Flight Review Scenario

[Richard]

The thread, BFR Tailwheel Question, started it....

Scenario:

Peter is a Pt 121 check airman, he possesses a current CFI-A certificate. He hasn't flown anything smaller than a B-737 in the last 20 years.

John has a Pvt Pilot certificate, no limitations, and is current to act PIC. He needs a flight review in the next 30 days.

Which FAR, if any, would be violated if Peter were to conduct a flight review to John using John's C-172?

Would it make any difference if John has not complied with 61.57?

 

[TMetzinger]

This one seems easier.

If neither the CFI or the student are considered a "passenger" on an instructional flight, then Peter can act as PIC in the 172 - the recency of experience stuff all refers to carrying passengers. Peter clearly has a current flight review.

John can also act as PIC. If Peter's not a passenger, than 61.57 doesn't apply here either.

So, again, by the strict reading of the regs - I'd say that Peter can give John the review.

 

[Richard]

So contrast this to the TW flight review...in this scenario you have what very well may be a lesser qualified CFI able to give a flight review yet it is legal and permissable.

What I mean is given the anecdotal opinion of numerous CFIs, the "heavy iron" pilot is the hardest on the small GA planes. That due to lack of recency (in GA small aircraft) on the part of the Pt 121 pilot.

 

[poadeleted20]

So contrast this to the TW flight review...in this scenario you have what very well may be a lesser qualified CFI able to give a flight review yet it is legal and permissable.

The difference is that Flight Standards considers John to be an "authorized instructor" in that 172 on the strength of his CFI-ASE, whereas they say an instructor without a 61.31 tailwheel endorsement is not an "authorized instructor" for giving a flight review in a TW airplane. The fact that Peter is probably a poor choice for giving John's flight review does not change the fact that Flight Standards feels he is authorized to do so.

That is no different than me giving a flight review in a TW airplane. I'm TW-qualified, but lack sufficient TW experience (recent or otherwise) to be a good judge of the PIC proficiency of a pilot in a TW airplane, so while I'd be considered an "authorized instructor" for the purpose of giving a flight review in a TW airplane, I would be a poor choice if you wanted a meaningful review (and for that reason, would decline the job anyway).

 

[Greg Bockelman]

whereas they say an instructor without a 61.31 tailwheel endorsement is not an "authorized instructor" for giving a flight review in a TW airplane.

61.1 defines an Authorized Instructor as

(2) Authorized instructor means—

(ii) A person who holds a current flight instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chapter when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate; or

Irrelevant sections edited out. When I look at that section of my CFI certificate, I see nothing on it that would lead me to believe that I can or cannot give a flight review in a TW airplane. Being the prudent CFI that I like to believe that I am, I know I can't take any regulation at face value so I went to the Interpretation Search of the FAA website for further guidance. I tried several search strings and tried to wade through the noise but I found no interpretation that prevents a not TW CFI from giving a Flight review.

Now, this is sort of an academic exercise, because I am TW qualified and would have no problem giving a FR, or training for that matter, in a variety of TW airplanes. But I would also not have a problem, based on a literal reading of 61.1, with another CFI who is NOT TW endorsed giving me a FR as long as he is comfortable with it. Reality is, if I screw something up on a landing with my airplane, things have gone so horribly wrong that the CFI is probably not going to be able to save me anyway.

Now, you say that Flight Standards has said that a not TW CFI is NOT an authorized instructor, contrary to a literal reading of 61.1. I cannot find that ruling anywhere. How am I, as a prudent pilot and CFI supposed to know that Flight Standards has made a ruling contrary to the FAR's if I can't do a search and find that ruling for myself?

 

[TMetzinger]

And Flight Standards doesn't make rulings, at least not legal ones.

What they meant when they wrote the reg;
What they actually wrote;
And what the Counsel says what they wrote actually MEANS

Are sometimes three different things. Not very often - compared to other organizations, both government and private sector, the FAA does a pretty good job writing consistent policy.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Irrelevant sections edited out. When I look at that section of my CFI certificate, I see nothing on it that would lead me to believe that I can or cannot give a flight review in a TW airplane.

Greg,

That was gonna be my exact question after reading the FAQ segment that Ron posted in the other thread.

I've never heard of a Flight Instructor certificate that says "Tailwheel" on it.

 

[jmaynard]

I've never heard of a Flight Instructor certificate that says "Tailwheel" on it.

Actually, for a CFI-SP, 61.415(e) imposes more or less this requirement: 5 hours of flight time in an aircraft in the same set of aircraft as the one in which instruction is being given. Tricycle gear aircraft are in a different set from taildraggers.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Actually, for a CFI-SP, 61.415(e) imposes more or less this requirement: 5 hours of flight time in an aircraft in the same set of aircraft as the one in which instruction is being given. Tricycle gear aircraft are in a different set from taildraggers.

