CFI needs a BFR?

[nosehair]

people in charge of ramp checking me and enforcing this reg are telling me that I do not need a BFR. ....

Brewski, you are safe as long as you stay in your own backyard as far as the ramp checks go. It is true that most FSDO Inspectors won't go after an "undocumented" flight review... however, it is still illegal and could cause problems in an accident investigation and / or insurance claim.

...and you never know WHO you may run into in the big wide world of FAA ramp checks in other parts of the country.

Make your own informed decision.

 

[BGSkyGuy]

Here's the key, Communication. You can, during an instructor checkride, also demonstrate your PILOT proficiency and have it DOCUMENTED along with the pass/fail of the INSTRUCTOR rating. EVERYONE has agreed, and even your FSDO folks have told you that a instructor checkride can also be a flight review. Have you communicated to those FSDO folks that you don't have any documentation that says you have a flight review complete? Call all of them back and ask them if you need to have any words like "BFR" or "flight review complete" somewhere in your logbook. If just one of them says yes then what are you going to do?

The FSDO didn't say that it CAN count as a BFR they said that it DOES count as a BFR. I have been told five seperate times by five different inspectors that it fulfills the requirement of a BFR. If just one of them said differently I would tell you guys about. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong here. On the contrary I'm trying to find out the truth. I have listened to all of your arguments and have called what I believe to be the final authority. If you feel that an FAA inspector doesn't have the right answer then tell me who does. I will call them as well. And if I am wrong I will be the first one to let you guys know about it. I will admit that all of you have VERY compelling arguments. But how can five different inspectors at five different FSDO's be wrong about this. Call your local FSDO. Ask them. If I am mistaken then I will gladly admit it.

 

[BGSkyGuy]

Brewski, you are safe as long as you stay in your own backyard as far as the ramp checks go. It is true that most FSDO Inspectors won't go after an "undocumented" flight review... however, it is still illegal and could cause problems in an accident investigation and / or insurance claim.

...and you never know WHO you may run into in the big wide world of FAA ramp checks in other parts of the country.

Make your own informed decision.

You raise a good point nose. And I am d$mn close to just going up for an hour and doing the BFR. The legality issue I am still not sure about, I'm trying to get ahold of someone at AOPA to see what they have to say about this whole thing. But I agree that it is a CYA type deal and I will probably just go do it.

By the way, who told you my nickname?

 

[A Squared]

I have listened to all of your arguments and have called what I believe to be the final authority.

Uhhhhh, that's just it. I'm not sure how many more times it has to be explained in how many different ways before it sinks in. An inspector at a FSDO is not a legal authority, not in any way shape or form.

If you feel that an FAA inspector doesn't have the right answer then tell me who does.

FAA legal counsel. FAA legal counsel is the only part of the FAA that has the authority to officially interepret regulations

Here's what FAA legal counsel has to say about the matter:

1 Aviation Plaza
Room 561
Jamaica, NY 11434

RE: Interpretation of FAR 61.56(d)

Dear Mr. Dennstaedt:

This is in response to your letter dated August 25, 2001, wherein you ask whether an airman can satisfy the flight review requirement under 14 C.F.R. (Federal Aviation Regulation [FAR]) 61.56 by passing a practical test to become a certified flight instructor (CFI), as required by FAR 61.183.

Under FAR 61.56(c)(1), one may not act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, he has "accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor." Under FAR 61.56(c)(2), the airman must receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor certifying that he has satisfactorily completed the review. Under FAR 61.56(a), a flight review must include: (1) a review of the current general operating and flight rules of Part 91; and (2) a review of 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.

Under FAR 61.56(d), however, the flight review requirement of FAR 61.56(c)(1) does not apply to one who has "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."





The issue you raise is whether passing a practical test to become a CFI can fall within the exception to the flight review requirement that is provided by FAR 61.56(d). Under FAR 183(h), to be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating, the applicant must "pass the required practical test that is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought." The FAA Practical Test Standards (PTS) for the airplane flight instructor examiner (sic) requires that the examiner ensure that the flight instructor applicant has the "ability to perform the procedures and maneuvers included in the standards to at least the commercial pilot skill level."

