Toobuilder

Toobuilder

Well Known Member
A pilot and an instructor knock out a BFR six months ago. Today, the instructor informs the pilot that at the time of the BFR six months ago, the INSTRUCTOR'S BFR had lapsed, which seemingly renders the pilot's BFR null and void. Assuming this is an honest oversight on the part of the instructor, and aside from the pilot needing a BFR, pronto, what is the appropriate course of action for the pilot concerning all the hours logged in the last six months?
 
Last edited:
Maybe.........

IF the pilot's BFR had not actually expired, there is no requirement for the CFI's BFR to be current for him to give a BFR. The pilot is the PIC during a BFR flight. If the pilot's BFR had expired, then the BFR is invalid, as there was no PIC. In fact, the whole flight would have been illegal (in this HYPOTHETICAL situation).
 
And to add to that, the CFI doesn't even needs a current medical if the pilot's medical is current.
 
OK, "hypothetically", the pilot is in the clear: Just for discussions sake, we'll assume the pilot was still current (BFR not expired), and the instructor's cert was valid.

"Hypothetically", the pilot is relieved. :)

Thanks
 
Flight Review in Question

Good Evening Toolbuilder,

This is an interesting hypothetical, and you will find the responses are a strong function of the personalities of the responders!

As far as I can determine, this situation is not explicitly addressed in the regulations - I have briefly reviewed what would seem to be the applicable regulations:
Part 61 definition of an Authorized Instructor
61.56 Flight Review
61.193 Flight Instructor Privileges
61.195 Flight Instructor Limitation

I'm not going to print these out here, but I'm sure someone in the ensuing thread will post the entire contents!

Odd as it may seem, none of these regulations explicitly prohibit an instructor from conducting a Flight Review (which does involve Flight Instruction), without having a current Flight Review themselves.

Without a current Flight Review, the instructor could not ACT as PIC. So unless the pilot was legal to act as PIC (rated, not-yet-expired Flight Review, and medical) and did act as PIC, then the entire flight was not legal, and that would certainly seem to taint the Flight Review.

However, if the pilot was legally ACTING PIC during the flight, then nothing in the above regulations seems to prohibit the validity of the Flight Review. It is very possible that this seeming loophole is NOT an oversight by the FAA, and here is why:

If the Flight Instructor's certificate is valid (and that is not dependent on their Flight Review or Medical status), then the instructor must have demonstrated 'proficiency' to the satisfaction of the FAA during the proceeding 24 months, including the review of the part 61 and part 91 regulations that make up the bulk of the review. There are a number of ways for flight instructors to satisfy the FAA in this regard, and I won't detail them here; the point is simply that an unexpired flight instructor certificate is defacto evidence that the instructor has some FAA oversight/evaluation within the preceding 24 months and found to be satisfactory - Hey, that's a bit like a Flight Review.

While an Instructor Certificate renewal is not a substitute for a Flight Review, an Instructor certificate renewal CAN serve in lieu of the Ground Instruction portion of the Flight Review (the Flight Review requires a minimum of one hour Ground Instruction and one hour Flight Instruction).

So it is very possible that an enlightened FAA does not intend to impose a current Flight Review requirement for instructors giving Flight Reviews where they are not acting as PIC, because the instructor has the required currency of knowledge to give the review, and the PIC pilot has the requisites to ensure the legality and safety of flight.

If the Flight Review included hooded instrument work, then the instructor becomes a required crewmember and must hold a current medical, but I still don't see an explicit requirement for the instructor to have a current Flight Review, as he is not necessarily ACTING as PIC.

But let's suppose the pilot was not legal PIC at the time of the review, or does not buy the arguments above - what are the options?

It is easy enough to get another Flight Review before further acting as PIC. If the pilot is concerned enough to get a another review, he should probably ask the instructor to show evidence of a current Flight Review!

Now lets discuss the pilot's logs:

All that is required to LOG PIC is to be the sole manipulator of the controls for an aircraft for which one is rated. No medical or current flight review required. So if the pilot had a good buddy who agreed to ACT as PIC (be responsible for the flight) while our non-current pilot manipulated the controls, then the logging of such time is not evidence of anything improper.

However, more likely is that much of the pilot's LOGGED PIC is when he was ACTING as PIC. The implied question is whether the pilot should destroy this evidence or at least not count it toward piloting experience.

To the first part of the question, I don't know why anyone who was only the victim (not even the perpetrator) of an honest mistake would feel a need to cover up that fact with dishonesty.

