Flight Review From The Ground?

[gibbons]

I've been asked to do a flight review for someone with a single place airplane. The pilot says he thinks I can do this from the ground.

I declined for the following reasons: 1) The pilot's flight review has expired and he can't act as PIC anyway; 2) I'm not at all sure FAA would approve of this or that it makes sense; 3) I'd have no earthly idea how to conduct a flight review from the ground.

Still, it made me curious. Have any of you run into this? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

 

[SkyHog]

I've been asked to do a flight review for someone with a single place airplane. The pilot says he thinks I can do this from the ground.

I declined for the following reasons: 1) The pilot's flight review has expired and he can't act as PIC anyway; 2) I'm not at all sure FAA would approve of this or that it makes sense; 3) I'd have no earthly idea how to conduct a flight review from the ground.

Still, it made me curious. Have any of you run into this? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

You sure can, Chip. May not be smart, I found the reference a few weeks ago, trying to find it now. I'll put it up momentarily.

edit: it may have only been for checkrides....so maybe not.

edit2: Yep - its for checkrides:
§ 61.45
e) Aircraft with single controls. A practical test may be conducted in an aircraft having a single set of controls, provided the:

(1) Examiner agrees to conduct the test;

(2) Test does not involve a demonstration of instrument skills; and

(3) Proficiency of the applicant can be observed by an examiner who is in a position to observe the applicant.

 

[bbchien]

I have encountered this, and here's what I do: Tell him to rent the FBO's 152. NOBODY else will do this, he's trying to be cheap. Then he can get his BFR- with whomever he desires!

 

[Ed Guthrie]

The flight review language specifically calls out "1 hour of flight training". FWIW, "flight training" delivered from the ground goes by a different name within FAA speak--it's called "solo flight".

Seriously, what the pilot asked you to do is not even close to being legal.

 

[gibbons]

§ 61.45
e) Aircraft with single controls...

Thanks Nick. I was aware of that one, but couldn't find anything about flight reviews.

The flight review language specifically calls out "1 hour of flight training". FWIW, "flight training" delivered from the ground goes by a different name within FAA speak--it's called "solo flight".

I had thought about this too. I know it's not the same thing, but aerobatic pilots are coached from the ground all the time. No, not flight training in the FAA sense, but it is possible to receive valuable feedback from the ground.

Tell him to rent the FBO's 152...

I believe you have a good idea there Bruce.

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

 

[Nav8tor]

You sure can, Chip. May not be smart, I found the reference a few weeks ago, trying to find it now. I'll put it up momentarily.

edit: it may have only been for checkrides....so maybe not.

edit2: Yep - its for checkrides:
§ 61.45
e) Aircraft with single controls. A practical test may be conducted in an aircraft having a single set of controls, provided the:

(1) Examiner agrees to conduct the test;

(2) Test does not involve a demonstration of instrument skills; and

(3) Proficiency of the applicant can be observed by an examiner who is in a position to observe the applicant.

Nick the way I read that, it doesn't mean the examiner doesn't need to be in the airplane, only that there isn't a second set of controls. I don't see any way for an examiner to assess the proficiency of the applicant if he wasn't in the airplane.

 

[SkyHog]

Nick the way I read that, it doesn't mean the examiner doesn't need to be in the airplane, only that there isn't a second set of controls. I don't see any way for an examiner to assess the proficiency of the applicant if he wasn't in the airplane.

You know, now that you mention it, I can see that too. I got my idea of it from reading Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook, where he says that's what it meant.

But I can now see it going either way.

 

[gibbons]

Nick the way I read that, it doesn't mean the examiner doesn't need to be in the airplane, only that there isn't a second set of controls. I don't see any way for an examiner to assess the proficiency of the applicant if he wasn't in the airplane.

Good point Lee, but I know of at least one examiner who will do sport pilot check rides from the ground. Maybe I should say I'm aware of one who will reportedly do this... I've never actually spoken to him about it.

 

[ScottM]

How would this guy be able to fly anyways since his BFR is out of date? I see no way around but for him to rent a dual place plane for the BFR.

 

[The Old Man]

How would this guy be able to fly anyways since his BFR is out of date? I see no way around but for him to rent a dual place plane for the BFR.

I may be wrong (I frequently am), but if he only flies the single place airplane, the BFR is mere window dressing. The PP-ASEL allows you to fly. Currency requirements (BFR, 3 landings in last 90 days, etc) allow you to fly with non-rated passengers. In a single place airplane, currency requirements would be moot. Medical is a different story.

