Flight Review more than 2 hours

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by brien23, Feb 21, 2021.

  1. brien23

    brien23 Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,323
    Location:
    Oak Harbor
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brien
    Has anyone had a Flight Review go over the 1hr ground 1hr flight time. I am not talking about someone that can't land the plane and keep it on the runway. Has anyone done the review and thought the FBO and CFI were just taking advantage of you.
     
  2. bbchien

    bbchien Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,222
    Location:
    Bolingbrook, IL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bruce C
    It takes as long as it takes.

    if a pilot specifies 1.0 max, air or 1.0 max ground, I turn him down. “Hey, guy I’m sorry, why don’t you see if one of the flight school kids will do that for you....”
     
  3. Silvaire

    Silvaire En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,936
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Silvaire
    Well the 1 and 1 is a minimum but to answer the question no, I never have.
     
  4. WannFly

    WannFly Final Approach

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    6,194
    Location:
    KFAR
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Priyo
    I did my flight review today, yesterday I did the ground part from sporty s , so technically that was already done, though it was more like 4 hrs of effort with an exam at the end. CFI offered to just ask some question and let it go, instead we spent an hour planning a cross country flight to get some scenario based training. Then 1.5 hrs of flight , reviewed stuff I need work on and normally do.

    2 hrs is minimum, but like everything in aviation, it takes as long as it takes. What’s the rush anyway? It’s more time talking about plane or flying it
     
    Omalley1537 likes this.
  5. Isosceles

    Isosceles Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    C83
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Isosceles
    It's hard to plan the flight to shut down at exactly 1.0 hours. It's common to fly around long enough to clock 1.2-1.3 flight time just to be certain that you don't shutdown at something like 0.9, otherwise you would need to fly again to complete the fricking BFR!
     
  6. WillFly4Food

    WillFly4Food Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    WillFly4Food
    Remember, 1 hour each ground and airwork, are just the minimums. It’s up to the person that’s going to sign your logbook to decide if more is needed.

    I went back and looked at mine (did I mention that MyFlightBook is fantastic?).

    Most were 1.0/1.0. But I’ve had a few at 1.2, and one that went 1.5 (those are air times).
     
    EricBe likes this.
  7. TommyG

    TommyG Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,567
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tom
    I have done reviews where it takes a few hours of flight, and then I have had some after .5 we have to create stuff to do because the pilot was proficient and at standards.

    But yes some CFIs are out there just to take your money or put hours I. Their logbook.
     
    Zeldman likes this.
  8. Joe_B1

    Joe_B1 Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2020
    Messages:
    84
    Location:
    Near KCON
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Joe_B
    My rusty pilot BFR a few years ago went about 6 hours over 3 days.
     
    Ravioli likes this.
  9. jordane93

    jordane93 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    9,878
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jordan
    I’ve done flight reviews that were longer than an hours. Depends on how rusty the pilot is.
     
  10. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    12,107
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    I'm sure there are pilots who think it has happened and times it has actually happened. But I haven't seen it in any of the many CFIs and FBOs I've dealt with as both instructor and customer over the past 30 years.
     
    dmspilot likes this.
  11. Bill

    Bill Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    12,759
    Location:
    Southeast Tennessee
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    This page intentionally left blank
    When I came back to flying after six year layoff, my instructor did 1.5hrs of ground. While I remembered a lot, I also had forgotten a good deal, and some rules had changed as well. As for flying, we were in the air for two hours, covered a lot of ground, and in the end he thought me safe and signed off. It all depends.
     
  12. Ryan F.

    Ryan F. Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,091
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ryan Ferguson 1974
    I have some thoughts on this.

    I want to be careful not to sound critical of you here; please rest assured that is not my intent. Your perspective on this is not unique. But the very nature of the question you asked shows the inherent challenge we face in driving the GA accident rate down.

    A few years ago, on behalf of the EA25 FAASTeam, I started a safety messaging series (which I continually reference to this day in most if not all of my presentations) encouraging GA pilots to exceed the bare minimum flight review requirement just very slightly. The "ask" was simple: voluntarily consider a flight review once per year instead of once bienially.

