Page 2 of 2

Re: Wing progam and recalcitrant CFI

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:48 pm
by drseti
TimTaylor wrote: I felt including the endorsement as a flight review was somewhat of a grey area and chose not to do it that way.
You're right that this is a gray area. And there's nothing wrong with your choice.

The alternative interpretation is that when a CFI has given you instruction and signed you off as trained, you are then at least authorized to go on to flying a proficiency check with another CFI, during which you are PIC. If authorized to be PIC (albeit only with a CFI as your first passenger), you are sufficiently rated in the aircraft to have the proficiency check count as a BFR (if the instructor chooses to so endorse you). The proficiency check will typically include at least an hour of ground (the oral) which includes a review of the relevant FARs, as well as an hour of flight. So, it's up to that instructor, of course, but can constitute a flight review.

If you happen to have a current medical, and choose to take a PP level checkride with a DPE (which Jack Brown's allows), then the BFR is automatically satisfied. But since the training and "checkride" are the same in either case, they seem comfortable with signing off the BFR for a SP proficiency check as well. Here is a case where it's probably best not to ask FAA Legal for a Letter of interpretation (unless you're prepared to receive an answer you don't like).

Re: Wing progam and recalcitrant CFI

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:53 pm
by TimTaylor
My interpretation was, I was not rated in SES until I passed the endorsement checkride and had it signed off by the second CFI. I could have then done the flight review in the float plane. I always take the conservative approach to flying and interpreting FAR's. That approach has served me well for 53 years.

Re: Wing progam and recalcitrant CFI

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:58 pm
by comperini
Half Fast wrote: It POs me a bit about the airspace endorsement, since that required ground instruction, a couple of flights, and multiple takeoffs and landings at different airports.
Actually, that's not true... there is no requirement for "a couple of flights", or "multiple takeoffs and landings at different airports". 61.325 only requires 3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop at one airport with an operating control tower. Ground instruction is also required

Re: Wing progam and recalcitrant CFI

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:19 pm
by Half Fast
comperini wrote:
Half Fast wrote: It POs me a bit about the airspace endorsement, since that required ground instruction, a couple of flights, and multiple takeoffs and landings at different airports.
Actually, that's not true... there is no requirement for "a couple of flights", or "multiple takeoffs and landings at different airports". 61.325 only requires 3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop at one airport with an operating control tower. Ground instruction is also required

Yes, I know what the FAR requires. My CFI went a bit beyond that in what he wanted to see me do, and I fully concur with him wanting to go beyond the bare minimum.

Re: Wing progam and recalcitrant CFI

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:58 pm
by TimTaylor
Then, what is it that you're PO'd about?

Re: Wing progam and recalcitrant CFI

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:51 pm
by 3Dreaming
drseti wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:

You're right that this is a gray area. And there's nothing wrong with your choice.

The alternative interpretation is that when a CFI has given you instruction and signed you off as trained, you are then at least authorized to go on to flying a proficiency check with another CFI, during which you are PIC. If authorized to be PIC (albeit only with a CFI as your first passenger), you are sufficiently rated in the aircraft to have the proficiency check count as a BFR (if the instructor chooses to so endorse you). The proficiency check will typically include at least an hour of ground (the oral) which includes a review of the relevant FARs, as well as an hour of flight. So, it's up to that instructor, of course, but can constitute a flight review.
Paul, after a quick review of 61.56 I have changed my mind on a CFI being able to sign off the proficiency check as a flight review. 61.56 specifically says the review must be in an aircraft for which you are rated. Being signed off to do the proficiency check does not make you rated, you have to pass the proficiency check to be rated. Any training received prior to passing the proficiency check would not count towards the requirement of a flight review. While performing a proficiency check the instructor is not giving you the instruction required for a flight review, you are being tested for proficiency. Per 61.56 a proficiency check performed by an instructor does not count as a flight review.

Re: Wing progam and recalcitrant CFI

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:57 pm
by 3Dreaming
3Dreaming wrote:
drseti wrote: It doesn't have to, because adding a new rating satisfies the requirements for a flight review (which is worth far more than just a few WINGS credits). When I did my seaplane rating a couple of years back, it reset my BFR counter.
Adding a category or class at the sport pilot level does not count as a flight review, as it does at other pilot levels. Only a checkride with a DPE resets the clock on a BFR. That being said either the recommending instructor or the instructor doing the proficiency check could if they chose include a flight review as part of the process, but it is not automatic.[/quote]

After reviewing CFR 61.56 I think I was in error when I made this statement. 61.56 requires that you be rated in the aircraft when doing a flight review. You are in fact not rated until you have completed the training and proficiency check. Any instruction prior to that would not count towards the flight review. Also the CFI performing the proficiency check is not performing instruction, so the time flown with him would not count.

Admins, feel free to delete this post and my previous post if you desire.

Re: Wing progam and recalcitrant CFI

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:42 pm
by drseti
3Dreaming wrote: Admins, feel free to delete this post and my previous post if you desire.
I'm disinclined to delete posts (even those containing erroneous information) if things are clarified down-thread. Preserving the historical record has educational value. In this case, it illustrates how confusing the regs can be, how honest minds can interpret them differently, and the extent to which we can all learn from one another.