Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Do instructor checkrides count for BFRs

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
i'm very sure that CFI checkride do count towards the flight review. just to clarify the matter i've written a mail to the local FSDO as sometimes things don't seem the way they are. FAR 61.56(d) clearly states that a person who has passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner for a pilot certificate ,rating or operating privilege need not accomplish the flght review requird by the section. CFI check ride is a profeciency check whether u like it or not. FAR 61.181 states that for flight instructor certificate yo have to be profecient in the area's specified and you have to pass the practical test FAR 61.183(h) for the rating sought. For passing a practical test you have to be proficient as you have to demonstrate standerds upto commercial level. hope this could help otherwise i'll be back when i get a reply from the FSDO.


________________________
Check that its three greens.....
 
ipilot,

it appears that you haven't read the previous posts, or if you did, you must not have understood them. Let me explain it again:

You can rabbit on all you want to about how your proficiency is checked in a flight instructor prractical test. Yes, it is. The thing that you don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter. What matters is that 61.56 (d) specifies a *pilot* proficiency check, and a CFI Practical test is not a pilot proficiency check. Take your instructor certificate out of your pocket and look at it. Notice that it on the line where it says "...exercise the priveliges of" it says *flight instructor* not *pilot*.


>>>>CFI check ride is a profeciency check whether u like it or not.

umm, yeah, it may be a proficiency check, but it's not a *pilot* proficiency check, it's a *flight instructor* proficiency check. and it's not a matter of what I do or don't like. Personally I *don't* like it, but that's irrelevant.

You can argue all you like, but here's the deal: The opinion posted is an official legal opinion from the FAA's Legal Counsel. Are you really foolish enough to believe that what you think rules over an official legal ruling by FAA legal counsel? You need to understand that FAA Legal Counsel's opinion is the opinion which is going to be used in an FAA enforcement against you.

You also need to understand that what you get from your FSDO is completely meaningless. The FSDO is not authorized to issue legal opinions. If you do get a different opinion from your FSDO, it has absolutely no official standing, and is completely meaningless in the face of an official legal opinion from FAA Legal Counsel.

There are only 3 ways you can prevail in this issue.

1) Show some evidence that what I have posted above is not a legal opinion from FAA Legal Counsel. (It's unlikely, but possible, that this is a fabrication, and I'm unwittingly passing it on)

2) Show a superior legal opinon which reverses this opinion. The only place a superior opinion can come from is the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel.

3) Show a court decision which reverses this opinion, either from an NTSB court, or a real court.

Please, don't come back with something from your FSDO. Whatever they say has no official standing and is a waste of time to even post. If you want an opinion that matters, write to the Office of Chief Counsel. I have posted the address above.

You need to understand that as far as the FAA is concerned, this is the official interpretation of 61.56. Unless you have 1, 2, or 3, you're wasting your time arguing how you think things *should* be. This is the way things are, deal with it.


regards,
 
Last edited:
It's sad, but true.

All four of the FAA people that I know will vouch for the fact that the only FAA opinion that carries regulatory force is that of the Chief Counsel. I can get four differing opinions from these men, and all or none may be "correct".

Luckily, lack of a BFR puts me in no jeopardy, since I regularly participate in the WINGS program, which DOES substitute for the review. In fact, I participate every year. I recommend it.
 
A squared, you said in your previous post that a CFI checkride does not count as a BFR because,

"What matters is that 61.56 (d) specifies a *pilot* proficiency check, and a CFI Practical test is not a pilot proficiency check. Take your instructor certificate out of your pocket and look at it. Notice that it on the line where it says "...exercise the priveliges of" it says *flight instructor* not *pilot*. "

If you continue to read 61.56(d), it says "passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airmen, or a U.S. Armed Force for a pilot certificate, rating or operating privilege, need not accomplish the flight review required by this section."

As indicated on the flight Instructor certificate, one is "qualified to exercise the privileges of Flight Instructor."

Just because a flight instructor certificate is not a pilot certificate, that doesn't mean that a flight instructor is not a pilot

A flight instructor is obviously a pilot so getting a flight Instructor certificate means you have passed a pilot proficiency check for an "operating privilege."
 
Nice try, but . . .

you cannot sign off your own flight review, according to 14 CFR 61.195(i):

(i) Prohibition against self-endorsements. A flight instructor shall not make any self-endorsement for a certificate, rating, flight review,authorization, operating privilege, practical test, or knowledge test that is required by this part. (emphasis added)

Interesting thought, though. :D
 
Viking,

You're talking apples and oranges, and eating neither one.

A flight instructor is required to hold a pilot certificate. However, a flight instructor certificate is NOT a pilot certificate. That is why a flight instructor must hold ratings and privileges on a PILOT certificate in addition to the appropriate ratings on a flight instructor certificate.

A flight instructor is not paid as a pilot, but as an instructor. A flight instructor may conduct flight instruction without a current medical, flight review, or flight currency or appropriate recency of experience, so long as he or she is not acting as pilot in command.

