Can't "fail" a Flight Review - semantics?

[35 AoA]

Check out Dubai... The fact is, these countries control us, we are their servants. They live as they want, regardless if what they want is what we think is 'first world' We don't live as we want, we live as a servant nation and send huge amounts of money to them so they can live as they want. Even their 'underclass' controls how our society lives. It was Saudis on 9/11, and their edicts and actions control how we live and have eliminated our free and open society into a paranoid hateful one, more so than before.

To some extent I would agree with you, and I can understand that argument. On the other hand, if you look at the larger picture, beyond the ball and chain of economic servitude that we have allowed ourselves to enter, the question becomes who needs the other more? We have spent a lot of time, money, and effort to ensure that those very folks are in positions of leadership in the ME. They enjoy little regional popular support, and are one State Dept embargo away from being gutted in the streets along with all their family and friends.

The relationship works because 1) we pay so much more than fair value for their crude (and thus influence the entire market to do so), that they are obliged to otherwise play by our rules. 2) We provide them with the only form of protection that is able to sustain their weak monarchies/dictatorships, in the form of direct military intervention, defense technology, and a hand in diplomacy.

So IMHO, we first and foremost create and maintain their very existence. I'm not going to call them puppets, but they wouldn't be where they are if we hadn't placed them there in the first place, either through covert or overt influence. There are of course some examples of where this is not the case, but I'm purely talking to "allied" ME'ern nations.

Secondly, we dangle a very large carrot in front of them, to encourage their economic loyalty, and to discourage them from forming alliances with folks like the Soviet Union or these days, the Russian Federation. Regional warfare, small scale terrorist loyalties, even high crude prices are just a small cost that we absorb to keep the strategic balance in check. We pay an arm and a leg to them in order to ensure that resource scarcity doesn't result in a nuclear holocaust. The rest of it is just placating a bunch of arrogant rich dudes, and ensuring that they do what we want the easy way.

 

[MikeELP]

Me neither....but I've had a couple who logged training time on 2-3 flights before getting a Flight Review endorsement from me.

I guess I've been lucky that (with one exception) all of my FR clients that were rough or rusty in some areas knew that they needed more time. The other one was insistent that I sign him off after one hour even though he was pretty much a disaster waiting for a place to happen. When I wouldn't do it (I did log his training time), he went to another CFI who also refused to sign him off. Not sure where he went after that.

Cap'n Ron hit it on the head when he said that when the reviewer and the "reviewee" talk in advance and each knows what to expect from the other...it all works better.

Mike

 

[Henning]

To some extent I would agree with you, and I can understand that argument. On the other hand, if you look at the larger picture, beyond the ball and chain of economic servitude that we have allowed ourselves to enter, the question becomes who needs the other more? We have spent a lot of time, money, and effort to ensure that those very folks are in positions of leadership in the ME. They enjoy little regional popular support, and are one State Dept embargo away from being gutted in the streets along with all their family and friends.

The relationship works because 1) we pay so much more than fair value for their crude (and thus influence the entire market to do so), that they are obliged to otherwise play by our rules. 2) We provide them with the only form of protection that is able to sustain their weak monarchies/dictatorships, in the form of direct military intervention, defense technology, and a hand in diplomacy.

So IMHO, we first and foremost create and maintain their very existence. I'm not going to call them puppets, but they wouldn't be where they are if we hadn't placed them there in the first place, either through covert or overt influence. There are of course some examples of where this is not the case, but I'm purely talking to "allied" ME'ern nations.

Secondly, we dangle a very large carrot in front of them, to encourage their economic loyalty, and to discourage them from forming alliances with folks like the Soviet Union or these days, the Russian Federation. Regional warfare, small scale terrorist loyalties, even high crude prices are just a small cost that we absorb to keep the strategic balance in check. We pay an arm and a leg to them in order to ensure that resource scarcity doesn't result in a nuclear holocaust. The rest of it is just placating a bunch of arrogant rich dudes, and ensuring that they do what we want the easy way.

All this rather than developing newer technologies that would make their commodity obsolete...

 

[35 AoA]

All this rather than developing newer technologies that would make their commodity obsolete...

