What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

In article 6dddd429-0f97-4bd4-b2e4-
, says...
On Apr 14, 2:55*pm, Dallas wrote:
What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

I haven't been through one yet.. *how tough are they? *Is this like a
mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
understands the basics?"

--
Dallas

The basic purpose of the review is simply to have an instructor take a
look at your flying, general attitude, and habit patterns to insure a
continuing competence.
For any pilot with no standout issues, the review should be no problem
at all.
My procedure for giving these reviews was to simply tell the pilot I
wanted to see how he/she approached and conducted a normal flight from
beginning to end. I told them to act normally and just to consider me
an "interested observer".
The instructor of course has a criteria that is followed but there is
no reason that this criteria should take the form of intrusion on the
flight unless it becomes necessary.
Just treat the flight as a normal check flight and you'll do just
fine.
Dudley Henriques

Do you think that's sufficient?

Reason I ask, is that *every* BFR I've done I've been asked to enter the
low-flying-area and conduct some low flying guff ("exit from a blind
valley"/cloud bank ahead - type stuff), and of course, other things I'd
never be able to do in normal/real flight such as a FLWOP.

Indeed, as well as the fun of it, I consider such things to be, not only
a challenge, but essential to my best flying practices. (I *wanna* know
I can still get myself into a field if I ever become a glider).

--
Duncan

Dave Doe wrote:
In article 6dddd429-0f97-4bd4-b2e4-
, says...
On Apr 14, 2:55Â*pm, Dallas wrote:
What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

I haven't been through one yet.. Â*how tough are they? Â*Is this like a
mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
understands the basics?"

--
Dallas

The basic purpose of the review is simply to have an instructor take a
look at your flying, general attitude, and habit patterns to insure a
continuing competence.
For any pilot with no standout issues, the review should be no problem
at all.
My procedure for giving these reviews was to simply tell the pilot I
wanted to see how he/she approached and conducted a normal flight from
beginning to end. I told them to act normally and just to consider me
an "interested observer".
The instructor of course has a criteria that is followed but there is
no reason that this criteria should take the form of intrusion on the
flight unless it becomes necessary.
Just treat the flight as a normal check flight and you'll do just
fine.
Dudley Henriques

Do you think that's sufficient?

Reason I ask, is that *every* BFR I've done I've been asked to enter the
low-flying-area and conduct some low flying guff ("exit from a blind
valley"/cloud bank ahead - type stuff), and of course, other things I'd
never be able to do in normal/real flight such as a FLWOP.

Indeed, as well as the fun of it, I consider such things to be, not only
a challenge, but essential to my best flying practices. (I *wanna* know
I can still get myself into a field if I ever become a glider).

Since the review is basically up to the instructor, just about anything
is fair game and will probably get colored by the local environment.

Since there is a LOT of controlled airspace, including Class B, around
here, ATC gets emphasis from most of the instructors around here.

I would expect a review conducted in the mountains of Montana to be
a bit different than one conducted near LAX.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Apr 14, 9:17*pm, Dave Doe wrote:
In article 6dddd429-0f97-4bd4-b2e4-
, says...



On Apr 14, 2:55*pm, Dallas wrote:
What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

I haven't been through one yet.. *how tough are they? *Is this like a
mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
understands the basics?"

--
Dallas

The basic purpose of the review is simply to have an instructor take a
look at your flying, general attitude, and habit patterns to insure a
continuing competence.
For any pilot with no standout issues, the review should be no problem
at all.
My procedure for giving these reviews was to simply tell the pilot I
wanted to see how he/she approached and conducted a normal flight from
beginning to end. I told them to act normally and just to consider me
an "interested observer".
The instructor of course has a criteria that is followed but there is
no reason that this criteria should take the form of intrusion on the
flight unless it becomes necessary.
Just treat the flight as a normal check flight and you'll *do just
fine.
Dudley Henriques

Do you think that's sufficient?

Reason I ask, is that *every* BFR I've done I've been asked to enter the
low-flying-area and conduct some low flying guff ("exit from a blind
valley"/cloud bank ahead - type stuff), and of course, other things I'd
never be able to do in normal/real flight such as a FLWOP.

Indeed, as well as the fun of it, I consider such things to be, not only
a challenge, but essential to my best flying practices. *(I *wanna* know
I can still get myself into a field if I ever become a glider).

