|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

03-04-2011, 09:50 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 22
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toobuilder
Thanks for the resonse everyone. Blake, you touched on something that brings up another question: IF the pilot and instructor BOTH had lapsed BFRs thereby making the flight "illegal" (no "qualified" pilot on board), would the feds view the BFR itself as invalid? It seems to reason that if the instructor is still qualified to instruct without a current BFR, the pilot is still qualified to be evaluated without a BFR. Within that line of reasoning, it would seem that the PIC TIME logged during the BFR wouldn't count, but the pilot became legal again as soon as the ink dried in the logbook entry, so all subsequent time was in the clear. Does that make sense?
|
Good Evening Michael,
The regulations do not directly address this, so all we are left with are interpretations of intent. I understand your line of reasoning, and I am inclined to agree with it, but my opinion is of little importance regarding the pilot's risk, and his/her comfort factor with that risk.
The real question for the pilot is whether the pilot would be comfortable defending that line of reasoning at an FAA/NTSB hearing. In the situation you are citing, the pilot is wanting to derive some 'credit' from an illegal flight. If the agreement between the pilot and instructor was that the instructor would act as PIC, then the _pilot_ has done nothing illegal, and that strengthens the pilot's case. However, you can understand that authorities are often reluctant to allow any benefit from illegal activities, because they feel it would encourage such transgressions.
Suppose the instructor and pilot, upon discovering the transgression, were to immediately address it, by completing the instructor's Flight Review, and re-conducting the pilots Flight Review. If the instructor and pilot were to report this at the hearing, then the authorities are likely to conclude that the instructor and pilot are showing the appropriate contrition and respect, and the outcome is likely to be better.
Since most pilots _like_ to fly, practice and learn, there seems very little downside to re-conducting a flight review.
Regards,
Blake
|

03-05-2011, 06:21 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 2,053
|
|
Here's my take on this,
As a pilot to act as PIC, you need to have a "flight review" by an "authorized instructor". That is, someone who is actually holds a current flight instructor certificate. The FAR does not specify your obligation to verify that the Flight Instructor have a current medical and flight review. The Flight Instructor has that duty themselves.
As long as the person has a flight instructor certificate that has not lapsed, suspended or revoked. Your BFR would be valid. Even if your own medical was invalid and there was no one acting PIC during the flight review.
As a flight instructor it is my responsibility to maintain my own biannual flight review, medical and instructor certificate. If I let either lapse and make an endorsement for someone to operate PIC and the FAA finds this out, yikes...I am in big trouble. However, they are not going to track down everyone whose log books I endorsed and undo my signatures.
This all said. I know an instructor who let their medical lapse, he was "trying to get one scheduled" and had a Class B airspace incursion and a subsequent visit from the FAA. Who of course, discovered his old medical. Let's just say, things did not go so well. The other person in the plane had a commercial pilot certificate but no current flight review. Pretty much the same scenario you described. In the end the flight instructor was held responsible because he was the "highest" rated pilot breaking the rule. I think they gave him a 30 day suspension, but I don't recall for sure. It may have been just a tongue thrashing as well.
__________________
Tony Phillips
N524AP, RV 9 (tail wheel)
|

03-05-2011, 07:45 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 778
|
|
another perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toobuilder
Thanks for the resonse everyone. Blake, you touched on something that brings up another question: IF the pilot and instructor BOTH had lapsed BFRs thereby making the flight "illegal" (no "qualified" pilot on board), would the feds view the BFR itself as invalid? It seems to reason that if the instructor is still qualified to instruct without a current BFR, the pilot is still qualified to be evaluated without a BFR. Within that line of reasoning, it would seem that the PIC TIME logged during the BFR wouldn't count, but the pilot became legal again as soon as the ink dried in the logbook entry, so all subsequent time was in the clear. Does that make sense?
|
I'm with those who have pointed out that the regs are not exactly clear on this. However, I would expect the FAA to find that the CFI had violated multiple regs, including 91.13 ("careless and reckless"), in the above scenario. Perhaps they might find on this basis that his behaviour had invalidated his authorization to conduct a flight review? Maybe a stretch, but who knows.
Were it me I'd get another flight review, from a different instructor, just to remove any doubt.
__________________
Alan Carroll
RV-8 N12AC
|

03-05-2011, 09:32 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lake Havasu City AZ
Posts: 2,393
|
|
flight review
A part 135 or part 121 checkride may be used in lieu of the flight review. Check airman administering 135 and 121 check rides do NOT NECESSARILY have to have a current CFI. There may be military substitutes accepted as well.
|

