MEI Question

[pgcfii2002]

In order to give a BFR in a twin, does the instructor have to be an MEI?

In other words, is the BFR catagory and class specific??

 

[erj-145mech]

While administering a Bi-ennial, are you the PIC?

 

[340drvr]

Short answer: No.

61.56 Flight Review 61.56(a) "......consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training......"

61.195(b) "A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold
(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class ratings

 

[nosehair]

While administering a Bi-ennial, are you the PIC?

While I understand your point, that the authorized instructor must be rated in the category and class when he is providing the flight training required in 61.56 Flight Review, he does not necessarily have to be PIC, unless the applicant has allowed his Flight Review to expire, and is no longer able to be PIC.

But, as long as the Flight Review applicant is within the 2 year period, and otherwise current, the CFI does not actually have to be the PIC in order to give flight training, or flight reviews. This is the method by which a single engine instructor can do a flight review in a..tailwheel, for example,..without the tailwheel endorsement.

May or may not be good judgement, but it would be legal. If it's not good judgement and an accident occurs, of course, the instructor will still eat it, even though he is not officially the PIC.

 

[igneousy2]

Are you people serious....NO!!! you cannot give a Flight review in a ME if you are not an MEI!

1) Accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor;

(2) Authorized instructor means--
(ii) A person who holds a current flight instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chapter when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate...

A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized within the limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings to give training and endorsements that are required for, and relate to...

And if that's not enough for you...

61.195...

(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:
(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and
(2) If appropriate, a type rating.

Where is the gray area?

jeez

 

[igneousy2]

While administering a Bi-ennial, are you the PIC?

It does not matter who the PIC is in this situation. You are mixing up issues related to the need for a medical with the need to have an MEI. They are not the same.

 

[erj-145mech]

But on a flight review, I log the time as pilot in command, not dual received.

The only entry made by the instructor is the bi-ennial endorsement in the logbook.

And the hour long flight is about twice the amount of time needed to perform the flight. I usually end up flying around sight seeing after the maneuvers have been demonstrated to get the required time to satisfy the regs.

 

[nosehair]

But on a flight review, I log the time as pilot in command, not dual received.

The only entry made by the instructor is the bi-ennial endorsement in the logbook.

And the hour long flight is about twice the amount of time needed to perform the flight. I usually end up flying around sight seeing after the maneuvers have been demonstrated to get the required time to satisfy the regs.

The regulation requires at least 1 hour ground and one hour flight training by an autrhorized instructor which requires a logbook entry of at least that much time and signed by an authorized instructor.

Of course you may log dual and PIC. But the dual must be logged as well as the Flight Review endorsement.

...and you are only fooling youself to think you can "knock out" this review in 30 minutes.

There is always new stuff to learn....and there is always something to improve on with the old stuff.

Your bragging is not becoming to a professional.

 

[erj-145mech]

I've been flying this same airplane since 1989, have over 700 hours in it. There is nothing that I have not seen in it.

When is the last time that you intentionally spun a multi engine airplane? Unusual attitudes, not an issue in a 337.

Tell me, why would it take any longer to do a flight review, every flight regieme can be covered? Single engine, short, soft field, full stall series to include accellerated stalls. Anything longer simply pads the instructors wallet. Plain and simple.

 

[Frozen Ronin]

I was doing a bfr in the owners aircraft, he had over 5,000 hours of flight in the airplane. When I asked him to show me the emergency procedure for gear extension, things got quiet in the cockpit. How about if the electrical system went on strike? Let's turn off the alternator and battery, navigate back to the station, and put the gear down.

There's always things to work on, things to learn, no matter how long you've had the airplane or how many hours you have been in it. Sounds a little funny to hear someone say they've done it all, seen it all. Didn't that feel funny to say? It should have.

Ronin

 

[erj-145mech]

Since I restored the aircraft from two truckloads of component items, I have an intimate knowledge of my aircraft.
I also perform the annual inspections yearly on the bird.
This includes pumping the gear up and down using the hand pump. The engine driven pump is on the front engine. I cage the engine, and pump the gear down, at a safe altitude, periodically, then perform an airstart on the powerplant. The engine is equipped with unfeathering accumulators. The airstart procedure is different with them than without. Would you have known that? I am an expert on my aircraft, and there is no way that an ordinary MEI would have the knowledge and experience on each aircraft that he may park his butt in for an hour every other year.
I can safely say "Been there, done that, got the T shirt".