 

[ScottM]

I may be wrong (I frequently am), but if he only flies the single place airplane, the BFR is mere window dressing. The PP-ASEL allows you to fly. Currency requirements (BFR, 3 landings in last 90 days, etc) allow you to fly with non-rated passengers. In a single place airplane, currency requirements would be moot. Medical is a different story.

I think you are confusing currency with BFR. The currency requirements are for flying passengers. yes, that would be the three landings in 90 days. But the BFR is a flight review that must happen every two years (with a few exceptions) to just be able to fly. If this person's BFR is out of date he cannot fly himself. So I think it would be impossible for him to have a BFR from the ground based on that alone.

The BFR you'll recall is at least an hour worth of ground time and an hour worth of air time with a CFI.

 

[poadeleted20]

First, it is not legally possible to give a flight review in a single-place airplane. The flight portion of the review is by definition "flight training" which requires that the instructor be in the same airplane as the trainee and (with the exception of instrument training in single-engine planes) that there be dual controls. References include 14 CFR 61.1(b)(6), 14 CFR 61.56(a), and 14 CFR 91.109(a).

Second, a practical test is not flight training -- see 14 CFR 61.47. Anyway, the rule cited above (14 CFR 61.45(e)), only allows an examiner to give a practical test in an aircraft with only a single set of controls, not in single-seat aircraft. The single-seat option is covered by 61.47(f) and applies only to light sport aircraft. Further, the single-seat option results in a "single seat/no passengers" restriction on the pilot's Light Sport Pilot certificate.

Third, as Chip notes, this pilot isn't permitted to at as PIC since he is out of flight review currency, so he can't even solo the plane. The flight review is required to act as PIC without regard to whether or not passengers are carried; it's the landing currency that permits carriage of passengers. See 14 CFR 61.56(c) and 61.57(a).

 

[gismo]

I may be wrong (I frequently am), but if he only flies the single place airplane, the BFR is mere window dressing. The PP-ASEL allows you to fly. Currency requirements (BFR, 3 landings in last 90 days, etc) allow you to fly with non-rated passengers. In a single place airplane, currency requirements would be moot. Medical is a different story.

You need to be "BFR current" to fly as PIC whether you are solo or carrying passengers (which has additional currency requirements).

 

[The Old Man]

OK, I wuz wrong. As I said, I frequently am. I confused currency requirements with PIC requirements.

 

[SkyHog]

Second, a practical test is not flight training -- see 14 CFR 61.47. Anyway, the rule cited above (14 CFR 61.45(e)), only allows an examiner to give a practical test in an aircraft with only a single set of controls, not in single-seat aircraft. The single-seat option is covered by 61.47(f) and applies only to light sport aircraft. Further, the single-seat option results in a "single seat/no passengers" restriction on the pilot's Light Sport Pilot certificate.

I think you are being too cut and dry on this Ron. The wording of 61.45 is a bit vague, and it could let people use a single seat aircraft for a checkride, IMHO. Without an official opinion from the FSDO, I'd say you are forcing your interpretation over other's.

You mentioned 61.47(f). Was there, in the past, before LSA, a similar one for non-light sport pilots? I swear I've seen it.

 

[BudRiggs]

I received a biennial with the CFI on the ground, in Albany Oregon 1978. I talked him into it since the rule said it was to be in the airplane you usually fly. He said to perform a stall on my downwind departure and he'd call it good.

I wasn't about to stall a loaded 260 Pawnee on downwind, but I did pull the nose up momentarily to make it look like a stall entry. He filled in my log book and I picked it up at the end of the day.

It's legal because the entry is in my book. Is it right? You say. I didn't care as it's just stuff for the insurance guy.

So, yes it does happen.

 

[poadeleted20]

I received a biennial with the CFI on the ground, in Albany Oregon 1978. I talked him into it since the rule said it was to be in the airplane you usually fly.

That's not the rule. 14 CFR 61.56(c)(1) says only that it must be in an aircraft in which you are rated.

He said to perform a stall on my downwind departure and he'd call it good.

I don't think that meets the regulatory requirements, either. While I suppose one could attempt to argue that a takeoff, departure stall, and pattern departure could constitute "those maneuvers and procedures that ... are necesssary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate," that argument would not be availing in front of an ALJ or the NTSB.

I wasn't about to stall a loaded 260 Pawnee on downwind, but I did pull the nose up momentarily to make it look like a stall entry. He filled in my log book and I picked it up at the end of the day.