03-05-2011, 11:22 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Stuart, FL /Hartford, CT/Virgin Gorda,BVI
Posts: 3,122
|
|
interesting post .........
to me because i am heading down to ocean helicopters for a BFR in a R-44 in about an hour. its seems to me that every time i get a BFR i kook at the instructors endorsement. always the expiration of the CFI's cert stands out in my mind. i check it. its ok, im ok. its not ok, i dont PAY!!!!!!!!
point # 2, a few years ago i was under investigation by the FAA, long story short, for flying under some wires in a helo and they found out during the investigation that my BFR in the R-44 was not current. i kept all the pic time in my log book and the FAA had nothing to say about that pic time. at this point that was over two years ago and i think i will keep that time in my log book. this is not a hypothetical situation.  
__________________
TURBO YES =VAF= Payed Jan2019
Ed D'Arcy
RV6-A 5,200+ hrs, R-44 1,600 hrs, Helicycle 320 hrs, gyro sold,35,000 miles flown in 2015 
Stuart, Fl / S WINDSOR,Ct / Virgin Gorda, BVI - under major repair from hurricane damage
VAF #840 EAA AOPA FAC FABA QB SPA
addicted pickle ball player
https://i.postimg.cc/tn3h4svg/IMG-3101.jpg
Last edited by turbo : 03-05-2011 at 11:24 AM.
|

03-05-2011, 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shorewood, Il.
Posts: 230
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs14855
A part 135 or part 121 checkride may be used in lieu of the flight review. Check airman administering 135 and 121 check rides do NOT NECESSARILY have to have a current CFI. There may be military substitutes accepted as well.
|
This is all true concerning the 135/121 stuff (military stuff I have no idea, never seen anything like that in the regs and I am not military).
Just adding a couple of points: The regs specifically exempt the flight review requirement for someone with a 135/121 checkride, and also a type rating proficiency check by someplace like Flight Safety regardless of if it is 135/121. A 135/121 check airman is approved and checked regularly by the FAA. There is no requirement for them to ever have been a CFI.
Mark
|

03-05-2011, 04:25 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gold Hill, NC25
Posts: 2,400
|
|
If the question is, "does the CFI need a current med and/or BRF"?
Id say no.
A CFI can give a BFR and not even be in the plane. He is excercising his CFI certificate in that case and nothing else.
Done in single holers all the time.
__________________
Kahuna
6A, S8 ,
Gold Hill, NC25
|

03-05-2011, 05:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: na
Posts: 1,457
|
|
My annual military check-ride (NATOPS check) counts as a BFR.
|

03-06-2011, 04:42 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shorewood, Il.
Posts: 230
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahuna
A CFI can give a BFR and not even be in the plane. He is excercising his CFI certificate in that case and nothing else.
Done in single holers all the time.
|
Interesting, gotta be combining a group of regs that I have never thought to combine before.
Is there something that says flight training can be accomplished by observing from the ground and critiquing later? If not, how can the required 1 hour of flight training be accomplished then? Are you doing it in combination with a "flight simulator or flight training device must be used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter. Unless the flight review is undertaken in a flight simulator that is approved for landings, the applicant must meet the takeoff and landing requirements of ?61.57(a) or ?61.57(b) of this part." are you then watching the landings for currency?
Mark
|

03-06-2011, 05:12 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,840
|
|
Mark, a BFR is not "Flight training"...
...but rather observing a licensed pilot's flying abilities....which can be done from the ground. A prescribed set of maneuvers is laid out by the CFI and the pilot then goes out and performs them under observation of the CFI. Two-way radio comunications are often also used between the two.
Years ago, when ag pilots had to have "certificates of demonstrated ability", we were observed from the ground, by the FAA, as we made low passes and turnarounds, simulating spraying a field, with only water in the hopper. Only in the last decade have two-hole ag airplanes been introduced.
Best,
__________________
Pierre Smith
RV-10, 510 TT
RV6A (Sojourner) 180 HP, Catto 3 Bl (502Hrs), gone...and already missed
Air Tractor AT 502B PT 6-15 Sold
Air Tractor 402 PT-6-20 Sold
EAA Flight Advisor/CFI/Tech Counselor
Louisville, Ga
It's never skill or craftsmanship that completes airplanes, it's the will to do so,
Patrick Kenny, EAA 275132
Dues gladly paid!
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:27 AM.
|