Form 8710-1 Flight Review and IPC

Maxed-out

Maxed-out

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
81
Display Name
Display name:
Maxed-out
I think someone mentioned this change in an earlier thread this year, but I'm just now seeing it in the revised AC 61-98C.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-98C.pdf

When a pilot satisfactorily completes a flight review or IPC, the applicant should provide, and the evaluating CFI should submit, a completed Form 8710-1 to the Airmen Certification Branch (AFS-760). The FAA does not require Form 8710-1 for a pilot’s flight review or IPC; however, the FAA strongly encourages all applicants and CFIs to follow this recommendation.
Click to expand...

The wording says it's optional, but at the same time says it's strongly encouraged. I'm wondering if your average CFI will be insisting on me completing this form on my next Flight review and/or IPC. Not sure how I feel about this new policy. Anybody got any thoughts on this, good or bad?
 
I've never saw one done, and I have never completed one.

It provides an opportunity to log your flight hours and experience in an official document in case your personal records are lost or destroyed.
 
I see no problem with it but when dealing with the government, I've seen things that were "optional" become "mandatory" quicker than you can sneeze. I sense that this might be a trial for something much more intensive and invasive, what I'm not sure. As far as the mention of "up-to-date records benefit everyone" statement, I'm fine with my up-to-date records and backups on my end. Also, one could argue that you're now burdening a CFI and client with additional paperwork (computer-work) and bureaucracy that didn't exist before. It will be interesting to see if the CFI community gets behind this.
 
BillTIZ said:
I've never saw one done, and I have never completed one.

It provides an opportunity to log your flight hours and experience in an official document in case your personal records are lost or destroyed.
Click to expand...

I would assume that, like examiners, the CFI is responsible for actually verifying the times entered by the pilot.
 
As a CFI, I won't be doing this so long as it remains optional.
 
What would the FAA use this for?

The only thing I can think of is when investigating a crash, if the Pilot is dead or injured and unable to produce a logbook.
 
NoHeat said:
What would the FAA use this for?
Click to expand...

I suspect the FAA is mining data for one reason or another. In the case of BFRs and IPCs, I'd guess they are trying to figure out who is current and who is not, in addition to figuring out how many hours the pilots who are current are actually flying.

Of course, this all relies on accurate information being entered. Anyone who has done more than one or two 8710 forms has probably figured out that their logbook records aren't broken out the same way that the FAA asks for, so you start guessing. The sentiment I've heard repeatedly is that everyone just hopes that they put more hours in some of the blocks than they did last time.
 
Interesting, I just had a flight review today.

If it was mandatory I probably wouldn't complain but since it's optional, and I'm lazy, I won't do it:)
 
Ground and flight is fine for me. I had a guy who hadn't flown in 4 years and expected me to sign him off on the first flight. He couldn't even find the airport.
 
I didn't know it even existed.

Could be data mining. My speculation is that it's like the flight time entries on the 8710-1 - optional except for the prerequisites for the certificate or rating supplied for, but suggested as a good idea to have a record of some information in the case of a later lost logbook.
 
jordane93 said:
Ground and flight is fine for me. I had a guy who hadn't flown in 4 years and expected me to sign him off on the first flight. He couldn't even find the airport.
Click to expand...

Since my airplane is blowed up, I'm down to flying once every 2-3 weeks(renting).

I felt a little rusty up there yesterday, and just like a student again:redface:
 
NoHeat said:
What would the FAA use this for?

The only thing I can think of is when investigating a crash, if the Pilot is dead or injured and unable to produce a logbook.
Click to expand...

To make it easier to determine how many hours active pilots are flying so they can more accurately determine needs and budgets for themselves, plus provide the data to the insurance industry so they can refine their actuarial models.

Really, the pilot has nothing to lose, and gains an extra resource for hours verification if they lose their log, much like the Medical Branch question on the medical application. There really is no ability, nor need, for this to be nefarious. Any nefarious cause this could serve would be easier served with other methods.

This doesn't turn the BFR into a 'pass/fail' that you can pink or anything. It just collects data.
 
It doesn't serve your interests, and costs you, and maybe someone else, some time. I value my time far more than providing make-work or convenience to the FAA.

I understand they may want the data for aggregate purposes, with no bad intent, and that it could serve a useful purpose. But they've been a bad actor too many times for us not to be wary. Absent a tangible benefit to the pilot, of a value equal to the hassle, no way.
 
I just talked with a CFI that I used for my last Flight Review and he said that although it's optional, it's also in an Advisory Circular, and when the excrement hits the rotating blades, he wants to appear as the CFI that went "by the book." It's the old "the AIM and ACs aren't regulatory, but they really are" answer. Oh well, I guess I could go elsewhere, but really don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other.

It will be interesting to see how this evolves. Even though it's optional, CFIs, pilots, and schools are just paranoid enough to be concerned about what might happen if they don't follow this "recommendation." So it actually becomes a "requirement" instead of a "recommendation."
 
