CFI Checkride as Flight Review

TMetzinger said:
A type rating is indeed a PILOT proficiency test, so I believe it will qualify as a BFR.
Click to expand...
It's also "for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege."

Want the test for certificates and ratigs: If the successful completion of the practical test results in them issuing you a new pilot certifciate with some new information on the from on the line that says XXXX Pilot or on the back where it says "Ratings" it counts.
 
TMetzinger said:
A type rating is indeed a PILOT proficiency test, so I believe it will qualify as a BFR.
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
It's also "for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege."

Want the test for certificates and ratigs: If the successful completion of the practical test results in them issuing you a new pilot certifciate with some new information on the from on the line that says XXXX Pilot or on the back where it says "Ratings" it counts.
Click to expand...
Where I took my earlier statement from is the bold portion:

§ 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:

(1) A review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 of this chapter; and

(2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.

(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.

(c) Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has—

(1) Accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor and

(2) A logbook endorsed from an authorized instructor who gave the review certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the review.
Click to expand...
My interpretation of that line is... the pilot being reviewed must already be rated in the aircraft provided. Saying otherwise would mean I could walk up to a CFI with a B-737 and seek a Flight Review.

I'm trying to think of any other scenario where where the pilot being reviewed is likely not already rated for. Multi-engine, perhaps? But, is there such a thing as flying a multi-engine aircraft "solo" prior to being rated in it, particularly to a checkride?
 
Ron Levy said:
True, but this is a specifically-addressed exception to the requirement for 1 hour of ground training, so there's no need for a ground training log entry. OTOH, as far as a practical test is concerned, the FAR's specifically address practical tests saying that the examiner is acting merely an observer, not an instructor, and the DPE Handbook (an FAA Order) specifically prohibits giving instruction during a practical test. Since the examiner isn't acting as an instructor, and isn't giving training, there cannot be training log entry to make. However, the interpretation letter from the Chief Counsel's office clearly states that the examiner may sign the FR endorsement based on the events of the practical test, without saying the examiner must also give and log "training." Based on Administrator v. NTSB and Merrell, if Ms. McPherson says it's OK, it's OK, and that's the end of that unless one can show her interpretation is "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law" -- and I don't see that happening on this issue.

Like I said, the basic idea that a successfuly completed CFI practical test doesn't sufficiently cover "the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 of this chapter" and "maneuvers and procedures that ... are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate" to sub for a 61.56(a) FR is already utterly absurd, so any further absurdity is merely spitting in the ocean.
Click to expand...
I'm seeing somewhat of a conflict in the statute:

§ 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:

(1) A review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 of this chapter; and (Ground Portion)

(2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate. (Flight Portion)

(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.

(c) Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has—

(1) Accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor and

(2) A logbook endorsed from an authorized instructor who gave the review certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the review.
Click to expand...
Items in Red added for clarification.

Paragraph (a) states "flight training."

Paragraph (a)(2) states "review."

A checkride is not "flight training" and such is forbidden during a checkride. It is, however, a review of maneuvers and procedures.

:dunno:
 
KennyFlys said:
My interpretation of that line is... the pilot being reviewed must already be rated in the aircraft provided. Saying otherwise would mean I could walk up to a CFI with a B-737 and seek a Flight Review.
Click to expand...
Since we are quoting from 61.56:
(d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review required by this section.
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night but I think "rating" includes type ratings.
 
KennyFlys said:
Referring to my earlier scenario of showing up with a B-737 for a Flight Review.
Click to expand...
You can't show up with a B-737 for a flight review if you are not already rated in it. However, if you show up with it and pass a checkride for a B-737 type rating it would count as a flight review.
 
Everskyward said:
You can't show up with a B-737 for a flight review if you are not already rated in it. However, if you show up with it and pass a checkride for a B-737 type rating it would count as a flight review.
Click to expand...

What I was going to say.

Once you pass you are rated. Then he reviews your performance. Kinda hard to say you passed but your performance sucks!

Dan
 
I guess it follows that a CFII check ride would not count as an Instrument Proficiency check either, unless the examiner did a separate endorsement for that too.

Jon
 
KennyFlys said:
I'm seeing somewhat of a conflict in the statute:


Items in Red added for clarification.

Paragraph (a) states "flight training."

Paragraph (a)(2) states "review."

A checkride is not "flight training" and such is forbidden during a checkride. It is, however, a review of maneuvers and procedures.

