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!