Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Conducting flight review question
- Thread starter cheathco
- Start date
Not true unless he has to act as pilot in command because your biannual has expired. Even at that, he would qualify, per FAA, if he had time in any GA airplane. What will really set his qualifications is your insurance (assuming you want to be insured for the biannual flight) which may force him to have time in type but only required if your biannual has expired and he is the PIC.
Last edited:
n5lp
fugio ergo sum
There is no such requirement. My experience is that instructors want to do it in the RV because they are such fun airplanes.
And remember you don't have to over do it. Bi annual would be twice a year. 
Conducting flt review question
reason I asked for inst to do flt review with was because Bill Bently, CFI, RV6A, among other questionable actions, secretly cranked in near full up trim, which I would not have expected on a flt review. could have killed us both as our quick little birdsget up to speed fast and I had full forward elevator in and actually reduced power as we were still climbing. He kept loudly saying "fly the plane, I looked down to find trim tab at near full aft, cranked it back and blew my top, as he had alredy primed the pump telling me I was "amaturish" dont recal any rason to say that. He cancled the review at my outburst, then I proceeded to tell him what I thought of his sorry *** conduct (had been beligerent during the ground portion as well) Was wondering if any of insructors on here would do anything like that on a flt review? Charlie Heathco
reason I asked for inst to do flt review with was because Bill Bently, CFI, RV6A, among other questionable actions, secretly cranked in near full up trim, which I would not have expected on a flt review. could have killed us both as our quick little birdsget up to speed fast and I had full forward elevator in and actually reduced power as we were still climbing. He kept loudly saying "fly the plane, I looked down to find trim tab at near full aft, cranked it back and blew my top, as he had alredy primed the pump telling me I was "amaturish" dont recal any rason to say that. He cancled the review at my outburst, then I proceeded to tell him what I thought of his sorry *** conduct (had been beligerent during the ground portion as well) Was wondering if any of insructors on here would do anything like that on a flt review? Charlie Heathco
Strike69
Active Member
CFI Flight Review inputs
I do use various techniques to simulate possible failure modes in the aircraft (as long as it is possible - i.e. I wouldn't change the trim setting if it was a manual trim system but for an electric trim system, would simulate runaway trim WHILE the student was flying). Part of the FAA safety push is to use scenario-based training. (See FAA's Aviation Instructors Handbook https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/aviation_instructors_handbook/media/FAA-H-8083-9A.pdf). When I learned to fly it was Monkey-See Money-Do. Today, we still teach knowledge/comprehension elements but as training progresses, set-ups should shift to plausible scenarios to move the students abilities more toward application/analysis/synthisis levels. I tend to use my personal experience as set-ups (e.g. electrical failure at night, loss of airspeed indicator after take-off, engine failure at 800' on T/O).
BUT ... all of this is covered in the pre-brief and while the "when" is unknown, the failure should not be a surprise. To do something that may endanger the aircraft (or occupants), possibly result in aircraft damage or injury to anyone is unacceptable.
On another note, "ridcule" is a technique that is strongly DISCOURAGED in the above-mentioned handbook. (among others, see Figure 7-6 pg 133).
My $0.02.
Strike
I do use various techniques to simulate possible failure modes in the aircraft (as long as it is possible - i.e. I wouldn't change the trim setting if it was a manual trim system but for an electric trim system, would simulate runaway trim WHILE the student was flying). Part of the FAA safety push is to use scenario-based training. (See FAA's Aviation Instructors Handbook https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/aviation_instructors_handbook/media/FAA-H-8083-9A.pdf). When I learned to fly it was Monkey-See Money-Do. Today, we still teach knowledge/comprehension elements but as training progresses, set-ups should shift to plausible scenarios to move the students abilities more toward application/analysis/synthisis levels. I tend to use my personal experience as set-ups (e.g. electrical failure at night, loss of airspeed indicator after take-off, engine failure at 800' on T/O).
