Conducting Flight Reviews for those with possible cognitive decline...

wsuffa said:
There are folks that will pencil-whip FRs, IAs that will pencil-whip annuals, and even a few AMEs that will pencil-whip medicals.
Click to expand...

And saying "don't do that" in a FIRC is going to change that behavior? I highly doubt it.
 
Redline said:
I explained what I needed to see in the flight that would determine if I could do the sign off for him. I believe the respectful and tactful discussions were actually well-received, and appreciated. He came very prepared (with the help of his son, who is also an instrument rated pilot), and earned the sign off for the flight review.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he came into it prepared, with realistic expectations, and with a good attitude. That makes all the difference.

The one I remember, he showed up totally unprepared, expecting a pencil whipped FR, and didn't like the idea of some guy half his age questioning his ability with his thousands of hours of experience. He threatened that he was going to fly whether I signed him off or not. I told him go ahead, but when he kills himself and his wife it won't be with my signature in his logbook. He later checked his attitude and came back and did much better.
 
Years ago I was flying with an older pilot friend. Solid ifr at our altitude. Approach cleared us to the ILS with the localizer about 3 miles in front of us. Everything was briefed and setup. He was so focused on the checklist we blew threw the localizer When I asked if we were going to intercept he was surprised to see it was behind us. We were still not full deflection, turned intercepted and landed but it was a wake up. Moral of the story - checklists are great but fly the plane.
 
I tell people at the beginning of the flight what the expectations are. They understand before we get in the aircraft that I am not there to make friends or to sign off somebody who is unable to meet the requirements. Every person I have flown with has appreciated this and I have only encountered one person that I would not sign off.

That person knew he was questionable to begin with and we had a decent conversation both before and after the flight. After the flight he agreed it was time to stop flying. I offered to fly right seat with him if he just wanted to go up and he took me up on that offer for a couple of years.
 
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/age60/media/age60_4.pdf

Look at page 26. You would have to extrapolate the percentage based upon age and flight hours.

Also https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/...ysis/special-reports/1302agingpilotreport.pdf

"Among males age 55-63, 26 percent of crashes were without obvious pilot error compared with only 7 percent at age 40-49.” Note, however, that this does not address the relative accident involvement (or rate) among the various groups of pilots studied. Two other publications (Bazargan 2, Mortimer 8), also working from general aviation accident data, determined that certain groups of accident pilots age 60 and over were involved in more accidents when compared to others examined. Likewise, an unpublished 2006 Air Safety Institute study found that, starting at roughly age 55, pilots began to have more accidents than would be expected given their share of the pilot population."

I'm trying to find the data that I had that showed accident rates based upon average pilot flight hours.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. As expected all these reports are very inconclusive with lots of qualifications regarding findings. To quote from the AOPA report “In short, the key insight of all the research, for our purposes, seems to be that different pilots experience the aging process differently, and compensate for it (or fail to) in a variety of different ways. There are, no doubt, certain commonalities among older pilots, but in the broad view it seems that individual factors—experience, proficiency, physical fitness, genetics—come together to play a much greater role than chronological age in determining a given pilot’s ability to fly safely on a given day.”
Average flight hours is a whole different thing than chronological age.
 
EdFred said:
Well, the last flight review I did wasn't on a burger run but on a guitar run. Did ground. Then I flew to Fort Wayne, each of us bought a guitar at Sweetwater. We switched seats, and I gave a flight review I would normally give, except it included an XC. Steep turns, chandelles, emergency spiral descent, diversion, power on stalls, power off stalls, turning stalls, slow flight, power off 180, 3 different types of take offs and landings, etc...

So what's the problem with incorporating it on a flight with a purpose besides it being a FR?
Click to expand...

I guess it might depend on the guitar. Les Paul, Strat? I see nothing wrong with mixing the utility of a mission with a BFR.
 
Redline said:
This is an update to this thread I started last month. First, there have been several thoughtful suggestions that are much appreciated. I have read the literature available from AOPA, and other places that at least acknowledge the topic. As several have pointed out. The proper use of checklists becomes even more relevant.

The initial post was a result of a gentleman I was working with who had not flown for a few years, but he still had descent stick and rudder skills, and had maintained his CFI rating. Additionally, he had attended rusty pilot training, and had prepared better than most for the flight review. He pointed out that he wanted to be be able to act as a safety pilot for some friends when they wanted to fly practice approaches during good weather.

During the flight review process, we meet several times for ground and flying. We covered appropriate ground training beyond the minimum requirements, and after the first fight together had the talk that included a respectful approach to maintaining an appropriate safety margin as some skills decline. I highlighted the necessity of investing more in preflight preparation (including orienting yourself using things like google maps to see exactly where to find airports in relation to highways, towns, structures, rivers, etc), and the need to use checklists more religiously, along with the need to write everything down (headings, altitude assignments, squawk codes, frequencies) from ATC, and to have extensive notes available on the kneeboard in the cockpit about route, fuel, altitudes, airport runways, frequencies, etc., and wisdom in having a licensed pilot to be his copilot, to help make any flight safer and more fun.

I explained what I needed to see in the flight that would determine if I could do the sign off for him. I believe the respectful and tactful discussions were actually well-received, and appreciated. He came very prepared (with the help of his son, who is also an instrument rated pilot), and earned the sign off for the flight review.

Thank you for the helpful input from your posts.
Click to expand...
 
Love your report. After flying for 30+years, I still consider the PPL a license to learn. I look forward to an opportunity to a BFR to refresh the basics and to reveal to myself areas that should be improved. The day I’ve convinced myself I know it all and need no improvement is the day I should hang it up.
 
dtuuri said:
At 1000 hours an instrument pilot is 50% more dangerous than a non-instrument pilot? (Fig 11) So the bit about an instrument rating making you a better pilot is a canard?
Click to expand...
Or do IR pilots conduct higher risk flights due to weather? Too many variables.
 
dtuuri said:
At 1000 hours an instrument pilot is 50% more dangerous than a non-instrument pilot? (Fig 11) So the bit about an instrument rating making you a better pilot is a canard?
Click to expand...
See all the threads about Jerry’s skills. Apparently one of the reasons he’s alive is the space between the clouds and the ground. :rolleyes:

I doubt that the pilots are worse, but as you’re well aware, the environment is different.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top