So what are you going to teach me on a flight review? Remember, this is a review, not an instruction period.

Some individuals may take less time to demonstrate maneuvers on a flight review, some may require more time. What I'm saying that the FAA made an error in making it mandatory to arbitrarily make a flight review to last an hour in the air. This should be at the discretion of the instructor, not a bureaucrat.

What if they arbitrarily told me that I have to spend 20 hours performing an annual on your C-172?

 

[nosehair]

Anything longer simply pads the instructors wallet.

If that's your mindset, Sir, no worthwhile instructor will want to do anything for you.

 

[nosehair]

I am an expert on my aircraft, and there is no way that an ordinary MEI would have the knowledge and experience on each aircraft that he may park his butt in for an hour every other year.
I can safely say "Been there, done that, got the T shirt".

Again, if you are so full of yourself that no one can teach, polish, review, update, or simply share experiences with you, no professional will want to waste their time on you.

So what are you going to teach me on a flight review? Remember, this is a review, not an instruction period.

As I posted in an earlier post, it is an instructional period, by regulation. "1 hour each of ground and flight training." It is a dual requirement.

Did you learn anything today?

What I'm saying that the FAA made an error in making it mandatory to arbitrarily make a flight review to last an hour in the air. This should be at the discretion of the instructor, not a bureaucrat.

In spite of your "I know it all" attitude, you are exceptionally well qualified on this particular aircraft, and it is going to be hard to find a seasoned CFI who can actually do some worthwhile training, and I also agree that I usually don't like mandatory numbers for training. But in 99% of the cases, the 1 hour is not overly demanding.

And, it is true that most instructors are young and inexperienced and would be intimidated by personalities like yours.

Which is the only reason why I support this one exception to mandatory time requirements.

Look at the statistics, GA pilots are the worst at not keeping themselves proficient. You may be very skilled and proficient and not need this review as far as normal everyday operations go, but in the larger picture most of us do.

And, Sir, if you are as proficient as you say you are, I would think you could teach a young instructor a thing or two instead of tooling around sight-seing on you Flight Review.

"Pay it forward."

 

[Flyboy6420]

Since I restored the aircraft from two truckloads of component items, I have an intimate knowledge of my aircraft.
I also perform the annual inspections yearly on the bird.
This includes pumping the gear up and down using the hand pump. The engine driven pump is on the front engine. I cage the engine, and pump the gear down, at a safe altitude, periodically, then perform an airstart on the powerplant. The engine is equipped with unfeathering accumulators. The airstart procedure is different with them than without. Would you have known that? I am an expert on my aircraft, and there is no way that an ordinary MEI would have the knowledge and experience on each aircraft that he may park his butt in for an hour every other year.
I can safely say "Been there, done that, got the T shirt".

So what are you going to teach me on a flight review? Remember, this is a review, not an instruction period.

Some individuals may take less time to demonstrate maneuvers on a flight review, some may require more time. What I'm saying that the FAA made an error in making it mandatory to arbitrarily make a flight review to last an hour in the air. This should be at the discretion of the instructor, not a bureaucrat.

What if they arbitrarily told me that I have to spend 20 hours performing an annual on your C-172?

The minimum is there precisely for pilots like yourself, who feel the rules do not apply to them.

You are not special...you are an accident waiting to happen.

 

[erj-145mech]

The minimum is there precisely for pilots like yourself, who feel the rules do not apply to them.

You are not special...you are an accident waiting to happen.

OK d1ckweed, you know nothing about me. I am very cautious and my personal minimums are above the regs when it comes to WX. Do you agree that most GA accidents are WX related?

I never said that the rules do not apply, I said that the rules were arbitrarily applied by bureaucrats. Don't read anything into my statement that isn't there. You must be one of those 300 hour wonder CFI's that are Gods gift to aviation?

I have taught lots of things to low time instructors, both about aircraft structures and systems, and Skymaster aircraft operations. Skymasters, like most aircraft have unique characteristics, so there are many times where one technique used on one aircraft is not applicable on another. Many instructors do not know this and do a disservice to the flying public but teaching generalalities. I have seen many pilots that learned garbage from instructors, have gone on to instructing, and teach that same garbage to the student.

And I will close this by saying that it is a "Bi-ennial Flight Review", with review being the key word, not an instructional period. When you endorse the log, do you use the BFR phrase?

 

[erj-145mech]

The minimum is there precisely for pilots like yourself, who feel the rules do not apply to them.

You are not special...you are an accident waiting to happen.

