Bfr

[UndauntedFlyer]

As and examiner I have been told by my office to write "Pilot Operations Checked" after a CFI check ride and that that will allow the test to count as a BFR.

 

[midlifeflyer]

...and sign a flight review endorsement.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

...and sign a flight review endorsement.

No I don't write the BFR endorsement because I really don't do what I consider a typical BFR. It's the same as when I do an Instrument Rating check I don't do a BFR either or write anything about a BFR but the Instrument check counts as a BFR as does an ATP check. For the Flight Instructor test, renewal or add-on, I would just write something like: "FAA Flight Instructor Airplane Practical Test Passed. Pilot Operations Checked - all were satisfactory." My FSDO has said that will do the job so beyond that I'll let the lawyers figure it out.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Then it probably doesn't count, except maybe in =your= FSDO district. And that's the biggest problem of all. The validity of that pilot's FR should not depend on which district the logbook review happens in.

"Let the lawyers figure it out."

Great. You know how the lawyers figure it out? They start a certificate action against some poor schmuck for not being current because some bigger schmuck at your FSDO decided not to ask it's inspectors and examiners to simply sign a flight review endorsement. And then at that poor pilot's hearing, you get on the stand and testify, "I really don't do what I consider a typical BFR."

Maybe it all gets resolved in the pilot's favor. Meantiime the pilot has to worry about something that's not his fault and could have been taken care of so simply.

Great.

Always nice to know the FSDO is there to help you

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

An examiner shouldn't write that he did a BFR when he didn't. The CFI check is not necessarily a check of pilot operations and that is why it doesn't count at a BFR. But if pilot operations are checked and the examiner makes a special note of this, as I have said, then it counts. Just as the the IRA and the ATP count as a BFR, and just as the recurrent airline checks count as well as line checks count, all without writing anything about a BFR, a CFI renewal counts if it is a "pilot proficiency check conducted by the FAA or an examiner representing the FAA." If the CFI applicant is checked as a pilot in the CFI areas of operation, then it counts as a BFR whether or not it says that specifically or not. The examiner must not that he checked the applicant's pilot operations in the CFI areas of operation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just as the the IRA and the ATP count as a BFR, and just as the recurrent airline checks count as well as line checks count, all without writing anything about a BFR,

Apples and oranges. The private, IR Commercial and ATP rides, and the recurrent airline checks and line checks count because 61.56 specifically =says= they do.

==============================
61.56(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.
==============================

The rule does not say that about a CFI check. That's the whole point.

Read the opinion by the Chief FAA Counsel for the Eastern Region. Don't want to go along with it, fine. But please don't tell some CFI applicant that your scrawling of "pilot proficiency checked" as a comment to something that is not a pilot proficiency check covers him and expose him to possible certificate action. Are you suggesting that if I note "pilot proficiency checked" as part of a transient checkout in a 172 (I'll guaranty I do check pilot proficiency in a checkout flight), that pilot doesn't need a flight review?

You don't want to sign off on a FR, fine. If the pilot has not shown you enough to "demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate" to you, then you shouldn't sign off on one. But don't put some meaningless verbage in his logbook and say it works. Just tell the applicant that the ride didn't count as a FR. I pretty certain that the CFI who flew with the applicant and signed him off for the ride will take care of it.

 

[A Squared]

The CFI check is not necessarily a check of pilot operations and that is why it doesn't count at a BFR.

No, it doesn't count because it's not a check for a pilot certificate, rating or privilege. That is what 61.56(d) specifies.

But if pilot operations are checked and the examiner makes a special note of this, as I have said, then it counts.

No, just because pilot operations are checked does not make it a check for a pilot certificate rating or privelige.

That is the crux of the issue, the wording of the regulation 61/56(d) specifies a check for a "pilot certificate, rating or privilege" It does not also include a "proficency check for an instructor certificate, rating, or privilege as long as pilot proficiency is checked" You won't find those words in 61.56(d). I know. I checked. The fact that you may have checked pilot profociency does not make an instructor certificate a pilot certificate.

