Biennial flight reviews

[sarangan]

Agreed it's a mouthful (and there is probably a better way to say it), but those are distinctly different points in the takeoff. In singles, it is generally taught to only bring the gear up once there is no usable runway remaining, on the idea that if the engine fails shortly after takeoff, you may be able to set it right back down again. In twins, it is generally taught to raise the gear immediately upon seeing a positive rate of climb, on the idea that if one of the engines fails shortly after takeoff, with the gear up you have a better chance of still being able to climb.

If the engine fails during the takeoff roll, you should be able to come to a stop on the runway. But once the aircraft has climbed out of ground effect the likelihood of descending back to the runway for landing is very slim except in very long runways.

 

[TRocket]

Similar to how students are no longer "students" but "learners"?

Say what??

Just like "uncontrolled airport" and "position and hold", right?

But just for jollies, let's all just use the current correct term. What a world it would be.

When did uncontrolled airport go away? News here, but I won't change how I say it anyway so who cares

 

[flyingron]

Say what??

Wording changes in the ACS. Student pilots are still student pilots, however.

When did uncontrolled airport go away?

Never really existed. Officially it was always "airport without an operating control tower" or "non-towered airport."

"Uncontrolled" is a bit of a misnomer as the presence of an (operating) control tower has never made the airspace controlled (by itself).

 

[DanStrange]

Don't forget to fill out the IACRA form for the Flight Review, it's not required yet but those things seem to become mandatory with time.

Please don't do this, there is no requirement, doing the things you don't have to do is how you make them a requirement.

It is also a flight review that must be performed every two years, or a bi-annual flight review, BFR

I'm happy that the FAA is focusing on important issues like renaming things.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Please don't do this, there is no requirement, doing the things you don't have to do is how you make them a requirement.

It is also a flight review that must be performed every two years, or a bi-annual flight review, BFR

I'm happy that the FAA is focusing on important issues like renaming things.

Biennial.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Please don't do this, there is no requirement, doing the things you don't have to do is how you make them a requirement.

So those folks who choose to do an IPC every 6 months or a flight review every year are doing a bad thing?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Never really existed. Officially it was always "airport without an operating control tower" or "non-towered airport."

What do you mean by "officially?"

It's certainly not an FAR term but there are plenty of FAA publications which use the "uncontrolled airport" phrase. The AIM, various handbooks including the AFH and IPH, Advisory Circulars, FAA Orders including FSIMS and the ATC manual among them.

 

[DanStrange]

So those folks who choose to do an IPC every 6 months or a flight review every year are doing a bad thing?

I don't understand your statement compared to mine

 

[sarangan]

Please don't do this, there is no requirement, doing the things you don't have to do is how you make them a requirement.

It is also a flight review that must be performed every two years, or a bi-annual flight review, BFR

I'm happy that the FAA is focusing on important issues like renaming things.

The two year flight review and the 6 month instrument currency are minimum requirements. I encourage people to do annual reviews. In fact many clubs require it. I have never filled out an IACRA for this, but I don't view it as an intrusion either.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't understand your statement compared to mine

You don't have to do an IPC ever 6 months and you don't have to do recurrent training beyond a flight review. I was just checking whether "doing the things you don't have to do is how you make them a requirement" was a general philosophy or specific to only certain things. Apparently, @sarangan read it the same way as I did.

 

[DanStrange]

The two year flight review and the 6 month instrument currency are minimum requirements. I encourage people to do annual reviews. In fact many clubs require it. I have never filled out an IACRA for this, but I don't view it as an intrusion either.

I only was speaking to IACRA, didn’t mean to offend

 

[sarangan]

I only was speaking to IACRA, didn’t mean to offend

Dan, no one is offended. It would be a very strange world if people were offended by talking about IACRA

 

[schmookeeg]

People still say "uncontrolled." "Position and hold" was easy to go away because it's only correct use was official anyway. What's it been, over 20 years since "biennial " was dropped from the reg?

Has it been 20 years? I've only been a pilot for 17 years -- I was taught BFR, and only noticed the pedantry over "ehrmagerd its not a BFR!!1@~" in the last 2 or 3 of those. I assumed it was a recent change and the pointy-heads were making immediate hay out of being able to correct others on use of colloquialisms.

Huh.

 

[luvflyin]

One should know the proper terminology lest one be in danger of losing ones Pilot License...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Has it been 20 years? I've only been a pilot for 17 years -- I was taught BFR, and only noticed the pedantry over "ehrmagerd its not a BFR!!1@~" in the last 2 or 3 of those. I assumed it was a recent change and the pointy-heads were making immediate hay out of being able to correct others on use of colloquialisms.

