Bfr

[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.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Ohmigosh! It's Avbug!

Where is Avbug?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Where is Avbug?

I thought it was you. The misuse of "mute" is one of his trademarks.

 

[rickair7777]

With all that being said...

Let's say, hypothetically, that you review your logbooks and find that during your CFI days you missed a couple BFRs because you were led to believe that your CFI intial and later your MEI counted as BFRs...

Is this just legal hair splitting, or would a potential employer or the FAA get upset over something like this that occurred years ago? So far two employers and a DPE haven't said anything...

Is there a statutue of limitations for this kind of thing?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is this just legal hair splitting, or would a potential employer or the FAA get upset over something like this that occurred years ago?

Mostly legal hairsplitting, especially if it happened long ago. I think there actually is a solid legal reason for not treating the CFI ride as a FR, but not a very good practical one - hard to imagine an FAA inspector or DPE handing out a CFI certificate or rating to someone whose piloting skills are in doubt.

I'm sure it can happen to the innocent, but I'd make an educated guess that by far most violations for pilot logging discrepancies, especially those that get past the warning letter stage, are true falsifications or arise out of something else that draws the FAA's interest. Perhaps an accident that suggested there was a problem with skills or a pilot who was acting as a bit of a jerk during an otherwise normal investigation.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

CFI Checkride counts as a BFR

U.S. Department
of Transportation

Federal Aviation
Administration
Eastern Region
Office of Regional Counsel
1 Aviation Plaza
Jamaica, New York 11434
Telephone: 718-553-3258
Facsimile: 718-995-5699




Via e-mail



Undaunted Flyer

For Flight Info.com




RE: Your questions about our interpretation of Federal Aviation regulation (FAR) 61.56



Dear Undaunted Flyer:

This is in response to your e-mail of March 31, 2006, wherein you question our statement in a previous interpretation[1] to the effect that a practical test for a Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) rating under 14 C.F.R. (Federal Aviation Regulation [FAR]) 61.183 can qualify as 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” under FAR 61.56(d) and can thus obviate a biennial flight review under FAR 61.56(c)(1), so long as the examiner is satisfied that a flight review endorsement can be given. We cautioned, however, that to ensure that the CFI applicant gets credit for successful completion of the flight review, 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.

In your e-mail, you question how a practical test for a CFI can qualify as a flight review, in light of the fact that a flight review requires one hour of flight and ground training[2] whereas no training is even allowed during a practical test. The answer to your question can be found in the language of FAR 61.56(d), which states that “a person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section,[3] 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.” In other words, a pilot who passes one of the proficiency checks specified in FAR 61.56(d) – which would include a practical test for a CFI – would be exempt from the flight review and all the requirements incident to a flight review, including 1 hour of ground and flight training.

You have also inquired as to whether the following language would constitute a proper endorsement for a CFI practical test such as to negate the need for a flight review: “FAA Flight Instructor Airplane Single Engine Practical Test Passed, Pilot Operations checked and tested – all satisfactory.” In our view, the endorsement for the CFI practical test should be written such as to convey that the practical test encompassed the demonstration of various basic maneuvers that an instructor would be likely to cover in a flight review. With this purpose, we believe that such an endorsement should preferably read, “FAA Certified Flight Instructor Airplane Single Engine Practical Test passed, including maneuvers and procedures required for a flight review under FAR 61.56(a)(2).[4] Or something to that effect.

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

Sincerely,


Loretta E. Alkalay

[1] A letter to Mr. Dennstaedt that you attached to your e-mail.

[2] Indeed, FAR 61.56(a) provides that “a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training.”

[3] That is, within the preceding 24-calendar month period, the same period of time within which a flight review is required.

[4] Under that regulation, a flight review is required to include “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.”

 

[A Squared]

Fascinating.

THe very same office, nay, the very same person seems to have performed a 180 degree about face on the issue. Thanks for digging into this and posting your findings.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Fascinating.

THe very same office, nay, the very same person seems to have performed a 180 degree about face on the issue. Thanks for digging into this and posting your findings.

I don't see the 180 degree turn. The original opinion, this one, and the FAQ are all consistent with each other.

There is one sentence -

In other words, a pilot who passes one of the proficiency checks specified in FAR 61.56(d) – which would include a practical test for a CFI – would be exempt from the flight review and all the requirements incident to a flight review, including 1 hour of ground and flight training.

that suggests an about face, but in the context of all of the rest of the Opinion, which talks about how to write up a combined CFI ride/FR endorsement, I don't see any bottom line difference.

All of the versions - this one, the old one, the FAQ - ultimately say the exact same thing. A CFI ride can count as a FR, but something in addition to issuing the certificate has to be done.

If a CFI ride automatically counted as a FR, there would be no need whatsoever for any additional language.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

From FAA Legal:

In other words, a pilot who passes one of the proficiency checks specified in FAR 61.56(d) – which would include a practical test for a CFI – would be exempt from the flight review and all the requirements incident to a flight review, including 1 hour of ground and flight training.

What this really says is that it's OK for the examiner to write anything, even something such as, "CFI test passed" and that would count.

Then they go on to say more about how the examiner could be more discriptive. But even so, based on what is stated above, if the examiner never read this letter from FAA legal and just did his/her typical "CFI test passed" endorsement then that would count for the BFR.

And if anyone in the field disagrees with this opinion, you can now say you saw this it in a letter to Undaunted Flyer on FI.
:beer:

 

[midlifeflyer]

In other words, a pilot who passes one of the proficiency checks specified in FAR 61.56(d) – which would include a practical test for a CFI – would be exempt from the flight review and all the requirements incident to a flight review, including 1 hour of ground and flight training.

What this really says is that it's OK for the examiner to write anything, even something such as, "CFI test passed" and that would count.

