Mine is tomorrow. It will be the 2nd of my flying career. The 1st was a joke, as we just went out and did some aerobatics and touch and goes and he signed me off. He had me watch a video for the ground school portion.

I know it's not a checkride, but I want this guy to bust my chops. I want to hear how everyone else's BFR's have gone. What kind of stuff did you work on?

Good thinking about this in advance. I like to get my money’s worth too, so I look for an instructor with a lot of time in my type of aircraft and then make a list of things that I think I’m rusty on. I make sure to tell the instructor that I really want to learn and want direct feedback and suggestions.

So think about what your usual flights involve. Then think about things that don’t come up very frequently, but that you need to be proficient at in order to be safe.

My list has changed depending on the kind of plane, how much flying I’ve been doing, and the kind of trips I’ve been making. For my last BFR, I asked for time under the hood, simulated power-out emergencies, power off approaches and air work all with the plane fully loaded, since most of my flying is well below gross weight but I do occasionally fill all of the seats.

We spent 1.5 in the air. I got some good tips and regained the confidence that I want in order to feel competent to take a bunch of trusting souls up flying with me. Good luck and have fun!

CAVU

My last review was actually getting my instrument rating, next one will be the commercial rating, then if all goes well the CFI.

But it's important to get your moneys worth. In 17 years I've had the ho hum flight reviews, and a couple of real ball busters. Those were the best ones for stretching the skill envelope.

One of the best ones I got when I had the 180 and used a pilot that flew a SEAT plane for Western Pilot Service. Now that was fun!

Best thing I have found is sit down with the CFI and tell them what you want to work on, or where you think your weak at. Just like CAVU stated.

See ya, Bub

Make sure your CFI knows the difference between a check ride and a BFR. I had a young new CFI from a flying college who didnt seem to realize its a REVIEW! I forgot my cloud clearences! Do you remember the 152 rule? Do you know the equipment requirements for each airspace class? Get someone with common sense!

Well, I can't argue the point of using common sense, but the flight review is supposed to be a review of what YOU know, not what the CFI knows.

Here's what I do:

Ground portion:

Tell student to bring vfr charts for an appropriate route. For you, maybe PDX to Spokane, to Bend and back to PDX.

Then, "fly" the route, looking at airspace along the route. I present the applicant with weather and traffic scenarios at each different type airspace encountered. How would you enter the SEA class B, where are the shelves, how do you get in and out of a Class E SURFACE area during periods of low ceilings (below basic VFR), etc, etc. Military airspace and what it means.

Then aircraft systems. Everything there is to know about that particular aircraft that we can figure out. Drag out the TC (download a copy from the FAA's library site, and take it) see what it says. Calculate a real, no joke Weight and Balance.

Then on to regs. Night currency, day currency, weather minimums, cloud clearance requirements, east/west altitudes, in the west, oxygen altitudes, etc.

At the plane, complete and thorough preflight, INCLUDING ALL paperwork for plane and pilot (you do know what all that is, right?).

Proper taxi, communications procedures, and flying. Climbing turns, slow flight, steep turns, stalls in all configurations, and cross controls, descent, at least one power off emergency scenario, and some landings. In a T/W airplane, I want at LEAST one pretty darn good three point and one pretty darn good wheel landing. Assuming the pilot is obviously the master of the airplane, that's good enough for me. That usually takes an hour and a half for the flight.

Total time: 6 hours minimum.

That's what it takes to COVER the material the FAR 61.56 says you are required to cover, in my opinion. I've had people come back year after year, and in fact, I had a couple customers who did this EVERY spring as a spring tune up.

Don't look for the easy one. You need to study AHEAD of time, as well, by the way. Again, this is supposed to be a test of sorts, not a couple hours of dual.

Do I fail anyone if they just don't know the material at all? Yes. Actually, you just log it as training, and come back later. I've had one that was that bad. Most I can talk through it, and yes, it does wind up a lot of training, but I'm always impressed when an applicant comes in the door actually knowing the material.

MTV

MTV how close are you to BNO.

Sounds like you do the type of Flight Review that means something. I plan on doing the commercial this fall. So wouldn't need a review per say, but sounds like a day with you would be a hoot.

Fly safe, Bub

Bub,

I'm currently in residence in Crookston, MN. I come out west at every opportunity, though.

MTV

I have had a few different types of flight reviews. Most CFI's, like any teacher, have their pet topics and I think most have your best interest (and ours) at heart, after all they don't want to hit an MDA just below a cloud deck and see their windshield filled with your VFR echo airspace busting butt.

That being said,,, I did mine last week in a Stearman , just to get some real "stick and rudder" time...

Mark

Mark,

I think you're right, but I also think that most pilots approach these things apprehensively, and are just happy to get them done, and that's the wrong approach.

The applicant should take the responsibility to review and ask questions at will, until the instructor is blue in the face. That's what this is about: maybe your only opportunity in a 48 month period to interact with someone on rules, airspace, systems, etc.

The flying part is whatever you want to make it. MOst folks do reasonably well on that part, because they VALUE it more than the knowledge stuff.

I just think that most folks short change themselves on these deals, when they could actually do a much better refresher.

And, that's what its all about. It shouldn't be a practical test.

MTV

mtv wrote:Mark,


The flying part is whatever you want to make it. MOst folks do reasonably well on that part, because they VALUE it more than the knowledge stuff.


MTV

That is certainly true. The ground portion I did (on this last BFR) was really airspace oriented. It's amazing when you really apply the reg's to some of the airspace around small airports and factor in marginal VFR weather, how easy it would be to violate. And then there are those places where everyone would be legal and things could get real hairy. The what if's really get ya' thinking...

Mark

Well, BFR #2 is over and done. Although I am glad to have it over with, I have also been taking a lot of dual lately with the same guy, so it's actually kinda like my BFR has been spread over a few weeks during the 170 checkout.

I made a list of stuff that I wanted to work on, which included: wheel landings, shortfield technique, steep short radius canyon turns with full flaps (fun), some hood work, and fuel management techniques (how hard can that be in a 170??)

He also quizzed me on airspace stuff and general procedures for getting into and out of Class E airports when the weather goes below VFR minimums. So we discussed Special VFR daytime and how to handle clearances for that. I don't see myself doing that stuff anytime soon, but it was good to discuss.

Flying under foggles in the 170 was interesting, because I have a very original panel, which means that the scan makes your eye muscles sore after a few minutes. It was good to see what it felt like though in that old airplane.

At the end of the day I felt like I was tuned up pretty well, but also very reminded that I need to stay in the game academically more than I do when I'm not flying, and just fly more.

Zane,
Don't necessarily take this as an endorsement, but there is a rather unusual flight instructor named Johnny Moore out of Quincy, CA who wrote a flight checkout specifically for the Cessna 170B, an aircraft he describes as "a lot more of a handful than one might think."

His belief is that the vertical stabilizer is too small for the aircraft, and there will be times where there is really no directional control to speak of. His flight checkout seems to center around probing those times.

I flew with him a couple times in my Cessna 140 and I definitely learned some things. It's not your normal flight review...wheel landings at 100 mph come to mind, as do hammer head turns in the comparatively confined space of the Quincy valley.

I think it's been a while since he owned a 170, but he does a lot of tailwheel instruction and has somewhere around 25,000 hours of flight time.

I completely understand your frustration with the review process, which is really just a continuation of the original learning process. When I went to flight school twelve years ago I had to have a periodic "flight review" with the chief instructor before I could move on to another faze of my training. I learned more from flying with that man for one hour than I'd learned in ten hours of flying with the other instructors. When you think about it, that makes sense. He was the only man who was actually a professional instructor... an instructor-instructor when you get right down to it, as he owned the flight school. All the other instructors there were just trying to build enough hours to go on to a different flying job.

I don't think a lot has changed...knowing something and being able to teach it are very different skills. You can only impart a small fraction of your knowledge to another person, so if your instructor is a 20-something year old CFI with 500 hours who's main objective is to build enough hours so he doesn't have to give flight lessons anymore, just what fraction of his knowledge are you getting?

When I tried to get current after a long absence from flying, I went through six instructors in as many weeks, and I'm a polite guy...it's not easy for me to go into a flight school and tell them I don't want to fly with instructor X anymore. I finally lucked out and found a man who makes his money elsewhere and teaches flying for the pure love of it. It made all the difference in the world.

It's a forgone conclusion that every CFI out there knows more than I do, but that doesn't mean their time is worth my money. Keep looking until you find someone you're happy to give your money to.

Ravi-

You're so right. The right instructor makes all the difference, and it's your money so you shouldn't have to settle for somebody that isn't doing it for you. This guy Tim I am using from Ashland is probably my 2nd favorite instructor ever, and I've had 6 total. He ranks 2nd only because I was such good friends with my primary instructor in Santa Ynez, who continues to mentor me.

Tim is a fun guy to fly with... humble but very knowledgeable, and good at making you arrive at the correct conclusion on your own. He owned a 170 when he was younger and used it as a jump plane for skydivers.

I may look up Johnny Moore next time around, I'd like hear what he has to say about the old roundtail instability.

Ravi,

Don't believe for a moment that EVERY CFI out there knows more about aviation stuff than you do. I've met some pretty clueless ones my own self.

As to the 170, I always crack up when I hear that line about it being a "trickier airplane than you'd think". Great way to sell flight instruction, I reckon.

When I arrived here in CKN, a local spray pilot and CFI saw my airplane, and commented to the effect that I must really be a good tailwheel guy to land in a 170 in a wind (and it wasn't much). I looked at him sort of blankly, till I realized he was serious, then the light came on. I asked him how many 170's he'd flown? One.

Here's the key, and it has NOTHING to do with the tail:

You have to align the landing gear on ALL the Cessna Taildraggers. For some reason, 170's seem to receive this favor less frequently than the other models and seem to need it more.

Now, the original 120/140 had some landing issues, and some bright eyes fixed that with gear extenders, but there's no issues I've ever found with a 170 landing characteristics IF the gear is aligned right.

I've also flown some 170's that would do some really hinky stuff, BECAUSE the gear was out of whack, NOT because of a round tail.

As to wheel landings at 100 mph, all that does is risk your airplane and wear out wheel bearings. THAT, in my opinion, is NOT something I'd be doing and calling "training". How in the hey could rolling on the runway at 100 mph demonstrate that the round tail isn't BIG enough?

Sorry, rant over. That guy may have all the experience in the world, but if he's teaching what you descibe, I wouldn't fly with him.

I once went to Texas to do some aerobatics. Flew with a 19 year old CFI in a Pitts S-2C. Kid was simply one of the best CFI's I've ever flown with. Brave, but not stupid, no tricks, no BS, and no big ego. Great stick and a great instructor.

On day three of our flying, he told me he had a real treat for me: He'd arranged for a really well known local aerobatic instructor to fly in his place with me in the afternoon. Fine.

This guy gave new meaning to the word "brief" in the term "pre-brief". We got in the airplane, and he started trying to get me to do things I thought were pretty stupid, and made no sense, let alone didn't accomplish anything. He gave me grief, was rude and yelling, etc.

After 15 minutes, I announced the flight was over, landed and got out of the plane. The "old pro" asked me what the problem was. I told him that 19 year old kid in there was five times the flight instructor he would ever be, and that I would not PERMIT a student of mine to be subjected to the BS he was handing out.

The 19 year old asked me the same question, and I responded the same way. He was appalled, but he admitted that the old guy did do some kinda hot-doggy kinda stuff that really wasn't legal or smart, "but he's been around forever".

Next day, the old guy came up to me, unsolicited, and apologized, and complimented me on being willing to tell him my thoughts on the matter.

Get the dang gear aligned on the 170, and just learn to fly it. There aren't any "tricks".

Hammerhead turns in canyons are great ways to die in an airplane, if you ever really NEEDED to turn around in a canyon, in my opinion.

But, we all know what those are worth-opinions, that is .

MTV

MTV,
I hear what you're saying...and having never flown a 170 I don't have much of an opinion on how they handle. I have seen some absolutely nefarious planes made docile by proper gear alignment, so I know it's a big part of the equation.

And I want to be clear that I'm not endorsing anyone here, just thought it was interesting that this guy had a flight check-out specifically for the 170. After 25k hours I figure he's either learned a thing or two or he's the luckiest sob on the planet. And he showed me things I was unfamiliar with...whether they were good or bad I'm probably not super qualified to judge. My gut feeling is a little of both. But when I got out of the airplane it felt a lot like that first week of flight training when I was introduced to stalls... The essence of this thread was looking for a examiner who will give you a workout, and it definitely was.

So no one gets the wrong idea, he was NOT teaching hammerhead turns as a way to get out of a box canyon...it's just that the terrain around Quincy means any maneuver you do is going to be in (relatively) close proximity to a mountain, which is a visually unnerving aspect for a pilot used to big open spaces.

As far as 100 mph wheel landings go...I thought they were strange, too. The theory is that in gusty, turbulent conditions with some wind sheer on the side, it allows you to plant the aircraft on the ground while you still have full rudder authority.

I can see how it would work, and it was definitely a new skill for me. Of course I've never actually used it...I tend to land best in a three-point, so when conditions get bad I revert to what I'm most comfortable with.

Part of what makes this flying game so interesting is we don't know how much trouble we might be getting into until we learn enough to know better. Often when I'm flying I wonder how I'll feel about my flight when I look back on it in a couple years. Most of the time I suspect I'm flying along with no real recognition of what I'm doing wrong and what the consequences could be if things changed just a little bit.

The other day I landed in Moab. Density altitude was 8200 feet, I was possibly 150 pounds over gross, and there was a 13 knot wind blowing 90 degrees across the runway, with gusts to 21 knots. It was also getting dark. I had the rudder pegged to one side and the engine at 2200 rpm to keep a 500 fpm descent, and I was just thinking about a go around when I felt the upwind tire touch. I spent the next fifteen seconds telling my wife (and myself) "I've got it" while I got the downwind tire on the ground and the brakes on.

