History of the BFR?

Jose wrote
Of course you have no gaps in knowledge or skill you are aware of. Tell me, do you have any gaps you are UNaware of?

IF you say "no", you are a statistic waiting to happen, and you won't be waiting too long. If you say "probably", then you are a statisitic that is waiting to not happen, if you take the right action.

Tell me, how many BFR's have you administered to pilots who fly over
100 hours a year?

I've administered at least a dozen like that, and I am 100% in
agreement with Jay - for a pilot who flies that much, especially in a
simple docile airplane, the typical BFR is an absolutely pointless
formality of no safety value. In fact, I would go so far as to say
that it would make MUCH more sense to have a recency of experience
requirement substitute for a BFR than for an IPC - and yet a recency
of experience requirement does subsitute for an IPC but not a BFR.
Just one more area where the FAA really got it wrong.

The idea that you somehow magically develop bad habits while flying
100+ hours a year on your own, and that an hour with a typical
instructor will somehow fix this is, in my experience, nonsense. It's
no wonder the FAA has never been able to establish a quantitative
safety benefit from the BFR. I don't see how there could be one.

That's because the BFR as currently practiced is really geared to the
pilot who flies less than 25 hours a year. Flying that little, skills
tend to deteriorate (and the less total experience, the more they
deteriorate) and the BFR is used to brush them up. For that pilot,
the BFR is recurrent training. Here's a good working definition of
recurrent training - it's periodic training designed to compensate for
atrophying skill, and you know it's working when you're sharper after
you finish the recurrent training cycle than you were going in.
That's probably the case for most renter pilots, since few of them fly
enough.

For a pilot who flies 100+ hours a year in a simple docile aircraft,
the BFR is not recurrent training. It's an exercise where he
demonstrates his skills to an instructor, the instructor nods
approvingly and notes that the pilot is clearly flying at or above the
minimum standards required to pass the private checkride (which is not
actually necessary to 'pass' a BFR), signs off the logbook,
congratulates the pilot, collects his money, and moves on. He's not
likely to be able to offer any real instruction because he probably
can't do a better (or even as good) job of flying that aircraft than
his 'student.'

The reality is that the 100+ hour a year pilot is way safer and more
proficient without a BFR than the 25 hours a year pilot is with the
BFR.

That's not to say that a pilot who flies 100+ hours a year can't
benefit from recurrent training - he certainly can. I fly 200+ hours
a year and never go a year without recurrent training. But a standard
BFR from your typical instructor won't do it. For a pilot who flies
100+ hours a year in his own airplane, you need something different.
You need either someone who is an expert on his particular make and
model who can really show him how to push it to the limits, or you
need to completely take him out of his comfort zone by doing something
else (acro, tailwheel, glider - whatever).

Michael

I agree that BFRs probably don't accomplish what they ostensibly set out to do. I also agree that a pilot with more experience and more recent experience has generally less to gain from the seal of approval the BFR grants.

Where I have the problem is when a pilot says "I fly so well I don't need it, but other people probably do", which is not so far off of the way Jay's statement comes off (to me). It's a red flag - it's like saying "watch this!" before an entry in
the Darwin book. That is what concerns me. I fly about 100 hours a year myself and participate in the Wings program (in lieu of BFR). I would also like to see some evidence that the (BFR or Wings) program works. We are given an unparalleled
amount of latitude in flying to determine for ourselves whether or not we are fit to fly; that is not to be taken lightly. Perhaps you are right, BFRs should be required only for low time (or low recent time) pilots. I don't know. But I do know
that once somebody says "these rules shouldn't apply to me..." that's probably when they most apply.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

For a pilot who flies 100+ hours a year in a simple docile aircraft,
the BFR is not recurrent training.

I began flying after the BFR came in, so it seems perfectly natural to
me. Perhaps it's my instructor who makes the difference, but I get a
lot more out of the effort that you seem to.

I fly the same type of aircraft almost always, and most of the time it
is the identical aircraft. It's very easy to fall into shortcut
routines, and something like the BFR is valuable for making you extend
your horizons a bit.

To be sure, I don't fly 100 hours a year, more like half that. The Cub
isn't particularly docile, however, especially upon landing

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

Cub Driver wrote
Perhaps it's my instructor who makes the difference, but I get a
lot more out of the effort that you seem to.

An instructor can make all the difference in the world, and the kind
of instructor who is qualified (really qualified, not simply FAA
qualified, meaning as a minimum insurable at a reasonable rate) to
instruct in a Cub is a different breed from most.

Michael

Well, Jay, then let's sweeten the pot for those folks who stop by your place on
their way to Oshkosh. Here's what I'll do for you...

By the grace of God, I'll have my on-line oral part of the BFR done by June of
next year...

And if the pilot shows up with my online oral grade sheet with a score of 100
(*)...

And if the weather is VFR the Sunday before we all leave for Oshkosh on
Monday...

And if the pilot in question has logged 50+ hours in the previous 12 calendar
months...

And if the pilot's aircraft is something I'm legal in (no twins or floats)...

....then I'll do a BFR for a donation of the pilot's choice and conscience to the
Young Eagles program while (s)he is at Oshkosh.

I reserve the right to give the last BFR so that it ends at sunset so that I can
at least have ONE beer that day afterwards.


Howzat?


Jim

(*) If that online oral doesn't get done, we'll do a "cluster-oral" of everybody
that wants a BFR later that night after the flying gets done. Nowhere in the
rules does it say that I have to do the oral one at a time.


"Jay Honeck"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
-Which is different than acknowledging the fact that they are "unnecessary"
-for people like Mary and me who fly twice a week, into all sorts of
-airspace.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Well, Jay, then let's sweeten the pot for those folks who stop by your
place on
their way to Oshkosh. Here's what I'll do for you...

Wow! That's a lot of "ifs" -- but it sounds like a great way to spend an
afternoon.

And there will be more than one beer thereafter, of this I am sure...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"