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

RussR

RussR

En-Route
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
4,461
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
Display Name
Display name:
Russ
You hear this a lot - that you can't "fail" a flight review, you simply "don't pass" it. While yes, there is no "record" of taking a FR and not passing it, I always wondered why people said this - it seems to me like it's just semantics, either that or a way to calm people's (unwarranted) fears about the review. (Or perhaps, if I was more crotchety I'd say it was to coddle the delicate sensitivities of the modern-day fragile ego).

If I try to do something (anything), and don't do well enough on it, and have to come back again later, pay more money and try to do it again, then in any reasonable definition I can think of, I've "failed" doing that thing, on that day. This could be taking a test or installing a new faucet or making my wife happy. :)))

A few definitions of "Fail":
  1. be unsuccessful: to be unsuccessful in trying to do something
  2. be unable to do something: to be incapable of doing something or unwilling to do it
  3. not pass exam or course: to fall short of the standard required to pass an examination, course, or piece of academic work
Pretty much all of these would apply to a FR - If I didn't get the endorsement, I was unsuccessful, unable, and I did not pass, falling short of the standard.

Sure, there'll be nothing in the logbook saying "RussR failed a Flight Review on this date", but since what I wanted was the FR endorsement, and I didn't get it, well, didn't I fail to get it?
 
Yep... It all comes down to our modern culture where everyone is a winner and failure is seen as something so horrid it's unacceptable.
 
Even if you don't "pass" you still get to fly until your current flight review is expired.

In theory if there was a "fail" option that would imply that you are done flying right now - you do not get to PIC for the rest of the month - not to mention that it would hurt your feelings.

In practice, some seem to think that if you fly the minimum time you get an automatic pass since you can't fail.
 
Henning said:
Yep... It all comes down to our modern culture where everyone is a winner and failure is seen as something so horrid it's unacceptable.
Click to expand...

<thread-hijack>

We were talking about this today when the news reported about a "third-world" country. I assume we (the US) are considered a "first-world" country, but which ones are "second-world"? And if "third-world" is the end of the scale (no such thing as a "forth-world" country) then the poorest country in the world still gets a bronze medal.

</thread-hijack>
 
Our Cold War counterparts were 2nd world - after everything crumbled in 89-90, the term Second World went the way of the dodo.
 
Last edited:
upstateny said:
<thread-hijack>

We were talking about this today when the news reported about a "third-world" country. I assume we (the US) are considered a "first-world" country, but which ones are "second-world"? And if "third-world" is the end of the scale (no such thing as a "forth-world" country) then the poorest country in the world still gets a bronze medal.

</thread-hijack>
Click to expand...

We are a Second World nation... Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE... They are first world.
 
It's because when they jammed it down our throats the FAA soft-peddled the requirement by assuring pilots it was only meant to achieve a modicum of recurrent training not empower a CFI to revoke flying privileges. Today's CFIs apparently think differently.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
It's because when they jammed it down our throats the FAA soft-peddled the requirement by assuring pilots it was only meant to achieve a modicum of recurrent training not empower a CFI to revoke flying privileges. Today's CFIs apparently think differently.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Are you implying an instructor should sign off a flight review regardless of how well the pilot flew?
 
jesse said:
Are you implying an instructor should sign off a flight review regardless of how well the pilot flew?
Click to expand...

Yes, as dual, not as a 'satisfactory' flight review.

EDIT: The CFIs back then wanted to be held harmless for giving the new requirement, so the FAA allowed an out--they don't have to say 'satisfactorily completed'.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
RussR said:
Sure, there'll be nothing in the logbook saying "RussR failed a Flight Review on this date", but since what I wanted was the FR endorsement, and I didn't get it, well, didn't I fail to get it?
Click to expand...
You may have failed to get the endorsement, but you didn't fail a test.

First, if the instructor chooses not to endorse your logbook for a flight review after completion of the training session, there is nothing negative in your logbook. Flight instructors are specifically told not to put anything like "flight review unsuccessful" in trainees' logbooks. All the log entry will show is that you received flight training on that date, and the training covered certain subjects. There should be no comments on how well (or badly) you did.

Second, you do not lose any privileges you already had based on going for a flight review and not receiving a flight review endorsement at the end of the session. Unlike failing an FAA medical exam, where your old certificate is essentially invalidated by denial of a subsequent application, you can still fly as PIC as long as you still meet the 61.56 requirement based on your last flight review, practical test, or other authorized substitute. Only if you've hit the 24 calendar month wall are you non-PIC'd, and in that case, you were non-PIC-qualified before the review started.
 
dtuuri said:
Yes, as dual, not as a 'satisfactory' flight review.
Click to expand...
Since that's already a legal requirement of 61.189 and 61.51 paragraphs (a) and (h), I don't see what your concern is.