BUT ... all of this is covered in the pre-brief and while the "when" is unknown, the failure should not be a surprise. To do something that may endanger the aircraft (or occupants), possibly result in aircraft damage or injury to anyone is unacceptable.
On another note, "ridcule" is a technique that is strongly DISCOURAGED in the above-mentioned handbook. (among others, see Figure 7-6 pg 133).
My $0.02.
Strike
Charlie,
I've been flying since '58 and never had a Stand/Eval pilot or CFI do anything that could cause an accident. If that is his idea of testing then I would contact your local FAA reps and discuss it with them. He will kill someone some day and leave everyone wondering what happened in the accident. If he had given you runaway trim at altitude it would have been a different matter. I totally agree with Mike above!
Jim
I've been flying since '58 and never had a Stand/Eval pilot or CFI do anything that could cause an accident. If that is his idea of testing then I would contact your local FAA reps and discuss it with them. He will kill someone some day and leave everyone wondering what happened in the accident. If he had given you runaway trim at altitude it would have been a different matter. I totally agree with Mike above!
Jim
Last edited:
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Since when is full nose up trim a near death experience in an RV? Especially since one of the pilots knows about it, and is an experienced RV pilot himself?
And yes, on my PP checkride my flight examiner jumped on me for a minor mistake and started screaming at me and calling me a moron. I took it as a test to see if I would come unglued under pressure - I didn't, and I focused on flying the aircraft.
Flying is hard, and a review should challenge your skills. Sounds like the instructor accomplished his goals. Did he sign you off?
And yes, on my PP checkride my flight examiner jumped on me for a minor mistake and started screaming at me and calling me a moron. I took it as a test to see if I would come unglued under pressure - I didn't, and I focused on flying the aircraft.
Flying is hard, and a review should challenge your skills. Sounds like the instructor accomplished his goals. Did he sign you off?
cfiidon
Well Known Member
As an instructor, I must agree with this statement. It might be acceptable to crank in trim (not necessarily full) after simulating an approach to landing at a safe altitude, but I would not do that on an actual landing approach close to the ground. The OP did not state the full circumstances. Similarly, for multi-engine training we fail engines at a safe altitude, or during the takeoff roll, but NEVER during actual takeoff. It would be wonderful, real world experience to be able to do so, but the risk greatly exceeds the benefit. That's what simulators are for.
The flight review is not a pass/fail exam. It is a refresher activity and a wonderful opportunity to review skills, enhance skills, and focus on weaknesses. The person receiving the flight review is the PIC, as long as license, medical, and previous "unexpired" flight review is in place. Otherwise, the instructor will be PIC. All this should be discussed prior to the activity.
I'm not passing judgement on the OP nor the instructor here. I don't know all the circumstances.
Don
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Positively, stay far away from Mr. Bently.
Best,
Best,
David-aviator
Well Known Member
Setting full nose up trim is a valid training scenario but only to demonstrate the need to use a check list. The trim must be reset before take off. Run away trim in flight is a valid scenario in that a pilot must be able to deal with it just like a simulated engine failure.
With regard to the attitudinal relationship between an instructor and student, all that changed somewhere back in the 1960's. Before that the student's ego was the least considered factor in the training process, especially in the military. I thought the negative training environment was designed to weed out those who were not sure they wanted to be pilots, many did quit. It was not unusual to fly a good lesson and not be told so, but rather be beaten over the head because of some little miscue. The saving grace of all that was you knew you would get through if did your best, hung in there and did not give up. If they kicked you out, you were not meant to be a pilot. Quitting was not an option.
Does a cozy, friendly, positive training environment make for a better pilot? It does help the marketing of airplanes but I am not sure the pilot is a better than the guy who went through the old school. The psychology of learning changed in public school education about that time also. The theory being the student learns quicker in a positive environment than in a negative one.