It's legal because the entry is in my book. Is it right? You say. I didn't care as it's just stuff for the insurance guy.

So, yes it does happen.

It may have happened, but it wasn't legal, and it doesn't count, and your insurance is void if it's based on this illegally-conducted flight review. Quote from FAA Order 8700.1, Bulletin HBGA 00-08: "Title 14 CFR § 91.109(a) states, in part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls." You may not believe me, but if you contact any aviation attorney, you'll hear the same, especially about your insurance.


Also, if the FAA hears about this, that CFI will be an ex-CFI (or at least a re-trained CFI), and you'll be on the hot seat for having flown as PIC without a valid flight review, so unless you want to get both you and that CFI in trouble, you won't ask the FSDO other than through an attorney who can maintain confidentiality for you. I suggest in the strongest possible terms that you get a new flight review in an airplane that meets 14 CFR 91.109(a) as soon as possible, and before you fly as PIC again.

 

[SkyHog]

I suggest in the strongest possible terms that you get a new flight review in an airplane that meets 14 CFR 91.109(a) as soon as possible, and before you fly as PIC again.[/FONT][/B][/FONT][/B]

I am pretty sure that 1978 was long enough ago that he's probably had another BFR since then.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think you are being too cut and dry on this Ron. The wording of 61.45 is a bit vague, and it could let people use a single seat aircraft for a checkride, IMHO. Without an official opinion from the FSDO, I'd say you are forcing your interpretation over other's.

Well, here's what it says in FAA Order 8700.1:

With certain exceptions, an inspector accompanies an applicant in the aircraft during the practical test. However, the inspector may observe, from the ground, an applicant’s performance of autorotations to touchdown during Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) or flight instructor certification practical tests in helicopters, if the applicant is the sole occupant of the aircraft. Similarly, the inspector may observe from the ground or another airplane the performance of aerial maneuvers by an applicant flying a single-control aircraft (i.e., a gyroplane).

This pretty clearly limits external observation to autorotations and gyroplanes.

You mentioned 61.47(f). Was there, in the past, before LSA, a similar one for non-light sport pilots? I swear I've seen it.

Not of which I am aware.

 

[poadeleted20]

I am pretty sure that 1978 was long enough ago that he's probably had another BFR since then.

1978? Well, I did miss that part, so OK, probably so.

 

[SkyHog]

This pretty clearly limits external observation to autorotations and gyroplanes.

I don't think it does, Ron. It the order uses "i.e. gyroplanes' as an example, but it says "single control aircraft" which is what we are talking about.

Hmmm. I dunno. I know it'll never apply to me, but this really interests me now.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't think it does, Ron. It the order uses "i.e. gyroplanes' as an example, but it says "single control aircraft" which is what we are talking about.

Do you understand the difference between "id est" and "exempli gratia"? Try this. In any event, whatever exceptions there may be for practical tests, there are none for flight training, including flight reviews.

 

[SkyHog]

Actually, I do understand the different between i.e. and e.g. but for some reason, I was being retarded.

I can't find the reference in Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook either, but I KNOW I saw it there. Dammit.

 

[BudRiggs]

...the order uses "i.e. gyroplanes' as an example, but it says "single control aircraft" which is what we are talking about.

I agree that the rule doesn't limit the class to gyroplanes. If that was the intention of the authors, they could easily have made that plain.

In the real world it doesn't matter what I think the rule says, or what the CFI thinks it says, or even what the FSDO thinks it says. The guys that decide what it means are the ones who sit in judgement of you at your hearing. Until then, it's just another endless argument. By design, I think.

 

[SkyHog]

The other thing, in re-reading that order, is that I think that the person that wrote it misunderstands the meaning of "i.e." as well. There is no reason for the order to use it that way, it comes off odd. It seems as if the author intended it be "e.g." I say this, because if it was used correctly, gyroplane would have been plural: (i.e. gyroplanes)....

Again, I dunno. Maybe someone get get clarification?

 

[poadeleted20]

In the real world it doesn't matter what I think the rule says, or what the CFI thinks it says, or even what the FSDO thinks it says. The guys that decide what it means are the ones who sit in judgement of you at your hearing.

I concur. And since that means the FAA's lawyers, it's best to read the rules the way the lawyers tend to do -- exactly as written. "If they meant 'e.g.' they would have said 'e.g.' They said 'i.e.' so they must mean 'i.e.'" I once had an FAA Counsel tell me that the interpretation of a rule (in total contravention of the intent of the rule-writers, with whom I had spoken) hinged on the placement of a comma!