:dunno:
Click to expand...
Well, other than that it's not a "statute"...

I think you're trying to make the language far more specific than intended. You seem to want to define "training" at teaching something that the pilot has never done before. And then, you seem to want to define "review" with a capital "R" to mean "checkride". And as something other than training

I'm not sure about you, but in the course of normal training of a pilot, even a student pilot, I constantly (flight review or not) do a "review of those maneuvers and procedures that... are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise..." of whatever stage he is at. And review and evaluation is, without a doubt a part of "training."

I also think that you are reading too much into the prohibition on examiners giving "training" during a checkride. In that sense, my impression is that they =are= indeed focusing on the teaching part of the more general term "training." So an examiner in a checkride, while not permitted to teach is doing the review and evaluation part of the training function.

Yes, that means that words like "training" are being used in different senses in different places. So what? That's the way the words work in English and the fact that they appear in a legal document doesn't change that reality. And interpretation is really a bit of an art, combining words, meanings, policy and context, where, reading one of these Opinions, you can end up saying, "I disagree with the reasoning but I see where he is coming from." Sometimes you can't and the question becomes whether the reason you can't is (a) the reasoning makes no sense or (b) you can make no sense of the reasoning.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
The easy answer is because FAA Legal says its legal.
Click to expand...
OK, I did not read the Legal Opinion. I did not know that the FAA had authorized this deviation from the printed FAR.

Now, everything is ok, and I can sleep.:rolleyes:
 
Breaking FAA News:

The FAA just announced that in order to be a legal PIC you must wear your underwear on the outside.

That is all.
 
Everskyward said:
You can't show up with a B-737 for a flight review if you are not already rated in it. However, if you show up with it and pass a checkride for a B-737 type rating it would count as a flight review.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you read 61.56(d):
(d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review required by this section.
Click to expand...
passing a checkride for a B-737 type rating doesn't COUNT as a flight review...it eliminates the need for the flight review.

The same applies to a FIRC...as Ron pointed out, a FIRC doesn't COUNT as the ground portion of the flight review, it eliminates the need for it.
(f) A person who holds a current flight instructor certificate 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 1 hour of ground training specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Click to expand...

Fly safe!

David
 
Everskyward said:
You can't show up with a B-737 for a flight review if you are not already rated in it. However, if you show up with it and pass a checkride for a B-737 type rating it would count as a flight review.
Click to expand...
...as long as you find a CFI with B737 on his pilot certificate for that flight review ride. 61.195(b)(2)
 
midlifeflyer said:
Well, other than that it's not a "statute"...

I think you're trying to make the language far more specific than intended. You seem to want to define "training" at teaching something that the pilot has never done before. And then, you seem to want to define "review" with a capital "R" to mean "checkride". And as something other than training

I'm not sure about you, but in the course of normal training of a pilot, even a student pilot, I constantly (flight review or not) do a "review of those maneuvers and procedures that... are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise..." of whatever stage he is at. And review and evaluation is, without a doubt a part of "training."

I also think that you are reading too much into the prohibition on examiners giving "training" during a checkride. In that sense, my impression is that they =are= indeed focusing on the teaching part of the more general term "training." So an examiner in a checkride, while not permitted to teach is doing the review and evaluation part of the training function.

Yes, that means that words like "training" are being used in different senses in different places. So what? That's the way the words work in English and the fact that they appear in a legal document doesn't change that reality. And interpretation is really a bit of an art, combining words, meanings, policy and context, where, reading one of these Opinions, you can end up saying, "I disagree with the reasoning but I see where he is coming from." Sometimes you can't and the question becomes whether the reason you can't is (a) the reasoning makes no sense or (b) you can make no sense of the reasoning.
Click to expand...
I used "statute" as a wide description of the written law; though wrongly used here.

I capitalized "Flight Review" just for the sake of identifying the act of obtaining and/or giving such. Nothing else was inferred with regard to the actual words in the FAR.

I guess i am splitting hairs with it. I'll let it go. I think I've learned enough, at least for now. I'm certain it won't be the end as time goes on.
 
nosehair said:
OK, I did not read the Legal Opinion. I did not know that the FAA had authorized this deviation from the printed FAR.

Now, everything is ok, and I can sleep.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well, you asked for an official reference.

I'm not sure "deviation" is the correct word. I think it's "interpretation." Unless, of course, the definition of "deviation from the printed FAR" is "an interpretation I disagree with," which is usually the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top