Wealthy old men, like bureaucracies, are very slow to accept and embrace change. One day, we will have men who are every bit as stubborn, but who have accepted things like alternative energy because they were told that they should. And then we will leave the ME

 

[LDJones]

All this rather than developing newer technologies that would make their commodity obsolete...

Research on alternatives goes on constantly. Solar panel efficiencies have improved dramatically, although still a long ways from being THE alternative. Lots of smart people realize they can become insanely rich if they find a viable alternative to oil. That incentive will remain as long as we don't completely remove the incentive through stupid govt policies.

 

[tinerj]

I, too, look at the flight review as an opportunity to do something different. Fly a tailwheel, fly a LSA, fly a low wing, etc. Even if it takes two or four hours to demonstrate what the CFI thinks needs to be demonstrated, I'm happy to do it.

One thing I do not think is helpful is the CFI insisting that I memorize his particular acronym for emergencies. One CFI said all I had to remember was ABCDE, and I'd know what to do. A = find Airfield (NO!), fly at best Airspeed; B = Best glide (NO!); find Best landing site; C = communicate (NO!), pull carb heat, etc., D = I don't recall, but whatever it was didn't make any sense, also for E.

 

[Henning]

Research on alternatives goes on constantly. Solar panel efficiencies have improved dramatically, although still a long ways from being THE alternative. Lots of smart people realize they can become insanely rich if they find a viable alternative to oil. That incentive will remain as long as we don't completely remove the incentive through stupid govt policies.

China and India have functioning Thorium reactors, we have geothermal energy out the Ying yang, tidal energy that never quits... None of them get any real investment here.

 

[Henning]

I, too, look at the flight review as an opportunity to do something different. Fly a tailwheel, fly a LSA, fly a low wing, etc. Even if it takes two or four hours to demonstrate what the CFI thinks needs to be demonstrated, I'm happy to do it.

One thing I do not think is helpful is the CFI insisting that I memorize his particular acronym for emergencies. One CFI said all I had to remember was ABCDE, and I'd know what to do. A = find Airfield (NO!), fly at best Airspeed; B = Best glide (NO!); find Best landing site; C = communicate (NO!), pull carb heat, etc., D = I don't recall, but whatever it was didn't make any sense, also for E.

You can also look at it as a chance to add a rating.

 

[LDJones]

China and India have functioning Thorium reactors, we have geothermal energy out the Ying yang, tidal energy that never quits... None of them get any real investment here.

Which of those technologies will get your Prius across town and your 310 across the country?

 

[Henning]

Which of those technologies will get your Prius across town and your 310 across the country?

Either. With the electricity I don't need a Prius, I can have an EV, or even better, a fuel cell EV. With the energy I can also process algae into crude which can be refined to Diesel fuel or gasoline to run the 310. The longer we wait to reinvest in the future, the more it will cost in more ways than we can imagine.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

China and India have functioning Thorium reactors, we have geothermal energy out the Ying yang, tidal energy that never quits... None of them get any real investment here.

India....yea, but they are just starting the breeder reactors now to get the uranium needed to start the thorium reactors. China, not yet, probably the next two years or so. Same for the USA, interesting project down in Texas. Teledyne Brown (sister division to where I work) used to be involved in this. I don't know what they are doing now since Sorensen left to found Flibe Energy to produce these reactors....I don't know if Teledyne is funding him in this venture.

 

[JimNtexas]

I'm confused. Are China/Saudia Arabia/India conspiring in some way so as to make us fail our fight reviews?

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Yep

I'm confused. Are China/Saudia Arabia/India conspiring in some way so as to make us fail our fight reviews?

 

[RotorAndWing]

I'm confused. Are China/Saudia Arabia/India conspiring in some way so as to make us fail our fight reviews?

 

[MadseasoN]

When my son was 7, I used to hate how the YMCA athletics had a trophy for EVERYONE. As their coach, I would've preferred no trophies and only bragging rights rather than every participant gets a trophy. A lot of school awards are the same ....

Kids aren't stupid. They know that getting a trophy doesn't mean they "won" and that there were no losers. It simply devalues the trophy itself. The adults are the one's overly concerned with it.

