Gently extracted from the mind of Robert M. Gary;


I took an unusual attitudes course in Phoenix about a year ago. The
FSDO down there allowed the course to substitute a BFR, even though the
instructors weren't CFIs. Up here in NY, however, I was told that wouldn't
"fly."

Very odd. How could they consider that a BFR? If the guys were not
CFIs it couldn't be part of a wings program or a regular BFR. FAR
61.56 seems pretty clear to me. I'd be real curious under what part
of 61.56 they considered that a flight review.

Another example is the Orlando FSDO.
In a good move, they told flight schools that having two MEIs fly an x-c
and sign each other off is wrong and no way to log time.

What is the purpose of the MEIs signing each other off? They can still
both log PIC. One of them acts as an MEI giving instruction (allowing
him to log PIC 61.51(e)(3)), another is the sole manipulator of the
controls (allowing him to log PIC 61.51(e)(1)(i)). Sounds like these
guys didn't understand the FARs well enought to know how to do this.

Actually, two MEIs got busted for doing just this a few years ago. They bought
an Apache and flew x-countries @ 1.3 * tach time switching seats every leg.
The guy in the left seat wore a hood. All seemingly perfectly legal.

Every psuedo judge thought that this was illegal.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX