Splitting a flight review in half...legal?

jrh

jrh

Well-Known Member
I spoke with a guy today who needs a flight review as soon as possible.

He's already scheduled a review with a different instructor at a different flight school. However, he asked me if I could finish the flight review with him if for some reason he could not complete the review at the other school. For instance, if the weather is poor on the day he has scheduled at the other school, he'd like to get the ground portion done there, then come to me for the flight portion.

At first I was hesitant to agree to this arrangement, but he said he's used two different instructors for flight reviews in the past. One endorses his logbook stating he's completed the ground lesson and one signs off on his flying.

I said I'd check in to it and look up the regs.

In reading 61.56(c)(2), it says the endorsement must come from "an authorized instructor who gave the review," in other words, the reference to the instructor is singular.

61.56(a) also seems to say the flight review is one unit of training consisting of two seperate sections, the flight and the ground portion. Again, it leads me to believe the review cannot be split amongst multiple instructors.

Could somebody confirm what I'm saying, or else explain how to legally split the review in half and properly endorse the pilot at the end?
 
If you aren't comfortable with it, don't do it. However...

Even just a ground instructor can do the ground training for the flight review and give the endorsement for that. Then you fly for an hour, give the endorsement stating "...has satisfactorily completed the flight review required by 14 CFR 61.56..." (the actual endorsement)

The first endorsement says "...has completed the ground portion of the flight review required by 14 CFR 61.56..." (just an endorsement saying the ground training is completed)

It's done quite a bit. Check AC 61-65 for the exact endorsement wording. Nothing in the regs say it has to be done all at once nor by the same instructor. Sometimes you get a guy that does great with the ground stuff and just doinks the landings. Often it's the other way...the flying is great, but the ground (knowledge) lacks. I don't mind signing off that portion of the review as complete.

-mini
 
youngflyer said:
Why risk your certificate over a little flight review?
Click to expand...

Good point. You're wise ahead of your years.

The counter question is, why turn away work that is completely legal and respectable to be doing?

That's the question I'm trying to deal with. If it truly is legit, all I'd be doing is turning down income and hassling a fellow pilot.
 
minitour said:
If you aren't comfortable with it, don't do it. However...

Even just a ground instructor can do the ground training for the flight review and give the endorsement for that. Then you fly for an hour, give the endorsement stating "...has satisfactorily completed the flight review required by 14 CFR 61.56..." (the actual endorsement)

The first endorsement says "...has completed the ground portion of the flight review required by 14 CFR 61.56..." (just an endorsement saying the ground training is completed).
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's the exact guidance I was looking for!

I'd never noticed the reg that says AGI's can sign off endorsements for the ground portion of a flight review.

In my view, that makes it quite clear that two instructors are allowed to conduct a flight review. In the case of an AGI doing the ground portion, the pilot would *have* to use a second instructor for the flying portion, therefore it must be legal.
 
I haven't looked into mini's reference (busy cleaning out the office and can't find a damn thing), but I agree with your original post interpretation: the reference is singular.

Your research however shows that an AGI can sign off on the ground portion.

If the BFR gets into an accident, who does the FAA persue now? Someone who did the flying or the ground. IMHO I'd rather do both.
 
It appears to be perfectly legal, but I think its more a question of is this really the smart thing to do? What happens if this guy ends up getting in an accident at some point over the next 24 months...I think the FAA will come knocking and agree that it was legal, but may not be in your corner in regards to were you exercising good judgement. (I'm not questioning your judgement by the way, i'm just thinking how I would respond to this if I am the FAA).

Personally, I wouldn't do it unless I knew and trusted the CFI signing off the ground portion. I just wouldn't risk my career on a stranger.

Why cant this guy just do the hour of ground with you? There is nothing in the regds that says which portion has to be done first, or that you cant split it up...What if you offered to do a half hour prior to the flight and the other half afterwards...That may solve your problem?

goodluck.
 
It is completely legal to do. A pilot can also complete the ground training through the FAA Wings program.

That being said if I find somebody that reluctant to pay me for another 1 hour i wouldn't do it. Sorry, but it isn't worth my career for one hour of pay.
 
It's legit, but the relevant point, in my opinion, is that the sign-off is singular (even if just for the flight portion).

