Bfr

[midlifeflyer]

Just as the the IRA and the ATP count as a BFR, and just as the recurrent airline checks count as well as line checks count, all without writing anything about a BFR,

Apples and oranges. The private, IR Commercial and ATP rides, and the recurrent airline checks and line checks count because 61.56 specifically =says= they do.

==============================
61.56(d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 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.
==============================

The rule does not say that about a CFI check. That's the whole point.

Read the opinion by the Chief FAA Counsel for the Eastern Region. Don't want to go along with it, fine. But please don't tell some CFI applicant that your scrawling of "pilot proficiency checked" as a comment to something that is not a pilot proficiency check covers him and expose him to possible certificate action. Are you suggesting that if I note "pilot proficiency checked" as part of a transient checkout in a 172 (I'll guaranty I do check pilot proficiency in a checkout flight), that pilot doesn't need a flight review?

You don't want to sign off on a FR, fine. If the pilot has not shown you enough to "demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate" to you, then you shouldn't sign off on one. But don't put some meaningless verbage in his logbook and say it works. Just tell the applicant that the ride didn't count as a FR. I pretty certain that the CFI who flew with the applicant and signed him off for the ride will take care of it.

 

[A Squared]

The CFI check is not necessarily a check of pilot operations and that is why it doesn't count at a BFR.

No, it doesn't count because it's not a check for a pilot certificate, rating or privilege. That is what 61.56(d) specifies.

But if pilot operations are checked and the examiner makes a special note of this, as I have said, then it counts.

No, just because pilot operations are checked does not make it a check for a pilot certificate rating or privelige.

That is the crux of the issue, the wording of the regulation 61/56(d) specifies a check for a "pilot certificate, rating or privilege" It does not also include a "proficency check for an instructor certificate, rating, or privilege as long as pilot proficiency is checked" You won't find those words in 61.56(d). I know. I checked. The fact that you may have checked pilot profociency does not make an instructor certificate a pilot certificate.

Just as the the IRA and the ATP count as a BFR, and just as the recurrent airline checks count as well as line checks count, all without writing anything about a BFR, a CFI renewal counts if it is a "pilot proficiency check conducted by the FAA or an examiner representing the FAA."

No, as Midlife flyer has already pointed out, the ATP, PC, Line check, and IRA (instrument rating, airplane?) count because they are proficiency checks for "pilot certificates, ratings, or privileges"

If we look at what you wrote, we can see quite clearely why you are having difficulty grasping this concept. You wrote:

CFI renewal counts if it is a "pilot proficiency check conducted by the FAA or an examiner representing the FAA."

You left off the key portion of the regulation. the part which is most important to this issue, the portion upon which the *entire* issue hinges.

61.56(d) does not merely specify a "pilot proficiency check conducted by the FAA or an examiner representing the FAA."
if that were all it said, a CFI ride would count, but your quote is incomplete.

it specifies a: "pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved check airman, a US armed Force for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege "

Writing "pilot proficiency checked" in a logbook does not make an instructor certificate into a pilot certificate, and that's what it takes to satisfy the requirements of 61.56(d)

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The following is from the FAA's FAQ's for Part 61.

Ref. §61.56(d); If the examiner also evaluates the applicant’s piloting skills then yes, “. . . a flight instructor practical test (for initial issuance or a CFI rating addition or for a reinstatement) . . .” would meet the requirements of a §61.56 Flight Review. However, to make sure the applicant gets credit for successful completion of the Flight Review, the examiner should record that the §61.56 Flight Review was satisfactorily completed in the applicant’s logbook.

The first sentence is the important part. The second sentence is only for clarification for the applicant if he wants to rent an airplane somewhere and the novice CFI says "Oh, you don't have a flight review logged and this CFI ride doesn't count because it only says "Pilot Proficiency Checked & Satisfactory. It must be the usual Flight Review endorsement." So adding the words Flight Review is just extra and for clarification. The above does not say that examiner MUST add that a flight review was passed. I prefer to not add the words “Flight Review Passed” because it isn't necessary. It would be no different than if I was getting a line check from the FAA and I asked the Inspector to put in my log that I had completed a Flight Review that day. (Wouldn't that be a joke?) It isn't necessary for the inspector to do this because the requirements of the regulation have been met, whether or not it is entered as a flight review or not. Besides, the inspector didn’t give a Flight Review, he gave a line check.

One thing I know is that there is always someone that says that someone else of a higher authority says something different. So I just find an answer that I like from the FAA or the regulation and I go with it. That is the case here. This is my position and I'm sticking with it. If you find another source that says something different then stick with that. But as I have said, this answer is OK with me.

 

[A Squared]

The following is from the FAA's FAQ's for Part 61.

Ok, a couple of things about those "FAQ" that information is has no official status, because the author, John Lynch, has no authority to issue legal interpretations. In Fact, the FAQ states very clearly that it is not official legal guidance. And...Unless I have been misinformed, that FAQ page is no longer published on the FAA's website, possibly because of the problems (present issue, for example) of having nonofficial guidance published on the FAA's website which conflicts with official guidance.
The FAA's legal counsel is the only department which has the authority to issue legal interpretations, and they *have* issued a legal interpretation. John Lynch's FAQ has no official status.


One thing I know is that there is always someone that says that someone else of a higher authority says something different. So I just find an answer that I like from the FAA or the regulation and I go with it. That is the case here. This is my position and I'm sticking with it. If you find another source that says something different then stick with that. But as I have said, this answer is OK with me.
[/QUOTE]

I can understand that. Certainly it can be very frustrating sorting out which answer is the correct one. However, if you have been shown the correct answer, and it has been explained to you in depth exactly why it is the correct answer and you have beeen show official legal interpretations from the only source of official legal interpetations which says it is the correct answer, I am at a loss why you would insist on being guided by the incorrect answer, particularly, when the person who will suffer, when legal action is taken, is not yourself, but some less knowledgable, newcomer to aviation who accepted your advice due to your status as an examiner.

I would suggest that as a examiner designee, you have a higher obligation to search out the correct answer and be guided by it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

[So I just find an answer that I like from the FAA or the regulation and I go with it. That is the case here. This is my position and I'm sticking with it. If you find another source that says something different then stick with that. But as I have said, this answer is OK with me. [/COLOR]

Warning! DPE who is perfectly happy to expose a pilot to a possible certificate action rather than do something that costs him nothing. Stay very far away.

 

[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!