EDIT: The CFIs back then wanted to be held harmless for giving the new requirement, so the FAA allowed an out--they don't have to say 'satisfactorily completed'.
Click to expand...
They don't even have to say "flight review" at all, and are in fact strongly advised in the various guidance to flight instructors on the conduct of flight reviews not to do that when the review is not completed to the point of being able t give the endorsement. That guidance tells instructors in that situation to log only what training was accomplished and to leave it at that. In fact, I don't believe that the FAA ever proposed to have instructors do otherwise in any NPRM along the way to the Final Rule first establishing the flight review requirement.
 
It's recurrent training. When it's perceived as a test the trainee is motivated to obscure any shortcomings they may have in order to not fail. If we approach a BFR as an opportunity to learn, to improve skill and knowledge, the entire aviation community benefits.
 
As my instructor has said, he has been amazed that some of his pilots that didn't "pass" his review" managed to find someone to sign off on a flight review and sometimes the pilot my instructor didn't think could fly would get in trouble after that signature (crash, kill someone, etc.).
 
Fearless Tower said:
Love ya man, but I've done plenty of time in all three you listed and do not agree.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Just read the thread, behind a bit.

Someone who flunks an FR who is still within the currency requirements can load the airplane with pax an hour later and depart.

Think about that one for a bit. Not good.
 
Warrior said:
As my instructor has said, he has been amazed that some of his pilots that didn't "pass" his review" managed to find someone to sign off on a flight review and sometimes the pilot my instructor didn't think could fly would get in trouble after that signature (crash, kill someone, etc.).
Click to expand...
Put that in the same category with those $400 "walkaround" annuals -- there's always someone with no integrity willing to sell his/her signature for the right price. :(
 
wby0nder said:
It's recurrent training. ... If we approach a BFR as an opportunity to learn, to improve skill and knowledge, the entire aviation community benefits.
Click to expand...

(OP here). As a CFI, I present the Flight Review as Matt states above - an opportunity to learn, brush up on skills, do something new, etc.

But as a pilot, maybe it's just me, but I'm very aware that if I do lousy on the flight review and don't pass, that means I have to come back again. Maybe not a big deal. If I set out to "pass" it that day and didn't, well, the opposite is "fail", isn't it? I suppose you could make an argument for "incomplete" like in a college course.

Ron Levy said:
You may have failed to get the endorsement, but you didn't fail a test.
Click to expand...

See, to me, that's semantics. I "did not accomplish the purpose for which I set out" is pretty much a dictionary definition of "fail", isn't it? We tend to equate "fail" with meaning "you're a failure", especially today (with all the "FAIL!" videos on youtube) which makes it sound really harsh to our delicate ears. But it's just a word meaning the opposite of pass.

Second, you do not lose any privileges you already had based on going for a flight review and not receiving a flight review endorsement at the end of the session. Unlike failing an FAA medical exam, where your old certificate is essentially invalidated by denial of a subsequent application, you can still fly as PIC as long as you still meet the 61.56 requirement based on your last flight review, practical test, or other authorized substitute. Only if you've hit the 24 calendar month wall are you non-PIC'd, and in that case, you were non-PIC-qualified before the review started.
Click to expand...

I don't see this as an effective litmus test for whether to call it a "failure" or not. Most people I think would say that you can indeed "fail" a practical test/checkride. But, as in your example above, if you fail a checkride you do not lose any privileges you already had either. You're still "student pilot" or "private non-instrument pilot" or whatever as appropriate.

I do think that saying "you can't fail a flight review" is a bit disingenuous, since without further explanation it supports in the applicant's mind that they'll just need the bare minimum 1 hr/1 hr. Because if they can't fail anyway, why would they need to do more? "Oh, well, you don't necessarily PASS after that time either, though..."

So I just don't use the "pass/fail" wording at all.
 
denverpilot said:
Just read the thread, behind a bit.

Someone who flunks an FR who is still within the currency requirements can load the airplane with pax an hour later and depart.

Think about that one for a bit. Not good.
Click to expand...
OTOH, if you think about it further, I think you'll realize the FAA has good reasons not to endow individual instructors with grounding authority on pilots who have already passed at least one FAA practical test.
 
RussR said:
See, to me, that's semantics. I "did not accomplish the purpose for which I set out" is pretty much a dictionary definition of "fail", isn't it? We tend to equate "fail" with meaning "you're a failure", especially today (with all the "FAIL!" videos on youtube) which makes it sound really harsh to our delicate ears. But it's just a word meaning the opposite of pass.
Click to expand...
Since it's not a test, you can't pass or fail it. But as you say, that's a matter of semantic point of view, not a regulatory issue, and I'll leave it at that, other than to say that when someone's performance isn't good enough on a flight review, I don't say "You failed," I say, "Here are the areas where you need to get better before I can sign this endorsement."
 
Ron Levy said:
OTOH, if you think about it further, I think you'll realize the FAA has good reasons not to endow individual instructors with grounding authority on pilots who have already passed at least one FAA practical test.
Click to expand...
Right on.
 
