Pilot Past BFR

Give him the BFR. At least he has a license, assumedal a medica, and assumedly he wants a BFR. Your signature has nothing to do with anything prior to your signature.

A single pilot part 135 operator came to me urgently. He was 14 days overdue. I suspect rather strongly he made a trip (135) in arrears. My parting comment was "call no attention to yourself". He relaxedv visibly.

The designees are not responsible for acts prior to your endorsements.
 
Last edited:
Unregistered said:
I also wonder if by signing his logbook knowing he's had flights past his BFR expiration if I'm on the hook for anything if I don't report it.
Click to expand...

There is no legal duty to report that I am aware of. Your signature on a BFR means that the airmen met the minimum requirements at the prescribed date and time. It does not confer guarantee of future performance or make you accountable for past indiscretions of the airman.

Likewise, his airworthiness in this instance is a bureaucratic deficiency, not one of skill or judgment (other than calendar-related abilities). Based on that, I don't sense an ethical duty to do so either.

My suggestion is this. If you have an issue with this airman's history, decline to do business with him, and say why if asked, and then let it go.

Reporting this would make you THAT guy in my mind. You know.. the one that people refer to derisively in casual conversation. You might even lose business over it.
 
Unregistered said:
A pilot who I fly with from time to time has come to me for a BFR. No problem, he's a competent pilot who I've flown with before. His last one expired in July. Also no problem. The problem: He's had solo flights since then. Only about two or three, and this was a paperwork oversight on his part. He's also had several flights with instructors (including with me) for mostly fun purposes. The flights with instructors never were able to count as BFRs (no ground school and not more than an hour of flight time).

My thought is that he made an honest mistake, we take care of his BFR, and he moves on with life, having learned his lesson on keeping track of these things. The ground school portion will focus on use of a calendar. I'm wondering if legally there's something else that he's supposed to do or should bother doing. I also wonder if by signing his logbook knowing he's had flights past his BFR expiration if I'm on the hook for anything if I don't report it. I'm sure this is not the first time someone has let a BFR lapse and made illegal flights unintentionally.
Click to expand...

I know this is an old post but I'm in a situation that members could maybe shed some light on. I transitioned to a light sport aircraft (Cessna 172) in November 2011 by completing 4 hours of flight instruction. At the time I was still current on my BFR. I asked the CFI if this transition training would count for a BFR. He said it would but did NOT endorse my logbook as such. My BFR expired at the end of February 2012. I didn't think about getting another BFR because I assumed the 11/11 training was a BFR. In May 2012 I made a hard landing that caused an incident at an airport. I received a 709 letter from FSDO requiring a ride with an inspector. When he examined my logbook he noted that I don't have a current BFR and so he couldn't fly with me. He did NOT violate me for not having a current BFR. I have a BFR scheduled for later this week and a 709 ride scheduled with the Examiner next week. My question is: am I ok on the missing BFR? I made a couple of flights on which I was PIC after the BFR expired. I can't get the CFI to back-endorse my logbook.
 
nrcapes said:
I know this is an old post but I'm in a situation that members could maybe shed some light on. I transitioned to a light sport aircraft (Cessna 172) in November 2011 by completing 4 hours of flight instruction. At the time I was still current on my BFR. I asked the CFI if this transition training would count for a BFR. He said it would but did NOT endorse my logbook as such. My BFR expired at the end of February 2012. I didn't think about getting another BFR because I assumed the 11/11 training was a BFR. In May 2012 I made a hard landing that caused an incident at an airport. I received a 709 letter from FSDO requiring a ride with an inspector. When he examined my logbook he noted that I don't have a current BFR and so he couldn't fly with me. He did NOT violate me for not having a current BFR. I have a BFR scheduled for later this week and a 709 ride scheduled with the Examiner next week. My question is: am I ok on the missing BFR? I made a couple of flights on which I was PIC after the BFR expired. I can't get the CFI to back-endorse my logbook.
Click to expand...

No you are not ok. You operated without a flight review. If you don't have the endorsement in your logbook then it never happened - something you should know if you're going to be pilot in command.

