Can I do a Flight Review from the backseat?

[Areeda]

Here's the situation:

I have 2 friends that own Bonanzas that need a flight review. #1 expired at the end of August, #2 expires at the end of October.

Due to insurance issues it doesn't look like I can fit the open pilot clause without a checkout in both the planes.

What I want to know is is the following scenario legal, safe and wise? I have flown with both pilots before and am comfortable with their skill and judgment.

• We do the normal ground session for as long as it takes with both pilots participating.
• We fly with #2 left (acting PIC) and me (CFI) right and perform a series of maneuvers.
• Then #1 sits left (logs PIC as sole manipulator) #2 sits right (acting PIC) and I sit in the back and observe.

#2 is proficient from the right seat, very experienced but is not a CFI.

What do you think?

Joe

 

[dmccormack]

Here's the situation:

I have 2 friends that own Bonanzas that need a flight review. #1 expired at the end of August, #2 expires at the end of October.

Due to insurance issues it doesn't look like I can fit the open pilot clause without a checkout in both the planes.

What I want to know is is the following scenario legal, safe and wise? I have flown with both pilots before and am comfortable with their skill and judgment.

• We do the normal ground session for as long as it takes with both pilots participating.
• We fly with #2 left (acting PIC) and me (CFI) right and perform a series of maneuvers.
• Then #1 sits left (logs PIC as sole manipulator) #2 sits right (acting PIC) and I sit in the back and observe.

#2 is proficient from the right seat, very experienced but is not a CFI.

What do you think?

Joe

Very interesting question... is this an A36 with club seating?

 

[Areeda]

Very interesting question... is this an A36 with club seating?

No not club seating. I believe the model number is B33.

Joe

 

[dmccormack]

No not club seating. I believe the model number is B33.

Joe

OK, the 33 series is a Debonair, conventional tailed Bonanza (some would say price-point down Bonanza).

Is this arrangement so crucial to give up control access?

Seems each would learn best sitting in the back seat for each review.

 

[poadeleted20]

First, since a flight review takes more than instrument training, if either plane has a throwover yoke, you can't do a flight review in it. Period. 14 CFR 91.109(a) refers.

Second, there is no FAA regulation specifically prohibiting you from giving training from a seat other than the second control seat.

Third, there is an apparent conflict of intent between 91.109(a)'s requirement for dual controls for flight training, and the lack of prohibition on instructing from a non-control seat. This apparent conflict has never been addressed by the Chief Counsel.

Fourth, per Administrator v. Merrell (190 F. 3rd 571, 577 (D.C. Cir, 1999) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=981365a), the FAA may advance its interpretation of a regulation for the first time in an enforcement action charging violation of that regulation. That means they can make their first announcement of their interpretation that 91.109(a) implicitly means you must instruct from the second control seat when they write you up for violating 91.109(a) by giving training from the back seat, and the ALJ and NTSB must defer to that interpretation.

Put it all together, and I would not give training from the back seat of the second plane, and I would not give a flight review in the first one unless it has yokes in both front seats. You are, of course, free to either take the chance and train the second pilot from the back seat or to ask the FAA Chief Counsel for a ruling on the issue prior to giving that training, but it will be four months before you get that interpretation.

 

[dmccormack]

Third, there is an apparent conflict of intent between 91.109(a)'s requirement for dual controls for flight training, and the lack of prohibition on instructing from a non-control seat. This apparent conflict has never been addressed by the Chief Counsel.

From the American Bonanza Society:

FAA interpretation, enforcement action and some insurance claims history consistently rule that a Flight Review as required in 61.56 consists of “flight instruction,” and therefore dual flight controls must be installed. There is no room for interpretation requiring dual controls for any other instruction not specifically limited to “instrument” instruction, for example, instruction toward currency requirements, high-performance and/or complex endorsements, pilot certificates or ratings, and insurance-mandated checkout instruction (for purposes of meeting insurance underwriters’ policy stipulations).

Single-Control Exemptions
Confirming this interpretation, the FAA provides for exemptions to FAR 91.109(a) permitting flight instruction in single-control airplanes under certain circumstances. Exemptions require both pilot and instructor be qualified to act as pilot-in-command, precluding some types of training, including initial checkouts if the pilot receiving instruction does not already have his/her Complex and High Performance endorsements.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm completely familiar with both the FAA interpretation and the ABS exemption Dan posted, but neither addresses the issue of instructing from a seat other than the second control seat when the second seat is occupied by a pilot other than the instructor and two pilots are not required by the aircraft certification. To my knowledge, the FAA Chief Counsel has never addressed that issue, and I would not want to be the instructor who triggers that action by anything other than a letter requesting an interpretation.