And that is why you are a FlyBOY, and I am an aviator.

 

[Flyboy6420]

But on a flight review, I log the time as pilot in command, not dual received.

Whatever you are, you are operating without a proper flight review.

...but you already knew that, right hero??

 

[erj-145mech]

Whatever you are, you are operating without a proper flight review.

...but you already knew that, right hero??

Hey A¢e,
That might be your interpertation, but that is also wrong. I get ramp checked every other weekend at airshows by the local FSDO's as a performer. These different inspectors have examined my flight log, and aircraft logs with no discrepancies.
Please explain why geographically seperate FAA offices have found this to be in compliance?

And I may be a "hero" to you, but I like to think of myself as an ordinary aviator. I appreciate the compliment though.

No you may go back to your pathetic instructors lounge and knaw on your popcicle.

 

[igneousy2]

"Since I restored the aircraft from two truckloads of component items, I have an intimate knowledge of my aircraft...

I am an expert on my aircraft, and there is no way that an ordinary MEI would have the knowledge and experience on each aircraft that he may park his butt in for an hour every other year...

I can safely say "Been there, done that, got the T shirt"...

So what are you going to teach me on a flight review?

OK d1ckweed, you know nothing about me."


Oh!, I think we know plenty about you. I have to agree that with your stellar attitude (NOT!) you are an accident waiting to happen.

How about the next time you want a flight review you take a good look at yourself and when you talk to the instructor that is going to give you a BFR you ask him to teach you something you don't know. I know it's hard - you know everything right?


A good BFR is shaped for the student (<-yep, that's you) you probably don't need help with systems - but I bet you could cover some non-type specific stuff that maybe - perhaps - you might learn something.

Later

 

[erj-145mech]

"Since I restored the aircraft from two truckloads of component items, I have an intimate knowledge of my aircraft...

I am an expert on my aircraft, and there is no way that an ordinary MEI would have the knowledge and experience on each aircraft that he may park his butt in for an hour every other year...

I can safely say "Been there, done that, got the T shirt"...

So what are you going to teach me on a flight review?

OK d1ckweed, you know nothing about me."


Oh!, I think we know plenty about you. I have to agree that with your stellar attitude (NOT!) you are an accident waiting to happen.

How about the next time you want a flight review you take a good look at yourself and when you talk to the instructor that is going to give you a BFR you ask him to teach you something you don't know. I know it's hard - you know everything right?


A good BFR is shaped for the student (<-yep, that's you) you probably don't need help with systems - but I bet you could cover some non-type specific stuff that maybe - perhaps - you might learn something.

Later

And so, what could you teach me?

 

[Flyboy6420]

Hey A¢e,
That might be your interpertation, but that is also wrong. I get ramp checked every other weekend at airshows by the local FSDO's as a performer. These different inspectors have examined my flight log, and aircraft logs with no discrepancies.
Please explain why geographically seperate FAA offices have found this to be in compliance?

And I may be a "hero" to you, but I like to think of myself as an ordinary aviator. I appreciate the compliment though.

No you may go back to your pathetic instructors lounge and knaw on your popcicle.

Clearly you are ordinary, as demonstrated by your ordinary mistake. In reality, the error in failing to log the training time associated with your flight review comes down to your instructor. He or she should have made this entry.

While the instructor is responsible, I speculate that the root cause of this is you. Likely you have a reputation at your local airport, and there are only so many instructors to go around. I would bet that when your name shows up on the schedule your local CFI's flip coins, draw straws, spin the wheel of fate, whatever to see who has to deal with you this time. You likely are paired with the least experienced instructor, for the aforementioned reasons. Because this instructor is inexperienced, and you are a jerk, they are intimidated by you. They mistake your hubris for actual knowledge. So much so that they let you talk them into not making a simple entry in your record that they know is required.

Back when I started instructing, I might have let you do the same to me. Whatever would get you out the door, off my schedule, and me on my way home to have that beer I would have so richly deserved for that day of work.

 

[erj-145mech]

So, you're like 98% of the current instructors who are either too lazy or too stupid to write a lesson plan for a menial BFR, right?

Just like the others, you're ballast in the right seat, collecting for an hours ride for a log endorsement, to build the hours to go to the airlines or corporate aviation. The aren't many instructors out there that actually teach beyond the minimum requirements.

The professional CFI is a thing of the past.

 

[Flyboy6420]

The logbook entry for your flight review is still not correct, you should have it corrected by the instructor if you still can.