I've learned to avoid taking one sentence out of a legal opinion - in this case an almost parenthetical part of a sentence - and treat it as though it were the entire answer, especially when (1) other language in the same opinion that arguably contradicts it

You have also inquired as to whether the following language would constitute a proper endorsement for a CFI practical test such as to negate the need for a flight review: “FAA Flight Instructor Airplane Single Engine Practical Test Passed, Pilot Operations checked and tested – all satisfactory.” In our view, the endorsement for the CFI practical test should be written such as to convey that the practical test encompassed the demonstration of various basic maneuvers that an instructor would be likely to cover in a flight review. With this purpose, we believe that such an endorsement should preferably read, “FAA Certified Flight Instructor Airplane Single Engine Practical Test passed, including maneuvers and procedures required for a flight review under FAR 61.56(a)(2).[4] Or something to that effect.

and (2) it's unnecessary to answer the question.

you question how a practical test for a CFI can qualify as a flight review, in light of the fact that a flight review requires one hour of flight and ground training[2] whereas no training is even allowed during a practical test.

We oboviously read this opinion a bit differently and isn't that itself part of the problem?

 

[A Squared]

Hmmm, I guess that this is sort of a Rorschach Inkblot of a legal opinion. I probbably need to re-read it one sentance at a time and digest it slowly. A little too early in the (my) morning for that sort of concentrated effort though. I think that the only real conclusion that one can draw from this is that Loretta Alkalay has extrordinarily poor writing skills. The first interpretation was an embarrasment, it was completely ungrammatic, and this one isn't much better.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hmmm, I guess that this is sort of a Rorschach Inkblot of a legal opinion. I probbably need to re-read it one sentence at a time and digest it slowly. A little too early in the (my) morning for that sort of concentrated effort though. I think that the only real conclusion that one can draw from this is that Loretta Alkalay has extrordinarily poor writing skills. The first interpretation was an embarrasment, it was completely ungrammatic, and this one isn't much better.

I agree. My gripe with the Part 61 FAQ answer is that it spoke out of both sides of its mouth. Through in unnecessary language that made it unclear. This one is not much better.

The problem may simply be that there have been budget cuts in all of the FAA Legal regional offices. Especially at the Regional level, there's probably neither the time nor the inclination to really think some of these through for consistency.

 

[NoahWerka]

We all know 61.56(d) .....a pilot rating, certificate, or operating privilege....
According to the title of 61.193, Flight Instructor Privileges, is not a Flight Instructor Certificate a pilot operating privilege? Doesn't one have to have at least Comm. Pilot Certificate to operate an aircraft and a CFI rating to give flight training? Isn't flight training given by operating an aircr....OOPS! Going by what the FAA says, it must not be. Reason and logic almost bit me in the a$$.
:beer:

 

[A Squared]

....... is not a Flight Instructor Certificate a pilot operating privilege?

No, a flight instructor certificate is not a pilot certificate any more than a flight engineer certificate or a flight navigator certificate is.

Doesn't one have to have at least Comm. Pilot Certificate to operate an aircraft and a CFI rating to give flight training? Isn't flight training given by operating an aircr....OOPS!

That may be, but a flight insructor certificate gives you exactly zero pilot privileges.

Do you think that you could rent an airplane with a flight instructor certificate only?

If you got ramp checked do you think you could make the inspector happy by giving him only your flight instructor certificate?

If you pilot license was suspended, could you legally pilot an airplane on the basis of your flight instructor certificate?

Obviously, the answer in all cases is no, so if you think about it, the flight instructor has absolutely no pilot privileges associated with it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

We all know 61.56(d) .....a pilot rating, certificate, or operating privilege....
According to the title of 61.193, Flight Instructor Privileges, is not a Flight Instructor Certificate a pilot operating privilege?

Just to expand a bit on A Squared's answer to this one (it's easy - a cut and paste from a personal FAQ file)...

From a pure regulation standpoint, the FAR treats instructor certificates separately from pilot certificates. Staring with

==============================
§ 61.1 Applicability and definitions.
(a) This part prescribes:
(1) The requirements for issuing pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor certificates and ratings; the conditions under which those certificates and ratings are necessary; and the privileges and limitations of those certificates and ratings.
(2) The requirements for issuing pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor authorizations; the conditions under which those authorizations are necessary; and the privileges and limitations of those authorizations.
(3) The requirements for issuing pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor certificates and ratings for persons who have taken courses approved by the Administrator under other parts of this chapter.
==============================

The differentiation continues throughout the FAR and general FAA policy with amazing consistency, from medical certificate requirements (a CFI doesn't need one unless he's also acting as a required crewmember, i.e., as a "pilot") to the requirement to have each certificate available when exercising that certificate's privileges to the requirement that, in order to teach in an aircraft, a CFI must have both "A pilot certificate =and= flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating" (61.195(b)(1).

One may exist, but it would be hard to find an FAR that =does= treat the flight instructor certificate as a pilot certificate.

 

[NoahWerka]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Rick]

I have seen this question plenty of times and I have seen the same answers. What I did was call the FSDO. They said it counts as a flight review no questions asked. It appears that depending on where you are located and what FSDO you call the answer will be different. My contribution to solving this problem as a CFI is to update anyones flight review that I train to become a CFI. That way they are good for 2 calender years and want need to worry about it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It appears that depending on where you are located and what FSDO you call the answer will be different.

That's exactly the problem. Have your accident in the =wrong= FSDO area and you have one more thing to worry about. (BTW, it maye even be different at the =same= FSDO if you talk to someone else)

My contribution to solving this problem as a CFI is to update anyones flight review that I train to become a CFI.

Way to go. Excellent.