Specific reference for flight reviews:
https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/media/flight_review.pdf
Notice it says GROUND REVIEW
https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/media/flight_review.pdf
Notice it says GROUND REVIEW
“Ground instruction” scenarios
- Thread starter RyanShort1
- Start date
Now what does the reg say...
Sec. 61.56 — Flight review.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The review must include:
(b) Glider pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a glider, each of which includes a flight to traffic pattern altitude, in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required in paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate and 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 one hour of ground training specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Hope you are not holding your breath waiting for my apology because it is not going to happen. So the reviews you received or administered were ONLY to CFIs?
BE LEGAL, SMART, AND SAFE...
Sec. 61.56 — Flight review.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The review must include:
(b) Glider pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a glider, each of which includes a flight to traffic pattern altitude, in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required in paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate and 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 one hour of ground training specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Hope you are not holding your breath waiting for my apology because it is not going to happen. So the reviews you received or administered were ONLY to CFIs?
BE LEGAL, SMART, AND SAFE...
Mathematically you can wait until 1/3 is no longer an infinitely repeating decimal.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Where did I say EVERY flight review I gave was to a CFI? I said a number were, and yes they were to CFIs and DPEs.
And yeah I wouldn't expect an apology from someone as self absorbed and narcissistic as you are.
And yeah I wouldn't expect an apology from someone as self absorbed and narcissistic as you are.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Here's the AC (AC61.98C) dealing with Flight Reviews http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_g...80915cc10bd586257f0e00736375/$FILE/61-98C.pdf
Here's what the 8900.1 says about flight reviews (8900.1, Vol 5, Ch 2, Sec 3) http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch2,Sec3
EdFred is a CFI, and under Part 61 he's not required to do the ground portion of a FR if he's renewed his CFI with a FIRC.
Here's what the 8900.1 says about flight reviews (8900.1, Vol 5, Ch 2, Sec 3) http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch2,Sec3
EdFred is a CFI, and under Part 61 he's not required to do the ground portion of a FR if he's renewed his CFI with a FIRC.
RussR
En-Route
I also have given flight reviews without conducting a minute of ground instruction, and no, they weren't all to CFIs. Many were because they had previously completed an online ground review course, such as Sporty's, in lieu of me sitting with them for the hour minimum. Perfectly legit.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Dont forget the wings program!
I also went 10 years without having a flight review and being legal PIC,
If I understand correctly, a number of DPEs used to combined the oral and flight portions of a check ride. The FAA decided it didn't like it and added "It is required that the oral portion of the practical test precede the flight portion of the practical test" to the Designee Handbook.
I do somethings similar but treat is as part of the ground portion, not the whole thing.
Last comment, the applicable FAR only states two exceptions. Rationalize, justify, or make whatever excuses you want but the bottom line is that you do not comply with either.
Earlier today I called the cops for a motor scooter parked such that it blocked off a designated and properly marked handicap parking place for a van. During the 45 minutes it took the cops to respond a van pulled up and the driver needed more than 5 minutes to maneuver his way out of the van without knocking the scooter over. The driver of the motor scooter came up with the usual nonsensical explanations....I wasn't really blocking the space, it has never been a problem before etc. She still got a ticket for $300.
Your statements reflect a questionable understanding and ability to comply with the rules. Just because you think it is right and nothing adverse has happened you think it is ok. Well, hopefully, nothing adverse will happen but think about the example you are setting. As a CFI you should lead by example not expediency.
I'll say it again, be legal, safe, and smart...
Earlier today I called the cops for a motor scooter parked such that it blocked off a designated and properly marked handicap parking place for a van. During the 45 minutes it took the cops to respond a van pulled up and the driver needed more than 5 minutes to maneuver his way out of the van without knocking the scooter over. The driver of the motor scooter came up with the usual nonsensical explanations....I wasn't really blocking the space, it has never been a problem before etc. She still got a ticket for $300.
Your statements reflect a questionable understanding and ability to comply with the rules. Just because you think it is right and nothing adverse has happened you think it is ok. Well, hopefully, nothing adverse will happen but think about the example you are setting. As a CFI you should lead by example not expediency.
I'll say it again, be legal, safe, and smart...
