BFR? Sport pilot? Question...

Tram

Tram

Well-Known Member
I've got a buddy who is gonna fly as Sport Pilot, but he's out of BFR.

Are we correct in understanding that sport pilots still require a BFR just like private pilots? He has no current medical but has a valid drivers license. After a BFR, he should be good to go, right?
 
And technically, it's now a FR. They dropped "biennial" from the name, although it's still a 24 month requirement.
 
msmspilot said:
And technically, it's now a FR. They dropped "biennial" from the name, although it's still a 24 month requirement.
Click to expand...


would you then say that this Flight Review is required biennially?


it's a Biennial Flight Review regardless of what the official name is, because it is needed every 2 years.

biennial Flight Review. there, I lowercased the biennial to indicate that it is not part of the proper noun 'Flight Review'
 
Here is a summation of everything I know about sport pilot and recreational pilot's certificates...

I won't sign a logbook of any of them.

That was my answer for my CFI ride when the DPE asked me about it... she laughed and said "Great answer!"
 
jwp_145 said:
Here is a summation of everything I know about sport pilot and recreational pilot's certificates...

I won't sign a logbook of any of them.

That was my answer for my CFI ride when the DPE asked me about it... she laughed and said "Great answer!"
Click to expand...

Any particular reason why you don't? I'm just curious to see the logic behind that decision.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Any particular reason why you don't? I'm just curious to see the logic behind that decision.
Click to expand...

I flew with a few sport pilots. One could barely read the sectional chart without two pairs of glasses and he nearly killed me during a stall, as he locked up on the stick and wouldn't let go. The scariest flight I have ever had as an instructor.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Any particular reason why you don't? I'm just curious to see the logic behind that decision.
Click to expand...


The fact that no medical is needed is my reason. And the required training just doesn't boad well with me. For either certificate. Not to bash sport pilots, but when you need an endorsement to fly into a controlled airport, I see it as a perpetual student pilot.
 
elmetal said:
would you then say that this Flight Review is required biennially?


it's a Biennial Flight Review regardless of what the official name is, because it is needed every 2 years.

biennial Flight Review. there, I lowercased the biennial to indicate that it is not part of the proper noun 'Flight Review'
Click to expand...

Look, the regulations used to say "Biennial Flight Review." They now say "Flight Review" which is required every 24 calendar months. I was given two reasons for the change.

1) The FAA is trying to encourage pilots to get more than the minimum amount of recurrent training required. The flight review comes from an old safety program where the pilot was encouraged, but not required, to get training every 24 months. The accident rate for these pilots was enough lower than the pilots who were not getting the training, the FAA made it mandatory. The new WINGS program is seeing similar effects.

2) After all these years, people don't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial."

Either one works for me. It's a technicality, but much of the regulations are built on the technicalities. If you want to keep calling it a BFR, it doesn't bother me a bit.
 
msmspilot said:
Look, the regulations used to say "Biennial Flight Review." They now say "Flight Review" which is required every 24 calendar months. I was given two reasons for the change.

1) The FAA is trying to encourage pilots to get more than the minimum amount of recurrent training required. The flight review comes from an old safety program where the pilot was encouraged, but not required, to get training every 24 months. The accident rate for these pilots was enough lower than the pilots who were not getting the training, the FAA made it mandatory. The new WINGS program is seeing similar effects.

2) After all these years, people don't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial."

Either one works for me. It's a technicality, but much of the regulations are built on the technicalities. If you want to keep calling it a BFR, it doesn't bother me a bit.
Click to expand...
Love #2. A #3 I heard, sort of the opposite take on your #1, was that, for those who did understand "biennial," some thought you needed to have one every 2 years/24 months. You don't really.

You are prohibited from certain activities if you haven't had one in the last 24 months, but that's very different than requiring one every 24 months.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Love #2. A #3 I heard, sort of the opposite take on your #1, was that, for those who did understand "biennial," some thought you needed to have one every 2 years/24 months. You don't really.

You are prohibited from certain activities if you haven't had one in the last 24 months, but that's very different than requiring one every 24 months.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know if either of them is true, but the #2 just sounds too good to leave out. :)

Although, when I was a full time flight instructor, I wouldn't have minded the income from biannual flight reviews.;)
 
mojo6911 said:
I flew with a few sport pilots. One could barely read the sectional chart without two pairs of glasses and he nearly killed me during a stall, as he locked up on the stick and wouldn't let go. The scariest flight I have ever had as an instructor.
Click to expand...

My scariest flights have been with people trying to get back into flying after a long hiatus. Almost all of those had already picked up a fresh 3rd class medical certificate.


I have a few regular sport pilot students, and from what I can see every one of them would pass a medical without issues. Most of them are actually healthy guys under 40 just looking for a more affordable way to get into flying. I won't fly with someone who I feel is unsafe.


Is seems to vary greatly by region. When I was instructing in Florida we had people inquiring about sport pilot who shouldn't have even been driving. There just aren't that many senile old people where I am now.
 
mshunter said:
The fact that no medical is needed is my reason. And the required training just doesn't boad well with me. For either certificate. Not to bash sport pilots, but when you need an endorsement to fly into a controlled airport, I see it as a perpetual student pilot.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I suppose. I'd rather have people flying no medical on sport pilot that people who think its ok to continue operating as a private instrument without a medical (it happens). At least with sport, they're day VFR only. I don't agree with 100% of the sport pilot training stuff, but I sure like a vast majority of new planes its brought to market.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Fair enough, I suppose. I'd rather have people flying no medical on sport pilot that people who think its ok to continue operating as a private instrument without a medical (it happens). At least with sport, they're day VFR only. I don't agree with 100% of the sport pilot training stuff, but I sure like a vast majority of new planes its brought to market.
Click to expand...