--
Duncan

By the time I watch an applicant pre-flight an airplane and taxi out
to the active, I usually have a pretty good handle on how the rest of
the flight will be performed.
I have the applicant proceed while assigning a few carefully chosen
"tasks". How far I take the applicant past those tasks is the direct
result of my observation of how those tasks are completed.
The items you mention can be introduced in an informal way and need
not be made to look like a "you do this right or you fail" scenario.
Each instructor handles a bi-annual review differently. I preferred
the "informal" approach. It relaxes the applicant. I want pilots to
look forward to doing a bi-annual instead of seeing it as an ever
present "hurdle" to be completed in order to keep their certificate.
It's toward that goal I dislike the "rigid" "formal" approach.
There is no reason whatsoever for an instructor to treat a bi-annual
check as a challenge. The very essence of the context involved with
pilot to pilot flight checks is to develop in a pilot a true and real
desire to remain proficient. I feel it is an instructor's
responsibility to create this attitude in each pilot they encounter.
In the world of display aerobatics, it was common for me as well as
other pilots to seek each other out on a regular basis and ask to be
watched and critiqued. I was always surprised at the little things my
fellow pilots picked up on and made known to me; not only surprised,
but grateful.
Dudley Henriques

On Apr 14, 8:46*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote in ...

"Dallas" wrote in message
.. .

What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

I haven't been through one yet.. *how tough are they? *Is this like a
mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam
etc..
or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
understands the basics?"

Biannual is twice a year.

It's just a "flight review".

No biggie usually but as others have pointed out ymmv.

Ask around about the local instuctors and find one that fits what you want
to do (learn something, just get by, par-tay, etc.) *:-)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Ti's bienial, and it's every two years.

Peter

Right as rain! I missed picking up on that in the initial posting and
quoted it as bi-annual myself
:-))
-DH

In article ,
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:

Biannual is twice a year.

Just a stupid nit: according to my dictionary, "biannual" can mean
either twice a year or once every two years. "Biennial" removes the
ambiguity and means every two years, and "semiannual" always means twice
a year. (I just found this interesting and wanted to share, no criticism
meant.)

We now return you to our regularly scheduled aviation discussion.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .

"Tim" #__#@__.- wrote in message
m...

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
Dallas wrote:

What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

I haven't been through one in over twelve years; you can avoid the
thing
altogether by a combination of getting new ratings and participating in
the
FAA Wings program (http://www.faasafety.gov/WINGS/)

--Sylvain

I considered the Wings program, but seemed so much quicker and easier to
just take the BFR.


It probably is quicker to just do the BFR. But the idea was to recognize
participation in a greater amount of "continuing ed" and a lot of the
wings seminars are interesting--even for some of us who are not currently
aviating.


Agreed, but they should give more credit for participation, and focus more
on teaching than testing.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:06:51 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

participating in the FAA Wings

Hey.. not a bad idea.


--
Dallas

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:30:00 GMT, wrote:

It isn't a "test" as there is no failing

Not getting the sign off means you failed.

But, I like the idea that it's a test. My ex-fighter pilot brother in law
was under the impression that he was legal to fly if he got his medical. I
added that he needed the flight review, then he was legal.

The last time he flew they hadn't adopted Class B airspace yet. I would
hope that the instructor would really test this guy before he turned him
loose to fly again.

--
Dallas

Dallas wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:30:00 GMT, wrote:

It isn't a "test" as there is no failing

Not getting the sign off means you failed.

If you don't get a sign off it means you are totally incompetant as a
pilot.

A test has objective criteria, a flight review doesn't.

But, I like the idea that it's a test.

In my opinion, you are looking at it in the wrong way.

It should be an opportunity to refresh and hone your skills and maybe
learn something new.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Dallas" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:30:00 GMT, wrote:

It isn't a "test" as there is no failing

Not getting the sign off means you failed.


And it does indeed happen. I had a bad experience with a low time instructor
over nothing more than a short field landing procedure. I actually had to
threaten him with contacting the FAA to get his signature.

But choose your CFI with care, as you always should. A BFR should be a fun,
and a great time to ask questions and learn something new. I have been
taking BFRs as long as the program has been required, and only had one bad
one.