 

[tinerj]

Kids aren't stupid. They know that getting a trophy doesn't mean they "won" and that there were no losers. It simply devalues the trophy itself. The adults are the one's overly concerned with it.

And, believe it or not, the parents do keep track of the score and tell the kids afterward.

 

[jspilot]

I just took my BFR yesterday and it was like a lesson and not a test. I was asked some basic questions from the oral exam and we went over a few things but nothing crazy hard. I just studied for a hour the night before and brushed up on some things.

The instructor specifically said you can't fail and that most people who fly often get through on the first try. It's people who don't fly for years that are in need of extra practice.

I actually enjoyed it. We went and did some maneuvers again, some that I have not done in a while. We came back and did a precision landing contest( which I got a "wow" from the instructor after putting it right on the 1,000 foot markers- his target- in a 11 knot 70 degree crosswind in a 152!). It was not something I'd worry about if anyone's BFR is coming up.

 

[rbridges]

Can you guys give me examples of what people did wrong to not get signed off? Are these people that just don't fly often?

 

[Henning]

Can you guys give me examples of what people did wrong to not get signed off? Are these people that just don't fly often?

They didn't meet the standards of their certificate. Mostly yes, people who needed more than an hour to "knock the rust off".

 

[poadeleted20]

Can you guys give me examples of what people did wrong to not get signed off? Are these people that just don't fly often?

Usually it's substandard stick-and-rudder skills. The reviewee can't hold altitude/attitude stable in a steep turn, or can't make landings on centerline in a crosswind, or takes all of a 5000-foot runway to stop in a 172, or something like that. Sometimes a few more repetitions improves performance to the point I can endorse, sometimes we have to come back another day for more work.

Note that when I'm doing flight reviews, I do it the way the FAA wants practical tests done -- ground portion first, and move to the airplane only when the ground portion is satisfactory. With that in mind, more than one flight review I've done has ended up with the ground portion taking the entire booked time to reach a satisfactory level of knowledge, and the flight portion being deferred to a later date (or the job taking all day rather than just the morning). But I've yet to find anyone other than a "back after 20 years" type needing more than 4-5 hours of ground training to reach standards.

 

[poadeleted20]

They didn't meet the standards of their certificate. Mostly yes, people who needed more than an hour to "knock the rust off".

Didn't know you'd finally gotten your CFI and were now giving flight reviews, Henning. Congratulations!

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Didn't know you'd finally gotten your CFI and were now giving flight reviews, Henning. Congratulations!

Geez, do you need to be a CFI to give a descent answer?

 

[docmirror]

Can you guys give me examples of what people did wrong to not get signed off? Are these people that just don't fly often?

I wasn't going to add anything to this thread, but I have been through a bad BFR and want to help out what seems to be an interested query.

Many years ago, I was coming up on my first BFR after buying my own plane. It was a Bonanza with the throw over yoke. I contacted a CFI who advertised on the bulletin board at the local airport. We had a chat, and he gave me a price for his inst per hour. We discussed what we would cover, and when. I showed up at the airport with my plane, and he said we would be taking his Mooney 231. Hmmmm, no mention of that on the phone. He also told me he charged xx amount per hour for his plane, and his inst rate went up $10/hour as well.

In retrospect I should have walked(flown) away. But, I needed the BFR that month, and I was there, and he was there, and I just said 'screw it, lets get it over with'. Mistake.

He got out the charts, the AIM, and the regs, and for the next 2 hours proceeded to grill me pretty good on various things, until after 2 hours he was asking about arcania like GA security stuff, and the meaning of various parts of appr plates(I'm not IFR rated). At that point, I looked at the clock on my phone a few times, to see if he got the hint. He also spend a good 30 minutes looking back through my logbook. Eventually, we got out the plane and I told him I'd need about 30-40 minutes with the POH and he could wait in the lounge if he wanted. Nope, he showed me around, and gave me some info on the Mooney related to flying characteristics, which is fine, but nothing I couldn't find in the POH on my own.

First thing, he asked for a soft field take off. Since I operate out of grass, this was a good idea and I was comfy with showing him that. We got up, and did some air work, slow flight, procedure turns, ground ref, etc. We then went back to do landings, and he asked me to demo a no-flap landing, but we would make it a T&G as the flaps were up already. I did it by the book, just kissed the mains, and we took off. After that we did three normal landings, and we went in.

