I've always liked that answer. "Yes, it can satisfy the requirements, but only if the check pilot signs the FR endorsement."
Perhaps, but that's not what the FAQ states, is it? (It is not). The FAQ states, contrary to what's been said throughout this thread, that a reinstatement or flight instructor ride DOES count for the purposes of 61.56. It adds the recommendation that one obtain an endorsement as well.
Now, you may find this an arduous and labor-intensive suggestion. Perhaps it's too burdensome. Perhaps it's so weighty as to boggle the mind and addle the senses...but does it really kill you to just get the endorsement?
I've often requested one, even though I don't need it, when taking a checkride for pilot privileges. No big deal. I've requested them from check airmen, and from facilities such as Flight Safety and Simuflite. No big deal. No extra cost, no fuss, no muss. Why the excitement?
One needn't explain as a non-instrument rated pilot how one logs instrument flight time (it's legal), though it's strongly advised when one fills out one's logbook. Avoiding confusion, misunderstanding...it's just not a big deal. Same thing here. A simple signature. No heartache. No cost. Just ink.
Which makes it no different than any transition training (even a 152 to a 172), a run of the mill checkout at a new FBO, or literally any other flight with a CFI which includes the 1 hour of ground and 1 hour of flight that is required for a flight review.
Quite incorrect. What this means is that one who is undertaking a checkride for a flight instructor certificate need not take the flight review...all that is suggested is that one add an endorsement. No additional flying. No additional hour of ground. Just a signature...and that's not required, though it is recommended.
The only problem with the answer (other than that it's meaningless) is that a lot of folks get to the "YES" and think it automatically satisfies the requirements (which I'm 99% sure is the question that was being asked) when the answer is actually "No, it doesn't.
Notice that the statement by John Lynch does not say the examiner
must endorse the applicant, but only that he
should.
But if the person performing the check has evaluated the pilot's piloting skills and ground knowwledge in accordinace with 61.56, he or she may also endorse the piot for a successful completion of a flight review."
Notice the operative word in there. Not "
must," but "
may."
Gee, I wonder why the FAA removed the FAQ and followed up with a notice not to rely on what it used to say.
You should find out, rather than wonder. You should also note that the FAQ was never an official statement of policy, but a personal sacrifice on the part of John Lynch...who also wrote the regulation. John Lynch has had many other duties, and Part 61 is about to undergo some very big changes, as is much of the regulation as the move is made toward a "plain english" version. The FAQ wasn't discontinued because of inaccuracy, as it was never official policy, nor was it ever set forth as official policy. However, you already knew that.
FAA policy, and regulation, stipulates that renewal of a flight instructor certificate using a ground course counts for the hour of ground required for the flight review. No small stretch of reason, nor of the regulation, is necessary to see that when a pilot's pilot skills are evaluated as part of a reinstatement practical test, the requirements of the regulation have been met. No additional training or testing is required. Adding an endorsement to seal the deal, makes sense and is no great hardship.