Thus, the instructor has broad discretion in conducting a flight review. A CFI practical test encompasses the demonstration of various basic maneuvers that an instructor is likely to cover in a flight review. Incorporating a flight review into the CFI practical test could be accomplished, therefore, with little, if any difficulty.

Accordingly, a CFI practical test will not per se fulfill the flight review requirement. A practical test for a CFI rating under FAR 61.183, taken within 24 months of a prior flight review, can readily meet the flight review requirement of FAR 61.56(d), however, if the examiner is satisfied that a flight review endorsement can be given. 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

As for those inspectors you talked to, well, as long as all your surveillance experiences are with those 5 guys, you should be OK. How are you going to guarentee that though? Have you stopped to think that you *could* have been switched to the guy sitting next to the guy you talked to and received an completely different answer? Especially if that guy knew the regs and had read the official interepretations form FAA counsel? So you have a little incident. A blown tire, not your fault and no damage, but it shuts down a runway for about 15 minutes. The FAA arrives to help. The fed very well may request to see your logbook (to be presented at a later time, assuming you're not carrying it with you) That is common, even in a inconsequential incident. I know pilots who have had thier logbook requested in this identical case; Blown tire, no damage. Anyway, this inspector is not one of the 5 you spoke with. This inspector has just read the previous official letter of interpretation from FAA legal counsel. How do you think this is going to go for you, if you don't have a flight review in the last 24 months?


Look, a previous poster wrote that a pilot he knew got a violation for this exact situation. Assuming that he's telling the truth, and we have no reason to beleive that he's not, why would you argue that a CFI check will count when pilots are getting violated because a CFI check doesn't count?

 

[FlySacto]

The FSDO didn't say that it CAN count as a BFR they said that it DOES count as a BFR. I have been told five seperate times by five different inspectors that it fulfills the requirement of a BFR. If just one of them said differently I would tell you guys about. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong here. On the contrary I'm trying to find out the truth. I have listened to all of your arguments and have called what I believe to be the final authority. If you feel that an FAA inspector doesn't have the right answer then tell me who does. I will call them as well. And if I am wrong I will be the first one to let you guys know about it. I will admit that all of you have VERY compelling arguments. But how can five different inspectors at five different FSDO's be wrong about this. Call your local FSDO. Ask them. If I am mistaken then I will gladly admit it.

I'll ask you again. Did you tell them you don't have the words "flight review complete" in an endorsement? Get one inspector with a problem and you've got a problem. Read 61.56 line for line, tell us where your covered, and convince all of us trying to help you out with this that you've got a flight review. I'm not offended in any way about this and I hope your not! This whole flying business is about knowing your stuff and a double dose of CYA. If you just read 61.56(d) and then picture yourself in a court hearing with that paragraph read out loud then:

"Mr. (insert your name here), what was the purpose of your meeting with the Designated Pilot Examineer?"

"To become an Instrument flight instructor in addition to being a CFI"

"Did you take and pass an Instrument Instructor checkride?"

"Yes"

"So, this was not a Pilot Proficiency Check as required by 61.56(d)"

"But the FSDO inspectors...."

"Mr. (insert your name here), I represent the FAA in this matter. If you were to read 61.56(f) you'll see where a flight instructor is exempt from the one hour of ground training required for a flight review. Where does this exempt you from at least one hour of flight training to complete a flight review?"

"But that's covered by my instructor checkride!!!"

"I fail to see in your log book an endorsement for a PILOT proficiency check with a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege. Again, did you take an Instructor checkride but failed to recieve an endorsement for a pilot flight review because you didn't ask for it? Is this how you cover your arss? "

The FSDO folks can be real nice and very helpfull. They are not attorneys and can only start the ball rolling over you if they think their interpretation of the FAR's is being violated. Also, their opinion will not insulate you from problems because they fail to start an action when you have violated an FAR.

All I can say from here on is that MY logbooks/record shows from day one back in the 80's, an endorsment for flight reviews between pilot certificates, a flight review along with my checkride for my MEI, and proficiency checks for my part 121 job.

Good luck on your research! I'd be interested in hearing what you decide to do about this.

 

[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?