    Why? In terms of "low hanging fruit," there's nothing more ripe for the picking than the Flight Review. We can link pilot proficiency, or lack thereof, to most accidents, including the categories which tend to be associated with fatal accidents (LOC-I). In very simple terms, if we could simply convince pilots to train a tiny bit more, and train effectively while they're at it, we could make a measurable dent in the GA accident stats.

    But this is challenging for multiple reasons. One is that some pilots view the Flight Review as the maximum (ref: your post), rather than the minimum... bare minimum training they'll need in a two year span. Another is effectiveness of the flight review in terms of training provided by flight instructors. You'll hear the term "pencil-whipped" used in a negative way for things in aviation which weren't done properly; a pencil-whipped annual really gets our attention as pilots as we can clearly see the safety issues with that, but many in our peer group don't think twice about a pencil-whipped flight review. Not good.

    14 CFR § 61.56 states that "... a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training."

    Wow, that's not a lot of "recurrent training" in a 24 calendar month span of time! Nor is it particularly realistic in terms of maintaining proficiency. As a bare minimum, perhaps it might suit those of us who flew hundreds of hours per year. Most GA pilots fly considerably less than 100 hours per year. Hard to imagine it's possible to maintain proficiency with literally one hour of flight training and one hour of ground training every two years.

    Of course there are other tools to consider, such as WINGS. And active flight instructors are a bit of a different animal and handled accordingly with their FR requirements. The target audience is pretty clear: the non-professional, "hobbyist" GA pilots who constitute the majority.

    The very notion that a flight review which exceeds the minimum may represent a flight school which is trying to "milk" a client is problematic. I fly just about every day; I do recurrent training both professionally and personally; I'm highly active in GA; and there's no way one hour on the ground and one hour in the air once per year could come close to being a thorough training event for me. I'd need about a half day at minimum.

    Different strokes for different folks, and 61.56 is written so as to provide for flexibility. But my strong encouragement is to view the FR as an absolute minimum, never a maximum obviously, and please give a little thought to doing it more than once every other year. Hopefully we all see the benefits of training regularly, even if we don't fly many hours per year. In fact, the less we fly, the more of those hours ought to be with a flight instructor, reviewing and improving.

    Just my .02.
     
  13. FastEddieB

    FastEddieB Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    10,013
    Location:
    Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fast Eddie B
    I do all of my Flight Reviews in the pilot’s own plane. Most go over an hour of flight, maybe 1.2 to 1.5, but I’m charging a fixed rate and try to have fun in the air and maybe try some new stuff while we’re up. As an aside, I can’t recall ever “failing” one.

    Also bear in mind that at a towered airport, one might spend .2 just getting to the runway and getting cleared for takeoff, and a comparable amount of time taxiing in and shutting down, leaving as little as 36 minutes of flight time if you stuck to 1 hour on the Hobbs.
     
    Joe_B1, FancyG and Cogito like this.
  14. Salty

    Salty Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    7,512
    Location:
    FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Salty
    I’m not sure I agree with your stance. I thought the purpose of the flight review was to assure the pilot is still competent to fly safely. Someone with your experience should not need half a day for an instructor to determine that. I don’t see a flight review as a requirement that you extend your knowledge and skill, which is what it sounds like you are describing. It’s only to determine that you have sufficient knowledge and skill to be safe.

