I guess I'm a little confused on the requirements. I've just run into the third CFI who insists I need an hour of ground even though I just renewed my CFI (the same month as my BFR is due). Is there some trick to 61.56(f)? Can CFI's require an hour of ground before they sign off a pilot on a BFR, even though the regs are less restrictive? Has anyone run into FBO's that require it to rent?
BFR question
- Thread starter sunlight
- Start date
TMetzinger
Final Approach
As far as I can tell, your CFI's are all incorrect.
How did you renew your CFI? If it was via a practical test, I can give you WINGS credit for that test that will satisfy the FR requirements and render the discussion moot.
Pretty much every rental organization I've used requires an annual "tune-up" with one of their instructors no matter how frequently you fly. They want to ensure that you're safe, and this usually covers 1 hour of ground and 1 hour of flight, and may qualify for an FR too.
How did you renew your CFI? If it was via a practical test, I can give you WINGS credit for that test that will satisfy the FR requirements and render the discussion moot.
Pretty much every rental organization I've used requires an annual "tune-up" with one of their instructors no matter how frequently you fly. They want to ensure that you're safe, and this usually covers 1 hour of ground and 1 hour of flight, and may qualify for an FR too.
Online FIRC. Still need my hour of flying. Ok, it's been a few years since I stepped into an airplane, so I more more than one hour of flying.
But I'm pretty confident on the knowledge stuff - or I was until I ran into this.poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Completion of a FIRC does, per 61.56(f), waive the requirement for the hour of ground training. In that case, the CFI who does the flight portion signs a modified endorsement saying they completed the flight portion of a flight review IAW 61.56(a)(2) instead of a flight review IAW 61.56(a).
However, the Chief Counsel has specifically said that a CFI practical test does not count as a pilot proficiency check for 61.56(d), so the flight portion is not directly waived. Of course, you can use that practical test to develop Wings credit, but that involves additional paperwork.
However, the Chief Counsel has specifically said that a CFI practical test does not count as a pilot proficiency check for 61.56(d), so the flight portion is not directly waived. Of course, you can use that practical test to develop Wings credit, but that involves additional paperwork.
Last edited:
TMetzinger
Final Approach
The "paperwork" Ron refers to is sending a CFI or FAASTeam Rep a copy of your temporary airman certificate, and having them grant you credit for the WINGS event for issuance or reissuance of an instructor certificate. Not a big deal, so don't be afraid of it.
And one other nit. As I read the reg, no matter HOW you completed the renewal under 61.197 (which involves practical tests, training airmen who pass on the first try, evaluating airmen, or a FIRC, or a military instructor pilot prof check), you don't need the 1 hour of ground. You still need the hour of flight.
The reg reads:
(f) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate and who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, satisfactorily completed a renewal of a flight instructor certificate under the provisions in § 61.197 need not accomplish the one hour of ground training specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Not:
(f) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate and who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, satisfactorily completed a renewal of a flight instructor certificate under the provisions in § 61.197 (2)iii need not accomplish the one hour of ground training specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
The way I read what Ron said is that only a FIRC would cover the ground requirement. That's not how I read the reg, and that may not be what he meant - I may be misreading what he wrote.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Tim is correct. Review of the regs shows the FAA changed paragraph (f) two years ago. As it reads now, any renewal of an unexpired CFI certificate exempts you from the 1 hour of ground training. I've edited my earlier post accordingly.
So I'm curious, how would you deal with an instructor who insisted otherwise? This isn't the first time I've run into this and it's rather frustrating (and had directly led to me not having a BFR in well over 24 months).
Also - interesting about the change in the reg, I had no idea.
Also - interesting about the change in the reg, I had no idea.
Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
I'd pull out a copy of the regs and ask the CFI to read the appropriate part and then discuss it with me. If he/she was still intractable I'd wonder why and ask if it's simply a requirement of the FBO... If they were still "not getting it" I'd find an independent CFI who does or if I really wanted to get on with it I'd pay the ground fee and fly.
Maybe the reg. discussion could go towards the hour!