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Actually your reading comprehension sucks because there are more than just 2 exceptions for 61.56. You might be safe and legal but you will certainly never be mistaken for being smart.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Where should I start? A few months back I was scheduled to fly with a friend for his flight review and we ended up with conditions that wouldn’t let us have enough time to finish the flying portion of the review. We decided to go ahead and do the ground portion and in an hour we had literally flipped to, read, and discussed a scenario for every applicable part 91 reg in the chapter. We went ahead and hit a few highlights from part 1, 61, and NTSB 830 for grins and mentioned what preventative maintenance he could do. If a pilot is willing to actually re-read the regs before showing up, and hour of review is certainly sufficient to verify they generally know how to apply the rules. We decided not to sign off the flying even though the portion we did came to an hour (good decision making on his part) and I signed his logbook specifically stating that we had adequately and satisfactorily covered the ground portion of the flight review (didn’t write anything negative about the flying we did do) As it turned out, I was too busy to finish him up the next few days and another CFI looked at my ground entry and agreed to finish the flight up a few days later and that CFI was apparently happy to sign the flight review off as completed.
My original question had to do with the basic idea that if I could document that I knew the material, have a good plan to review the material with a client and I covered the exact same set of questions with the pilot giving satisfactory answers to them and taking at least an hour to complete, why would the exact location matter? If I was riding on the International Space Station and did the “ground” portion of the flight review and took the flight portion of the review the day after splashdown, the intent is fulfilled, right?
RussR
En-Route
What on earth are you talking about? 61.56a doesn't require the same CFI to do both the ground and the flight portion. It just states they must be done. If the CFI is John and Martha King via an online ground school course where the applicant is provided a certificate of completion, that's perfectly legitimate, well-established (that's the whole point of those courses) and complies with the regulation.
The Sporty's course, I am told, takes about 2 hours to complete and is fairly thorough. So, while we will naturally discuss a few things in person through the course of a normal preflight briefing (and specific to the flight or the local area), I do not log any ground instruction of my own (nor do I sign that I performed any in the endorsement). In my endorsement, I add a statement to the effect of "Ground portion complied with through Sporty's course" or something.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I read the thread. I’m logging it as Ground Instruction received. Ya’all can divvie up the Ground Instruction given anyway ya want.
RyanShort1
I agree with your ISS scenario, the same would be true if you conducted the ground portion on a ship or submerged in a submarine. The various courses (King etc.) are good preparation for a flight review but not a replacement for the ground portion. Think of it this way. Your student has completed the PP written before starting training. So obviously they know how to plan and conduct a cross country. Are you going to sign them off for cross country without watching them plan a cross country and quizzing them about their plan?
Kind of in this vein, one of my first students was phenomenal! At about 40 hours he had it all together and asked me to sign him off for unlimited cross country because scheduling was difficult. I told him that I'd think about it and let him know at our next lesson. The chief instructor overheard the conversation with this student and wanted to discuss the situation. Bottom line his comments were along the line of if you are prepared to sign the student off for unlimited cross country then why are you not ready to recommend him for the checkride? Why didn't I sign the student off as requested? Because he was not ready for the checkride. Flying cross country is more than just drawing some lines, collecting and analyzing some data, doing a little trig, and then away we go.
The issue boils down to for lack of better words accountability and responsibility. As a CFI we can do a number of things but in the end we are held to both of those concepts. Before asking can I you must answer should I.
I agree with your ISS scenario, the same would be true if you conducted the ground portion on a ship or submerged in a submarine. The various courses (King etc.) are good preparation for a flight review but not a replacement for the ground portion. Think of it this way. Your student has completed the PP written before starting training. So obviously they know how to plan and conduct a cross country. Are you going to sign them off for cross country without watching them plan a cross country and quizzing them about their plan?
Kind of in this vein, one of my first students was phenomenal! At about 40 hours he had it all together and asked me to sign him off for unlimited cross country because scheduling was difficult. I told him that I'd think about it and let him know at our next lesson. The chief instructor overheard the conversation with this student and wanted to discuss the situation. Bottom line his comments were along the line of if you are prepared to sign the student off for unlimited cross country then why are you not ready to recommend him for the checkride? Why didn't I sign the student off as requested? Because he was not ready for the checkride. Flying cross country is more than just drawing some lines, collecting and analyzing some data, doing a little trig, and then away we go.
The issue boils down to for lack of better words accountability and responsibility. As a CFI we can do a number of things but in the end we are held to both of those concepts. Before asking can I you must answer should I.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
They ARE the ground portion! How in the blue hell did you ever become a CFI with your complete lack of knowledge? No wonder you thought your student was phenomenal. You'd be impressed by the knowledge demonstrated by a koala. And since you've demonstrated your lack of knowledge, I'll provide you with a link to what a koala is here.