    Now, I’m not saying that a flight review isn’t a good time and excuse to extend your knowledge, but IMO, if all I’m asking for is a flight review because that’s all I have time for at that moment, then it should be sufficient to determine that I’m safe. For someone of your experience, assuming that you are well, that should be possible in the minimums.
     
    guzziguy likes this.
  15. A1Topgun

    A1Topgun Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Messages:
    639
    Location:
    Central Maine
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ron
    How about a 25 Hour Flight Review. The guy had not flown in over fifteen years and I think he forgot everything he ever learned OR he never really learned how to fly in the first place. If the CFI has any reason to believe you are not competent and safe he should not sign off the Flight Review no matter how many hours. And, yes, there are some CFI's out there that see the Flight Review as a cash cow.
     
    guzziguy likes this.
  16. Pugs

    Pugs Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2018
    Messages:
    696
    Location:
    Maryland
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pugs
    Rational thought and thought always welcome to a contentious topic. Being back into GA just the last 3 years with 350 hours (plus 2400 as a Prowler NFO) , I joined a club that requires an annual flight review in the "most complex" airplane you're checked out in. I did my first one in the 182 and the event was an hour of ground and three hours of flight time that were essentially complete repeats of my PPL/Inst check rides. I walked away thinking "what the hell, this is not what the FAA wants of this". I spent the whole day and $800 to get it done. I fly generally 100 hours a year and actually do go and practice stuff routinely. I felt used.


    Covid hit and with our instructors really not willing to fly with anyone, we extended everyone's "annual" to their FAA bi-annual date. At the same time we formed a working group to try and determine what we were really trying to do in building a safety culture and keeping pilots current to protect our assets (and their asses) . I had a marginal success. The transition from "a checkride is the only way to be sure" mentality that many of our older instructors had to a "ever learning and exploring your limits and knowledge" which aligns much more closely with what the FAA wants (IMO) was strongly resisted. We did manage to at least recalibrate to an annual proficiency flight is required instead of a full blown flight review but I expect that as we go back into Ops normal, that they will revert.

    Getting the club instructors to be able to grasp that everyone is not the same and move from that checkride mentality and instead work with members who want to learn new things (like the commercial maneuvers) shows just as much of the competency and airmanship as going out and having to prove the whole ACS again.
     
    TCABM and Ryan F. like this.
  17. RussR

    RussR Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,979
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Russ
    All of the flight reviews I conduct go over 2 hours of total time. Even if someone is super proficient, I tell them to plan on 3 hours total. Because everything in aviation takes longer than everybody thinks. One hour on the ground, then walk to and get in the plane, get it started up, then one hour in the plane, then shutdown, walk in and debrief and sign the logbooks takes a bare minimum of 2.5 hours of my time.

    The problem as I see it is that, most people AREN'T proficient at first at some of the very basic maneuvers that are the staples of most flight reviews - at least on the first try. Because these are maneuvers that in most cases, even if they fly every day, they haven't done since 2 years ago. Basic things like steep turns and stalls usually take at least a couple of repetitions to be within reasonable standards. No big deal, but that takes time. If you came up to me saying "I only have time for 1 hour of each, can you just evaluate my skills and not try to work on anything?", assuming I took the flight (I probably wouldn't), I guess I'd give you one shot for each thing, then we'd move on to the next. At the end of the flight would you then want me to inform you that I'm not signing your FR off because I didn't think your attempt at steep turns was very proficient, so you can come back another day and fly again? Or would you rather after the first steep turn I say "Try it again with a little more back pressure" - and the flight ends up taking an extra few tenths, but you don't have to come back. As a pilot, I'd much rather do the latter, and every pilot I've ever flown with I'm pretty sure would agree.

    I'm sure there are CFIs out there who try to "milk" their clients, although I don't know of any personally. None of my clients seem to mind spending some extra time - but I believe that's a bit self-selecting, as people who are looking for the cheapest option don't come to me in the first place.
     
    Ryan F. likes this.
  18. Ravioli

    Ravioli Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    Messages:
    7,866
    Location:
    Somewhere else
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Guest
    Good attitude as usual.

    Now then, lets cross thread this with the "pencil whipped $200 annual" and "are pre-buys needed" threads.

    I think @bbchien's avatar fits all these cases:
    minimum standards.jpg
     
  19. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,585
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    Most pilots don’t know what they don’t know...one of the purposes of a flight review is to try to find one or two things that the pilot doesn’t know but based on how/where they fly, they probably should. It’s usually pretty easy to find an emergency that hasn’t happened in the last two years, so emergency procedures are pretty valid ways to get a pilot back up to proficiency that add time.