 

[Chairboy]

Capn'n Ron, you indicated that someone can't get a flight review in a plane with a throwover yoke, "period". This doesn't seem right, I believe there are CFIs that have an exemption to this, Lee Elson for one. Do you have more recent knowledge on the subject? Of was this a mistype?

 

[TMetzinger]

Put it all together, and I would not give training from the back seat of the second plane, and I would not give a flight review in the first one unless it has yokes in both front seats. You are, of course, free to either take the chance and train the second pilot from the back seat or to ask the FAA Chief Counsel for a ruling on the issue prior to giving that training, but it will be four months before you get that interpretation.

Four months if you're lucky. It took them over ten months to answer my question.

 

[Areeda]

Thanks for the replies. Especially Ron!

I was wrong about the ID it is not a Debonair.

Let me hear from the pilots and I will let you'all know what I decided.

Joe

 

[docmirror]

First, since a flight review takes more than instrument training, if either plane has a throwover yoke, you can't do a flight review in it. Period. 14 CFR 91.109(a) refers.

Incorrect. It's done all the time under the auspicies of the BPPP from Amer Bonanza Society.

 

[poadeleted20]

Capn'n Ron, you indicated that someone can't get a flight review in a plane with a throwover yoke, "period". This doesn't seem right, I believe there are CFIs that have an exemption to this, Lee Elson for one. Do you have more recent knowledge on the subject? Of was this a mistype?

From a regulatory standpoint, my statement is correct. As with many other rules, one can petition for an exemption to the rules. The American Bonanza Society has an exemption from the FAA to conduct certain non-instrument flight training in throw-over yoke Bonanzas. I do not know the details of this exemption, including whether or not it includes flight reviews, but I do know Joe is not an authorized instructor under that exemption.

 

[Areeda]

I do know Joe is not an authorized instructor under that exemption.

Correct. I am not authorized under any Bonanza exception.

 

[sba55]

I'm not doubting any of the information provided here, but I'm a little confused as to why a yoke for the CFI is even necessary. Assuming that one's BFR hasn't expired, and the CFI isn't intimately familiar with the plane (for whatever reason), the pilot getting the review will be PIC. As such, the CFI wouldn't be allowed to use the yoke unless authorized by the PIC. So why does he need his own yoke? I understand why that's necessary if one isn't rated for IMC or such.

-Felix

 

[tonycondon]

from an instructors standpoint, the most scared ive been in an airplane is with an already certificated pilot. full functioning dual controls, please.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm not doubting any of the information provided here, but I'm a little confused as to why a yoke for the CFI is even necessary. Assuming that one's BFR hasn't expired, and the CFI isn't intimately familiar with the plane (for whatever reason), the pilot getting the review will be PIC. As such, the CFI wouldn't be allowed to use the yoke unless authorized by the PIC. So why does he need his own yoke? I understand why that's necessary if one isn't rated for IMC or such.

-Felix

In a word, "regulations".

91.109(a) requires dual flight controls for giving flight instruction. Exceptions are made for instrument instruction, but as Ron indicated, a Flight Review doesn't just involve instrument instruction.

61.56 says that a Flight Review requires an hour of flight training, among other things.

Now, you could make the argument that dual controls are only required for "flight instruction", not for "flight training", but give it a try let us know how far you get in the appeals process

So now...how about getting Pilot #1 to act as PIC from the back seat for insurance purposes?

Fly safe!

David

 

[sba55]

In a word, "regulations".

91.109(a) requires dual flight controls for giving flight instruction. Exceptions are made for instrument instruction, but as Ron indicated, a Flight Review doesn't just involve instrument instruction.

61.56 says that a Flight Review requires an hour of flight training, among other things.

Now, you could make the argument that dual controls are only required for "flight instruction", not for "flight training", but give it a try let us know how far you get in the appeals process

So now...how about getting Pilot #1 to act as PIC from the back seat for insurance purposes?

Fly safe!

David

David,

Again, I'm not doubting any of the information so far. I was just curious if someone had a common sense explanation.