At that point, I had 2+ hours of ground, and 1.6 on the hobbs. He started in with the 'well.... here is where we are,' spiel, and was going to start writing in my logbook that he gave instruction but nothing about 'completing' a review. I asked where he felt I was deficient and he came up with my mistake about the GA security question concerning the time needed to notify the customs people. He also wasn't happy with my no-flap T&G which he said I should have touched the nose gear before powering up to go around. He advised I would need another 1-2 hours in the air before he felt safe. I'd been scammed by a CFI.

I got my logbook back without any writing in it, and gave him his money and left. I found a CFI the next day that would do it in my plane. I was one hour on the ground, and 1.2 hobbs, and he said I was one of the best stick and rudder pilots he'd flown with lately.

You can be disqualified for just about anything the CFI wants to pick, and all he has to do is say 'ah-hah! you were 5kts fast on your base leg, showing a lack of precision, you will not get a completion'. Or - you didn't know the service volume of the VOR above 3500'. Or - your track of the VOR radial was more than 2 ticks, despite the fact you were only 3 miles from the center of the VOR. Or - when you landed, you didn't turn your xpndr to standby. In my case, the CFI just wanted to run up his bill. I heard later from the FBO just to the north that this guy has been doing the same thing for 4-5 years and word is getting around.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Geez, do you need to be a CFI to give a descent answer?

No, but some here post an answer even thought they don't know a correct answer.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No, but some here post an answer even thought they don't know a correct answer.

Seems to be the norm here.

 

[dtuuri]

I wasn't going to add anything to this thread, but I have been through a bad BFR and want to help out what seems to be an interested query. <snip>

This is precisely what many of us old-timers were afraid would happen and why the FAA went around at pilot meetings, soothing our concerns, saying it's only meant to get some recurrent training every two years, not a test.

Some instructors are taking way too much liberty with the intent of the rule. Personally, I don't even agree with Henning that the review needs to be to the original standards of the certificate, at least in all areas. Nothing says, for instance, that you have to maintain proficiency in every task after you receive a license. Some pilots are content to fly straight and level most of the time and don't practice turns around a point. To refuse to sign off somebody like that because they can't "pass" the task on a BFR is beyond the intent of the law, IMO. It's good enough to do the task under the supervision and critique of a CFI, if the CFI so chooses.

A pilot's license is forever. If you fly safely and know your limitations, you shouldn't need to remember and be able to do every nit-pickin' thing you first had to demonstrate in order to qualify originally any more than you should lose a college degree if you were to bust a sixth-grade geography quiz.

dtuuri

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Well, the context of my post was that Ron, in post 61, was pimping Henning for giving what I felt was an appropriate answer. I don't know where Ron is coming from for his response to Henning.

 

[RotorAndWing]

This is precisely what many of us old-timers were afraid would happen and why the FAA went around at pilot meetings, soothing our concerns, saying it's only meant to get some recurrent training every two years, not a test.

Some instructors are taking way too much liberty with the intent of the rule. Personally, I don't even agree with Henning that the review needs to be to the original standards of the certificate, at least in all areas. Nothing says, for instance, that you have to maintain proficiency in every task after you receive a license. Some pilots are content to fly straight and level most of the time and don't practice turns around a point. To refuse to sign off somebody like that because they can't "pass" the task on a BFR is beyond the intent of the law, IMO. It's good enough to do the task under the supervision and critique of a CFI, if the CFI so chooses.

A pilot's license is forever. If you fly safely and know your limitations, you shouldn't need to remember and be able to do every nit-pickin' thing you first had to demonstrate in order to qualify originally any more than you should lose a college degree if you were to bust a sixth-grade geography quiz.

dtuuri

The regulation is clearly written yet we have some CFI's who harbor the idea they are the gate keeper and the BFR should be considered a "test".

Personally I feel one of the great failures of GA is not requiring some sort of recurrent training. The accident statistics point this out.

It's very much reality that someone can get a certificate and never again receive any meaningful training or maintain proficiency.

Definitely a double edged sword.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, the context of my post was that Ron, in post 61, was pimping Henning for giving what I felt was an appropriate answer. I don't know where Ron is coming from for his response to Henning.