While I was tying the plane down I couldn't decide if I should pat myself on the back or not. Then I decided I'd be proud of myself until such time as I learn better. Life is less painful that way, but I suspect there will be a day when I learn enough to kick myself for trying to land there at all.

Until then,

My take on the Flight Review is that it should be no different than any other flight. If an instructor is busting your chops or ass, I would look for another guy to do the review. A Flight Review is just that, a review of what it takes to make a safe flight and you should be doing that every time you get in the aircraft. The review is a way to check you ability and skills to make a safe flight no more no less. How can any person (instructor) evaluate your flying skills in just over 1 hour of flight time when you have a wack of ratings and are current in multiple aircraft (SEL, MEL, SES, MES an instrument and an authorization letter to fly L-39 and B-25)?

Don't get me wrong, I always advocate getting specialized instruction for different types of flying (tailwheel, mountain, off pavement, formation or other types of flying other than A to B). The Flight Review in not the forum for teaching. Not to say that you shouldn't be learning but the review should not be used as an hour of instruction.

As far as the ground work, it is so easy to take online classes with the wings program or AOPA and present a certificate to the instructor to cover the 1 hour ground session. This should help supplement the oral and ground session and it is great for the instructor because it allows him to zero in on the specifics of the flight, performance, and procedures.

N18NV,

I fully agree on the flight portion of the FR.

As to substituting a "Wings" seminar (which they don't do anymore, by the way) for the ground portion, I disagree.

The problem is, that program might be on one tiny little fraction of information, like CRM.

Fine, but the guy has no clue what a Class E Surface area even IS, let alone how he's supposed to act around one. I've never seen a seminar that even came close to covering the material that SHOULD and IS REQUIRED to be covered in the FR.

I know, I know--the FAA says you can do so. Fine, the FAA can also bust your butt and take your certificate for violating airspace. That seminar won't help you much with that.

I think safety seminars are great, and I've given a number, including a number that qualified as the ground portion of a FR. I simply don't think this does justice to the range of information that a pilot needs to know in this changing environment.

As to the flying, a competent instructor can tell pretty fast if the person at the controls can fly the airplane. That part's easy, really. If not, then they need some dual.

I worry more about the person's knowledge of weather, the regs, airspace, etc. Evaluating their flying is really pretty straighforward.

And, if the next day he gets in his personal F-86 and kills himself, the FAA isn't going to suggest that I didn't do a very good job preparing him for flying an F-86.

MTV

MTV,

As you mentioned, a competent CFI should be able to determine if a pilot has the skills to pilot a aircraft in the first 5 minutes of the flight. The CFI should also be able to determine within a few question if the pilot in question has a basic understanding of the regs, aircraft performance and the system.

By requesting the pilot to do the seminars or internet just helps the CFI document the ground portion and could save the pilot under review a few bucks in needless question and answer time just to fill the legal hour.

To me the flight review is just that, do you know the stuff and how to do it or not. Black and white --- pass/fail. A flight review shouldn't be confused with instruction.

Ah, but the FAA disagrees with that. In fact, if a pilot doesn't meet the standards put forth in the (skimpy) 61.56, the time should only be logged as dual INSTRUCTION given.

As I noted in my earlier missal, I put a lot of emphasis on the ground portion of the FR.

I DO NOT agree with you that a competent instructor can tell if a pilot knows all the ground stuff in five minutes. Hell, you couldn't cover half of one subject's MINIMAL questions in five minutes.

It used to be that airspace didn't change much. Neither did the regs, nor a lot of other stuff. They all change now, fairly regularly. I don't know how many times I've heard people with ten year old charts piss and moan cause the mountains haven't moved. The mountains cancel your ticket all right, but the FAA will TAKE your ticket if you violate airspace rules. THAT's the stuff I want to get to.

Also, the WEAKEST point I see in applicants in FR's is aircraft systems.

How do you start a 185/206, regarding fuel boost pumps, and why? If they don't know the correct answer to that one, they haven't read the POH CAREFULLY, they don't understand the fuel system, and they are set up for an accident.

Now, if they were to have that accident right after that there flight review that I so dutifully placed my signature in their logbook as having covered, my guess is the FAA could come talk to me.

More to the point, that person's spouse's attorney would likely serve me with papers in the not too distant future, and they'd sue me for whatever I have, and whatever insurance I have.

"Oh, he attended a seminar on CRM, so I didn't feel I was required to cover systems" won't get you far in most courts, I'd bet.

MTV

MTV

I don't want to beat this horse any more. BUT! Please go back to my first post, last paragraph of the subject.