A pilot must have a current medical certificate, flight review, appropriate recency of experience, etc, prior to acting as PIC, SIC, or in any other capacity as a required crewmember of an aircraft. Clearly the restrictions and privileges and requirements of a flight instructor certificate differ bountifully from that of a pilot certificate.

The privileges accorded a pilot are dependent upon his or her ability to remain current, including any proficiency checks required. A flight instructor has no such requirement, and may exercise the privileges of the flight instructor certificate without respect to recency of experience or flight review. A flight instructor may renew indefinitely without ever setting foot or butt cheek in a cockpit. Not so for the holder of a pilot certificate. There is a clear difference.

A flight instructor certificate is not a pilot certificate. A Squared has already provided a legal interpretation, which is binding in civil, criminal, and administrative court and in appeal before the Board, and is fully defensible as the true interpretation representing the Administrator of the issue in question. Personal viewpoints and even opinions proffered at the FSDO level are not relevant, nor constructive toward the issue.

Passing a flight instructor practical test does not necessarily test one as a pilot. Most certainly piloting skills are always assessed, however it is NOT a pilot proficiency check, but a check of one's abilities to instruct, to recognize errors, and to correct them. A flight instructor may instruct without being pilot in command, and has no requirement to be pilot in command except for specific cases. The assumption that a flight instructor practical test is a pilot proficiency exam is in error.

Specifically, look to 61.56(f), which states: "A person who holds a current flight instructor certificate who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, satisfactorily completed a renewal of a flight instructor certificate under the provisions in § 61.197 need not accomplish the 1 hour of ground training specified in paragraph (a) of this section."

61.56(f) refers us to 61.197. This section covers renewal of flight instructor certificates. It speaks to all the methods of renewal, including flight checks. Therefore all methods of renewal are encompassed in the reference provided in 61.56(f), including flight checks. Unless specifically signed off as a flight review, the renewal of a flight instructor covers the hour of ground required by 61.56, but not necessarily the flight portion.

It is very reasonable to assume that different maneuvers and requirments may easily be required during the flight portion of a flight review, and the flight portion of a flight instructor practical test; especially a renewal.

Detailed discussion of the merits and weaknesses of the subject is interesting, but pointless. The legal aspects of the subject have already been given, and tearing them apart for reexamination will not change them. The legal interpretation is binding, and one need look no farther than that for the answer.

The following passage from the legal interpretation provided by A Squared is the telling one:

"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. "

The FAA has spoken with authority. What more is required?
 
I am pasting this excerpt from the FAA FAQ 61, 141 website.

QUESTION: The particular question is whether a flight instructor who passes a flight instructor practical test (for initial issuance or a CFI rating addition or for a reinstatement) is or is not exempt from needing a §61.56 Flight Review for the next two years, since the reg. specifically says PILOT proficiency check.” §6l.56 d - allows this exemption for a person who has"... passed a PILOT proficiency check.." not needing to accomplish a flight review for the next 2 years.

ANSWER: 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.

§61.56(d) states:

(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.
 
Viking,

Have you not understood ANYTHING that's been posted?

How many times do you need to be told?

It is an official legal opinion from FAA legal counsel.

There are 3 ways that can be overruled. I have listed them in a post above.

As far the Part 61 FAQ page....ummm so what? Did you happen to notice the bit printed at the top of the FAQ page?

It says: Disclaimer Statement: The answers provided to the questions in this website are not legal interpretations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel can provide legal interpretations.

I honestly don't know why you keep on with this. Do you need Jane Garvey to personally come over to your house and tell you that an instructor checkride doesn't count as a flight review?

I'm sorry for my tone, but I am just astonished that someone can post an official legal interpretation from FAA legal Counsel, yet people keep arguing that it's wrong.


Maybe we should direct the discussion to how to CYA if you find that you've been mistakenly depending on a CFI check for a flight review. Any ideas anyone? What's the best way to deal with this. Falsify your logbook? Pray it never comes up?


regards
 
Last edited:
A squared: Ms Alkalay is certainly entitled to her opinion, but it is an opinion, not a legal interpretation of the regulation in question. Her opinion is binding only upon those FAA employees within the Eastern Region who might have reason to enforce the regulation in question. It has not been endorsed by the FAA Chief Counsel, so has no application outside the Eastern Region. In practical terms, the weight of her opinion is much the same as the weight applied to the FAA position during an enforcement proceeding. If appealed to the NTSB, her opinion has no more credence than a countering opinion from a defense attorney. Personally, I find her interpretation very interesting and look forward to seeing it tested in court. I suspect it will be overturned much the same as many of her other legal positions have been overturned in the past. The Eastern Region has a well-deserved reputation for over-reaching their authority, and their findings have routinely been overturned by NTSB law judges.
 
Hey, here's a good one....your flights an hour long, right? Have the DE sign your logbook. Then it's taken care of.

CJC
 

Latest resources

Back
Top