It sounded like he'd been doing flight reviews, and I offered my congratulations on earning his CFI ticket -- something I know he worked on in the past. It's a big milestone, and I'm glad he finally made it.

 

[poadeleted20]

The regulation is clearly written yet we have some CFI's who harbor the idea they are the gate keeper and the BFR should be considered a "test".

Personally I feel one of the great failures of GA is not requiring some sort of recurrent training. The accident statistics point this out.

It's very much reality that someone can get a certificate and never again receive any meaningful training or maintain proficiency.

Definitely a double edged sword.

I agree completely. The problem is that some instructors use it to beat the reviewees half to death like docmirror described, and some just trade their signature for some money and two hours of time. Read the above-linked FAA guide to flight reviews and you'll see what the FAA really wants. Then, your only problem is finding a flight instructor who provides that, and only that, and that's why you need to discuss the conduct of the review with the instructor on initial contact -- and be ready to find another instructor if the first one sounds like docmirror's.

 

[RotorAndWing]

It sounded like he'd been doing flight reviews, and I offered my congratulations on earning his CFI ticket -- something I know he worked on in the past. It's a big milestone, and I'm glad he finally made it.

 

[docmirror]

As to the OPs point, I consider that the nature of the BRF has changed for the worse in the past 10 years. The current FAA guidance confirms this by calling the BFR an 'evaluation of skill and knowledge'. Most any English speaker can find a synonym for evaluation to be a test. And if the desire of the currently rated pilot is to remain an active pilot, they must as a matter of law complete the evaluation - i.e. test or stop flying.

They also compare it to the medical exam, which is another synonym for 'test'. OBTW, they mention currency, and proficiency as well, but the focus has clearly changed from instructional relevance to assessment of minimum acceptable standards. I'm not saying this is wrong, but I happen to agree with the OP that the function of the BFR has changed thematically from an instruction based interface to an assessment or evaluation. If you do not meet certain standards which can be rather arbitrary, then you don't fly anymore(after 24 calendar months). It's as simple as that.

While I'm on my high horse, the current focus on security will make NO pilot safer, or better able to handle an airplane. The BFR in this case is being used as a cudgel to enforce crappy TSA/DHS/FBI/WTF restrictions on GA. In an effort to keep this out of SZ I will not comment further, but I think it's a complete waste of time for the actual safe operation. No one has ever died because they didn't know the comical/idiotic TSA airport watch factoids.

 

[poadeleted20]

As to the OPs point, I consider that the nature of the BRF has changed for the worse in the past 10 years.

To my knowledge, the fundamental nature of the flight review has not changed since its inception several decades ago.

The current FAA guidance confirms this by calling the BFR an 'evaluation of skill and knowledge'.

Certainly some evaluation is necessary always part of the teaching process, but at the end of the day, the fundamental purpose is still training, not testing. The only question is what training is needed, and the instructor doesn't know that without some evaluation first.

 

[docmirror]

To my knowledge, the fundamental nature of the flight review has not changed since its inception several decades ago.

Certainly some evaluation is necessary always part of the teaching process, but at the end of the day, the fundamental purpose is still training, not testing. The only question is what training is needed, and the instructor doesn't know that without some evaluation first.

Your knowledge is limited/incorrect. I no longer have the syllabus for the BFR from 1988(it was never online) but I recall clearly that it focused on a training program to improve and reinforce basic aspects of aero knowledge and air skills. It was sold as a training program, and billed as 'recurrent training for the Gen Aviation pilot who's skills may have deteriorated after their PTS exam'. It was solely focused on training skills in GA pilots, and the nature of the BFR was as a supplement to regular flying. The whole reasoning behind it was the lack of currency of the pilot pop as gas got more expensive and flying hours plummeted in the late 70s.

Your second para is counter to your first, and not in the current BFR syllabus except in respect to giving training in cases where a pilot has been inactive for an extended period. Instruction was in the orig CFRs for a reason. It was to keep the CFI from thinking that they were the new gatekeeper to GA pilots. It has migrated since then to the current arm-twisting regulation and security review that we all dreaded back when it first appeared.

