Flight Review -- 25 years after not flying

[PHXAvi8tor]

What do you do with a guy who hasn't flown in 25 years and now wants a biennnial flight review?

CFIs, what's your syllabus for this student?

 

[EdFred]

Airspace changes for starters.

 

[tonycondon]

i just did it with a guy who hadn't flown since 1979. very involved ground portion (5 hrs) and flight (about 5 hrs too). ground definitely hits airspace and communications, navigation, cross country planning, flight service, regulations. very in depth. treat them like a student pilot, cause they really probably dont remember much. the flying is much of the same. we did a lot of slow flight and stalls, many many landings. some crosswind work. steep turns, ground reference, more landings. emergency procedures and more landings.

signing him off for the flight review was like soloing a new student though. i was awfully proud.

 

[Dave Theisen]

AOPA has a section under their Learn to Fly tab on their web page called getting back into flying. here is a link: http://www.aopa.org/learntofly/getback.html

In cases like this, I usually go fly with them and then give them an honest assessment of what I think it will take to get them up to speed. It is important that they know up front what to expect as to your expectations and requirements to get your sign off. For a 25 year layoff, it could very well be like starting from scratch, although, the rate of progress should be quicker than someone with no experience at all.

 

[Don Jones]

What do you do with a guy who hasn't flown in 25 years and now wants a biennnial flight review?

CFIs, what's your syllabus for this student?

That all depends on the students experience. Someone with 2 or 3 thousand hours before the 25 year lay off would probably be significantly different than
one with 2 or 3 hundred hours. As you already know tho, plan on spending quite a few ground hours getting him up to speed on all the changes in airspace, regs etc. as Ed suggested.

 

[KennyFlys]

In June 2005, I returned to flying for the first time since August 1986. Back then, I flew into IMC without an instrument rating and was suspended pending a 709 review (at the time, it was Section 609). Without the 709 requirement, legally all I would have needed was a BFR (since changed to only "Flight Review").

I had enough common sense to know I needed a LOT more than that. I had been an AOPA member for several years and had read several monthly aviation periodicals for the previous few years. I had learned more than enough through them that when I did return to flight, there was not a chance in Washington DC I'd get by on the equivalent of a Flight Review with only a few hours time.

The school at GVL was a Cessna Pilot Center. I took the private pilot course along with about six hours or so of ground school with my CFI. In all, I flew about twenty hours. I probably could have slid by on less but I was having fun and it did me no harm in practicing all I could since I was facing the 709 Review. Even without the 709 on the line, it did me good. The catch was, I could not fly solo as there's no provision during suspension, not even with a FSDO sign-off. They looked into that as well and saw it as a weak link for someone seriously trying to prepare for the review.

Part of that flight time was a XC flight plan, day time down and night time back. I had also done a dozen or so night landings. We went through the entire Private Pilot PTS since all of it was fair game during the 709. Actually, all of it is fair game in a mere Flight Review.

AOPA has an interesting section for those returning to flight. I had read through it just prior to starting. You look at the last time you flew and it explains what changes have taken place. For me, that covered all but the section in the `70s. That's about the case with your fella as well. So, let's make it a full boat training syllabus. Gotta be realistic!

So, I pretty much let myself be treated like a PP student capable of solo but not allowed to. I learned what I needed and more. The 709 ride was as much instructional as it was a practical test. My examiner was also the FSDO safety officer at the time so I got a lot more than I bargained for and I wouldn't trade it for a date with Heather Locklear.

I don't see anyone returning after so long making an easy return to flying. Honestly, any CFI who signed off on it without doing at least as much as I did, I'd not want that person as my CFI. If ya want them to be safe and you to be without fear of putting your own ticket on the line, stand firm on the requirements like they are also facing a 709 review.

 

[jesse]

I don't see anyone returning after so long making an easy return to flying. Honestly, any CFI who signed off on it without doing at least as much as I did, I'd not want that person as my CFI.

I think that's a bit much. A stereotypical CFI that thinks every student is the same--and thinks they all need the same thing based on one variable (years) should be smacked upside the head.

You need to evaluate all the variables which would include what they remember, what has changed, their airplane control abilities, and a number of different things. Years has little value.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm with those who say they'd start with an evaluation -- essentially, a practical test for all certificates/ratings they've got. After that, we'd sit down and go over what they need to the point where they have both the knowledge and proficiency to exercise the privileges of their ticket. That could range from as little as a few hours each of ground and flight training to nearly an entire Private Pilot flight training program, and there's just no way to know in advance of the evaluation what that might be.

 

[KennyFlys]

I agree with doing an evaluation. You need to know a startig point. I just can't picture it being less than or close to what I experienced.

 

[mark.fitzpatrick]

...My examiner was also the FSDO safety officer at the time so I got a lot more than I bargained for and I wouldn't trade it for a date with Heather Locklear....
.

And a date with Heather Locklear isn't worth as much as it was 25 years ago

 

[poadeleted20]

One point I forgot -- having the returnee attend a weekend AOPA CFI refresher course before getting with the instructor will save a whole lot of work. The course will nicely cover all of the regulatory issues (currencies, airspace, etc) and a lot of other things which change over time, and they give a pretty good price break to non-CFI's taking the course (no paperwork for them to do).

 

[KennyFlys]

And a date with Heather Locklear isn't worth as much as it was 25 years ago

Even now, she's as fine as a well polished A-4 Skyhawk in Blue Angels colors.

 

[jdwatson]

One point I forgot -- having the returnee attend a weekend AOPA CFI refresher course before getting with the instructor will save a whole lot of work. The course will nicely cover all of the regulatory issues (currencies, airspace, etc) and a lot of other things which change over time, and they give a pretty good price break to non-CFI's taking the course (no paperwork for them to do).

I didn't know a non-CFI could participate. Cool !

 

[bbchien]

I did a 48 year old guy who had last flown in 1981. Took seven hours over three weekends with a lot of homework in between. Airspace, LAHSO, Simultaneous Parallel Approaches, all done with scenario based training. This "clicked" for him. It was a blast teaching him LPV approaches....of course he'd never seen one.

What was really cool, is that after about hour #4 he started to behave like a PIC again.