CFI needs a BFR?

[CFIse]

The FSDO didn't say that it CAN count as a BFR they said that it DOES count as a BFR.

I think everybody here has tried their best to convince you that you are wrong and the FSDO's are wrong.

It's your certificate/career however - have at it.

 

[BGSkyGuy]

mmmmmm this crow tastes good! (not really)

"None are so blind as those who will not see"

Well ladies and gentlemen I may be thick-headed, slow, maybe even mentally challenged, but at least I am a man of my word. After being deceived by five different FSDO inspectors the truth has finally come out. I had a very humbling conversation with AOPA legal services this afternoon. To boil it down you guys are absolutely 100% correct. A CFI, CFII, or MEI checkride does NOT count as a BFR without an additional endorsement. If you want to know why read any of the above postings that aren't mine. After my conversation with AOPA I called the CLT FSDO back and said WTF? (Not in so many words) I got an apology and an email with a link to the NASA form. I sh%t you not. So to all of you superior beings out there: nosehair, Asquared, flysacto, etc. etc. thank you for your patience and for putting up with my bullsh#t. If you are ever on the East Coast of NC PM me and I will gladly get you drunk. But not you AVbug, you agreed with me when I called myself a stupid pilot and that is just not cool. Just kidding

Now if you will excuse me I have a BFR to do:beer:

 

[A Squared]

"None are so blind as those who will not see"

Well ladies and gentlemen I may be thick-headed, slow, maybe even mentally challenged, but at least I am a man of my word. After being deceived by five different FSDO inspectors the truth has finally come out. I had a very humbling conversation with AOPA legal services this afternoon. To boil it down you guys are absolutely 100% correct. A CFI, CFII, or MEI checkride does NOT count as a BFR without an additional endorsement. If you want to know why read any of the above postings that aren't mine. After my conversation with AOPA I called the CLT FSDO back and said WTF? (Not in so many words) I got an apology and an email with a link to the NASA form. I sh%t you not. So to all of you superior beings out there: nosehair, Asquared, flysacto, etc. etc. thank you for your patience and for putting up with my bullsh#t. If you are ever on the East Coast of NC PM me and I will gladly get you drunk. But not you AVbug, you agreed with me when I called myself a stupid pilot and that is just not cool. Just kidding

Now if you will excuse me I have a BFR to do:beer:

Hey no worries. Glad you eventully got convinced. The link the the ASRS form was a nice touch

two lessons I hope you take from this.

1) Slow down and think about what people are telling you. At times it seemed like you really weren't listening. Yeah, we're all just bozos on an internet forum, but even bozos can be right occasionally. Not saying believe everything you hear, but listen and think about the arguments being made.

2) don't assign godlike qualities to inspectors at the FSDO. Thier opinion on whhat the regulation means has no weight whatsoever, and frequently is wrong.

I don't really mind hashing this out again (This ain't the first time) because it's a deceptive issue and as you found out thre's a lot of official sounding incorrect info being handed out. Hopefully we can save someone some pain later on.

 

[BGSkyGuy]

Well said. The real lesson here is like you said to not take the FSDO's word as the final authority. It is no exaggeration when I say that I seriously called FIVE DIFFERENT FSDO's. As i stated earlier some of them even made me feel like an idiot for asking the question. At least those FAA guys are living up to the FAA mission statement, "We're not happy until you're not happy" thanks again A2

 

[FlySacto]

"None are so blind as those who will not see"

Well ladies and gentlemen I may be thick-headed, slow, maybe even mentally challenged, but at least I am a man of my word. So to all of you superior beings out there: nosehair, Asquared, flysacto, etc. etc. thank you for your patience and for putting up with my bullsh#t. If you are ever on the East Coast of NC PM me and I will gladly get you drunk. But not you AVbug, you agreed with me when I called myself a stupid pilot and that is just not cool. Just kidding

Now if you will excuse me I have a BFR to do:beer:

No problem mbrusko but now your about to get a real education!!! What do you say guys? Do we jumpseat out there show this poor guy what pilots do to a bar tab on someone elses wallet?

 

[avbug]

But not you AVbug, you agreed with me when I called myself a stupid pilot and that is just not cool. Just kidding

No heartache there. I don't drink.

 

[nosehair]

I don't drink.

O-O-H-H !! - - NOW I understand - -

 

[midlifeflyer]

"None are so blind as those who will not see"

But you're not one of those.

Here's sort of the ultimate deal on this. There are inspectors at FSDOs that say it automatically counts and there are inspectors at FSDOs who say it doesn't. There is an regional FAA Legal opinion that says it doesn't automatically count and a non-official and no longer publicly available FAA FAQ that at best says maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.

What are the consequences of being wrong and not getting the endorsement? My wild guess is there is a fairly small (some might say insignificant) risk that the FAA would take enforcement action against a plot based =solely= on a "missing" FR when there has been a successful CFI checkride. There's probably a more significant risk that, in case of an accident, an insurance company might try to deny coverage based on the pilot not being current.

You can assess whether those risks are acceptable to you. But since the risk is completely removed by the simple act of of asking the CFI who endorsed you for the checkride or the Examiner who gives you a successful one to endorse a FR, why not just do it?

 

[rickair7777]

I just got off the phone with the CLT FSDO and they are saying that any additional RATING qualifies as a BFR. i.e. instructor RATING. Someone clrify this for me before I go blow $100 bucks on a stupid BFR.

Some FSDO's seem to be OK with the CFI as a BFR. It is obvious and logical, and my FSDO also took this approach. This means you won't get violated on your home patch for not having a FR.

Unfortunately, the FAA has issued legal opinions to the contrary, and this cost me a job once in another state because the interviewer went by the legal opinion, not by what my FSDO told me.

If you have been using a CFI ride(s) as a FR, try to get hold of the CFI who did your signoff and have him do a FR endorsement for that date. That should fix any past gaps in your FR coverage.

 

[lawfly]

"Obvious and logical" is not often found in the legal realm. Patent law, however, does embody the concept of "nonobviousness", but that does not pertain here, nor is the definition of "nonobviousness" obvious. But I leave it to you to read those cases. I only skimmed this thread but, in general, a "pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege", FAR 61.56(d), does not encompass flight instructor certificates, ratings, or operating privileges. And not sure FSDO philosophy would control, anyway---probably more a matter of Regional philosophy, as in Regional Counsel, although it is usually FSDO who refers matters to Reg. Counsel.