So, question: is the instructor who did the first half of the review going to give the sign-off, and you'll just be doing some remaining work, or will you be vetting his/her instruction to this pilot by signing them off?

At the very least, I definitely wouldn't go for it without the opportunity to speak to the CFI who did the first portion of the BFR.

I guess my attitude would be: the FAA requires one hour of ground and one of flight; without a sign-off from the previous instructor for one of those, the pilot will have to do at least that much time to get your name in his logbook. If you're able to talk to the instructor who did the other portion and hear what you like, the billed time might actually resemble those bare minimums. If he knows his regs well and flies well, you can omit most of the things covered with the other CFI. If there's ever a doubt, though, work on it. As long as he's okay with such an arrangement, I'd do it.

That said, if he gets to you and it's clear he still needs the whole shebang, it has to be done--it's still your name in his logbook at the end of the day.
 
Thanks for all the feedback everyone.

To add a little more background on the situation, this guy is not looking to save money or scam the system. He's just looking to get a flight review done ASAP because he's a commercial pilot who's been out of flying for a few years but is getting back in to it and has a part time job waiting for him as soon as he can get a flight review done.

I put him on my schedule with the knowledge that he has an appointment scheduled with another school. He said he'd try to get the whole thing done at the other place, but wanted to use me as a backup in the interest of getting done as quickly as possible. He didn't want to get in to a situation of needing to split the BFR over multiple days at the other school and then not be able to get on their schedule again for a week or two. He figured even if it takes a few hours, he can definitely get the ground done in one sitting, then come to me the day after in order to complete whatever flying he needs to do. He seemed to have a good attitude about everything.

We're scheduled to meet on Wednesday evening. When I asked him if he could give me a call as soon as he knows for sure if he'll need me or not, he said, "Ehh, even if I get the BFR all done, how about we plan on doing some instrument work together? I need to get back up to speed on that stuff, too." To me, that shows he's not looking for shortcuts.

I don't see what the risk is in letting another instructor sign him off for the ground portion. If anything, it *decreases* my liability. It's one *less* thing that can come back to haunt me. When I endorse him, I'll only endorse him stating I've completed the flight training portion with him and reference the other instructor's endorsement as evidence of a complete BFR. Simple as that.
 
one more thing....why is it that these BFRs always need to get done right now

I laugh at the guys who call on a beautiful Saturday and tell us they have to get it done TODAY because in april they will no longer be current.

Uh, Hello - didn't you see this coming?

I know his case is a little different, but it seemed like an appropriate thread to hijack.
 
jrh said:
I'd never noticed the reg that says AGI's can sign off endorsements for the ground portion of a flight review.
Click to expand...

moxiepilot said:
Your research however shows that an AGI can sign off on the ground portion.
Click to expand...

If anyone's looking, it's 61.215(b)

I think it's (b)(2) but it's been a while. I used to have 61 almost memorized cold, but I haven't been using it. I know for a fact it's 61.215(b) (which is "ground instructors with an Advanced Rating..." or something like that.

-mini
 
FWIW, I agree with the "it's legal group." In fact I've always wondered why flight schools don'r generally offer a FR ground class in the spring to get regulars up to date and pilots that have been out of the look for a few years back into it.

In addition to the regulatory references posted by the others to show where they have been separated in the regs, notice that current CFIs only need the flight portion.

And here's an unofficial one: John Yodice, AOPA's chief counsel, has set these up at conferences for pilots who are also lawyers.

I would insist on two endorsements, with the words "gound portion" or "flight portion" in the appropriate places.
 
Codyjp said:
It is completely legal to do. A pilot can also complete the ground training through the FAA Wings program.

That being said if I find somebody that reluctant to pay me for another 1 hour i wouldn't do it. Sorry, but it isn't worth my career for one hour of pay.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, how could something be "completely legal to do" and cost you your career?
 
minitour said:
It was an interpretation I got from my POI when doing the 141 chief instructor ride(s).
Click to expand...
There you go. FAA inspectors are notorious for making up their own rules.

Now, if 61.56(f) said

==============================
A person who holds a current flight instructor certificate who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, satisfactorily completed a renewal of a flight instructor certificate under the provisions in § 61.197(a)(iii) need not accomplish the 1 hour of ground training specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
==============================

he might have a point. But it doesn't.

That's not "interpretation." That's adding stuff that isn't there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top