Get a new flight review and hope the FAA doesn't violate you.
 
nrcapes said:
I know this is an old post but I'm in a situation that members could maybe shed some light on. I transitioned to a light sport aircraft (Cessna 172) in November 2011 by completing 4 hours of flight instruction. At the time I was still current on my BFR. I asked the CFI if this transition training would count for a BFR. He said it would but did NOT endorse my logbook as such. My BFR expired at the end of February 2012. I didn't think about getting another BFR because I assumed the 11/11 training was a BFR. In May 2012 I made a hard landing that caused an incident at an airport. I received a 709 letter from FSDO requiring a ride with an inspector. When he examined my logbook he noted that I don't have a current BFR and so he couldn't fly with me. He did NOT violate me for not having a current BFR. I have a BFR scheduled for later this week and a 709 ride scheduled with the Examiner next week. My question is: am I ok on the missing BFR? I made a couple of flights on which I was PIC after the BFR expired. I can't get the CFI to back-endorse my logbook.
Click to expand...
My first reactions was "j_sus c__st". How can you do allow youself to do that? But I put that one away.

But I do agree with Jesse. If it's not endorsed as a BFR, it's not a BFR. You should have insisted back then, and then the missing components would have been done.

Expect a suspension, subsequent to, even if you pass your 709 ride.

BTW a C172 is not a light sport aircraft. Even if you are a 777 captain.

Sigh.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
My first reactions was "j_sus c__st". How can you do allow youself to do that? But I put that one away.

But I do agree with Jesse. If it's not endorsed as a BFR, it's not a BFR. You should have insisted back then, and then the missing components would have been done.

Expect a suspension, subsequent to, even if you pass your 709 ride.

BTW a C172 is not a light sport aircraft. Even if you are a 777 captain.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it was a 162. Typo. I know I should have insisted back then, but I assumed he would endorse it - I didn't notice his entry in my logbook until the incident in May. I know, I know! BTW I didn't mention this but he is no longer instructing because of a medical issue.
 
nrcapes said:
I know this is an old post but I'm in a situation that members could maybe shed some light on. I transitioned to a light sport aircraft (Cessna 172) in November 2011 by completing 4 hours of flight instruction. At the time I was still current on my BFR. I asked the CFI if this transition training would count for a BFR. He said it would but did NOT endorse my logbook as such. My BFR expired at the end of February 2012. I didn't think about getting another BFR because I assumed the 11/11 training was a BFR. In May 2012 I made a hard landing that caused an incident at an airport. I received a 709 letter from FSDO requiring a ride with an inspector. When he examined my logbook he noted that I don't have a current BFR and so he couldn't fly with me.
Click to expand...
:sigh: When it comes to FAA requirements, remember what Tom Clancy (speaking as Dr. Catherine Ryan) said: "If it isn't written down, it didn't happen."


My question is: am I ok on the missing BFR?
Click to expand...
As the others said, no, you are not OK.

I can't get the CFI to back-endorse my logbook.
Click to expand...
Why not? Is he now saying he was wrong when he said it met the requirement? Or is he just not willing to backdate the endorsement (which is not illegal per se) he forgot to give you back then? Either way, you might want to stay away from that instructor in the future -- apparently not to be trusted.
 
nrcapes said:
Sorry, it was a 162. Typo. I know I should have insisted back then, but I assumed he would endorse it - I didn't notice his entry in my logbook until the incident in May. I know, I know! BTW I didn't mention this but he is no longer instructing because of a medical issue.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking your best option is to throw yourself on the mercy of the FSDO and hope they are in a reasonable mood. I suspect that if they find your claim that you thought you did have a BFR and simply neglected to verify that the CFI made the proper endorsement, they are likely to be lenient. In any case I'd expect considerably more forgiveness if you come to them befoe they come to you. If you do this, be sure to explain that the attempted 709 ride was the first time you became aware of the missing endorsement and that prompted you to fess up pronto. Normally, for a situation where a pilot discovers a mistake that could lead to an enforcement action, the best option is to have an aviation attorney make a query to the FAA on your behalf without revealing your identity until an acceptable path to redemption is on the table but in your specific case the FAA is very likely to learn of the mistake on their own, given enough time so there's not much to lose by going straight to them (perhaps with that aviation lawyer in tow).
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
...in your specific case the FAA is very likely to learn of the mistake on their own,...
Click to expand...
According to his post, they already know.
nrcapes said:
I received a 709 letter from FSDO requiring a ride with an inspector. When he examined my logbook he noted that I don't have a current BFR and so he couldn't fly with me.
Click to expand...
If there's another lesson to be learned, it's not to let the FAA look at your pilot logbook without getting an independent review of it first.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
According to his post, they already know.
If there's another lesson to be learned, it's not to let the FAA look at your pilot logbook without getting an independent review of it first.
Click to expand...

What I think the FAA inspector saw was that he isn't current with a BFR right now to fly. He may not have checked to see if he was current with the BFR at the time of the other flights. It is possible that the inspector only thought he was preventing an illegal flight (the 709 ride with no current BFR), and may not be aware that illegal flights actually occured in the past.
 