    General knowledge of the review pilot’s airplane usually takes some time...Not that it can be proven either way, but based on one pilots gross misunderstanding of the system, I’d say it was entirely possible that both vacuum pumps didn’t actually fail on the same flight. He didn’t understand his instrumentation/autopilot, either, so had it happened in IMC it would’ve been far more dangerous than necessary.

    those are just a very small sampling...basically, if you don’t have time to do more than show me what you’re good at, you probably should schedule for when you have more time.
     
    EvilEagle, KA550 and Ryan F. like this.
  20. Bob Noel

    Bob Noel Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    15,085
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bob Noel
    FWIW - I've always told the guy doing my flight review that it'll take as long as it takes. (to clarify, I'm the one getting the review)
     
    WannFly likes this.
  21. Bob Noel

    Bob Noel Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    15,085
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bob Noel
    thread drift: if a minimum standard is not acceptable, then it isn't actually a minimum standard... by definition.
     
    guzziguy, DaleB, jbarrass and 4 others like this.
  22. brien23

    brien23 Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,323
    Location:
    Oak Harbor
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brien
    "Part 61 requires that the pilot performance is up to same level of knowledge and skill that is required on the check ride for the grade of pilot certificate held, which is the level being evaluated. If a pilot holds a Commercial Pilot certificate, then the pilot must be evaluated as a Commercial Pilot and perform to the Commercial Pilot level, or the Flight Review cannot be considered to be satisfactorily completed. Both ground ( 1 hour minimum ) and flight (1 hour minimum) evaluations are required. The satisfactory completion must be certified. For the flight review, an endorsement of satisfactory completion is made in the logbook." So a new CFI that does not hold a ATP is going to hold a pilot with a ATP to the level of skill he had to get the ATP even though the CFI has no idea of what that was since he has not done that. Also consider a pilot that holds more ratings than a thermometer gets a flight review in a hot air balloon that he holds a rating in, that counts for all the ratings he holds as it was done in a balloon that is a aircraft.
     
  23. Salty

    Salty Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    7,512
    Location:
    FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Salty
    I agree. My premise was that I'm a safe pilot already. ;) If I show deficiencies then it will take more time. In general, a DPE with decades of experience isn't going to show deficiencies in the PPL standards.
     
  24. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,585
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    “Minimum Standard” is generally referring to the FAA ACS/PTS. What that actually means is you don’t have to stay within the airspace protected by the TERPS, or that the guys flying a jet you might be in the back of don’t actually have to survive an engine failure in the first try.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
  25. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,585
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    He’s got the ATP ACS.
     
  26. Salty

    Salty Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    7,512
    Location:
    FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Salty
    This is above and beyond the intent of the FR IMO. If this were the intent, then a review would be required for each rating, and it's not. Take the balloon, glider mentioned above for example.
     
  27. Ryan F.

    Ryan F. Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,091
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ryan Ferguson 1974
    Thanks for the reply, Salty. Here's a thought. Instead of my take on flight reviews vs. yours or anyone else's, why don't we take a look under the hood and get an idea of what the FAA is interested in promoting. The Administration provides us with AC 61-98D as well as the "Conducting an Effective Flight Review" via FAASafety.gov.

    From Conducting an Effective Flight Review:

    "The purpose of the flight review required by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 61.56 is to provide for a regular evaluation of pilot skills and aeronautical knowledge. AC 61-98A states that the flight review is also intended to offer pilots the opportunity to design a personal currency and proficiency program in consultation with a certificated flight instructor (CFI). In effect, the flight review is the aeronautical equivalent of a regular medical checkup and ongoing health improvement program. Like a physical exam, a flight review may have certain “standard” features (e.g., review of specific regulations and maneuvers). However, just as the physician should tailor the exam and follow-up to the individual’s characteristics and needs, the CFI should tailor both the flight review and any follow-up plan for training and proficiency to each pilot’s skill, experience, aircraft, and personal flying goals."