Just as the the IRA and the ATP count as a BFR, and just as the recurrent airline checks count as well as line checks count, all without writing anything about a BFR, a CFI renewal counts if it is a "pilot proficiency check conducted by the FAA or an examiner representing the FAA."

No, as Midlife flyer has already pointed out, the ATP, PC, Line check, and IRA (instrument rating, airplane?) count because they are proficiency checks for "pilot certificates, ratings, or privileges"

If we look at what you wrote, we can see quite clearely why you are having difficulty grasping this concept. You wrote:

CFI renewal counts if it is a "pilot proficiency check conducted by the FAA or an examiner representing the FAA."

You left off the key portion of the regulation. the part which is most important to this issue, the portion upon which the *entire* issue hinges.

61.56(d) does not merely specify a "pilot proficiency check conducted by the FAA or an examiner representing the FAA."
if that were all it said, a CFI ride would count, but your quote is incomplete.

it specifies a: "pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved check airman, a US armed Force for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege "

Writing "pilot proficiency checked" in a logbook does not make an instructor certificate into a pilot certificate, and that's what it takes to satisfy the requirements of 61.56(d)

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The following is from the FAA's FAQ's for Part 61.

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.

The first sentence is the important part. The second sentence is only for clarification for the applicant if he wants to rent an airplane somewhere and the novice CFI says "Oh, you don't have a flight review logged and this CFI ride doesn't count because it only says "Pilot Proficiency Checked & Satisfactory. It must be the usual Flight Review endorsement." So adding the words Flight Review is just extra and for clarification. The above does not say that examiner MUST add that a flight review was passed. I prefer to not add the words “Flight Review Passed” because it isn't necessary. It would be no different than if I was getting a line check from the FAA and I asked the Inspector to put in my log that I had completed a Flight Review that day. (Wouldn't that be a joke?) It isn't necessary for the inspector to do this because the requirements of the regulation have been met, whether or not it is entered as a flight review or not. Besides, the inspector didn’t give a Flight Review, he gave a line check.

One thing I know is that there is always someone that says that someone else of a higher authority says something different. So I just find an answer that I like from the FAA or the regulation and I go with it. That is the case here. This is my position and I'm sticking with it. If you find another source that says something different then stick with that. But as I have said, this answer is OK with me.

 

[A Squared]

The following is from the FAA's FAQ's for Part 61.

Ok, a couple of things about those "FAQ" that information is has no official status, because the author, John Lynch, has no authority to issue legal interpretations. In Fact, the FAQ states very clearly that it is not official legal guidance. And...Unless I have been misinformed, that FAQ page is no longer published on the FAA's website, possibly because of the problems (present issue, for example) of having nonofficial guidance published on the FAA's website which conflicts with official guidance.
The FAA's legal counsel is the only department which has the authority to issue legal interpretations, and they *have* issued a legal interpretation. John Lynch's FAQ has no official status.


One thing I know is that there is always someone that says that someone else of a higher authority says something different. So I just find an answer that I like from the FAA or the regulation and I go with it. That is the case here. This is my position and I'm sticking with it. If you find another source that says something different then stick with that. But as I have said, this answer is OK with me.
[/QUOTE]

I can understand that. Certainly it can be very frustrating sorting out which answer is the correct one. However, if you have been shown the correct answer, and it has been explained to you in depth exactly why it is the correct answer and you have beeen show official legal interpretations from the only source of official legal interpetations which says it is the correct answer, I am at a loss why you would insist on being guided by the incorrect answer, particularly, when the person who will suffer, when legal action is taken, is not yourself, but some less knowledgable, newcomer to aviation who accepted your advice due to your status as an examiner.

I would suggest that as a examiner designee, you have a higher obligation to search out the correct answer and be guided by it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

[So I just find an answer that I like from the FAA or the regulation and I go with it. That is the case here. This is my position and I'm sticking with it. If you find another source that says something different then stick with that. But as I have said, this answer is OK with me. [/COLOR]

Warning! DPE who is perfectly happy to expose a pilot to a possible certificate action rather than do something that costs him nothing. Stay very far away.