CFI needs a BFR?

[avbug]

But not you AVbug, you agreed with me when I called myself a stupid pilot and that is just not cool. Just kidding

No heartache there. I don't drink.

 

[nosehair]

I don't drink.

O-O-H-H !! - - NOW I understand - -

 

[midlifeflyer]

"None are so blind as those who will not see"

But you're not one of those.

Here's sort of the ultimate deal on this. There are inspectors at FSDOs that say it automatically counts and there are inspectors at FSDOs who say it doesn't. There is an regional FAA Legal opinion that says it doesn't automatically count and a non-official and no longer publicly available FAA FAQ that at best says maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.

What are the consequences of being wrong and not getting the endorsement? My wild guess is there is a fairly small (some might say insignificant) risk that the FAA would take enforcement action against a plot based =solely= on a "missing" FR when there has been a successful CFI checkride. There's probably a more significant risk that, in case of an accident, an insurance company might try to deny coverage based on the pilot not being current.

You can assess whether those risks are acceptable to you. But since the risk is completely removed by the simple act of of asking the CFI who endorsed you for the checkride or the Examiner who gives you a successful one to endorse a FR, why not just do it?

 

[rickair7777]

I just got off the phone with the CLT FSDO and they are saying that any additional RATING qualifies as a BFR. i.e. instructor RATING. Someone clrify this for me before I go blow $100 bucks on a stupid BFR.

Some FSDO's seem to be OK with the CFI as a BFR. It is obvious and logical, and my FSDO also took this approach. This means you won't get violated on your home patch for not having a FR.

Unfortunately, the FAA has issued legal opinions to the contrary, and this cost me a job once in another state because the interviewer went by the legal opinion, not by what my FSDO told me.

If you have been using a CFI ride(s) as a FR, try to get hold of the CFI who did your signoff and have him do a FR endorsement for that date. That should fix any past gaps in your FR coverage.

 

[lawfly]

"Obvious and logical" is not often found in the legal realm. Patent law, however, does embody the concept of "nonobviousness", but that does not pertain here, nor is the definition of "nonobviousness" obvious. But I leave it to you to read those cases. I only skimmed this thread but, in general, a "pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege", FAR 61.56(d), does not encompass flight instructor certificates, ratings, or operating privileges. And not sure FSDO philosophy would control, anyway---probably more a matter of Regional philosophy, as in Regional Counsel, although it is usually FSDO who refers matters to Reg. Counsel.