Maybe the reg. discussion could go towards the hour!
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I'd start by reviewing the regs in question with that instructor. If that didn't work, we'd be on the phone to the FSDO -- and in this case, that wouldn't end well for the instructor who insisted the hour of ground was required for someone who'd renewed their CFI ticket per 61.197.
One word of caution here -- as I read the regs involved, you could fall in a hole here. Say your CFI expires in May 2012 and your last flight review was May 2010. You complete the FIRC in March 2012 but don't do the flight portion of the flight review until May 2012. You apply in March 2012 for your CFI renewal based on the FIRC, and because you applied within the 90-day window, your new CFI ticket expires May 2014. However, since you completed the renewal in March 2012, your ground training exemption is only good through March 2014. That means you'll need to fill that ground square again before the end of March 2014 even though the flight portion is good until the end of May 2014.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
So your way of dealing with someone is to turn them in to the FSDO?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
If a CFI insists that they have to give the hour of ground training in order to sign a flight-only review endorsement and won't be convinced by a joint study of the regulations involved? Yes, I think so. The folks I know at the BAL FSDO are pretty good at explaining things like that to the undereducated, and carry the authority to make it stick even if the CFI involved isn't able to read the written rules correctly.
That said, I'd probably start with the FAASTeam Manager rather than the regular Inspectors. And I wouldn't "turn them in," I'd suggest that we together call one of the Ops Inspectors to find out which of us was mistaken, and couch it in those terms on the call. No doubt there are some hammers in the FSDO's who would turn that into a 709 ride for the CFI involved, but I think 98% of them would treat it as an informal training situation and let it go (as long as it didn't become a pattern with that CFI).
Or do you have another suggestion?
Inverted
Cleared for Takeoff
I would show the reg to the CFI you are having the issue with. It shouldn't be an issue after that. If it is, find another CFI. Sometimes we instructors can be stubborn when we think we know it all.
Turning somebody into the FSDO is borderline ridiculous. I would ask the CFI to call the FSDO and ask the question, in fact if he is a half way decent instructor, we would seek guidance from another CFI or the FSDO on his/her own. But turning somebody in because they are interpreting a reg wrong is over the top. After all, he/she isn't breaking any reg the FSDO would be interested in, in the first place. All that does is cause an inspector to open a can of worms for nothing.
Last edited:
Mike5250
Line Up and Wait
I completed my first BFR with an hour of flight/ checkout, a post flight briefing, and lunch with a talk about flying, rules, airspace, etc. I'm sure it came out to more than 1 hr of ground. I have wings credits which I hear can count towards the requirement as well.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
As a volunteer Safety Counselor you should know. Threatening CFI's with taking them to the FAA is a poor way to handle the situation.
As far as a CFI requiring something above and beyond the CFR (an hour of ground training) in order for him to put his signature on the BFR, he's not violating the regulation as long as he meets the minimum intent.
The pilot taking the BFR is free to seek out a CFI that will do the minimum if they desire.
Last edited:
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Exactly.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
As you should know, we're not "Safety Counselors" any more (not since 2007, IIRC), and under the new rules (well, not all that new -- about four years now) FAASTeam Reps are prohibited from giving "counseling" other than upon specific direction from the FSDO. In any event, if the person doesn't believe me as a 40-year CFI and FAASTeam Rep as to what the words in the reg mean after we've sat down and gone over it ("won't be convinced by a joint study of the regulations involved"), I know of no alternative other than getting someone from the FSDO involved. If you have one, I'd love to hear it.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
I'm not involved with the FAASTeam.
Again, what is the CFI violating by requiring more than the regulation requires? The CFR is a minimum requirement.
Seems to me you're more interested in initiating an enforcement above all else.
Uhh...just in case there was a miscommunication here...I am certainly not suggesting I want to do the minimum. I haven't flown in several years, am expecting to do MUCH more than an hour of flight, and could use some ground training in areas not covered by the FIRC. However, I feel that ground training for a flight review in the areas covered by the FIRC that I just completed are a complete waste of my time (part 91, I believe is specifically called out, and pretty well already covered, as are airspace, weather, etc).
