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.”