But when you see the end result it makes one wonder if that conclusion is valid. The USA is ranked might low worldwide in terms of educating its young people. Maybe the environment where no one is threatened with getting wrapped on the head with a ruler is not the best way to go. I came up through that environment where nuns always carried a ruler and used it frequently.
I also remember a tough HS shop teacher (WWII Navy fighter pilot) who grabbed a kid by the throat one day when he was disrupting class, bent him over backward on a table and quietly told him to knock it off. It worked, there were no more disruptions in that class, the word was out. Today that same teacher would be charged with assault and fired.
Times have changed and as with most everything changing today, things are not getting better.
Maybe failing the trim was a little over the edge if indeed done at low altitude. But on the other hand, pilots who fly the same plane year after year in the same routines often get in a rut and complacent. When I hear you say you applied "full forward elevator", I hear exaggeration. Does this mean you might tend to flash a bit? I don't know. Wasn't there.
Even if this was a bad review, or the CFI was possibly too extreme, I recommend you look to yourself and make very sure there's nothing you can not learn about how you respond to abnormal or stressful situations. When I give reviews, I personally will look for those things that seem to be sensitive topics/actions (and that may indeed actually occur) and then try to incorporate them in the review. Like the guy who I reviewed in a Tri-pacer who let me repeatedly know how poorly they glided, etc. So, guess what - we lost the engine a couple of times. And I sleep better knowing we safely discussed and practiced getting that plane on the ground with an idling engine. Something he would never do otherwise.
Even if this was a bad review, or the CFI was possibly too extreme, I recommend you look to yourself and make very sure there's nothing you can not learn about how you respond to abnormal or stressful situations. When I give reviews, I personally will look for those things that seem to be sensitive topics/actions (and that may indeed actually occur) and then try to incorporate them in the review. Like the guy who I reviewed in a Tri-pacer who let me repeatedly know how poorly they glided, etc. So, guess what - we lost the engine a couple of times. And I sleep better knowing we safely discussed and practiced getting that plane on the ground with an idling engine. Something he would never do otherwise.
Last edited:
I wasn't there, so I can't possibly know the facts. But it sounds to me that there's plenty of blame to go around.
Remember who is hiring who. If the cfi is "belligerent" during the oral, or you strongly disagree with his instructional techniques during the flight, just tell him/her that there's a personality mismatch and that he's fired. Politely. These things happen.
I certainly hope I'm not seen that way. I don't call people names, but I do pull circuit breakers when the pilot isn't looking, etc. After all, this can happen. But never would I endanger the crew or aircraft. After all, I'm on board, too!
OTOH, I cannot think of any circumstance where it's appropriate to "blow one's top" while in flight, either from the left or right seat.
Word gets around, and maybe that's why you can't find anyone locally to fly with you.
Remember who is hiring who. If the cfi is "belligerent" during the oral, or you strongly disagree with his instructional techniques during the flight, just tell him/her that there's a personality mismatch and that he's fired. Politely. These things happen.
I certainly hope I'm not seen that way. I don't call people names, but I do pull circuit breakers when the pilot isn't looking, etc. After all, this can happen. But never would I endanger the crew or aircraft. After all, I'm on board, too!
OTOH, I cannot think of any circumstance where it's appropriate to "blow one's top" while in flight, either from the left or right seat.
Word gets around, and maybe that's why you can't find anyone locally to fly with you.
Of my forty years in aviation my instructors and examiners were extremely professional. I have never been at the receiving end nor have I ever seen anyone being ridculed ("screamed at") and that includes private, military, and airline training. Nor have I ever used it as a military instructor/flight examiner.
Last edited:
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
I'm not advocating screaming/belittling as an appropriate teaching/evaluation technique. I'm only pointing out that it happened; and I didn't find it distracting enough to pull attention away from flying the aircraft. I'm sure the point was only to rattle my cage and see if I could still do my ?job?.
?I passed the ride, so no harm, no foul.
?I passed the ride, so no harm, no foul.