Ron Levy said:
OTOH, if you think about it further, I think you'll realize the FAA has good reasons not to endow individual instructors with grounding authority on pilots who have already passed at least one FAA practical test.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Just pointing out that the FR is not pass/fail when it comes to future privileges. Which is what the OP was asking about.
 
Henning said:
Yep... It all comes down to our modern culture where everyone is a winner and failure is seen as something so horrid it's unacceptable.
Click to expand...

That's true, and although this isn't the best response I've seen ... I am awarding you the 8th place trophy.;)

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 ....
 
danhagan said:
That's true, and although this isn't the best response I've seen ... I am awarding you the 8th place trophy.;)

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 ....
Click to expand...


You should attend a cheer leading event...
 
The problem ideology isn't that failure is a bad thing (in most instances, it is--although it can be highly educational those times you don't kill yourself or others one supposes) it is that everyone is a winner, all the time.
 
Teaching kids they always win and that everyone must always share leads to significant social problems and unrealistic expectations when they hit the real world.

The recent teacher assassination attempt here in Colorado can probably be tied directly back to that.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since that's already a legal requirement of 61.189 and 61.51 paragraphs (a) and (h)...
Click to expand...

"requirement"?

...(h) Logging training time. (1) A person may log training time when that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.
 
Silvaire said:
"requirement"?

...(h) Logging training time. (1) A person may log training time when that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.
Click to expand...
The instructor lacks that option, and is required to sign for all training given including all the elements discussed in 61.51. If it isn't logged, it wasn't training. If it was training, it must be logged and signed by the instructor -- no option. I suppose the trainee can always decide that it wasn't training, and then the instructor is off the hook, but I'm going to need the pilot to whom I didn't give training while I was flying with him/her to give me a written signed statement to that effect which I can use to defend myself if the FAA later says I violated 61.189 by not signing that pilot's logbook. Otherwise, there will be a paper trail for the payment for my time without an accompanying log entry, and that's evidence which could be used against me.
 
Last edited:
RussR said:
If I try to do something (anything), and don't do well enough on it, and have to come back again later, pay more money and try to do it again, then in any reasonable definition I can think of, I've "failed" doing that thing, on that day. This could be taking a test or installing a new faucet or making my wife happy. :)))
Click to expand...

That's like saying you "failed" at training for the Private Pilot Certificate because you showed up at the check ride with 41 hours, when the minimum is 40.

I think 90% of pilots when don't get the BFR sign off they sought would agree with the instructor that they need additional training. The other 10% will get upset, but ultimately will either: 1) get more training and "pass", 2) find another CFI (more training is good, right?) to sign them off, 3) quit flying, or 4) ignore the flight review requirement and fly anyway.

I don't see the identification of areas in need of training as a failure. You could argue a pilot who has an unrealistic assessment of their abilities has failed before the flight even started.
 
If you fail an actual checkride then it goes on your permanent record, just like your third grade teacher warned you.

If your instructor doesn't sign off your flight review or IPC then he just doesn't put the magic words in your logbook.

It's not hard to see the difference.
 
Brad Z said:
That's like saying you "failed" at training for the Private Pilot Certificate because you showed up at the check ride with 41 hours, when the minimum is 40.
Click to expand...
Did you mean "showed up at the check ride with 39 hours", in which case the test doesn't even begin?
 
Ron Levy said:
Did you mean "showed up at the check ride with 39 hours", in which case the test doesn't even begin?
Click to expand...

No, I meant if the goal of the student was to take the check ride at 40 hours, than taking a check ride at 41 is a failure, following the OPs logic.
 
Ron Levy said:
Did you mean "showed up at the check ride with 39 hours", in which case the test doesn't even begin?
Click to expand...

I showed up with 39.9, (how CFI and I had added it 3 times and came up with 40, :dunno:) had to do a trip around the pattern while the DE had coffee.
 
I don't know of a single pilot (or a married one either) who has failed a flight review.
 
If "failed" means not passing on the first try, I know several.

A common situation is getting back into flying after a several-year hiatus. It's gonna take more than one lesson.
 
I don't know anyone who's ever failed or passed a flight review, only those who've completed one or not completed one.
 
tinerj said:
I don't know of a single pilot (or a married one either) who has failed a flight review.
Click to expand...

Me neither....but I've had a couple who logged training time on 2-3 flights before getting a Flight Review endorsement from me.
 
It's interesting hearing peoples perspective on the BFR. I've never thought of it as a "test". It's an opportunity to spend some time with a CFI reviewing both the flight tasks and regulations and train up to the standards. I've always tried to add things I wouldn't normally do .. such as fly a more complex aircraft .. spend some additional flight time and include an IPC, etc. This last one I hadn't flown for a couple years and needed to get up to speed before test flying my Sonex I'd just completed. Plus I'd just moved to a new area. I requested that we do a good review of all the MOA and restricted areas around my airport. I also got to spend some time in an airplane new to me (Tecnam). I went into it as a training event and not a test.

RT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top