Yes, the FAA requires dual controls. Yes, you as a CFI might feel more comfortable. In reality, however, it doesn't matter whatsoever because you are not authorized to take control unless given permission by the PIC. Maybe you're flying with someone who's inexperienced and who would want you to take control in an emergency. That's fine. But there's got to be more to it than that because, on the surface, I can't think of any good explanation as to why the FAA would require dual controls if the CFI isn't automatically allowed to use them and the pilot is qualified.

-Felix

 

[markb5900]

David,

Again, I'm not doubting any of the information so far. I was just curious if someone had a common sense explanation.

Yes, the FAA requires dual controls. Yes, you as a CFI might feel more comfortable. In reality, however, it doesn't matter whatsoever because you are not authorized to take control unless given permission by the PIC. Maybe you're flying with someone who's inexperienced and who would want you to take control in an emergency. That's fine. But there's got to be more to it than that because, on the surface, I can't think of any good explanation as to why the FAA would require dual controls if the CFI isn't automatically allowed to use them and the pilot is qualified.

-Felix

But in reality, if you are sitting right seat with someone and they are about to crash are you going to not take control because you didn't have permission to "take control"?
Of course not, that is why "I" think it is written the way it is. Whether a CFI has permission or not, they need the dual controls so they CAN take control if needed.

Mark

 

[sba55]

But in reality, if you are sitting right seat with someone and they are about to crash are you going to not take control because you didn't have permission to "take control"?
Of course not, that is why "I" think it is written the way it is. Whether a CFI has permission or not, they need the dual controls so they CAN take control if needed.

Mark

No, I wouldn't take control. Not just because it's a federal offense, but because any breakdown of discipline in an emergency is deadly. I know that if some passenger of mine (and that's all you are, CFI or not) tried that, I'd find a way to get them to stop interfering asap. I'm always very clear about who's PIC and what you are proposing is very dangerous.

I also don't think that the FAA is implicitly endorsing violating federal law, so that can't be it.

-Felix

 

[markb5900]

No, I wouldn't take control. Not just because it's a federal offense, but because any breakdown of discipline in an emergency is deadly. I know that if some passenger of mine (and that's all you are, CFI or not) tried that, I'd find a way to get them to stop interfering asap. I'm always very clear about who's PIC and what you are proposing is very dangerous.

-Felix

Your a better person than me then. I will not let ANYONE kill me because of their actions if I can help it.
I HAVE been in a cockpit with someone and TOLD them if you do xxx then I WILL take control of this aircraft because I will not let you kill me whether you are PIC or not.

Mark

 

[tonycondon]

well when the flight review candidate approaches in the 172 at 100 knots and then pushes when they should've pulled, ill take the federal offense over the broken nosegear and propstrike.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

But in reality, if you are sitting right seat with someone and they are about to crash are you going to not take control because you didn't have permission to "take control"?
Of course not, that is why "I" think it is written the way it is. Whether a CFI has permission or not, they need the dual controls so they CAN take control if needed.

Mark

My first instructor, when he was just starting, had a PP working on a commercial - coming back to the airport the instructor suggests doing a short field landing - just to make it interesting. The cross wind blows them off the centerline, the private pilot freezes on the controls, my instructor can't get them away, and they fly into the trees alongside the runway. (airplane wreaked, occupants survive).

 

[Everskyward]

I'm guessing that it's because, as MauleSkinner posted, a flight review is supposed to be "flight training" and not just evaluation. I've had 135.299 line checks where the check airman sat in the back and the pilots in the front took turns being evaluated. To clarify, this was in a single-pilot airplane where the check airman could have sat in the front if he wanted.

 

[gismo]

My first instructor, when he was just starting, had a PP working on a commercial - coming back to the airport the instructor suggests doing a short field landing - just to make it interesting. The cross wind blows them off the centerline, the private pilot freezes on the controls, my instructor can't get them away, and they fly into the trees alongside the runway. (airplane wreaked, occupants survive).

Without a Taser or suitable blunt object, dual controls definitely won't guarantee that a CFI can "take control" unless the other pilot relenquishes them. IMO, given the fact that it is quite easy to fly a Bonanza with a throwover yoke from the "wrong" seat (it does take two hands, one on the center for pitch and the other on the near side of the wheel for roll), the notion that most dual instruction in a Bonanza requires a dual yoke is stupid, but that's the FAA for you. Even more stupid is the requirement for a dual yoke in a Baron in order to practice simulated instrument flying given that in addition to the same potential to fly from the other side, all the hooded pilot would need to do is raise the hood if there was a problem requiring visual flight.