Flight Review
The trim issue to me is a non event. If one cannot handle that easily then what happens in a real emergency.
Many years ago I took a type rating check ride with the FAA in a large four engine airplane. It included aborted takeoff just before V1, an engine failure just after V1, and an approach and landing with two engines out on the same side. Compared to this and more, the trim issue in an RV seems tame.
Far too many Flight Reviews are "Parker Pen" events.
The trim issue to me is a non event. If one cannot handle that easily then what happens in a real emergency.
Many years ago I took a type rating check ride with the FAA in a large four engine airplane. It included aborted takeoff just before V1, an engine failure just after V1, and an approach and landing with two engines out on the same side. Compared to this and more, the trim issue in an RV seems tame.
Far too many Flight Reviews are "Parker Pen" events.
RV Wannabe
Well Known Member
Last edited:
N941WR
Legacy Member
Can you site the reg's where this is spelled out?
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Please correct me if wrong, but a flight review is not "instruction". And further, there is no requirement that you conduct the review in the same type of aircraft you "normally" fly. If you own an RV-3, a flight review in a C-172 is just as valid as anything.
I consider it as a r-e-v-i-e-w of knowledge and pilot skills that would meet the private pilot test standards (PTS). When that is accomplished, the flight review is complete.
AOPA put this out several years ago. I still use it as a reference when I give a flight review.
http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All News/2000/Answers for Pilots (11)/sa03.pdf
AOPA put this out several years ago. I still use it as a reference when I give a flight review.
http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All News/2000/Answers for Pilots (11)/sa03.pdf
N941WR
Legacy Member
Thanks! Question 29 contained the answer I was looking for.
I ask because 20 years ago I know someone who got his BFR in an RV-3 while the CFI stayed on the ground, giving him instructions over the radio. It was a pretty good acro demonstration. At that time, the FAR's simply said the CFI must "Observe" the pilot and he interpreted that to be from the ground. They must have changed the FAR's at some point in the last 20 years. No surprise.
Those were the good 'ole days. At my company we would check out a B-747 or DC-10 for a few hours and do touch-n-goes at a local airport for the "new to the a/c pilots" before their first flight with paxs even though we had a fully rated sim. Too expensive and unheard of today. If only the paxs knew that first landings are done with them aboard.
David-aviator
Well Known Member
The FAR's could be rationalized, perhaps, to permit a flight review while observing from a ramp coffee shop, but any CFI doing so may be doing his last BFR if the FAA had occasion to review it. There is no intent in the FAR's to permit it. FAR 61.56 clearly states the review must include 1 hour of "flight training" and one hour of ground training. It would be quite a stretch to assume the CFI could accomplish 1 hour of flight training while sipping coffee and observing the flight with or without radio contact.
I had a request to do that for a VEZ pilot some years back because he said his airplane was too heavy to carry 2 pilots. I politely declined and he flew with someone else in the Cessna.
Please help me, because I cannot find the specific reference. Where does it say that the "flight training" has to occur with the instructor in the flying aircraft? I'm not talking prudent, advisable or otherwise - looking for the FAR reference.
Related to this (sort of), how does one get a letter of authorization for high performance single seat plane? Many moons ago, as I recall, they came from ground or (other aircraft) flight observation.
David-aviator
Well Known Member
Good question for the FAA. They wrote the FAR's, take it up with them. Flight training is authorized in an approved simulator (not a flying airplane).
If you find a FSDO office that will agree flight training does not have to occur in an airplane or approved simulator, it would be an interesting interpretation of the FAR's and nice to know. Be sure to get the inspectors name as a reference should some other method of flight training be questioned by anyone.
jjconstant
Well Known Member
I have been taking private lessons of various kinds since I was 6 years old and have quite a lot of exposure to MANY different teaching techniques. This hits on a pet peeve of mine..."old school" (as an excuse) teaching techniques that are simply abusive. There are lots of reasons for it that I'm happy to go into, some of which are in the "effective" column but effective doesn't mean the only way or the best way. Yes, some people are comfortable around abuse and can function perfectly well when exposed to it. That doesn't mean it's not abusive. It's also not only completely unnecessary, but it frequently causes people who would otherwise be perfectly good pilots to say "the heck with this hobby, I don't need it, it's expensive and populated by real jerks." Do we really need to be "culling" and "elitist" to our own detriment?
