UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I thought it was you. The misuse of "mute" is one of his trademarks.UndauntedFlyer said:Where is Avbug?
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.rickair7777 said:Is this just legal hair splitting, or would a potential employer or the FAA get upset over something like this that occurred years ago?
I don't see the 180 degree turn. The original opinion, this one, and the FAQ are all consistent with each other.A Squared said: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.
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.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.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.
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 itUndauntedFlyer said: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.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.
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.
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.A Squared said: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.
NoahWerka said:....... is not a Flight Instructor Certificate a pilot operating privilege?
NoahWerka said: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!
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)...NoahWerka said: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?
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)Rick said:It appears that depending on where you are located and what FSDO you call the answer will be different.
Way to go. Excellent.My contribution to solving this problem as a CFI is to update anyones flight review that I train to become a CFI.