CFI-S Flight review

[AviatorCrafty]

The sport pilot regs seem to have some contradictions here and there, I always stick with a more conservative interpretation.

[drseti]

Ok, so post that letter. I havent seen it

Here's where all those letters are kept

The letter of interpretation I am referring to is the one that you posted in this thread, from AFS 610. The link you provided above was to FAA Legal's letters of interpretation -something else altogether. And the thread you cite in which I expressed a different opinion is from over a decade ago (before the last revision to the SP regs). So, yes, there are inconsistencies, and opinions (including my own) do change over time. But I'm not about to instigate a pissing match between FAA Legal and AFS 610 - and I'd advise against anyone else doing so as well.

As Nick says, the most conservative interpretation is usually the safest. If I were a PP looking to take a flight review in an LSA, I think I'd choose to do it with a Subpart H CFI just to be safe.

[malexander]

Ok, so post that letter. I havent seen it

Here's where all those letters are kept

The letter of interpretation I am referring to is the one that you posted in this thread, from AFS 610. The link you provided above was to FAA Legal's letters of interpretation -something else altogether. And the thread you cite in which I expressed a different opinion is from over a decade ago (before the last revision to the SP regs). So, yes, there are inconsistencies, and opinions (including my own) do change over time. But I'm not about to instigate a pissing match between FAA Legal and AFS 610 - and I'd advise against anyone else doing so as well.

As Nick says, the most conservative interpretation is usually the safest. If I were a PP looking to take a flight review in an LSA, I think I'd choose to do it with a Subpart H CFI just to be safe.

So Paul, If a CFIS did a flight review with a PPL holder exercising SP privileges, and "something/accident" happened, who would the FAA (or whomever) "go after"?

[Otto]

I was under the impression a FR could be done in an LSA by a CFI-S for anyone. As the pilot getting the FR is(or can be) exercising SP privileges. If it isn't legal I suppose it would be if the pilot getting the FR had let their medical lapse. Not a practical solution but at that point the pilot has to be operating as a SP.
Related are tailwheel endorsements given to a private pilot by a CFI-S in a LSA valid in heavier aircraft?

[fatsportpilot]

I was under the impression a FR could be done in an LSA by a CFI-S for anyone. As the pilot getting the FR is(or can be) exercising SP privileges. If it isn't legal I suppose it would be if the pilot getting the FR had let their medical lapse. Not a practical solution but at that point the pilot has to be operating as a SP.
Related are tailwheel endorsements given to a private pilot by a CFI-S in a LSA valid in heavier aircraft?

No it would not be valid for heavier aircraft. It would be an endorsement only for flying a tailwheel LSA under SP privileges.

[drseti]

So Paul, If a CFIS did a flight review with a PPL holder exercising SP privileges, and "something/accident" happened, who would the FAA (or whomever) "go after"?

The "whomever" going after somebody would probably not be the FAA, but would most likely be the insurance company (in an attempt to invalidate the policy and avoid having to pay a claim). If the lawyers get involved, you could expect action against everybody.

[drseti]

No it would not be valid for heavier aircraft. It would be an endorsement only for flying a tailwheel LSA under SP privileges.

I'm not so sure about that. A SP needs a tailwheel endorsement to fly an LSA with a conventional landing gear. Similarly, a PP needs a tailwheel endorsement to fly any aircraft (LSA or otherwise) with a conventional landing gear. So, if a SP gets a tailwheel endorsement, and then upgrades to PP, I see no reason why he or she will not already have satisfied the tailwheel endorsement requirement.

[fatsportpilot]

No it would not be valid for heavier aircraft. It would be an endorsement only for flying a tailwheel LSA under SP privileges.

I'm not so sure about that. A SP needs a tailwheel endorsement to fly an LSA with a conventional landing gear. Similarly, a PP needs a tailwheel endorsement to fly any aircraft (LSA or otherwise) with a conventional landing gear. So, if a SP gets a tailwheel endorsement, and then upgrades to PP, I see no reason why he or she will not already have satisfied the tailwheel endorsement requirement.

But what if they're already a PP?

[drseti]

But what if they're already a PP?

And that's why this is a gray area!

Obviously, a PP can take a tailwheel endorsement in an LSA, or not. The question becomes whether he or she can get the endorsement from a CFI-S. Of course, a CFI-S cannot instruct in a non-LSA, so it would have to be in an LSA taildragger.

Which leaves only one question - can a CFI-S provide instruction and endorsements to a PP? FAR 61.413 says no, and the AFS-610 letter of interpretation quoted by Bob suggests yes.

Honestly, I would go with a strict interpretation of the FARs until a test case says otherwise. But, I wouldn't want to be the one who brings the test case before an administrative law judge!

[comperini]

I’m not sure 61.413 says no. I think it depends on how you interpret the word “or” in the sentence. We had this conversation before in the older topic I provided a link to.

[drseti]

I think it depends on how you interpret the word “or” in the sentence.

Anybody can play lawyer. If in doubt as to the intent of an FAR, and one's goal is to stay out of trouble with the FAA, the safest interpretation of any rule is always the least permissive one. Nobody ever got cited, suspended, or fined for being too self-restrictive.