    From AC 61-98D:

    "Pilot Proficiency. Studies have shown that LOC usually occurs when pilots lack proficiency. Conditions exceeding personal skill limitations can present themselves at any time and can occur unexpectedly. In this event, the pilot should be able to avoid being startled, make appropriate decisions in a timely manner, and be able to exercise skills at a proficiency level he or she may not have maintained or attained since acquired during initial training. This makes personal currency programs and proficiency training essential."

    and...

    "For the reasons previously discussed, a flight instructor should not develop a flight review plan of action based on regulatory minimums. Instead, a flight instructor should develop a plan based on achieving a flight proficiency and knowledge level that meets regulatory requirements."
    Also from Conducting an Effective Flight Review:

    "Managing Expectations: You have probably seen it, or perhaps even experienced it yourself: pilot and CFI check the clock, spend exactly one hour reviewing 14 CFR Part 91 operating rules, and then head out for a quick pass through the basic maneuvers generally known as “airwork.” The pilot departs with a fresh flight review endorsement and, on the basis of the minimum two hours required in 14 CFR 61.56, can legally operate for the next two years. This kind of flight review may be adequate for some pilots, but for others – especially those who do not fly on a regular basis – it is not. To serve the aviation safety purpose for which it was intended, therefore, the flight review must be far more than an exercise in watching the clock and checking the box. AC 61-98A states that the flight review is “an instructional service designed to assess a pilot’s knowledge and skills.” The regulations are even more specific: 14 CFR 61.56 states that the person giving the flight review has the discretion to determine the maneuvers and procedures necessary for the pilot to demonstrate “safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.” It is thus a proficiency based exercise, and it is up to you, the instructional service provider, to determine how much time and what type of instruction is required to ensure that the pilot has the necessary knowledge and skills for safe operation."

    A read-through the AC makes it pretty obvious that a thorough and properly administrated flight review is going to take more than an hour and it should be more than just a simple review. And yes, that goes for me, too. I do checks in many models of light piston airplanes, teach in light piston airplanes, fly business jets for a living and for my own personal use I zip around in my little Twin Comanche. Guess what gets the least exercise of all? My single pilot IFR skills... I probably do less than 50 hours of that per year. As such a FR for me would be designed around my personal aircraft exercising those skills which I use least, attacking any SRM issues I've gotten via negative transfer from most of my IFR being in multi-crewmember operations in highly automated aircraft. Yes, I definitely need the workout and there's no way I can get it done in a couple of hours.

    Food for thought, thanks for contributing to the conversation.
     
  28. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,585
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    pretty much everybody’s premise when they walk into a flight review. Many are wrong.
     
    Ryan F. likes this.
  29. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,585
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    If an ATP is being evaluated in a balloon, glider, there are no ATP standards with which to comply. If he’s being evaluated in his light twin, ATP standards should apply to any maneuver that is in the ATP ACS.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
  30. Salty

    Salty Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    7,512
    Location:
    FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Salty
    I understand what you are saying, and don't really disagree. I guess I'm saying if my "skill, experience, aircraft, and personal flying goals" are not changing at that moment, then there is no need to stretch. Again, I agree that it's a good excuse to stretch.
     
  31. Salty

    Salty Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    7,512
    Location:
    FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Salty
    Just to show that I agree in principal; I've literally never taken a flight review standalone. I've always either gotten a new rating or combined it with learning new skills that go far beyond the 2 hour time limits.
     
  32. brcase

    brcase Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,937
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian
    .
    I could have easily wrote the same post as RussR. He and I are pretty much on the same page for flight reviews. I schedule a minimum of a 3 hour block for a flight review. Since I don't want people watching the clock for a flight review and I have fun doing them, I generally charge a flat fee for flight reviews.
    If you can do the Maneuvers to ACS standards the 1st time we can often complete the flying portion in about 45 minutes and then need to do a few extra takes offs and landings to fill the full hour. Since my flight reviews mirror the Wings requirements we technically don't even need to do the full hour if you have the Wings ground requirements met. Now that is the best case really sharp pilot scenerio. More typically we end up reviewing the maneuvers until the pilot can complete them to ACS standards. This is more typically 1.2 to 1.5 hours with an occasional 2 hour flight.
     