The second part of the question would be related to how parties interested in the pilots flight experience would react to the situation. Those parties might include:
The FAA (because experience is required for some ratings/privileges)
Insurance Companies (to help them rate risk)
Employers (who may evaluate based on flight experience)

Depending on the pilot's concern about these parties discovering and acting on the circumstances, the pilot could simply not include these flights when reporting experience. I doubt any insurance company would deny coverage in these circumstances (I seriously doubt they would ask to see the logbook of the instructor who gave you the flight review, and I don't see how the pilot's contract with the insurance company could compel a third party such as the flight instructor to provide such records). However, there are ALWAYS those who say the pilot's insurance won't pay, and this thread will include such folks.

The FAA regulations require Flight Instructors to keep a record of all flight instruction for at least 3 years. I am not aware of any other FAA recordkeeping with regard to Flight Reviews.

Perhaps the information above will be useful to our hypothetical pilot as he/she ponders what would actions would be appropriate.

Regards,
Blake Harral
RV-4 N72RV
 
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?
 
No one seems to have mentioned this, but would it be appropriate to file a NASA safety form in this case? That might provide your "friend" with an additional layer of protection in the event this comes to light of the authorities.
 
This brings up an interesting point.

How many of us have actually asked an instructor, A&P, IA, etc. to see their license (medical and log book entry in the case of the CFI)? Almost 100% of us take pilots and mechanics at their word.

Yet, I know of a few people who were duped into letting a bogus IA sign off their Annual Inspections (certified aircraft). This caused them some issues which were eventually sorted out. (Did you know a mechanic must have his license when working on aircraft? I certainly did not.)

Knowing this, I asked the instructor who gave me my last BFR to show me his credentials. He took no offence to the request and was impressed I thought to ask.
 
Back in my full time flight instruction days I was unable to get a medical due to the Dr's schedule. Just to cover my bases I inquired with the local FSDO that I was truley "legal" to give flight instruction whithout it. They verified that if the student was a rated pilot and legal PIC that it was ok. With a real "student" (still working on a private) no go. One would assume the same thought process would apply to a BFR. One should also expect different interpretations from different FSDO's, so your mileage may vary.

The NASA form is technically only good if filed within 10 days (going off memory for timeframe) of the event. Technically not valid if filed 6 months afterward. I don't believe it mentions 10 days from when you became aware of it.

One would hope the instructor is sufficiently apologetic, and embarassed.:eek: Next one on the house?

Also, never thought about it in the instruction realm, but when flying corporate with different people I would introduce myself and automatically provide my documents as to being qualified to fly the aircraft . Once that was done they were usually happy to reciprocate. It eliminated the uncomfortable "can I see your stuff?" (one of our pilots got bitten, pax on, in flight new pilot says "its great to be back in a lear! I havent flown one in 2 years!) I have also been requiring flight review people (prety much all the instruction I do anymore) to show me their new plastic licenses. No new one, no go for a flight review. Joy ride? Sure, I'm PIC. I have only caught one so far.

Mark
 
Toobuilder said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
another perspective

Toobuilder said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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. :)
mcdonnelldouglasah64dlo.jpg
 
Last edited:
jrs14855 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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,
 
? 61.56 Flight review.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The review must include:

Sorry, but 1 hour of flight training is required for a flight review.

Also, semantic I know, but BFR's do not exist anymore either. For some reason the FAA changed it to strictly a Flight Review. Of course it is required on a biennial schedule, so go figure.

Mark
 
Another misconception of the flight review is that you can fail it. A flight review is not a check ride and cannot be failed in the sense of walking away with a letter saying you "failed" the flight review. If not acceptable it would just be training in your logbook. A flight instructor would then suggest more training and not sign off the review.

Mark
 
Last edited:
Part 121/135 Check logging

How do you guys log your airline check as a flight review. I was checked out a while back in a Cessna again but had not done any GA flying for a few years before that. I wondered then if there was a special way of logging my airline checkride. Do your airlines records of your flight count, or do you make your own logbook entry when you get a check by the airline?
 
RVG8tor said:
How do you guys log your airline check as a flight review. I was checked out a while back in a Cessna again but had not done any GA flying for a few years before that. I wondered then if there was a special way of logging my airline checkride. Do your airlines records of your flight count, or do you make your own logbook entry when you get a check by the airline?
Click to expand...

An airline check is not a flight review. The FAR's exempt the need for a flight review if you accomplish a 135/121 check, type proficiency check, military check.

I usually try to keep a copy of the check ride form. I don't always get that accomplished. The airline or 135 operator is required to keep that stuff on file. A problem could arise if the airline no longer exists before your 2 years are up. I have never transfered that to a logbook, or logged airline sim time. Actually I wish I had never logged the sim time I did back as a student. It just muddies up the logbook later in my opinion.

One smarter than I, buddy of mine has kept a ring binder with every 135/121 check form from every check he has ever had. He says interviewers love it.

Mark
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.