Biannual without a medical?

[dumblonde]

Resocha has it right.

Flyingnome: a CFI only needs a third class medical. FAR 61.23

 

[nosehair]

the CFI will not be able to long PIC time for the flight.

Yep, he will. The rule of logging does not require that you BE the PIC to log PIC. Being the instructor does not necessarily require that you be the PIC, yet the instructor can stll log it as PIC. FAR 61.51(e)(3)

 

[brianjohn]

The answer is no. The first question asks if the CFI can do the flight review when NEITHER pilot has a medical.

Where in the first post does it specify NEITHER pilot having a medical? I don't see it. It asks if one could be done without the CFI having one, and then without the private having one.

 

[midlifeflyer]

the answer to the first question is yes. Many people say biannual when the mean biennial I don't know why. But if the CFI does not have a current 2nd class medical then he/she is still able to issue the BFR as complete as long as the pilot flying acts and logs PIC time the CFI will not be able to long PIC time for the flight.

Two small corrections:

1. A CFI acting as PIC while giving instruction only needs a 3rd class medical.

2. If the pilot acts as PIC, the CFI can still log PIC (even if the CFI has no medical at all). CFI logging PIC is based on acting as an instructor, whether or not acting or even being qualified to act as PIC.

Both are clear in the regs and in long-standing FAA policy

 

[Resocha]

Where in the first post does it specify NEITHER pilot having a medical? I don't see it. It asks if one could be done without the CFI having one, and then without the private having one.

Oh, I see, the question is in two parts. I mistook it for one.

 

[Goose Egg]

Will you people please stop saying "biannual?"

-Goose

 

[Jester1092]

How about if the Instructor giving the flight review isn't current in that category/class of airplane..( i.e. Hasn't completed 3 t/o & ldgs. in the preceding 90 days), is that instructor legally able to give the flight review to a pilot that IS current in the airplane (current medical, landings, & the last flight review was 22 months ago?

 

[midlifeflyer]

How about if the Instructor giving the flight review isn't current in that category/class of airplane..( i.e. Hasn't completed 3 t/o & ldgs. in the preceding 90 days), is that instructor legally able to give the flight review to a pilot that IS current in the airplane (current medical, landings, & the last flight review was 22 months ago?

Sure. Why not? Can you find a reg that says that a CFI may not teach unless the CFI has done three takeoffs or landings to a full stop within the past 90 days?

You know who we're always talking about the difference between "acting" and "logging" PIC? Here's another two things to separate completely in your mind:

1. The rules that apply to a CFI who is acting as an instructor.
2. The rules that apply to a CFI who is acting as a required pilot crewmember.

These two come together a lot of the time, but separating them in you head really helps understanding the rules.

 

[A Squared]

That's why the FAA got rid of biennial. It wasn't correct to begin with.

Well, actually, since we're picking nits, it never *was*, officially a "Biennial". I have copies of the regs from various times, and I haven't been able to find any version that uses the word biennial. The reg, in each case I've seen specifically calls for 24 months and merely refers to it as a "flight review" . (or for a while in the 90's, 12 months for PPLs with less than 400 hours)

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Well, actually, since we're picking nits, it never *was*, officially a "Biennial". I have copies of the regs from various times, and I haven't been able to find any version that uses the word biennial. The reg, in each case I've seen specifically calls for 24 months and merely refers to it as a "flight review" . (or for a while in the 90's, 12 months for PPLs with less than 400 hours)

Here is the real story on the biennial flight review. When the regulation about Flight Reviews first came out it was called a biennial flight review in AC61.65. (You know that is the AC that has all the endorsements for CFI's.) Then when they were going to change it to an annual (12 months) review for pilots with less than 400 hours and no IFR ticket the AC was changed to just call it a Flight Review which made sense at that time. However, the 400 hour annual reviews never were actually in effect ever even though they made it to being in print in the FAR's. I seem to remember that the FAR in 1973 when this whole flight review business started, called it a biennial flight review too but I could be wrong on that. But it did change for sure in the AC from a Biennial Flight Review to just a Flight Review when the 400 hours concept was being introduced.

In any case, it never was a biannual review and those who use that term are just misinformed and/or only repeating what they have heard from others who don't know that what they are saying is totally wrong.

This is the real story on the Biennial Flight Review.

 

[LewisU_Pilot]

Sorta like some students on thier first flight. Most don't have a medical, but can still fly and log this time.......

I've got a question about this one. Say you are giving instruction to a 15-year old, who wants to solo on their 16th birthday. So say their 16th birthday rolls around and they do not have a student cert. or medical. Can they still solo on that day? Or do they need the student pilot cert/ medical before?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I've got a question about this one. Say you are giving instruction to a 15-year old, who wants to solo on their 16th birthday. So say their 16th birthday rolls around and they do not have a student cert. or medical. Can they still solo on that day? Or do they need the student pilot cert/ medical before?

Of course they need both a student certificate and a medical.