I refer you to the requirements of 61.51 for the logging of training time.

Fix it, don't fix it...totally up to you.

 

[Jrparne]

98% of the current instructors who are either too lazy or too stupid to write a lesson plan for a menial BFR.

NICE, real nice. Alot of people on this board are instructors, have been instructors, or will be an instructor. Some will do it for the hours, some will do it for the pleasure. You make think 98% of instructors are to lazy to care about bfr's, and you may have come across a few bad ones. But, I think you just offended many of the people on this board with that comment. A lot of us care about the way we teach, many of us with bfr's are trying to show you new things. Why do we show students new things?

Because nobody knows it all....

So next time that young instructor with so fewer hours than you tells you something new, just say thanks. It might not save your life, but at least it might get you thinking a different way.


And if you know he/she doesnt know something, help him out, because a lot of us here have gotten to great places from knowledge other people have given us.

Loose the chip, enjoy the instruction.

 

[Tired Soul]

What if they arbitrarily told me that I have to spend 20 hours performing an annual on your C-172

You probably should you have a sign-off list to follow
according to the manufacturers maintenance manual.
Unless you're one of those guys signing off on a 2 hr annual. Are you one of those A&P's saying.." I know this plane, been doing the annual for years and it only flew 5 hrs in the last year.."
"I am intimately familiar with this airplane so I can pencil whip this annual"
You one of those " Ace of the base" A&P's?

Probably not, but that is what you are accusing us of doing.
You're not a CFI my friend, you are a private pilot.
Leave our business to us, we'll leave yours to you.
You've been screwed over by a "sightseeing" BFR.
You should have learned something. Find another CFI next time who is up to the challenge and knows your plane better then you do.
And yes it is PIC and dual received.

You cap an attitude with me on a BFR and it's over, end of story, go somewhere's else.

 

[lawfly]

If a BFR is flight training and flight training requires appropriate category and class ratings on the CFI certificate, then the answer is "Yes". Another poster quoted that language from the reg and then inexplicably reached "No" as a conclusion.
Must be MEI. The pilot should take the review in a single if the CFI is not an MEI.
As for the bad attitude twin owner, yeah, I know of a BFR given to a twin owner who didn't think he should have to do much or review much for the review. Was before the one hour ground requirement and even before the one hour flight requirement. The review lasted about half an hour. About two months later, he was dead---crashed the twin. I am not saying his attitude toward the BFR was related to his fate, but it's an unfortunate coincidence, at least. The poster who commented on soft field, etc., as being excessive has something of a point: The review should consider
the type of flying usually engaged in by the pilot. In a way, an owner is easier to evaluate in that respect than someone who rents different types and/or doesn't fly much. Owners often fly to the same destinations repeatedly, same approaches, etc. In fact, the fellow I wrote about flew to a particular destination pretty often and perished during a night IFR circling approach there.

 

[340drvr]

If a BFR is flight training and flight training requires appropriate category and class ratings on the CFI certificate, then the answer is "Yes". Another poster quoted that language from the reg and then inexplicably reached "No" as a conclusion.
Must be MEI.

OK, the original question must've been edited, it was previously stated the other way. Read some of the other replies, too. (Don't know why I can't edit my own first post now, oh well.)

 

[igneousy2]

Although it is not necessary under the regulations I do not think if you are a CFI (no MEI) it is a good idea to give a BFR to a student that has an ME rating - I wouldn't.

61.56 states...

...

(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.

...

What this means to me is that you are opening up yourself to a tremendous ammount of liability if you sign someone off for a BFR without reviewing ME and if rated - instrument procedures.

When you sign off someone for a BFR you are stating that they are safe for all of the ratings that they have...not just the airplane that you gave them the review in. If I am giving a review to a ME Commercial rated pilot with an instrument rating then they can count on the fact that they will be doing a single-engine ILS in a ME airplane at a minimum.

I have met instructors who had students kill themselves (crash) and were hauled in by the FAA and had to provide there training records years after they ever gave the student any instruction. Pencil whipping BFR's is not a good idea and could cost you your career/lots of money.

If you don't like that - find another instructor.

Later

 

[avbug]

I've been flying this same airplane since 1989, have over 700 hours in it. There is nothing that I have not seen in it.

When is the last time that you intentionally spun a multi engine airplane? Unusual attitudes, not an issue in a 337.

Tell me, why would it take any longer to do a flight review, every flight regieme can be covered? Single engine, short, soft field, full stall series to include accellerated stalls. Anything longer simply pads the instructors wallet. Plain and simple.