Poor argument. I was asked to train a sport pilot who knew hw shoulden't be flying. A diabetic on an insulin pump. IMHO, the sport pilot rules are horribly written. Less training, no medical/self certify before each flight. I am willing to bet that percentage wise there are more sportpilots who shoulden't be flying than privates. And it won't matter if the guy is IFR or VFR. Hwen it hits the fan, they are still going to buy the farm.
 
mshunter said:
Poor argument. I was asked to train a sport pilot who knew hw shoulden't be flying. A diabetic on an insulin pump. IMHO, the sport pilot rules are horribly written. Less training, no medical/self certify before each flight. I am willing to bet that percentage wise there are more sportpilots who shoulden't be flying than privates. And it won't matter if the guy is IFR or VFR. Hwen it hits the fan, they are still going to buy the farm.
Click to expand...

So many errors, I will do my best to fix what I see, but after 12 hours of a standards class/FTD, the brain only works so well. First, they are required to self certify, per 61.53(c). Until somebody gets drawn into a certificate action on this issue, nobody is really sure what is too much for the FAA to accept as legal. There could be a better definition, for sure, but the concept behind it is good to me.

Secondly, there is only a 5 hour difference in training required from a sport pilot to a private pilot. Sure, the private guy needs more solo time, but from a training standpoint, its 15 versus 20. And when you realize that 3 of those hours are lack of night training, and then there isn't 3 hours of instrument training required for sport pilot, there is basically a 2 hour difference between Day VFR for a private versus sport pilot, with the sport pilot legally getting more pure day VFR training.

The other point about sport pilot is this. It wasn't meant to bring new pilots, nor was it meant to bring cheaper airplanes/flying. It was a way to regulate people who claimed they were operating in accordance with Part 103, when they were no where close to it. We just happened to get a whole bunch of new airplanes out of the deal
 
mshunter said:
Poor argument. I was asked to train a sport pilot who knew hw shoulden't be flying. A diabetic on an insulin pump. IMHO, the sport pilot rules are horribly written. Less training, no medical/self certify before each flight. I am willing to bet that percentage wise there are more sportpilots who shoulden't be flying than privates. And it won't matter if the guy is IFR or VFR. Hwen it hits the fan, they are still going to buy the farm.
Click to expand...

KSCessnaDriver said:
So many errors, I will do my best to fix what I see, but after 12 hours of a standards class/FTD, the brain only works so well. First, they are required to self certify, per 61.53(c). Until somebody gets drawn into a certificate action on this issue, nobody is really sure what is too much for the FAA to accept as legal. There could be a better definition, for sure, but the concept behind it is good to me.

Secondly, there is only a 5 hour difference in training required from a sport pilot to a private pilot. Sure, the private guy needs more solo time, but from a training standpoint, its 15 versus 20. And when you realize that 3 of those hours are lack of night training, and then there isn't 3 hours of instrument training required for sport pilot, there is basically a 2 hour difference between Day VFR for a private versus sport pilot, with the sport pilot legally getting more pure day VFR training.

The other point about sport pilot is this. It wasn't meant to bring new pilots, nor was it meant to bring cheaper airplanes/flying. It was a way to regulate people who claimed they were operating in accordance with Part 103, when they were no where close to it. We just happened to get a whole bunch of new airplanes out of the deal
Click to expand...


I see no errors on my post with what you say are errors. You state the same, just in more detail. I guess the stands class is getting to you.:) But as I read the FAR's (your the sport pilot guy, not me), I see only 20 hrs. of required flight time. Am I not looking in the right spot(61.313)?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Any particular reason why you don't? I'm just curious to see the logic behind that decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah that post wasn't meant to bash sport/rec pilots, as I'm sure there are a few good ones out there... but as the other guy stated, many of them just do not put the necessary amount of work into it(I'm sure the same can be said for PPL holders)... it is personally just too much of a liability to my CFI ticket for me to endorse any of them to do anything.
 
mshunter said:
I see no errors on my post with what you say are errors. You state the same, just in more detail. I guess the stands class is getting to you.:) But as I read the FAR's (your the sport pilot guy, not me), I see only 20 hrs. of required flight time. Am I not looking in the right spot(61.313)?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about total flight time. You mentioned training. Training implies flight training, which is usually defined as Dual Received, with an instructor on board. Don't get me wrong, training can happen in a solo flight, but the definition of training per the requirements of a rating means dual.

Not denying at all the difference in 20 hours TT versus 40 hours of TT.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I wasn't talking about total flight time. You mentioned training. Training implies flight training, which is usually defined as Dual Received, with an instructor on board. Don't get me wrong, training can happen in a solo flight, but the definition of training per the requirements of a rating means dual.

Not denying at all the difference in 20 hours TT versus 40 hours of TT.
Click to expand...


Oh, I get it now. I thought you meant something different. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top