You have you click on the blue part to get to the link, since I know you'll probably have trouble figuring that out as well.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Which is why the question arose, if we went over that same material over a 3 hour cross country phase where I was helping watch for traffic and scanning the panel for anomalies, and none of it was logged as dual flight instruction, could it count for the ground? The material, and intent is more important than the location.
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
If the flight and ground instruction are split by a number of days, when does the flight review clock get reset? Suppose I get the ground portion completed on SEP 30 and the flight portion done on 1 Oct by two different instructors. When will I need my next review? I say I'm only good to 30 SEP two years hence. What say you?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Which one signed off the FR?
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Nope, the date of completion. You should know that as an A&P - if the annual started in November with a wing inspection but finished in December, you don’t have to go re-look at all of the items you inspected on November 30th the next day to make it legal. The evidence of this with the flight review is that a CFI who completes a renewal course has a really big chunk of time where they can skip the ground hour of a flight review.
Russ, while I agree with you on their use (although my trainees and always have one or two questions about them which we discuss), can you point to an FAA reference or even something in the marketing material or certificate of completion for any of these courses being a "well established" FR ground component surrogate?
Not the same. I the case of the CFI, there is a specific regulation about skipping the ground portion of a flight review and a renewal course is not a requirement.
We are in violent agreement about EdFred being able to substitute his FIRC for the ground portion of a flight review. That is directly from the FAR. But that is for a review he is receiving in order to exercise his PIC privileges.
8900.1 is not a FAR, it is a work aid and guide for how FAA Inspectors do their job. It is useful and helpful but no substitute for the FAR. Frequently people like to say that ACs are not regulatory in nature forgetting the verbiage that says if you do not follow the methodology described in the AC you must used one that has been approved by the Administrator.
No doubt you and many others will keep doing things as you are. Perhaps, some will change their actions. For the most part this has been an interesting and enlightening conversation. I will continue to do things as I have which means unless I do both parts of the review then I don't sign it off.
Wishing all a bright and success filled future!
Be legal, smart and safe!
Doc Holliday
En-Route
The 8900.1 is an FAA Order. In essence, the Administrator delegates his authority to his ASI's. In doing so, he has issued them an Order on how to perform those task on his behalf. The ASI must follow the Order to remain within the scope of his/her employment while working on behalf of the administrator. However, it is acknowledged that if the Order 8900.1 is contrary to regulation, the the regulation takes presidence.
While you proclaim the 8900.1 is merely a work aid and is not a substitute for the 14 CFR's, that is not quite accurate. The 8900.1 describes in detail on how the administrator wants his delegates (ASI's) to comply with the 14 CFR's. An example is a 14 CFR Part 135.293 competency check. If someone looked at the regulation only it does not detail which maneuvers must be checked in flight, however the Administrator list those maneuvers and standards in the 8900.1, Vol 3, Ch 19, Sec 7. Those tables are required by the administrator to be included in the approved training program and items must be checked. So in this instance (and many more) the Order 8900.1 does exceed the regulation in verbiage.
schmookeeg
En-Route
I am enjoying the fruits of the conversation (arguments over FARs tend to throw off lessons for the bystanders) but MAN does your sermonizing make it really tedious. Any chance you could maybe cut each post short by a paragraph? I don't need to read this many AOPA Safety slogans and churchlady platitudes before my morning tea kicks in. What I do as a CFI is not your concern, it's between me, my students, and the FAA. Stay out of it please.
RussR
En-Route
Sure. From the Sporty's course description at https://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/flight-review-online-course.html
"INCLUDES GROUND TRAINING ENDORSEMENT
After completing the video training and receiving a minimum score of 80% on the included quiz, you will be eligible to receive an endorsement from Sporty's Academy stating that you have completed the required one hour of ground training for the Flight Review. To satisfy the complete Flight Review requirements, an additional one hour of flight training (minimum) is required.
NOTE: Acceptance of the Sporty's endorsement toward your Flight Review is at the discretion of the flight instructor conducting the flight training. Sporty's recommends consulting your flight instructor in advance to verify acceptance of this training toward your Flight Review."
