Biennial Flight Review (BFR)
- Thread starter sames1
- Start date
- Watchers 2
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
- Total Time
- 1634
Sames 1, can you explain how you came away with your interpretation? I'm a firm believer that our regs are needlessly complicated and obtuse (re: our discussion about the differences between acting as and logging PIC time, a perennial favorite..) and I'd like you to tell us how you reached your conclusion.
No offense, just a genuine curiosity...
No offense, just a genuine curiosity...
The FAR is very clear on the subject, as it is with most all subjects. FAR 61.56(c) specifically states that no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless he or she has had a flight review within the previous 24 callendar months, has passed a pilot proficiency check for a certificate, rating, or operating privilege, accomplished a phase of FAA-sponsored pilot proficiency program, or is a student pilot undergoing training (who has a current solo endorsement).
The requirement for a flight review (commonly called a "BFR", though never called by that in the FAR) has nothing to do with carrying passengers, but everything to do with acting as pilot-in-command.
The differences between acting as pilot in command, and logging pilot in command experience, are very clear.
One need not have a current flight review to act as safety pilot when acting as SIC, but only when acting as PIC.
One need not have a current flight review to act in the capacity of flight instructor, unless also required to act as PIC for the particular operation in question. (One need not have a current medical certificate, either, unless acting as PIC).
A SIC need not have a flight review, but needs to have a proficiency check every 12 months, which fills the needs of the flight review. (See FAR 61.55).
The FAR is the shortest of all the various codified regulations under the CFR, and becoming familiar with it is perhaps the easiest of any grouping of federal regulations. Compared to most any other industry, we have it easier in spades.
The FAR was intentionally made ambiguous in some respects, but only to the extent that the FAA was empowered to further define the regulation through interpretation. This was intentional, and is still done intentionally. It provides some lattitude for individual application and some degree of flexibility in adjusting the FAR to changing conditions. Outside the scope of that range of flexibility, the FAR is from time to time re-written, ammended, or changed. However, the basic text of the FAR is very straight forward, and is not difficult to follow or understand.
In any circumstance where one does not understand the FAR, or associated regulations or policies, there is ample guidance and assistance in the industry (and indeed, here on the internet) to assist in understanding it. For the few who aren't aware of the site, visit http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/ for everything you ever wanted to know, or the guidance to find it, about the FAR. Good luck!!
The requirement for a flight review (commonly called a "BFR", though never called by that in the FAR) has nothing to do with carrying passengers, but everything to do with acting as pilot-in-command.
The differences between acting as pilot in command, and logging pilot in command experience, are very clear.
One need not have a current flight review to act as safety pilot when acting as SIC, but only when acting as PIC.
One need not have a current flight review to act in the capacity of flight instructor, unless also required to act as PIC for the particular operation in question. (One need not have a current medical certificate, either, unless acting as PIC).
A SIC need not have a flight review, but needs to have a proficiency check every 12 months, which fills the needs of the flight review. (See FAR 61.55).
The FAR is the shortest of all the various codified regulations under the CFR, and becoming familiar with it is perhaps the easiest of any grouping of federal regulations. Compared to most any other industry, we have it easier in spades.
The FAR was intentionally made ambiguous in some respects, but only to the extent that the FAA was empowered to further define the regulation through interpretation. This was intentional, and is still done intentionally. It provides some lattitude for individual application and some degree of flexibility in adjusting the FAR to changing conditions. Outside the scope of that range of flexibility, the FAR is from time to time re-written, ammended, or changed. However, the basic text of the FAR is very straight forward, and is not difficult to follow or understand.
In any circumstance where one does not understand the FAR, or associated regulations or policies, there is ample guidance and assistance in the industry (and indeed, here on the internet) to assist in understanding it. For the few who aren't aware of the site, visit http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/ for everything you ever wanted to know, or the guidance to find it, about the FAR. Good luck!!
I had always thought that one must have a Biennial to be pilot in command, but after reading a badly designed exam question I thought I had better get clear.
The question was something like (sorry I don't have it here)
What must one do every two years to be a pilot in command carrying passengers?
The question was something like (sorry I don't have it here)
What must one do every two years to be a pilot in command carrying passengers?
