that Inspector John Lynch in Washington (who wrote Part 61), my POI, my FSDO and the examiner team are all trying to figure out how to help a guy out so he won't have to go through all that. But you, Midlife, are trying to just make things more difficult for all those CFI's that just want to get renewed and get to work.And all the while, since the flight review started in 1973, there has been not one problem with the way things have been done. No violations, no law suits, no nothing. It is said, "Let sleeping dogs lay."

Maybe the new biggest lie will become, "Hi, I'm Midlifeflyer, I'm from Flight Info.com and I'm here to help you."

Push the easy button.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

To midlifeflyer: Why don't you losen up and become an E-CFI? Maybe an E-type rating too. It's just part of cyberspace non-reality.

 

[501261]

Really, it seems to me that Inspector John Lynch in Washington (who wrote Part 61), my POI, my FSDO and the examiner team are all trying to figure out how to help a guy out so he won't have to go through all this.

This is very true, and is often how it works in the "real world" however as was pointed out to me by another ASI, "However, if you ask a legal kind of question, you get a legal kind of answer….. "

So use the information presented here as you feel fit. Personally I completely agree with A2 and Midlife, but I also know that a lot of things presented here as "legal" aren't "real world".

It never hurts to be "legal".

 

[midlifeflyer]

it is a mute point

Ohmigosh! It's Avbug!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

For those who may be interested I have sent an email inquiry on the CFI/FR subjects in this post to Zachary M. Berman, the attorney behind the letter that has been posted here. I have also sent an inquiry to my local FSDO. When I receive a reply I will advise the Board members of their answers. I have asked if it would suffice for the requirement of 61.56(d) to write "FAA Flight Instructor Test Passed, Pilot Operations Checked - All were satisfactory." I have explained in my letter why the examiner can not endorse a flight test as a FR.

I would like for them to say the check ride endorsement as shown above will do the job. But if they say otherwise, then that's that and CFI's will have to just live with this change. As DPE's we are way down on the FSDO/FAA food chain so every examiner just endorses the results of practical tests as instructed by the FSDO. It is only the real FAA that makes policy, not examiners.