Huh.

If the reg itself used the term "biennial" when it was added in 1974, it was gone from the regs by 1990. I'm not sure exactly when the FAA stopped using the term in other materials. Pedantry has little to do with anything real. My favorite is, "it's not the FAR. It's 14 CFR!" as though it hadn't been in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations for decades.

 

[DanStrange]

Dan, no one is offended. It would be a very strange world if people were offended by talking about IACRA

In my experience over the last year, the world is about that strange

 

[ARFlyer]

I personally do Flight Reviews via Wings as my quarterly flight training counts for an entire phase. So mine is constantly getting pushed out every three months. The agency also conducts formal training every two years that act as our “Flight Review”. But since I’m still active in the GA world I do Wings just to cover myself.

I’ve honestly never heard of anyone using ICARA to log Flight Reviews or IPCs. My personal thoughts is that it’s a fail safe in case someone lost their logbook.

 

[smv]

It is a flight review that is required every 2 years.

Is it really?

 

[RussR]

My personal thoughts is that it’s a fail safe in case someone lost their logbook.

This allows me to expand on one of my comments earlier in the thread.

As a backup, IACRA is a lousy one. If you look at the types of times that are on the IACRA form (8710-1), and the types of times that are in your logbook, they aren't the same categories. Sure, total time and PIC are, but look at the other ones. Most of the IACRA times might be useful for checkride purposes, but not for "real life". Examples on the 8710-1 are "XC instruction received" "Night instruction received", "Night takeoff and landing" vs "Night takeoff and landing as PIC" - etc. Who tracks these or cares about these other than to fill out this form for a checkride? But some of the columns that people regularly track in their logbooks are not there at all - instrument approaches, "day" landings, "complex" time, etc.

Unless you're going for a rating, a logbook only serves about three purposes - 1) proof of currency, 2) ability to fill out insurance forms or job applications, and 3) a memoir. Since the IACRA form does not capture the type of information useful to do any of these, I don't see the point in filling it out. The best backup, of course, is to start an online logbook. But for people that don't want to do that, I'd say a much better backup than doing IACRA is just to simply take a picture of the last page in your logbook. Way easier, and contains exactly the type of information you've been tracking. And you don't have to spend time figuring out your password, getting locked out and having to call to reset it!

 

[ARFlyer]

This allows me to expand on one of my comments earlier in the thread.

As a backup, IACRA is a lousy one. If you look at the types of times that are on the IACRA form (8710-1), and the types of times that are in your logbook, they aren't the same categories. Sure, total time and PIC are, but look at the other ones. Most of the IACRA times might be useful for checkride purposes, but not for "real life". Examples on the 8710-1 are "XC instruction received" "Night instruction received", "Night takeoff and landing" vs "Night takeoff and landing as PIC" - etc. Who tracks these or cares about these other than to fill out this form for a checkride? But some of the columns that people regularly track in their logbooks are not there at all - instrument approaches, "day" landings, "complex" time, etc.

Unless you're going for a rating, a logbook only serves about three purposes - 1) proof of currency, 2) ability to fill out insurance forms or job applications, and 3) a memoir. Since the IACRA form does not capture the type of information useful to do any of these, I don't see the point in filling it out. The best backup, of course, is to start an online logbook. But for people that don't want to do that, I'd say a much better backup than doing IACRA is just to simply take a picture of the last page in your logbook. Way easier, and contains exactly the type of information you've been tracking. And you don't have to spend time figuring out your password, getting locked out and having to call to reset it!

No doubt. It also gives the FAA a very rough idea of how many hours an airman has.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Has it been 20 years? I've only been a pilot for 17 years -- I was taught BFR, and only noticed the pedantry over "ehrmagerd its not a BFR!!1@~" in the last 2 or 3 of those. I assumed it was a recent change and the pointy-heads were making immediate hay out of being able to correct others on use of colloquialisms.

Huh.