Timebuilder said:
PilotV
'tered User
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 12
- Total Time
- 4k +
Always nice to see people staying in the air....but I do have one bone to pick here .....
I wish people would try to stay up with the Regs. They dropped the title "Biennial Flight Review" two years ago and changed the name to "Flight Review". I know it's nit-picky, but it's the little things that count.
I run a lot of interviews and when I'm hiring an instructor, I find that a lack of simple verbage, or should I say 'proper' verbage speaks volumes to me about how recent they really are.
Just a thought!
I wish people would try to stay up with the Regs. They dropped the title "Biennial Flight Review" two years ago and changed the name to "Flight Review". I know it's nit-picky, but it's the little things that count.
I run a lot of interviews and when I'm hiring an instructor, I find that a lack of simple verbage, or should I say 'proper' verbage speaks volumes to me about how recent they really are.
Just a thought!
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
- Total Time
- 1634
You're right, it does seem nit-picky. I'll bet FAA inspectors still use the term, and the advisory circular still bears the same reference.
I love bureaucracy, don't you? The part that hasn't changed is that the Flight Review is still required to be done biennially. Perhaps the instructor who uses the term is simply more experienced, and has learned the judgment to discern minutia from the truly important. Of course, I could be wrong.
The ability to turn out a good pilot may not be as important as I believed..
I love bureaucracy, don't you? The part that hasn't changed is that the Flight Review is still required to be done biennially. Perhaps the instructor who uses the term is simply more experienced, and has learned the judgment to discern minutia from the truly important. Of course, I could be wrong.
The ability to turn out a good pilot may not be as important as I believed..
As far as I can recall, the flight review has always been a flight review. Common useage has put it as "BFR," but it's never been specifically called a Biennial Flight Review by the regulation.
Common useage of the term as Biennial points to the 24 month limitation imposed by 61.56(c). In this respect the term is correct in defining the type of review (as opposed to other reviews required under the FAR); it adds specificity to the reference, and instantly gives recognition to the term. However, you are correct; the reference in the FAR is to flight review, not biennial flight review.
You must look closely at the language used in other areas, too. Pilots often refer to IMC when referencing the FAR, but find it in the FAR. It's not there. It's found in only one place, and a location most pilots will never see.
Look at the term FAR, itself. This doesn't apply to the Federal Aviation Regulations, which are actually found under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. FAR is an acrynym reserved in the CFR for Federal Aquisition Regulation, and is assigned to the General Services Administration. Therefore, the use of FAR, when referencing the Federal Aviation Regulation, is also incorrect.
However, the common useage of the term in this industry is appropriate simply because it is so well understood as pertaining to the aviation regulations specified in 14 CFR Parts 1-1199. (Specifically, the common useage of the term refers to only to parts 1-199).
VMC and VFR are commonly used interchangably, where in reality, they are not. Likewise for IFR and IMC.
Pilots frequently refer to their pilot license. However, the FAA doesn't issue licenses; they issue certificates.
Instructors frequently refer to the CFII as though it were a separate certificate. In reality, that designation refers to a single certificate, the flight instructor certificate. It indicates that the holder has been issued a flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating. There is no such thing as the holder of a CFI, CFII, and MEI. In such a case, the holder posseses one certificate, with several ratings. However, common useage of the separate referencs CFII and MEI often serve to quickly clarify the ratings a certificate holder may posses.
There is no such thing as an A&P. There is such thing as a person holding a Mechanic certificate, with airframe and powerplant ratings. However, it's often faster, and just as well understood, to refer to a mechanic with both ratings as an A&P. Frequently a mechanic will be called an A&P even though he or she may not hold both ratings, because most folks wouldn't have a clue if someone said, "I'm seeing my A this afternoon for an inspection," or "I need to make an appointment to see my P." Therefore the common useage "A&P"is standard.
The same can be said for an IA. In reality, the holder of an inspection authorization is actually the holder of a Mechanic certificate with both Airframe and Powerplant ratings, who holds inspection authorization. That's too much to mumble, so we all say "IA," and understand what it means.