 

[sba55]

Your a better person than me then. I will not let ANYONE kill me because of their actions if I can help it.
I HAVE been in a cockpit with someone and TOLD them if you do xxx then I WILL take control of this aircraft because I will not let you kill me whether you are PIC or not.

Mark

Mark,

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I was thinking of a situation where this hadn't been made clear beforehand. If you let them know, they can decide whether or not to fly with you.

Tony, in that situation, I can't imagine the pilot having objections to you helping him.

All that aside, these people are rated to fly with passengers. So the FAA expects them to be capable of that. They don't require dual controls for that, so why do they require it if you're flying with a CFI?

 

[markb5900]

Mark,

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I was thinking of a situation where this hadn't been made clear beforehand. If you let them know, they can decide whether or not to fly with you.

Tony, in that situation, I can't imagine the pilot having objections to you helping him.

All that aside, these people are rated to fly with passengers. So the FAA expects them to be capable of that. They don't require dual controls for that, so why do they require it if you're flying with a CFI?

This particular 'incident" was at 8K feet. Was not BEFORE HAND.
Being rated does not mean that they are capable or have the judgement.
It is required in my opinion because the CFI might HAVE to take control. Because someone THINKS they are capable doesn't mean they are and that is what CFI's are trained to correct for.

Mark

 

[MauleSkinner]

No, I wouldn't take control. Not just because it's a federal offense, but because any breakdown of discipline in an emergency is deadly. I know that if some passenger of mine (and that's all you are, CFI or not) tried that, I'd find a way to get them to stop interfering asap. I'm always very clear about who's PIC and what you are proposing is very dangerous.

I also don't think that the FAA is implicitly endorsing violating federal law, so that can't be it.

-Felix

The instructor isn't a passenger...he's a crew member. He's authorized to log PIC for any flight training given, and shares responsibility for the safety of the flight.

The CFI and trainee determine between them who is acting as PIC for the flight, but good CRM practices still apply. If, as a CFI, I see an accident developing and take no action, I'm likely to be violated. Not to mention the effect on life and limb.

Fly safe!

David

 

[bbchien]

Ben, reread Ron's post. You can't do the BFR unless BOTH pilots are qualified to act a PIC. In Joe A's case, one of them is not.

Joe, it doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[sba55]

The instructor isn't a passenger...he's a crew member. He's authorized to log PIC for any flight training given, and shares responsibility for the safety of the flight.

The CFI and trainee determine between them who is acting as PIC for the flight, but good CRM practices still apply. If, as a CFI, I see an accident developing and take no action, I'm likely to be violated. Not to mention the effect on life and limb.

Fly safe!

David

I didn't know that a CFI is a crew member in a BFR situation.

Regardless, while I agree that you will need to talk to the PIC if you see a situation developing, interfering with the PIC's decisions is not legal. In many cases, it might not even be wise, especially if you're not as proficient in that particular plane.

I certainly wouldn't fly with someone who thought that it was up to him to "take control". In any case, that's it from me on this issue - I don't want to get this further off track.

-Felix

 

[Areeda]

Ben, reread Ron's post. You can't do the BFR unless BOTH pilots are qualified to act a PIC. In Joe A's case, one of them is not.

Joe, it doesn't pass the smell test.

One detail, I am qualified to be PIC, I do have about 50 hrs MM but that's not enough to be insured as PIC.

After this discussion I agree with the results of the smell test.

Joe

 

[midlifeflyer]

David,

Again, I'm not doubting any of the information so far. I was just curious if someone had a common sense explanation.

I don't think it's necessarily the "crash" scenario others are talking about. I think the contemplation underpinning the reg is a training scenario in which the CFI is actively teaching (which includes demonstrating) somehting the trainee doesn't know or do well. Add to that the fact that most aircraft do have dual controls.

So you have a short, general rule that will be simple to apply in the vast majority of situations, with exemptions left for special cases, rather than a longer rule that tries to set out a bunch of detail that only will apply in limited situations.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The instructor isn't a passenger...he's a crew member. He's authorized to log PIC for any flight training given, and shares responsibility for the safety of the flight.

