Bi annual flight review

Hobobiker said:
I had texted my friend/CFI last week and asked if he would be willing to knock out my first BFR before August when it came due, and he said "sure." I happened to be taxiing out to take off this past Saturday and his voice came over the air..."hey 89J, I'm landing in 15 minutes if you want to knock out that BFR." Ummmm......okay. I had thought I might brush up on a few things first, but what the heck. I picked him up and he said "okay, make the takeoff a soft field." Hadn't done that one in a while but it was fun. Then came the slow flight (after clearing the airspace), power-off stall, power-on stall, and then steep turns. Then he chopped the throttle, made sure I knew the ABCDE's of an in-air emergency (including the frequencies, radio work, best glide speed, locating the best place to land, yada, yada, yada. We made the field and he had me do a go around rather than mess up the nice farmer's beans. He kept asking the ground school questions as we flew, and we headed back to the airport for some landings. As I was overflying the field at 3500ft MSL to descend down and back into the 45-degree downwind (our pattern altitude is 2400), he chopped the throttle on me again and did one of his "uh oh....what now??" So, I got to call out over the CTAF a simulated engine-out-to-land, held my best speed, left the flaps alone, did a large enough circle away from the airport to line up but not large enough that I would miss the asphalt, and brought her in just past the numbers - which made my day! We did one more takeoff and a short-field landing (I forgot to lose the flaps before pulling the yoke back and braking, but I was able to stop before our designated point - I was irritated with myself but had not practiced a short-field landing in a while). Then we called it a day. Along the BFR he would take the controls and show me a few pointers on little things that helped me out, which is why I always enjoy going up with a CFI on occasion just to shake the dust off and learn a few things.

Anyway, sorry for the longer write-up but it just happened so was kinda timely to your request.
Click to expand...

You guys also spend a hour on the ground with ground school stuff?
 
James331 said:
You guys also spend a hour on the ground with ground school stuff?
Click to expand...
Not sure if the in-flight discussion and post-flight discussion would have made a full hour or not James, but we fly fairly regularly, wrench on planes together, and I've been working on my instrument stuff, so he's much more up-to-date on my knowledge than he would be with someone he didn't know.
 
61.56(a) requires a minimum of one hour of ground training in addition to the hour of flight training.
 
Palmpilot said:
61.56(a) requires a minimum of one hour of ground training in addition to the hour of flight training.
Click to expand...
Are you stating that for my benefit? If so, I'm aware and we likely did so - time goes fast with a CFII and I wasn't watching the clock. My comment was eluding to the point that I was a known quantity for this instructor and some of the other posts referred to flying with those who didn't know you. Maybe I should have been more selective with my verbiage. We focus a LOT on the continuing education and learning aspect of flying rather than just "straight and level" magenta line stuff, so shortcutting the flight review was not on either of our agendas.
 
I think the confusion came from your description of the event - you "picked him up" and started with a soft-field takeoff, and at the end you did a short field landing and "called it a day". It sounds like the flight portion was thorough and covered the usual material. However, I've never heard anyone reasonably try to claim that asking questions in the air counts as the one hour of ground, though you imply in your post that that's all there was. If all you did during the flight review was fly, without an actual ground session, then most would conclude that the minimum requirements of the flight review were not met, which is probably why Palmpilot saw fit to remind you of the required ground portion.

I don't think it's particularly relevant how well the CFI knows you or your flying, the requirement is the requirement. However, an argument could be made for doing the ground portion in little time chunks over the weeks leading up to the flight portion, like if you work together and did it 15 minutes at a time on your lunch break. But as this is unusual, as a CFI I'd try to make sure the applicant knew it was for the express purpose of meeting the ground requirement.

Of course, if you did actually sit down for an hour and cover Part 91 and the other ground requirements, then no problem. That just wasn't clear in your post, which stood out to some (including me) right away.

Edit - I just noticed you said you are working on your instrument rating. Assuming you actually have documented ground training for that, I've used that in the past to meet the flight review requirement, as it pretty clearly covers the right type of information. But if you're actively working on your instrument rating, you may not have really needed the flight anyway - through the course of instrument training, you accomplish enough various maneuvers that the CFI could (if they wished) just sign off the flight review anyway without making a specific flight. I've done this too.
 
Last edited:
RussR said:
I think the confusion came from your description of the event - you "picked him up" and started with a soft-field takeoff, and at the end you did a short field landing and "called it a day". It sounds like the flight portion was thorough and covered the usual material. However, I've never heard anyone reasonably try to claim that asking questions in the air counts as the one hour of ground, though you imply in your post that that's all there was. If all you did during the flight review was fly, without an actual ground session, then most would conclude that the minimum requirements of the flight review were not met, which is probably why Palmpilot saw fit to remind you of the required ground portion.

I don't think it's particularly relevant how well the CFI knows you or your flying, the requirement is the requirement. However, an argument could be made for doing the ground portion in little time chunks over the weeks leading up to the flight portion, like if you work together and did it 15 minutes at a time on your lunch break. But as this is unusual, as a CFI I'd try to make sure the applicant knew it was for the express purpose of meeting the ground requirement.

Of course, if you did actually sit down for an hour and cover Part 91 and the other ground requirements, then no problem. That just wasn't clear in your post, which stood out to some (including me) right away.

Edit - I just noticed you said you are working on your instrument rating. Assuming you actually have documented ground training for that, I've used that in the past to meet the flight review requirement, as it pretty clearly covers the right type of information. But if you're actively working on your instrument rating, you may not have really needed the flight anyway - through the course of instrument training, you accomplish enough various maneuvers that the CFI could (if they wished) just sign off the flight review anyway without making a specific flight. I've done this too.
Click to expand...

Thanks Russ, and after re-reading my post the explanation makes sense. I was trying to do a quick write-up for the OP, while at work, which often means I miss getting the details where they are needed. Although I have to be honest that we DID cover ground school questions not only after the flight but also while enroute to the practice area, during clearing turns, etc. Probably his way of trying to overload/distract me as I flew. I think I was so excited that I nailed my engine-out landing, soft-field takeoff and short-field landing after not having practiced these in so long that everything else paled in comparison.

Sorry to the OP for taking your thread down a rabbit-trail, but we often do that on POA - sometimes for good reason (such as this) and sometimes for not-so-good nitpicky corrections/definitions/etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top