 

[TMetzinger]

I develop a lesson plan for the FR based on an interview with the pilot and as suggested it focuses on the type of flying he does (which I expect to be up to PTS), and also expands the envelope a little (and there I expect consistently safe performance).

Because I'm in the SFRA/FRZ, I always review the procedures (nearly all do well on this) and interception procedures (nearly all do poorly on this).

I don't require that everyone "ace" everything we cover on the FR. But I do expect proficiency on key elements (never seriously in doubt), and I expect that the pilot understands where he may have "lost a step", in order to successfully complete the review.

I also give WINGS credit as part of the flight review.

 

[JimNtexas]

Well, the context of my post was that Ron, in post 61, was pimping Henning for giving what I felt was an appropriate answer. I don't know where Ron is coming from for his response to Henning.

The only way I can think to solve this conundrum is to write the Chief Counsel a letter and ask if non-CFI's can answer a question from another pilot.

 

[Henning]

No, but some here post an answer even thought they don't know a correct answer.

Yeah, I should have given the correct answer, "Most people who don't get signed off in the minimum 1+1hr is because their CFI needs more money."

 

[hook_dupin]

I develop a lesson plan for the FR based on an interview with the pilot and as suggested it focuses on the type of flying he does .

The interview is my favorite part of a BFR. I really like to hear the type of flying my BFR students are actually doing.

I shape the BFR to encompass areas that I think the student is potentially weak on. For example, if the reviewee comes to me with lots of cross country and instrument time, we probably then work on maneuvers. If the guy flies his Stinson off the back 40 and just enjoys seeing how the valleys unfold from 800' AGL, we probably go find a Class D or C airport.

Yeah, I should have given the correct answer, "Most people who don't get signed off in the minimum 1+1hr is because their CFI needs more money."

I'm pretty bad at figuring out exactly when to say "Ok...let's go home for some pattern work"

 

[poadeleted20]

Your knowledge is limited/incorrect. I no longer have the syllabus for the BFR from 1988(it was never online) but I recall clearly that it focused on a training program to improve and reinforce basic aspects of aero knowledge and air skills. It was sold as a training program, and billed as 'recurrent training for the Gen Aviation pilot who's skills may have deteriorated after their PTS exam'. It was solely focused on training skills in GA pilots, and the nature of the BFR was as a supplement to regular flying. The whole reasoning behind it was the lack of currency of the pilot pop as gas got more expensive and flying hours plummeted in the late 70s.

Your second para is counter to your first, and not in the current BFR syllabus except in respect to giving training in cases where a pilot has been inactive for an extended period. Instruction was in the orig CFRs for a reason. It was to keep the CFI from thinking that they were the new gatekeeper to GA pilots. It has migrated since then to the current arm-twisting regulation and security review that we all dreaded back when it first appeared.

I'm not sure what syllabus you're talking about, but I suspect it was a commercial product, not from the FAA. The FAA published an AC about flight reviews way back when, and then replaced it with the guide discussed above. Neither contained a "syllabus." I quote from the current FAA guide:

The purpose of the flight review required by Title 14 of the Code of Federal​

Regulations (14 CFR) 61.56 is to provide for a regular evaluation of pilot skills​

and aeronautical knowledge. AC 61-98B states that the flight review is also​

intended to offer pilots the opportunity to design a personal currency and​

proficiency program in consultation with a certificated flight instructor (CFI). In​

effect, the flight review is the aeronautical equivalent of a regular medical​

checkup and ongoing health improvement program. Like a physical exam, a​

flight review may have certain “standard” features (e.g., review of specific​

regulations and maneuvers). However, just as the physician should tailor the​

exam and follow-up to the individual’s characteristics and needs, the CFI should​

tailor both the flight review and any follow-up plan for training

So, evaluation and training to deal with weak areas found in the evaluation -- and it's always been that way. It's never been a "checkride" or "test" other than the sort of test that conducted the teacher helping you correct to 100% as you take it.

 

[docmirror]

Like I said, and you've quoted, it's for evaluation. the only part of it that is training is now for follow-up plan.

In effect, the flight review is the aeronautical equivalent of a regular medical
checkup...


Fail either, and no flying. QED


OBTW; syllabus = AC in non-pilot speak.