Neither logging or responsibility make a CFI into a required crewmember. Although Joe does need to be PIC with the pilot who is not current, he does not need to be any kind of crewmember with the one who is current (unless, of course, he purs him under the hood).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Neither logging or responsibility make a CFI into a required crewmember. Although Joe does need to be PIC with the pilot who is not current, he does not need to be any kind of crewmember with the one who is current (unless, of course, he purs him under the hood).

Note that I didn't say "required"

I agree, though...that's why we establish "who's PIC for the flight" before we get into an airplane with a qualified pilot.

But there IS the controversial "ATP in the back seat getting violated" issue...Depending upon what happens during the flight, the CFI may be held in some way accountable by the FAA, even as a non-required crewmember.

Fly safe!

David

 

[midlifeflyer]

But there IS the controversial "ATP in the back seat getting violated" issue...

I'd suggest removing the word "issue" and replacing it with "urban legend."

I've been looking for verification of that one for years. The closest I've found is this one where the CFI "passenger" essentially talked another pilot into flying in marginal conditions with an inoperative artificial horizon and ended up sharing the blame for the predictable accident..

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X05581&key=1

 

[poadeleted20]

So now...how about getting Pilot #1 to act as PIC from the back seat for insurance purposes?

Well, since you ask the question, the answer is 91.105(a) -- the PIC must be at a control station at least for takeoff and landing, and despite the fact that there is no regulatory requirement for takeoffs/landings in a flight review, you can't do a flight review that the FAA will buy with no takeoffs or landings.

 

[sba55]

I don't think it's necessarily the "crash" scenario others are talking about. I think the contemplation underpinning the reg is a training scenario in which the CFI is actively teaching (which includes demonstrating) somehting the trainee doesn't know or do well. Add to that the fact that most aircraft do have dual controls.

So you have a short, general rule that will be simple to apply in the vast majority of situations, with exemptions left for special cases, rather than a longer rule that tries to set out a bunch of detail that only will apply in limited situations.

That's sort of what I was thinking, too. It seems like this is a rather general rule where some special cases in regards to flight reviews haven't been completely fleshed out by the FAA....

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'd suggest removing the word "issue" and replacing it with "urban legend."

I've been looking for verification of that one for years. The closest I've found is this one where the CFI "passenger" essentially talked another pilot into flying in marginal conditions with an inoperative artificial horizon and ended up sharing the blame for the predictable accident..

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X05581&key=1

I don't remember enough details to find it, but there was another one where a CFI was busted because it turned out he was the only instrument-rated pilot on the plane (unbeknownst to him!). IIRC there were three occupants and the other two died.

 

[sba55]

There's a good article by Rod Machado in the new AOPA pilot. He talks about how he tells people before flights: "Do not do or touch anything without getting a clearance from me." Sounds like a good strategy to me. From now on, if I'm flying with other pilots, that will be a condition for them to get to fly. Sounds friendly, too.

Worth a read, page 46.

-Felix

 

[leeelson]

From a regulatory standpoint, my statement is correct. As with many other rules, one can petition for an exemption to the rules. The American Bonanza Society has an exemption from the FAA to conduct certain non-instrument flight training in throw-over yoke Bonanzas. I do not know the details of this exemption, including whether or not it includes flight reviews, but I do know Joe is not an authorized instructor under that exemption.

It turns out not to be very difficult to get an exemption from the FAA from the dual yoke requirement during flight instruction (an example of which is the Flight Review). I have one (and am not part of the BPPP). The FAA wants to know that the CFI has some experience in the aircraft (Bonanza in this case) as well as some experience instructing and no history of accidents, violations or incidents. It is also very useful to quote an example of a previous exemption (all exemptions are public record). The only significant restriction is that the person being given the instruction must be qualified to act as PIC, thus if your Flight Review has expired, you are out of luck. The exemption is for 2 years and is renewable.

 

[poadeleted20]

It turns out not to be very difficult to get an exemption from the FAA from the dual yoke requirement during flight instruction (an example of which is the Flight Review). I have one (and am not part of the BPPP). The FAA wants to know that the CFI has some experience in the aircraft (Bonanza in this case) as well as some experience instructing and no history of accidents, violations or incidents. It is also very useful to quote an example of a previous exemption (all exemptions are public record). The only significant restriction is that the person being given the instruction must be qualified to act as PIC, thus if your Flight Review has expired, you are out of luck. The exemption is for 2 years and is renewable.

There's on other requirement -- the CFI has to be happy doing this. Not all CFI's are, and I'm one of the unhappy group.