For anyone who wants to geek out on this, I couldn't resist a little fact-checking. Yes, the term does not appear in the regs since at least 1990, but I still don't know if it actually appears using those words in the FAR before then. Instead, here's the history as reflected in the AC61-98 series. The current AC is 61-98D, Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check (2018)

• The original AC61-98 (1987) was entitled, Scope and Content of Biennial Flight Reviews. It only covered flight reviews.
• AC61-98A, Currency and Additional Qualification Requirements for Certificated Pilots was published in 1991. The AC itself doesn't use the term "biennial" to refer to the flight review; it uses the word, but pretty much to refer the prior AC.
• The 2012 version, AC61-98B gives us the current title and only uses the word "biennial" once - referring to the original AC.
• The 2015 AC61-98C It, 24 years after the AC stops using the term, uses the word "Biennial" only once:

​

So that's the big deal source for the folks who treat saying "BFR" as though it were some FAR violation

 

[bflynn]

It is a flight review that is required every 2 years.

So we agree, it is a biennial flight review.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

but I still don't know if it actually appears using those words in the FAR before then.

The B word showed up in the endorsement back in the olden days.

 

[smv]

It is a flight review that is required every 2 years.

So we agree, it is a biennial flight review.

Only if you mistakenly believe the FAA requires it "every 2 years". Try as I might, I can find no reference to any number of years in any of the regulations. Everything I find references "24 calendar months" which can be as many as 30 days more than "2 years".

 

[MauleSkinner]

Only if you mistakenly believe the FAA requires it "every 2 years". Try as I might, I can find no reference to any number of years in any of the regulations. Everything I find references "24 calendar months" which can be as many as 30 days more than "2 years".

When the term was used, there was still no reference to anything other than “24 calendar months”.

 

[luvflyin]

For anyone who wants to geek out on this, I couldn't resist a little fact-checking. Yes, the term does not appear in the regs since at least 1990, but I still don't know if it actually appears using those words in the FAR before then. Instead, here's the history as reflected in the AC61-98 series. The current AC is 61-98D, Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check (2018)

• The original AC61-98 (1987) was entitled, Scope and Content of Biennial Flight Reviews. It only covered flight reviews.
• AC61-98A, Currency and Additional Qualification Requirements for Certificated Pilots was published in 1991. The AC itself doesn't use the term "biennial" to refer to the flight review; it uses the word, but pretty much to refer the prior AC.
• The 2012 version, AC61-98B gives us the current title and only uses the word "biennial" once - referring to the original AC.
• The 2015 AC61-98C It, 24 years after the AC stops using the term, uses the word "Biennial" only once:

View attachment 90874​

So that's the big deal source for the folks who treat saying "BFR" as though it were some FAR violation

On my BFR, which I needed to do to continue using my pilot ‘license’ I wanted to ‘shoot’ an approach, so I got out an approach ‘plate’....

 

[DanStrange]

This allows me to expand on one of my comments earlier in the thread.

As a backup, IACRA is a lousy one. If you look at the types of times that are on the IACRA form (8710-1), and the types of times that are in your logbook, they aren't the same categories. Sure, total time and PIC are, but look at the other ones. Most of the IACRA times might be useful for checkride purposes, but not for "real life". Examples on the 8710-1 are "XC instruction received" "Night instruction received", "Night takeoff and landing" vs "Night takeoff and landing as PIC" - etc. Who tracks these or cares about these other than to fill out this form for a checkride? But some of the columns that people regularly track in their logbooks are not there at all - instrument approaches, "day" landings, "complex" time, etc.

Unless you're going for a rating, a logbook only serves about three purposes - 1) proof of currency, 2) ability to fill out insurance forms or job applications, and 3) a memoir. Since the IACRA form does not capture the type of information useful to do any of these, I don't see the point in filling it out. The best backup, of course, is to start an online logbook. But for people that don't want to do that, I'd say a much better backup than doing IACRA is just to simply take a picture of the last page in your logbook. Way easier, and contains exactly the type of information you've been tracking. And you don't have to spend time figuring out your password, getting locked out and having to call to reset it!

yes

Be better to scan/photograph your log and store it on your computer or on a server, or use foreflight logs.

 

[midlifeflyer]

yes

Be better to scan/photograph your log and store it on your computer or on a server, or use foreflight logs.

LOL! Somehow I just knew there would be a Foreflight plug at some point in a thread having nothing to do with Foreflight.

must be brainwashing ithappens so often.

 

[DanStrange]

LOL! Somehow I just knew there would be a Foreflight plug at some point in a thread having nothing to do with Foreflight.

must be brainwashing is happens so often.

I thought someone mentioned log books?

 

[EdFred]

LOL! Somehow I just knew there would be a Foreflight plug at some point in a thread having nothing to do with Foreflight.

must be brainwashing is happens so often.

