Bfr

[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.