GCA319 said:
Never heard of it and I've given many flight reviews and IPC's.
Click to expand...

Have you endorsed an 8710 lately? The checkboxes for an IPC and Flight Review have been at the top for a while now. :)
 
Maxed-out said:
I just talked with a CFI that I used for my last Flight Review and he said that although it's optional, it's also in an Advisory Circular, and when the excrement hits the rotating blades, he wants to appear as the CFI that went "by the book." It's the old "the AIM and ACs aren't regulatory, but they really are" answer. Oh well, I guess I could go elsewhere, but really don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other.

It will be interesting to see how this evolves. Even though it's optional, CFIs, pilots, and schools are just paranoid enough to be concerned about what might happen if they don't follow this "recommendation." So it actually becomes a "requirement" instead of a "recommendation."
Click to expand...

Let me explain the language, if you don't follow a recommendation, typically you are ****ing yourself. If you don't follow a requirement, you are getting ****ed by someone else.
 
mondtster said:
Have you endorsed an 8710 lately? The checkboxes for an IPC and Flight Review have been at the top for a while now. :)
Click to expand...

I did about 40 IACRA's last year and maybe one paper 8710-1 last year alone (none lately or for the foreseeable future though), but I guess I never paid enough attention to notice that box/IACRA option.
 
GCA319 said:
I did about 40 IACRA's last year and maybe one paper 8710-1 last year alone (none lately or for the foreseeable future though), but I guess I never paid enough attention to notice that box/IACRA option.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that brings up a question, are you supposed to do it on paper or IACRA?
 
If I were guessing, someone at the FAA is wondering "How many of these pilots are actually 'current' and active?"
 
JeffDG said:
If I were guessing, someone at the FAA is wondering "How many of these pilots are actually 'current' and active?"
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is for, because without that data, the NTSB can't do any better nor can the insurance actuaries, at developing true safety statistics and see what efforts are paying results with time. There's really nothing else the data is useful for. The potential benefit to pilots is that your insurance rates go down. Insurance is competetive and actuaries are conservative and use 'worst case' predictions. Better data can potentially lead to better actuarial numbers and lower rates.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That's exactly what it is for, because without that data, the NTSB can't do any better nor can the insurance actuaries, at developing true safety statistics and see what efforts are paying results with time. There's really nothing else the data is useful for. The potential benefit to pilots is that your insurance rates go down. Insurance is competetive and actuaries are conservative and use 'worst case' predictions. Better data can potentially lead to better actuarial numbers and lower rates.
Click to expand...

Or...they could clean out the airmen database by setting an "inactive" flag on a while ****load of records.

Tidying up data is a strong bureaucratic imperative.
 
JeffDG said:
Or...they could clean out the airmen database by setting an "inactive" flag on a while ****load of records.

Tidying up data is a strong bureaucratic imperative.
Click to expand...

:idea: I just figured why. The photo ID has been a mandate for some years now, however it has been an unfunded mandate because politicians couldn't make a budget. The whole ID issue all around has become a major govt priority thing; if you live in NY, LA, or one of the other two states that doesn't comply with Real ID, you may need a passport to fly domestic if you don't have anything else on the TSA list.

Somebody has probably finally been directed to submit a budget for it. I see they finally managed a fresh government budget this year.
 
Henning said:
Hmm, that brings up a question, are you supposed to do it on paper or IACRA?
Click to expand...

The preference is IACRA, but paper is still acceptable.

All IACRA is, is an electronic filing and endorsement of the 8710 form. The completed 8710 is what you're looking at right at the end when you hit submit.
 
What useful data are they going to get if the pilots are only logging required things? (There's no requirement to log everything even though most do.) Garbage in, garbage out.
 
Maybe another underlying motive is that under the new Pilot’s Bill of Rights (if passed), pilots who have held a third-class medical, within 10 years of the rule being enacted, will never have to apply for another FAA medical exam. All of the information that the FAA had previously collected from the medical application (hours in specific) will no longer be available, unless you're applying for another rating or certificate. I have to agree with others in that this is probably just another way for the FAA to gather data on the pilot population at large, and wouldn't be surprised at all if this "option" becomes "mandatory" at some point. They still need to keep track of what you're up to, one way or the other.
 
denverpilot said:
What useful data are they going to get if the pilots are only logging required things? (There's no requirement to log everything even though most do.) Garbage in, garbage out.
Click to expand...
That's an excellent point. Not only logging. But unless the online form has grown entry-required fields since hte last time I renewed by CFI, you could go into IACRA, check the Flight Review box, fill out the remainder of Part I to identify the pilot and skip Parts II, III and IV completely.

Complete the pilot certification in Part V, and the CFI signoff, and you are done. There is not one pilot time data field on the entire form required to be completed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top