Flight review in an airplane for which the CFI is not endorsed

Tired Soul

Plowing at FL370
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Posts
257
Total Time
>10000
Having a discussion with a badge carrying federal employee.
Example:

CFI is approached by a pilot wishing to do a flight review in a tail wheel.
CFI has no tail wheel endorsement but the pilot is still within his/her 24 months so is acting PIC. Legal yes/no?
I say yes, not wise but legal.

Federales says no.

My point:

61.56 only mentions authorized instructor

61.1 states:
(2) Authorized instructor means—
(i) A person who holds a ground instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chapter and is in compliance with §61.217, when conducting ground training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her ground instructor certificate;
(ii) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chapter and is in compliance with §61.197, when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate; or
(iii) A person authorized by the Administrator to provide ground training or flight training under SFAR No. 58, or part 61, 121, 135, or 142 of this chapter when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with that authority.
61.195 states;

(b) Aircraft Ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:
(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and
(2) If appropriate, a type rating.
I say it states rating not endorsement.
So if my CFI certificate states SEL and MEL I'm good to go on conducting a Flight reveiw in an airplane that I am not endorsed for if the PIC is still within the 24 months.

I say yes, what say you?
 

Amish RakeFight

Registered Loser
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Posts
8,008
Total Time
.
Prudence tells me no. Even if its legal. Lets say the CFI doesnt have a Complex HP sign-off.

Same situation.
 

JAFI

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
964
Total Time
8000+
Ask the Fed what reference he is using for his position. He may need to sit down and review the guidance. Did he say "I don't think so" or "no, never, will not happen" or some where in between?
 

340drvr

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Posts
454
Total Time
7000
This scenario, in my experience, has always been considered legal, (prudence, wisdom, insurance, etc. are another story, as noted) using the FAR references you've cited. If your Fed comes up with a reference, please post a link!
That said, getting cross-wise with the local El Commandante probably falls under the "prudence and wisdom" category (unfortunate but true).
 

Airboss

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Posts
472
Total Time
5000
If there was a FAR broken it would be 91.13.

"Sec. 91.13 — Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

The FAA would argue that it was careless of the CFI to act as PIC (which they technically are) without the proper endorsements.
 

CA1900

Big Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2002
Posts
5,436
Total Time
11000+
I say yes, what say you?
I say yes, and you wouldn't even need a valid medical certificate to do it. You are not acting as PIC, and that's where an endorsement is required:

FAR 61.31(i)(1): Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement...


If the pilot receiving his flight review is still eligible to act as pilot in command, then you don't need to be. You're not acting as PIC, you're acting as an instructor. This is perfectly legal. I concur that it would probably be a bad idea, and they'll likely try and hang you if something goes wrong, but the flight would not be a violation in itself.
 

JAFI

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
964
Total Time
8000+
This scenario, in my experience, has always been considered legal, (prudence, wisdom, insurance, etc. are another story, as noted) using the FAR references you've cited. If your Fed comes up with a reference, please post a link!
That said, getting cross-wise with the local El Commandante probably falls under the "prudence and wisdom" category (unfortunate but true).
To the best of my knowledge it is legal.

Getting into a "battle" with any authority is seldom wise unless you have knowledge of the materal and the ability to discuss a point with out getting angry. Go sit in court during a case. It is good theater and you can watch how laws are discussed. IMHO Judges will view if you break a law - is bad, break a law knowing you are doing so - is very bad, asking about an interpitation of a law while producing documentation (like a legal interpitation) from an unquestionable authority - very wise. Showing or attempting to show compliance to the law is very wise.

Getting legal advice from the internet with out confirming the accuracy - Darwin Award material.
 

Tired Soul

Plowing at FL370
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Posts
257
Total Time
>10000
That said, getting cross-wise with the local El Commandante probably falls under the "prudence and wisdom" category
Getting legal advice from the internet with out confirming the accuracy - Darwin Award material.
Pearls of wisdom gentlemen.

OK where do you find this sort of stuff.
Is there an easy link from the FAA website or does it require 4 hrs of digging.
Fed in question is stating that cases that he was personally involved in have been won in court. Won by the FAA that is.
I'd like to know how without tripping the Claymore.
 

JAFI

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
964
Total Time
8000+
Everyone has an opinion. Some betther than others. Here is where I go for questions like yours:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/

OR:

Office of the Chief Counsel
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591

(202) 267-3222 Telephone
(202) 267-3227 FAX


Judges rule on the merits of a case and each case can be unique. The Chief Council, when requested, gives written "opinions" on what they think the law means. The Chief Counsel tells Inspectors what the "company" opinion is.

Search the data base, I'm sure your question has been asked before.
 
Last edited:

Tired Soul

Plowing at FL370
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Posts
257
Total Time
>10000
Thanks JAFI, nothing much on 61.56 though.
I like discussing these things with the Federales, I'm very much against "tribal Law" which seems to persist at certain FSDO's.
There have been occasions where I look like a bible thumper quoting song and verse from the 2011 edition of the Holy Book.
 

JAFI

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
964
Total Time
8000+
When someone displays a desire to not want to follow guidance, you only need to ask one question:

"Could you give me a signed list of which CFR's, 8900 references or other guidance you don't want me to follow"........Please?

And I do piss a bunch of people off, but-

My bosses, other Inspectors, Industy people, etc. no matter how many times I have asked that question, I have never received a list signed or not.
 
Top