And it irks me that a CFI refuses to even read the FARs to determine if I'm right or wrong or completely making my case up. That's my real issue with this situation.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
I see your point. But I also see the CFI's point of wanting to make sure you understand the material before placing his name and signature on your BFR.
You go out right after the BFR and get violated both you and him are in the hot seat.
Maybe you didn't read my initial post where I said the instructors in question didn't believe me when I said a CFI who recently renewed was exempt. I'm not sure how me getting violated has anything to do with my question about a CFI who tells me I'm wrong. Note he didn't say, "That's my/the flight school's police". He said I was wrong, with the FAR/AIM sitting two feet away. That's the issue.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
So he's wrong, stubborn and arrogant.
If he will not sign off the BFR without requiring the hour of ground doesn't constitute anything wrong since that's more than required, nor does it justify someone wanting to turn him in to the FSDO.
I would have more of a problem if he were advocating something less than required.
Sounds more like a butt hurt situation.
Last edited:
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Sorry, I was speaking in generic terms, certainly not aimed at you.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
To the OP, if you cannot, after showing someone the reg, get him to agree that he's not required by regulation to give an hour of ground, I'd shop elsewhere. If what he actually says is "regardless of what the regulations call for, I don't give anyone a FR without ground instruction", that's a whole different matter, and you can probably work with him.
The problem is to avoid ego-invested conflicts in the first place, because ego-driven people (and I are one) tend to resist in direct or exponential proportion to the amount of force placed on them to see the error of their ways. I'm really trying to self-detect when I'm getting too "personally involved" in an argument and back away or tone it down. If it's really important to be right (and I think it is), it's even more important to realize when may not be / aren't right, and that's very difficult when you're emotionally invested.
The problem is to avoid ego-invested conflicts in the first place, because ego-driven people (and I are one) tend to resist in direct or exponential proportion to the amount of force placed on them to see the error of their ways. I'm really trying to self-detect when I'm getting too "personally involved" in an argument and back away or tone it down. If it's really important to be right (and I think it is), it's even more important to realize when may not be / aren't right, and that's very difficult when you're emotionally invested.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Seems to me you're more interested in some personal agenda above all else. When you have re-read my posts more carefully and you have a constructive suggestion, please share it.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I don't see why this instructor should have a problem putting a signature under the appropriate endorsement after completing the flight portion of a flight review for someone not required to do the ground training. In addition, I don't see why an Inspector investigating a violation by the endorsee would put the instructor involved "in the hot seat" for not giving training for which the instructor did not sign. Personally, I have both signed and received such 61.56(a)(2) endorsements, and I have no worries about it either way -- and that's me, the regulation maven.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
+1, I don't *have* to teach to the minimums of the regulations. I can teach above them and as long as I meet the minimum I'm good. If someone doesn't like that they're free to find another instructor.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Already have, please see above.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Sure -- you are always free to refuse to give the flight portion of a flight review if you choose. But don't tell the pilot that the regs require that you give a full flight review when all they ask for is the flight portion.
Personally, it seems to me that to refuse to do the flight portion without doing the ground portion even when the ground portion is not required is just plain silly. Would you refuse to do a flight review of an IR pilot without doing a full IPC, too? Would you refuse to do the flight review of a pilot with complex, HP, and TW endorsements unless it were done in a complex/TW/HP airplane? Would you refuse to give a Student Pilot a 61.93(c)(2)(ii) XC flight planning endorsement without them taking you on a XC flight to demonstrate their skill? Where do you stop?
If the customer only wants the flight portion of a flight review, I'll be happy to provide it, and sign the appropriate endorsement. It will look a bit different than a "standard" flight review endorsement because it will specify flight training only, and reference 61.56(a)(2) rather than 61.56(a), but what's the big deal?
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
That would be his choice. It's his signature and his certificate. I certainly would not question his decision since it's no less than what's required.
Hardly.