Yeah, but that does not apply to us non SP pilots. :smile:

 

[jmaynard]

Yeah, but that does not apply to us non SP pilots. :smile:

True. I was merely commenting on Kent's reply.

 

[poadeleted20]

As noted above, what I posted on this subject is what Flight Standards said (in a document no longer available to the public). It is not a "ruling," or a "legal interpretation" of the regulation they wrote -- that would have to come from the Chief Counsel, and that question has not been asked of that office. However, if a non-TW-endorsed instructor gives a flight review in a TW airplane, Flight Standards can violate that instructor, and the only way that instructor beats the rap is if the Chief Counsel says Flight Standards is wrong about what they said in that FAQ file. I can count the number of times that's happened over those nearly 700 FAQ's without running out of fingers -- hence, not a good bet. Choose wisely.

Alternatively, you can ask the question officially of the Chief Counsel, and you'll get a legally-binding answer sometime in May.

 

[wabower]

Alternatively, you can ask the question officially of the Chief Counsel, and you'll get a legally-binding answer sometime in May.

What's time to a pig?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Alternatively, you can ask the question officially of the Chief Counsel, and you'll get a legally-binding answer sometime in May.

If at all. I have YET to get an answer out of them.

Question, Ron. Since that document no longer exists, without a Chief Counsel ruling, how can anyone get violated, since the regulations do not address the issue. In fact, based on a literal reading of the regulations, it would appear that it is legal. They can't get violated based on the opinion in that document since it does not exist.

Also, and I might start a new thread on this, if this interpretation is held up, by extension, a CFI without a High Performance endorsement could not give a flight review in a 182.

 

[poadeleted20]

If at all. I have YET to get an answer out of them.

I've had no problem with it, and generally get a reply almost exactly four months to the day of my inquiry.

Question, Ron. Since that document no longer exists,

It exists, but is not distributed outside the FAA.

without a Chief Counsel ruling, how can anyone get violated,

Simple -- the inspector fills out the paperwork in accordance with the Flight Standards Service guidance and passes it to the Regional Cousel. The RC looks at the FAQ file, and processes the enforcement package. If the RC doesn't like John's logic, the RC passes it to the Chief Counsel for a legal opinion, which agrees with John about 99 times out of 100, especially since the first thing Rebecca McPherson (Asst CC for Regulation) does is ask John what the rule means. Only if Ms. McPherson feels John's position is clearly contrary to the written rule (as with the definition of "rated" in 61.51(e)) does John's position get overruled.

Also, and I might start a new thread on this, if this interpretation is held up, by extension, a CFI without a High Performance endorsement could not give a flight review in a 182.

And I believe John Lynch would say that is correct.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

As noted above, what I posted on this subject is what Flight Standards said (in a document no longer available to the public).

Does that mean it no longer exists? Or does it mean that us mere mortals can no longer use it as a reference?

Regardless, if the powers that be can say the regs mean what THEY SAY they mean then we are ALL in deep doo doo.

I have always said that the feds can violate us at any time for anything. It is sounding more and more like if the feds want to go on a witch hunt, there isn't a damned thing anybody can do about it. Turn in your certificate here and open your wallet or go straight to jail.

 

[TMetzinger]

Does that mean it no longer exists? Or does it mean that us mere mortals can no longer use it as a reference?

Regardless, if the powers that be can say the regs mean what THEY SAY they mean then we are ALL in deep doo doo.

I have always said that the feds can violate us at any time for anything. It is sounding more and more like if the feds want to go on a witch hunt, there isn't a damned thing anybody can do about it. Turn in your certificate here and open your wallet or go straight to jail.

Um - Jail is not one of the things the inspectors can do to you. This is all administrative law, not criminal.

 

[poadeleted20]

Does that mean it no longer exists? Or does it mean that us mere mortals can no longer use it as a reference?

I believe it still exists, but is not accessible outside the FAA Flight Standards Service. I have a copy of the last publicly accessible edition, which I am attaching below. You can certainly use it as a reference to understand AFS-800's intent when they wrote the rules, but it is not legally binding.

PS: Can't upload it from here -- will try again from home on Sunday.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I believe it still exists, but is not accessible outside the FAA Flight Standards Service. I have a copy of the last publicly accessible edition, which I am attaching below. You can certainly use it as a reference to understand AFS-800's intent when they wrote the rules, but it is not legally binding.

PS: Can't upload it from here -- will try again from home on Sunday.

I already have it.

 

[KennyFlys]

I believe it still exists, but is not accessible outside the FAA Flight Standards Service. I have a copy of the last publicly accessible edition, which I am attaching below. You can certainly use it as a reference to understand AFS-800's intent when they wrote the rules, but it is not legally binding.

PS: Can't upload it from here -- will try again from home on Sunday.

I have "REVISION #22, DATE: July 22, 2005." Is that the last one you have?

 

[poadeleted20]

I have "REVISION #22, DATE: July 22, 2005." Is that the last one you have?

Yes. To my knowledge, that is the last one publicly released.