Back to White Out in logbooks:
In lab note books for research project sit was always absolutely forbidden to erase or cover up any notations. However, if you had to make a correction, you could line through the 'bad' entry, make a correction, sign and date the correction.

why not just do the same in our logbooks? If you line through the 'bad' entry you can see what was changed, and, hopefully, why. It looks a whole lot better than a cover up or erased entry. My opinion only....
 
Jim Wilkins said:
Back to White Out in logbooks:
In lab note books for research project sit was always absolutely forbidden to erase or cover up any notations. However, if you had to make a correction, you could line through the 'bad' entry, make a correction, sign and date the correction.

why not just do the same in our logbooks? If you line through the 'bad' entry you can see what was changed, and, hopefully, why. It looks a whole lot better than a cover up or erased entry. My opinion only....
Click to expand...

That's certainly what I do. I've done it with forms, reports, contracts and notebooks since my time in the Army in the early 70's. It's painless, lets you see the history and is legally acceptable AFAIK.
 
Jim Wilkins said:
Back to White Out in logbooks:
In lab note books for research project sit was always absolutely forbidden to erase or cover up any notations. However, if you had to make a correction, you could line through the 'bad' entry, make a correction, sign and date the correction.

why not just do the same in our logbooks?
Click to expand...
No reason at all other than bullheadedness and anti-authoritarian attitudes. And of course those personality traits are never found among pilots...
 
I worked in the medical device industry for a few years, and we were required to line out and initial any entries that were erroneous.

It seems that R&W has pretty well confirmed that you can use whiteout, but personally I'd just line it out. If anyone inspects your logbook they can see what you changed and determine that you aren't hiding something.
 
nrcapes said:
I transitioned to a light sport aircraft ... by completing 4 hours of flight instruction.
Click to expand...

Was the flight instruction accompanied by at least 1 hour of ground instruction that included a review of regulations?

Here's the FAR requirement:

Was there also an hour of ground instruction that included a review of regulations?

Here's the FAR requirement for a BFR:

"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."
 
NoHeat said:
Was the flight instruction accompanied by at least 1 hour of ground instruction that included a review of regulations?
Click to expand...
Even if that hour of ground training occurred and was logged, it still doesn't meet the 61.56 requirement unless the instructor enters and signs an appropriate flight review endorsement in the trainee's log, e.g.:


I certify that ([FONT=JFILBL+TimesNewRomanPS,Times New Roman PS][FONT=JFILBL+TimesNewRomanPS,Times New Roman PS]First name, MI, Last name[/FONT][/FONT]), ([FONT=JFILBL+TimesNewRomanPS,Times New Roman PS][FONT=JFILBL+TimesNewRomanPS,Times New Roman PS]pilot certificate[/FONT][/FONT]), ([FONT=JFILBL+TimesNewRomanPS,Times New Roman PS][FONT=JFILBL+TimesNewRomanPS,Times New Roman PS]certificate number[/FONT][/FONT]), has satisfactorily completed a flight review of section 61.56(a) on ([FONT=JFILBL+TimesNewRomanPS,Times New Roman PS][FONT=JFILBL+TimesNewRomanPS,Times New Roman PS]date[/FONT][/FONT]).


/s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-05

​
 
You guys are really something. Self appointed overseers. Why are you so concerned about the other guy's problem? Will America sleep better if one of you guys runs down to the FSDO and complains that a guy may have flown without a BFR?
 
BillyBH said:
You guys are really something. Self appointed overseers. Why are you so concerned about the other guy's problem? Will America sleep better if one of you guys runs down to the FSDO and complains that a guy may have flown without a BFR?
Click to expand...
You should re-read the thread more carefully. The problem here is that the OP failed to complete a proper flight review, then had an accident while flying illegally without a current flight review. As a result of the accident, a 709 ride was ordered to check the OP's competency, and the inevitable logbook review to confirm that the OP was legal to act as PIC for the 709 ride uncovered the problem. The OP was just trying to learn how what his instructor told him was a flight review wasn't really a legal flight review, and we're trying to explain that. Nobody here is talking about turning him in -- he's already been caught by the FAA without any help from anyone but himself (and, by default, his instructor).
 