Here is the certificate they receive:
There is no FAA regulation that I am aware of specifically allowing this, because it is not necessary as there is no FAA regulation prohibiting it. 61.56a merely says that there must be 1 hour of ground and 1 hour of flight instruction. There is no requirement that it be the same instructor giving both, and in fact the regulations for Ground Instructors specifically authorize them to provide the ground portion of a flight review. If they do, then it is necessary for a flight instructor to do the other half, thereby by definition requiring two instructors to complete.
If Mr. Radtke is willing to sign off a flight review online ground course like above, I don't see how that's different from any other authorized instructor doing it.
(And I would certainly consider Sporty's to be a "well-established" training provider.)
Also, I previously mentioned a King flight review course with a similar certificate. I couldn't find one when I just looked, so either I was wrong or just can't find it.
Last edited:
RussR
En-Route
That's your opinion. Please don't state it as fact. At least one provider, Sporty's (see above), provides a certificate and sign-off to be used for exactly that, if the CFI agrees.
"Unlimited cross country"? There is no endorsement for that listed in the latest AC 61-65. I have never heard of a provision for unlimited XC. There is the sign-off for repeated trips between two airports within 50 nm and of course the one for flights within 25 nm, but those certainly don't meet any definition of "unlimited" cross country (especially since they're not a XC anyway by the typical student pilot definition).
I see you do have a CFI certificate according to the FAA database - the statement about "unlimited cross country" made me look. May I ask how much actual instruction you've given, and how long ago it was?
Thank you. I had not seen one of those before.
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
Apples and oranges. An annual inspection starts and continues until it is completed and often takes several days or even longer during which, the aircraft is not being operated. It makes sense to sign off the inspection on the day of completion.
At what point does one hour of ground training become stale in regards to a flight review. Can I do the Sporty's flight review training course in January and complete the flight review 3months or 3 years later?
There is no guidance on this. I would expect the CFI to exercise some reasonable discretion on what to accept. If you looked at the Sporty's course, it says it it subject to CFI acceptance. In the real world, I would anticipate doing the course would be at CFI prompting to begin with.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
For a CFI, the ground is excused if the CFI renewal has been completed the renewal course any time in the last 24 calendar months, so the FAA isn’t too concerned about that window with regards to CFis, something I kind of find ironic given various posts in this thread. Three years is obviously out, but I can think of pilots who are pretty knowledgeable that I wouldn’t be worried about if circumstances caused a month long interruption in finishing a flight review.
Jordan93 
RussR most of my instruction has been working with folks coming back to the cockpit after long periods of no activity or transitioning from military or airline careers. Or teaching at 121 carriers. I said unlimited which is not accurate, should have been the verbiage you cited.
Be legal, smart, and safe
RussR most of my instruction has been working with folks coming back to the cockpit after long periods of no activity or transitioning from military or airline careers. Or teaching at 121 carriers. I said unlimited which is not accurate, should have been the verbiage you cited.
Be legal, smart, and safe
RyanShort1 Remember CFI's have to be renewed every two years.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
OP shakes head as he wonders “where did that came from?”
My last post directly referenced that...
How many of us have wondered about some of the FAA's rulings etc? Years back there was a bizjet crash at a mountain airport here in CO caused by the aircrew not deicing. It was a charter flight where one company supplied the airplane and a separate company supplied the crew. What did the FAA do?
Well they issued a ruling, or some legal response, that required charter flight documents clearly id which company supplies the airplane and the crew. Also, they said that the aircraft could have been deiced using rope to scrape ice off of the airplane if doing so is approved by the airframe manufacturer (to my knowledge no turbojet airframe makers do). Kinda think they totally missed the mark.
Point is the feds don't always do things that are even remotely helpful. Remember the old saying aviate, navigate, and then communicate? Legislate would trail communicate but some of the feds think it should be first.
Well they issued a ruling, or some legal response, that required charter flight documents clearly id which company supplies the airplane and the crew. Also, they said that the aircraft could have been deiced using rope to scrape ice off of the airplane if doing so is approved by the airframe manufacturer (to my knowledge no turbojet airframe makers do). Kinda think they totally missed the mark.
Point is the feds don't always do things that are even remotely helpful. Remember the old saying aviate, navigate, and then communicate? Legislate would trail communicate but some of the feds think it should be first.
Ryan the statement about using the CFI FIRC as a substitute after 3 years is that that FIRC would have expired within 2 years. Thus trying to use it as a substitute for the ground portion of a flight review would seem to me to be a none starter. But that's my opinion.