A maven (also mavin) is a trusted expert in a particular field, who seeks to pass knowledge on to others. The word maven comes from Hebrew, via Yiddish,
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I see. Your "suggestion" is to say it's OK if a flight instructor tells a pilot s/he "needs" an hour of ground training to be legal even when the regs don't require it.
Not exactly my idea of a constructive suggestion. Sounds to me like the instructor involved either doesn't know the regs or is trying to pad the bill.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
I see. Your "suggestion" is to say it's OK if a flight instructor tells a pilot s/he "needs" an hour of ground training to be legal even when the regs don't require it.
Nice twist. Not.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Well, that's what the OP asked about originally.
Regulatorily, the OP does not "need" that hour of ground in that situation, and anyone who says s/he does is wrong. If the instructor had said, "Well, the regs don't require it, but as a matter of personal choice, I won't give a flight portion without the ground portion," that would be one thing. But to say you "need" it is quite another -- that is either uneducated or unprofessional.
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
Our club requires the equivalent of a full FR every year. Unless, of course you pass a check ride for some new rating in its place (which satisfies the FAA, too). Needless to say, I don't worry about complying with the FAA's requirement to do it every other year.
Inverted
Cleared for Takeoff
I agree 100% but I don't really think that really applies to this issue. I have never exactly done 1.0 ground 1.0 flight for a BFR, they have always gone over a bit, totally depending on the student. I have had a 3.0 ground and no flight when somebody was so bad I instructed them to review, get some dual, then get the BFR( he hadn't flown in 20 years or so, totally expected it). I made my own profile for a BFR. Before a student agreed to book me I would go over the ground, and flight portions and would explain exactly what they should expect. So they could either study, or say wow that sounds like a lot I am going to find somebody else. I could usually get it done in 1.1-1.2 for ground, and about 1.2 for flight when its all said and done. But if somebody had FAAST credits, or in this case, had the ground portion covered, I would be completely ok with not doing the ground, after all, why wouldn't I be? Its perfectly legal. The student has met the minimum requirement for ground according to the FAA, I will make sure he at least meets the minimums of an hour of flight. The regs are nice in that it is really up to us what we ask the student to demonstrate. Hell you could literally have him fly strait and level for an hour and that will be ok to the FAA according to the FARs, of course I hope nobody does that.
In this case, the regs are pretty clear, which can be rare as we all know. Its not about an instructor WANTING to do more than the mins here, He can fly the student as long as he sees fit. To me it sounds like he is either wanting to do the ground so he gets paid more, his ego is getting in the way of admitting he is wrong, or he can't interpret a reg this is more or less clearly laid out. Sounds like he just isn't a good CFI. This is of course an assumption but for whatever the reason, is hindering the student from getting a BFR and thats a problem.
Inverted
Cleared for Takeoff
Maybe I am misreading you, but I would refuse to give a student a full BFR if they didn't provide me with proof they didn't need the full review. I think thats what you're saying.
I almost want to email this instructor lol. Its sad that this hasn't been resolved yet.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I'm not responsible for their compliance with 61.56, only for signing their log for the training I've given them and for the accuracy of the endorsement I sign. If they tell me they don't need the ground portion, I'll go over that with them to make sure that's true. But whether it's true or not, I'll be happy to give them at least a one-hour "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," and then sign the following endorsement:
I certify that Joe Pilot, PP cert #1234567, has satisfactorily completed the flight portion of a flight review IAW 14 CFR 61.56(a)(2) on [this date].
/s/ Ronald B. Levy, CFI#, exp date
Pay special attention to those boldfaced additions to the standard flight review endorsement from 61-65E:/s/ Ronald B. Levy, CFI#, exp date
After that, it's their problem, not mine, if they aren't legal to fly because they don't have the ground portion or an FAA-acceptable equivalent. If the FAA comes to me later, all I'll say is, "Well, I told Mr. Pilot he didn't meet the requirements for acting as PIC under 61.56 without the ground training, but he insisted he only wanted the flight training, so that's what I gave him and that's what I signed for." End of story.
Last edited:
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Exactly the language I've used in this situation.
Agreed.