This is a forum for regulation, and generally I try to confine my replies to the topic of legality. However, the above quoted statement is one of the most foolish and arrogant statements I've read on this site in some time.

Some years ago I flew for a company that owned three ag airplanes. The owners son had nearly fifteen thousand hours in them. One might suppose he knew them intimately enough to have an attitude like yours. The three airplanes were identical; he normally flew the blue one. One particular day, that airplane needed some maintenance, and he took the yellow airplane. I watched him take extra time in the runup area, extra time with the airplane, and then do a careful takeoff and conservative departure to the field to go spray. He'd flown each of the three airplanes for many thousands of hours.

I asked his father, an older and VERY experienced pilot, why he took so long in an airplane with which he was so obviouly familiar.

"Because he usually flies the blue airlplane." Came the reply. He went on to explain that each airplane has it's personality. The airplanes always operated close to the edge of their performance envelope with steep turns right to the stall buffet at 75', every sixty seconds throughout the day. Standard turns at each end of the field. This pilot recognized the value of reminding himself that even with his level of experience, he couldn't afford to think he knew it all, and he conservatively, carefully took the time to respect the subtle differences in seemingly identical aircraft.

You might take a lesson from him. His father surived a war, a number of combat missions, and over half a century of low level flying, to die peacefully in his sleep one night. The pilot in question suffered a heart attack years later...with an accident free history behind him. You may think you've got it all pegged...but your experience level doesn't now, and never will hold a candle to his. Or mine...and I take the same approach he did, in everything I fly.

Personally, I look forward to recurrent training. A year ago I went back to school for an airplane in which I already had a thousand hours. Certainly I could have taken the attitude that the facility had nothing to teach me, but I didn't. I decided I was going to wring every last bit of training out of them that I could. I spent time after class with instructors, took my meals and my evenings reviewing procedures, and then took my classmates through the procedures trainer for hours and hours so that we could each get everything possible from our time in school.

I received the same volumes for the same aircraft I have before...but I took copious quantities of notes, and filled my books with high-lighting, and packed the margin with notes and comments. I learned, and learned, and learned. We made it to the simulator, and every single session I found myself humbled as I learned more about the airplane, more about myself, more about my tendencies, bad habits, and limitations. I became discouraged, became elated, and no matter what the mood or the requirements at any given moment, I thoroughly enjoyed every moment of that training...as I always do.

You may feel you've got it pegged, you're dialed into your airplane after a whole seven hundred hours in it. I've had airplanes that I knew so intimately I wore them, and flew them into places you can't imagine, to do things that might give you nightmares. I never took them for granted, not then, not now...and an hour is hardly enough for a flight review in any airplane.

If you're not getting enough out of your flight review, look to yourself. Don't blame the instructor.

A few years ago, a company sent me to a recurrent training for their aircraft. When I showed up on the final evening to take the checkride, I was told all I need was a line flight; a takeoff, a landing, and something enroute. I pointed out that the employer was paying a lot of money for that training, and asked what we could do about it. We ended up spending a four hour session running through every procedure for the airplane, plus situational scenarios...wake turbulence, windshear, etc. The instructor was more than willing to provide the training, I was more than willing to take it. If you're not getting the training you want, then you need to look to yourself. The training relationship is a two way street.

Earlier this year I had a checkride for an operator, given in a small piston twin. I hadn't been in one for some time. I found the facility that the operator would be using, and arranged to spend a couple of hours with an instructor in the same type airplane, getting a review and some training. It cost me several hundred dollars. The young man who sat in the right seat had a fraction of the flight experience I do, much less certification than I do, and had been flying for a small percentage of the years I have. The money I spent on that flight, and on that instructor, was well worth the cost, well worth the time...and yes, I did learn something. I couldn't have compressed our session into an hour, and would have gone longer but for the schedule of the airplane and the instructor. The money I paid was some of the cheapest I've spent in a long time...how can I call it cost when I got so much in return?

I strongly suggest you take a long hard look at your own attitude and humble up, before it kills you one day. I say that in all sincerity upon a lifetime of experience...perishible experience which needs constant attention and recurrent training. None of us is above it...not even you.

 

[CloudyIFR]

Avbug,

Excellent response!

You should also have different instructors during IPC's, as one will shed light in different areas than others.

I fly the same 10 airplanes for the last 6 years, see my signature line, these same airplanes change as the years go by, just like humans do.

Curtis
Montana