Last edited:
Mea culpa. You are correct. I scanned the thread and overreacted. If I had a sword.... Honest.
 
rotorhead1026 said:
nrcapes is the one who's going to need the sword, I think. Wow ...
Click to expand...
Not to worry -- the FAA will provide. However, by his story, they seem to be giving him a pass on the enforcement action for violating 61.56. Of course, they'll probably add Part 61 rules (Area I, Task A on the PP PTS) to the tasks for his 709 ride on landings (Area IV, Tasks B and D), so it won't be a complete skate.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not to worry -- the FAA will provide. However, by his story, they seem to be giving him a pass on the enforcement action for violating 61.56. Of course, they'll probably add Part 61 rules (Area I, Task A on the PP PTS) to the tasks for his 709 ride on landings (Area IV, Tasks B and D), so it won't be a complete skate.
Click to expand...

At this point there's no way to tell until he shows up for the ride, and even then he won't be certain. It would be odd - but not impossible, I think - for him to take the 709 then get a notice of enforcement action in a few weeks. Even if this inspector were going to overlook the infraction, someone upstairs may get wind of it and start the process.

I certainly wouldn't bring the matter up during the ride; he'll need to clam up and sweat it out for six months or so.

If the inspector does bring the matter up ... well, like I say using one's own sword may be merciful.

Lesson: Don't let yourself get in this position. This fellow is completely at the mercy of the dragon.
 
rotorhead1026 said:
At this point there's no way to tell until he shows up for the ride, and even then he won't be certain. It would be odd - but not impossible, I think - for him to take the 709 then get a notice of enforcement action in a few weeks. Even if this inspector were going to overlook the infraction, someone upstairs may get wind of it and start the process.
Click to expand...
The inspector involved indicated to the pilot involved that he was not pursuing it as an enforcement action. Beyond that, nobody up the chain will know about it, and six months after the Inspector's original check of the logbook, the stale complaint rule applies.

I certainly wouldn't bring the matter up during the ride; he'll need to clam up and sweat it out for six months or so.
Click to expand...
Since the inspector giving him the ride is the one who found it, that ship has already sailed.

But I do agree with your lesson learned.
 
Ron Levy said:
The inspector involved indicated to the pilot involved that he was not pursuing it as an enforcement action. Beyond that, nobody up the chain will know about it, and six months after the Inspector's original check of the logbook, the stale complaint rule applies.

Since the inspector giving him the ride is the one who found it, that ship has already sailed.

But I do agree with your lesson learned.
Click to expand...

The inspector may have indicated this - I wasn't there - but that wasn't what was stated in the post. All that was said was that nrcapes "wasn't violated", whatever that means. Now I HOPE you're right, but there's still a chance of an unpleasant surprise. There's no telling what that inspector said after he returned to the office. He had to tell somebody why the ride wasn't accomplished. As you note, the discrepancy was discovered and the six-month clock is ticking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did my BFR this weekend. When checking the CFIs entry, I noticed that the 2010 BFR entry was incomplete ... Not dated. Measure twice, cut once.
 
rainsux said:
I did my BFR this weekend. When checking the CFIs entry, I noticed that the 2010 BFR entry was incomplete ... Not dated. Measure twice, cut once.
Click to expand...
Moral of the story: When your instructor hands you back your logbook after endorsing/signing it, check the endorsment/entry, and if anything about it doesn't look right, ask now, and don't wait for the FAA to tell you later that you were right and s/he was wrong.
 
> check the endorsment/entry, and if anything about it doesn't look right, ask now

I briefly considered skipping this and future FRs and just using/dating the prior
entry if a time came that I *needed* it! <g>


 
jesse said:
I would give the guy his flight review - remind him about his having expired and move on. You're not going to do well in your area if you become the CFI known for calling the FAA when someones logbook isn't quite right.
Click to expand...
Unless there is something seriously wrong, calling the FAA on people is the quickest way to get shunned in this business.
 
GCA319 said:
Unless there is something seriously wrong, calling the FAA on people is the quickest way to get shunned in this business.
Click to expand...

There are violations and there are violations.

I see a pilot who habitually flies drunk...you better believe I'm dropping a dime. Same thing for someone who launches into IMC without clearance (presuming controlled airspace). Those things are dangerous to many people.

Someone who goes flying after he forgot his medical at home...or flies IFR with an INOP panel clock (but with a watch that he lists separately on his W & B )...not so much.
 
Jack Spectre said:
It's the pilot's responsibility to fly only when current. Not yours.

Give him the BFR and send him forth to sin no more.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A CFI is not the police of aviation. Your job is to provide instruction and a BFR.

Now, anyone can report anyone for anything, even if the tattler is not a pilot, CFI or DE. Why would someone be compelled to do that? Anytime they felt the offending pilot was or is unfit or unsafe to fly. In that case, well, tattle-tale all you want, because now it's in the interest of flight safety.

A couple flights outside a BFR for an otherwise competent and safe pilot...well...I say, relax the sphincter mucles.

Gene
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top