Often we intermingle the useage of PIC, referring to the logging of PIC, and the acting of PIC, as the same thing. In reality, they are not.
The list is endless. Numerous cases exist of common useage of terms, which are not technically correct. However, aviation has it's own language, and it's a commonly understood language. Such useage has a place in the industry. I wouldn't be too quick to bounce a job applicant simply because he or she talks like a pilot.
Common useage of the term as Biennial points to the 24 month limitation imposed by 61.56(c). In this respect the term is correct in defining the type of review (as opposed to other reviews required under the FAR); it adds specificity to the reference, and instantly gives recognition to the term. However, you are correct; the reference in the FAR is to flight review, not biennial flight review.
You must look closely at the language used in other areas, too. Pilots often refer to IMC when referencing the FAR, but find it in the FAR. It's not there. It's found in only one place, and a location most pilots will never see.
Look at the term FAR, itself. This doesn't apply to the Federal Aviation Regulations, which are actually found under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. FAR is an acrynym reserved in the CFR for Federal Aquisition Regulation, and is assigned to the General Services Administration. Therefore, the use of FAR, when referencing the Federal Aviation Regulation, is also incorrect.
However, the common useage of the term in this industry is appropriate simply because it is so well understood as pertaining to the aviation regulations specified in 14 CFR Parts 1-1199. (Specifically, the common useage of the term refers to only to parts 1-199).
VMC and VFR are commonly used interchangably, where in reality, they are not. Likewise for IFR and IMC.
Pilots frequently refer to their pilot license. However, the FAA doesn't issue licenses; they issue certificates.
Instructors frequently refer to the CFII as though it were a separate certificate. In reality, that designation refers to a single certificate, the flight instructor certificate. It indicates that the holder has been issued a flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating. There is no such thing as the holder of a CFI, CFII, and MEI. In such a case, the holder posseses one certificate, with several ratings. However, common useage of the separate referencs CFII and MEI often serve to quickly clarify the ratings a certificate holder may posses.
There is no such thing as an A&P. There is such thing as a person holding a Mechanic certificate, with airframe and powerplant ratings. However, it's often faster, and just as well understood, to refer to a mechanic with both ratings as an A&P. Frequently a mechanic will be called an A&P even though he or she may not hold both ratings, because most folks wouldn't have a clue if someone said, "I'm seeing my A this afternoon for an inspection," or "I need to make an appointment to see my P." Therefore the common useage "A&P"is standard.
The same can be said for an IA. In reality, the holder of an inspection authorization is actually the holder of a Mechanic certificate with both Airframe and Powerplant ratings, who holds inspection authorization. That's too much to mumble, so we all say "IA," and understand what it means.
Often we intermingle the useage of PIC, referring to the logging of PIC, and the acting of PIC, as the same thing. In reality, they are not.
The list is endless. Numerous cases exist of common useage of terms, which are not technically correct. However, aviation has it's own language, and it's a commonly understood language. Such useage has a place in the industry. I wouldn't be too quick to bounce a job applicant simply because he or she talks like a pilot.
bobbysamd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 5,710
- Total Time
- 4565
FAR v. CFR
As an aside, if you ever apply to the FAA be sure to cite to 14 CFR and not the FARs on your SF-171. E.g., 14 CFR 61.57 and not FAR 61.57. The GS-2s who review apps don't know from "FAR." They know from the Code of Federal Regulations.
As an aside, if you ever apply to the FAA be sure to cite to 14 CFR and not the FARs on your SF-171. E.g., 14 CFR 61.57 and not FAR 61.57. The GS-2s who review apps don't know from "FAR." They know from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Bluto
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2001
- Posts
- 1,147
- Total Time
- >4000
This may be a little nit-picky, but I don't care for the term "Biennial Flight Review" because I don't consider it technically correct (aside from the fact that it is not designated as such in the 14 CFR's). Biennial means "Occuring every second year". The Flight Review is required every 24 calendar months, not necessarily every 2 years. I know it is a subtle difference.
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
- Total Time
- 1634
I think 24 calendar months still equals two years, semantic differences or not.
How many angels was that on that pin?
How many angels was that on that pin?
Similar threads