The Kool Aid is strong with this one. lol

 

[midlifeflyer]

The Kool Aid is strong with this one. lol

I think more in terms of

@DanStrange , just having fun with the tendency of some Foreflight users to act as though it's the only choice out there for everything. I see discussion after discussion where the question is something like, "how do I set this up in [FlyQ, iFlyGps, Pilot, FltPlan Go!, Avare, DroidEFB, WingX, Insight, any EFB other than Foreflight]", and someone comes along with an irrelevant "get Foreflight" promo. Yes, @RussR mentioned logbooks, and electronic logbooks (note the generic phrase) is a much better backup choice than IACRA. Heck, I've had one since...well, remember DOS?

 

[smv]

well, remember DOS?

No matter the version, it is still DOS. As I was wont to say in the 90s, "Windows is just a fancy ball gown for DOS."

 

[DanStrange]

I think more in terms of
View attachment 90886
@DanStrange , just having fun with the tendency of some Foreflight users to act as though it's the only choice out there for everything. I see discussion after discussion where the question is something like, "how do I set this up in [FlyQ, iFlyGps, Pilot, FltPlan Go!, Avare, DroidEFB, WingX, Insight, any EFB other than Foreflight]", and someone comes along with an irrelevant "get Foreflight" promo. Yes, @RussR mentioned logbooks, and electronic logbooks (note the generic phrase) is a much better backup choice than IACRA. Heck, I've had one since...well, remember DOS?

Foreflight koolaid is tasty

 

[bflynn]

Foreflight is the only choice for EFBs the way Windows is the only choice for a desktop. Sure, there are other things you can use, but everyone will wonder why you're strange.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I like WingX.....

 

[MauleSkinner]

Foreflight is the only choice for EFBs the way Windows is the only choice for a desktop. Sure, there are other things you can use, but everyone will wonder why you're strange.

Herd mentality is a wonderful thing.

 

[denverpilot]

So that's the big deal source for the folks who treat saying "BFR" as though it were some FAR violation

I know there’s yet another FAA doc that says flatly to stop calling it that, but hell if I can find it.

Memory is failing but it seems to me it’s in a doc on how to conduct the silly FR things? (There’s three or more official documents on that, which is even funnier. None supercedes the other. I know this because I went down that document rabbit hole prior to giving my first FR, one night. Ha.)

Not that I wanted to add to your list — or go down that rabbit hole again — I find the list funny actually.

I may have printed them off in paper. If I get time I’ll go find and dig through the reference box and the long-neglected CFI briefcase.

I just wanted to find it to see what its publication date was.

Hilarious if it’s before any of the above dates.

As I recall, it’s worded in such a way as to be instructional for CFIs as a special emphasis item you would discuss with a person during an FR.

I remember it because the wording really read like a threat that they could be changed to annually required or any other schedule, at any time — that joke I made above wasn’t truly original — it was based off of how that FAA doc sounded!

LOL! Now it’s bugging me. Where the hell did I read that???? All that comes to mind was that it wasn’t an AC, with a nice document number and a sane way to find it. Glossy color landscape thing on some “safety” FAA website comes to mind is all.

But totally written in the format of “this is how you should do a Flight Review”.

I hope I printed it out. Swear I did... it had this whole scolding section about instructors should not let pilots add “biennial” and I found it quite entertaining, mostly because of all the hundreds of threads about it HERE over the years.

I’ll hunt around this weekend and see if I can find it and then the link to the digital version. LOL.

Driving me nuts now. Haha. Mostly just for the entertainment value of sharing it!

 

[The-Flying-Lawyer]

My favorite is, "it's not the FAR. It's 14 CFR!" as though it hadn't been in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations for decades.

I use 14 CFR, but only because the rest of the world (or at least every attorney other than me) outside the aviation club uses "FAR" to mean the federal acquisition regulations.

 

[luvflyin]

I use 14 CFR, but only because the rest of the world (or at least every attorney other than me) outside the aviation club uses "FAR" to mean the federal acquisition regulations.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I use 14 CFR, but only because the rest of the world (or at least every attorney other than me) outside the aviation club uses "FAR" to mean the federal acquisition regulations.

Well yeah, in the case of the "Federal Acquisition Regulation" (singular, if we want to be pedantic), "FAR" is an official abbreviation - it appears in the very first section of 48 CFR . But really, most lawyers don't know what that FAR is either except, hopefully, enough to know when to call in a government contract specialist

i just say "aviation regulations" with non pilots, use the formal section citations in court documents, define "FAR" in aviation contracts for brevity, and succumb to (or perhaps annoy) the pedants by saying something like "Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which we commonly call the 'Federal Aviation Regulations' or FARs" in my articles.