    RussR likes this.
  33. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,585
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    Airman Certification Standards Standards? ;)

    (Edited one of my previous posts so you can’t prove I did the same thing.:rolleyes: )
     
  34. Clip4

    Clip4 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    6,000
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    [
    Somewhere there is a private pilot complaining about a flight review that went longer than one hour and a CFI regretting his signature in that pilot’s logbook. It happens.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
    WillFly4Food and WannFly like this.
  35. Kinder

    Kinder Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    May 7, 2020
    Messages:
    7
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Larry
     
  36. Kinder

    Kinder Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    May 7, 2020
    Messages:
    7
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Larry
    According to the FAA accident stats, the implementation of the flight review law had no effect on safety.
     
    hindsight2020 likes this.
  37. WannFly

    WannFly Final Approach

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    6,194
    Location:
    KFAR
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Priyo
    Something else to keep in mind, the FR is not the end, it is a continuous journey. Find out what needs to be worked on and may be create a plan with the CFI to attain it in next 4-6 weeks? yesterday my last landing sucked, i was asked to do a spot landing and i was all set at base, Tower asked me to extend downwind and I ended up flying a long final which really messed with my judgement for a spot landing on the 500 ft marker. At short final I went behind the power curve and dragged her in , but i was already little high. to force a touch down i pulled the flap level (J bar on Cherokee, there is little more flap you can get if you pull after full flaps), i ended up stalling the plane about a feet over the runway, but it was more of a "thunk arrival". completely my mistake, i knew i wont make that 500 ft marker. i forced it anyway.

    the plan is to go up with the CFI later sometime and practice some of those short field approaches. I havent done them for a while and i dont go to short fields anyway. so that skill disappeared. and flying VFR practice approaches and going missed everytime i go up really messes up the normal landings
     
    Ryan F. likes this.
  38. Kenny Phillips

    Kenny Phillips En-Route

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2018
    Messages:
    3,992
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kenny Phillips
    Mine always take half a day. Or more. My CFII makes sure I know all of the latest 14 CFR goodies, and makes sure that I land at least 50% of the time on the mains.
     
  39. hindsight2020

    hindsight2020 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    5,050
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    hindsight2020
    Word.

    This thread certainly galvanizes my inclination to pursue token airline employment after the .mil. Part 61 can be such a clownshow of self-importants.
     
    Tarheelpilot likes this.
  40. PlasticCigar

    PlasticCigar Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2018
    Messages:
    283
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Plastic Cigar
    My understanding is that there have been studies showing a decreased accident rate with formal recurrent training and the insurance companies certainly seem to believe this. I believe this applies to real training and not just a “pencil whipped BFR.”

    My interpretation of what @Ryan F. was trying to say it that you get out of it what you put into it. If you spend the bare minimum time on it, don’t learn anything new or practice any emergency skills that are rarely used then it probably won’t be helpful to you and won’t affect your accident rate. If you use it as an opportunity to learn something and improve your skills then it may actually do something to improve your accident rate.

    My last flight review involved 4.5 hours of nonstop flying followed by a three page written critique from the CFI. He didn’t charge me for any of it but I would have paid a lot of money because it was priceless. He also has 20,000 more hours than I do so we both went into it with the understanding that it was going to be a lesson and not just an evaluation.

    During COVID I haven’t had any recurrent training for a year (except for a sim session I snuck in to get my approaches) and I feel much less comfortable than I used to, despite flying over 150 hours last year.

    I guess I never went into aviation with the goal of being “average” so if you’re comfortable with the average accident rate then keep doing what you’re doing. I’m not, so I try to do things to reduce my risk of dying in a plane crash.
     
    WannFly likes this.