Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by odachoo, Oct 3, 2020.
Does tail endorsement or aerobatic training considered as biennial review?
Not automatically. But many CFIs will give you the endorsement (if combined with the required ground) based in it.
A new rating counts, I don't believe an endorsement does. And they are not called BFR's anymore.
How long ago was the tail wheel endorsement? like @midlifeflyer said, Go back to that CFI and see if he will add an entry for a Flight review for the same date.
There is a ground component required of at least 1 hour. Don’t know if that occurred for your endorsement. Many CFI’s have pilot’s take the Sporty’s flight review lesson for $40 which includes an endorsement certificate for that portion of the review. Usually cheaper than the hourly rate for CFI.
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.
But it won’t be required until it’s required, so feel free to forget if you so choose.
I mention it being available to my FR and IPC trainees, but that's about it.
It does not automatically count like an additional rating or certificate does, however if you asked the CFI doing the training to make it into a BFR (excuse me flight review) as well I am sure he/she would be more than happy to and could easily make that happen.
All that is required is the log book endorsement from a CFI. I didn't realize entering it in IACRA was a thing, but it is definitely not required, so don't it.
Also, don't let them give you a hard time about calling it a biennial flight review, I still use the the term BFR all the time. I even use AF/D instead of chart supplement from time to time! GASP! Shh...don't tell the PC police
On that note, the FAA is trying to phase out the term cockpit and replace it with flight deck...that makes me laugh. "Ladies and gentleman, from the flight deck of this Cessna 172...."
it’s gonna be a long time for the term BFR to go away.
But you knew what he meant.
Hah, I don't even bother mentioning it. I see no advantage*, but I do see it extending the time required for a typical flight review by about a half hour (as the applicant likely hasn't logged into IACRA in a long time, if ever, might need to set up an account, forgotten usernames and passwords, trying to figure out all the different time entries, etc.)
* most often, the primary advantage that's mentioned is "so you have a record of your flight time if you ever lose your logbook". Well, if that's the goal, then there are a whole ton of much better options than a one-time snapshot of only some of the types of time that are important.
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.
Yup...let’s call it a bFR instead of a BFR.
Imma call it TFCMFR
It is a flight review that is required every 2 years. I know that FAA wants to lose that term because pilots should get multiple flight reviews. But they aren’t required.
and what are the officially call if they aren’t uncontrolled fields?
Towered and Non-towered seems to be the current terminology. And if I'm not mistaken there are "controls" in place at non-towered fields.
I mention it because it's an available option and, more important than my opinion of it, it's their choice, not mine. And I mention it at the time of scheduling, not at the flight review itself, so the time spent in IACRA to prepare the application in advance is theirs.
So far, no takers. Wings, yes, but IACRA, no.
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?
BFR will never die!
"It's not a BFR. It's a flight review" is at the top of my "WGAS!" list of the most unimportant phraseology gripes in aviation.
Of course, I can be Aviation PC too. Just the other day I was returning to my, umm, nontowered home base when a Citation called in with, "any traffic please advise." I keyed the mic. "It's bumper to bumper on Route 1."
And I admit to hoping to someday hear a controller say, "and also with you."
Well you're up early Mark!
A bit optimistic I think. To date, I have never had someone fill out an IACRA application for a certificate or rating without requiring assistance. To avoid multiple "Return to applicant" I have just started doing the application while sitting right next to them. I have found it saves everybody time. I have also done it over Zoom with screen sharing, but regardless, every use of IACRA ends up taking some significant amount of time for both of us. IACRA apparently isn't that user-friendly if you're not in it all the time like flight instructors are.
Everyone on the planet, except the FAA calls them BFRs.
It's like when they change the name of the airport. KPOU is still "Dutchess".
Same reason why people insist on saying CFI where that term has never been in the regs either.
At least they were never anything other the Biennial. The FAA put the annual flight review in when the Recreational pilot certificate was created for purely political reasons (to appease the flight instructor lobby who were bawling all over the place that reducing the pilot certification requirements was going to cost them their livelihoods). Of course, the FAA kept rolling forth the effective date until they finally got rid of the idea a decade later.
The ones that bother me is when the FAA gets rid of a term but leaves the concept there. Airport Traffic Areas and Control Zones were largely misused/understood, but getting rid of the term without getting rid of the concept didn't improve anything.
At least that means it’s not being misused when people talk about getting their instrument instructor as the initial, and then getting their CFI after that.
but the FAA does use those letters to denote a flight instructor certificate number.
Similar to how students are no longer "students" but "learners"?
They become required because people do them and then everyone believes they must be done.
In honesty, I did not know until this minute that there was an IACRA form for a BFR, but I still don't know why I should care about filling one out.
It also covers IPCs. It's also on the paper 8710:
wow. I thought my profession was hung up on semantics.
Try academics or chemistry...
FAA could easily get folks to stop using the “B”.
Just make them annual. LOL.
Careful what you wish for! Hahaha.
Huh, didn't know that was even a thing.
No they don't
If they want to spend the extra time with me, I'm happy to get paid for it.
I remember when the change came. I didn't think about it in terms of the policy decision that they wanted to get rid of the ide that recurrent training was only a once every two years thing. Instead, I always thought biennial was a misnomer since you don't have to get one "every 24 calendar months." Just within the 24 calendar months "before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command." That might be 24 months, 25 months, 30 months, or a 20 year hiatus.
The last time I logged into IACRA was in 2011 when I got my IR. I "think" I have the user name and password written down, but don't quote me on that.
Our club (probably insurance company driven) already requires a full FAA flight review every year, so it wouldn't impact me at all. And, actually, they really aren't a bad idea as they let the instructor fix any bad habits that might have crept in over the preceding year.
AFD.. but I think it's called something else too
"Line up and wait" just doesn't sound as manly as "position and hold"
People started saying "no more usable runway left; gear up" .. holy crap that's a mouthful .. "positive rate; gear up" is much better
You might want to look into that. I'm in a similar situation with a club and we've done some investigation on it. There is no insurance benefit (for our insurance anyway) and in discussions with AOPA club and legal they strongly recommend that clubs do not alter the FAA requirements. If you do, and there is a mishap, then it puts the club in the position of liability to proving that they complied with all their bylaws instead of the pilot being on the hook for complying with the regulation.
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.
Avemco gives credit for annual flight reviews I believe. I'm not sure I'm buying the AOPA position (if that's really what they said). Why is the club responsible for proving anything any more than the FAA? What does happen is you need to be very careful that you have "breach of warranty" coverage which says that if a renter fails to comply with your rules it doesn't invalidate your insurance coverage.
I'm not a lawyer but in my experience, if there is an opportunity to deflect liability to another party it will occur. Feel free to drop Dr Steve Bateman, the AOPA Director of Flying Clubs Initiative, @ firstname.lastname@example.org or drop me a PM and I'll give you his direct e-mail.