One of the problems is that frequently teachers who use this technique are so used to it, they don't view it as anything other than normal. I've known many teachers that feel that if their student isn't on the edge of tears or even outright weeping, they didn't "push" them hard enough.
I've had the privelege of studying with both bad and great and have learned a lot from both. From the bad I have learned what not to do and the reasons they do it and from the good I've learned both what was being taught and HOW it was being taught. Some of the most accomplished people I know were taught by both abusers and non-abusers. It's simply uneccesary to be abusive.
There is an important difference between demanding and abusive. The important thing is to have standards and stick to them. That will create enough performance stress without yelling. Those that can't meet the standards will weed themselves out or run out of money trying. Those that can learn, will.
If anyone finds themselves with an instructor who is belittling them, resorting to insults or yelling and it makes them react negatively, stop the "lesson" return to the airport and chalk that one up to "washing out" the bad teachers. It will be a Darwinian process resulting in fewer and fewer students hiring that kind of teacher. Then maybe our hobby can get back to growing.
One of the problems is that frequently teachers who use this technique are so used to it, they don't view it as anything other than normal. I've known many teachers that feel that if their student isn't on the edge of tears or even outright weeping, they didn't "push" them hard enough.
I've had the privelege of studying with both bad and great and have learned a lot from both. From the bad I have learned what not to do and the reasons they do it and from the good I've learned both what was being taught and HOW it was being taught. Some of the most accomplished people I know were taught by both abusers and non-abusers. It's simply uneccesary to be abusive.
There is an important difference between demanding and abusive. The important thing is to have standards and stick to them. That will create enough performance stress without yelling. Those that can't meet the standards will weed themselves out or run out of money trying. Those that can learn, will.
If anyone finds themselves with an instructor who is belittling them, resorting to insults or yelling and it makes them react negatively, stop the "lesson" return to the airport and chalk that one up to "washing out" the bad teachers. It will be a Darwinian process resulting in fewer and fewer students hiring that kind of teacher. Then maybe our hobby can get back to growing.
Flight Review
When the BFR was originally implemented it was permissible for the CFI to observe from the ground in the case of a single place airplane. I believe this went away with the change to the terminology Flight Review.
In the 30's, maybe even into the late 40's, some or possibly all of a flight test by the CAA was conducted by observing from the ground. This was especially true of spins in the era when they were required.
A part 121 or 135 proficiency check eliminates the need for a flight review. Virtually all the 121 checks and many of the 135 checks are done in simulators. Depends on the certification of the simulator.
When the BFR was originally implemented it was permissible for the CFI to observe from the ground in the case of a single place airplane. I believe this went away with the change to the terminology Flight Review.
In the 30's, maybe even into the late 40's, some or possibly all of a flight test by the CAA was conducted by observing from the ground. This was especially true of spins in the era when they were required.
A part 121 or 135 proficiency check eliminates the need for a flight review. Virtually all the 121 checks and many of the 135 checks are done in simulators. Depends on the certification of the simulator.
Ahhhh...the memories of my instrument instructor hitting the back of my helmet for missing the handoff to departure on climb out. What a great learning technique. The difference was Uncle Sam was paying for the training - but still just as ineffective....
I seriously cannot even imagine a civilian instructor - that I am paying - berating or yelling, etc. We would be practicing an emergency descent and landing back to the FBO ASAP! Being frank and honest is expected, but there is no way I would tolerate an unprofessional instructor. One can be a great aviator, but a horrible teacher.
BTW Jeremy, you have a very unique profile - pretty cool!
