Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have a general question that I thought I might pose. I thought the answer was real simple but now I am not so sure.

 

I was asked by a guy for a bfr. He has 4000+ helo hours but no robbie time. The only ships I have available are a R22 and R44.

 

I felt the answer was no.... In a BFR he would be PIC. He can not act as PIC without awareness training and 10 hours of dual instruction. End of story..... Or so I thought.

 

I asked several other CFI's and got about a 50/50 mix of those who said it was legal and those that said "no way".

 

I pulled out my FAR/AIM and I feel it is cut and dry...In a BFR he would be PIC and can't do it unless he meets the requirements....

 

Just to be sure I am going to call the FSDO in the morning to try to get a clear answer.

 

Any other opinions???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jtravis1,

 

This is not possible with a 'walk-in' customer with absoulutely nothing before going out.

 

The issue is not so much one of who is nominated (acting) PIC, but an issue of who is 'manipulating the controls' at certain times of the the flight.

 

Consider first what is required for the conduct of the BFR.

 

51.56 (2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.

 

Note the underlining there (my emphasis). Although not explicitly stated, any prudent CFI would therefore ask the pilot to demonstrate these maneuvers in flight In otherwords, 'manipulate the controls'.

 

Then look at the SFAR73-1. Again the pertinant part is underlined (my emphasis).

 

1. Applicability. Under the procedures prescribed herein, this SFAR applies to all persons who seek to manipulate the controls or act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter. The requirements stated in this SFAR are in addition to the current requirements of part 61.

 

And more specifically...

 

(A)(1) ....no person may manipulate the controls of a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter after March 27, 1995 for the purpose of flight unless the awareness training specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section is completed and the person's logbook has been endorsed by a certified flight instructor authorized under paragraph (B)(5) of this section.

 

(a)(2) essentially reiterates again, that even if they have 4000+ helo hours but no robbie time, they still need awareness training in order to manipulate the controls.

 

HOWEVER

 

Don't get the 10hrs of PIC time you stated mixed into this.

 

In a BFR he would be PIC.
Why do you say this?

 

Remember that those required 10hrs PIC time you mentioned are only for the purpose of acting PIC. This means being nominated Pilot in Command of the ship. Nowhere does it say that during the BFR, the candidate must be nominated (acting) PIC. The CFI can remain 'acting' PIC throughout the whole flight.

 

Therefore the 10hrs thingy doesn't apply to your man. In theory you could simply give him the awareness training of (a)(3), then go out and do the BFR.

 

In fact, (a)(3) doesn't even say what is the minimum for the awareness training. It says 'instruction in the following general subject areas'. Well that could be 5 minutes on the ground, or it could be a full video and a 20hr lecture! It doesn't say.

 

So yes, you could take your 4000+ man, sit him down for 5 minutes on the ground, endorse him, then go out and do the BFR. He does not need 10hrs solo, as he will never 'act as PIC'.

 

WOULD THIS BE WISE?

 

However, I don't know if this is wise in every case for a couple of reasons.

 

1. re. 5-minute awareness training - 5 minutes on the ground before the flight isn't what I would consider as appropriate 'awareness training'. It sort of makes mockery of the awareness training. I couldn't endorse someone with confidence if that was all I had done. Hell, I wouldn't feel safe flying with him if this was all I had done. He'd probably kill me or at least overspeed the rotors or something!

 

2. Thinking back to 61.56, I am required to be sure that the candidate is able to demonstrate the safe exercise in order to sign the BFR. Well, many pilots (no matter how experienced they were) would have trouble doing this during their first flight in the aircraft. They don't know the systems, they don't know how it feels.

 

I need to be confident in all the areas of the PTS (and FAR flight proficiency lists) appropriate for their certificate. OK, that doesn't mean I need to see them all. Nevertheless, generally in one hour in your first flight of a new type, you are going to be rocky...you probably won't do the start or shutdown, you won't know how to tie the thing down (post flight), nor will you be confident during a preflight check. Nor would you have a good idea of the performance required / available for confined areas, or the glide angle for autorotations...etc..etc.. Do you see what I mean?

 

Well, as a CFI conducting a BFR, I need to be confident that the candidate can do these safely. If I don't see him do most of them, can I really be that confident?

 

I suppose it depends greatly on the the candidate. I would have to make a judgement on this, and have the authority to, but

 

I cannot reduce the standards I am looking for, simply because it's their first time in the aircraft.

 

I would definitely warn them of this, and make it their choice whether they want to continue.

 

You would also have to reiterate, that even though he completed his BFR in this aircraft, he is in no way certified to fly it. The SFAR requirements still apply.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Joker

 

Disclaimer: Its been some time since I have looked over this topic. I may have overlooked something. So I urge someone to be critical of my interpretation. I look forward to any feedback, other members here or FSDO.

Edited by joker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would be inclined to ask the FSDO about how 61.57 (G) applies to this situation. It may be possible to give this guy an hour of instruction both on the ground and in-flight towards his Robbie endorsement. This would technically make him a student pilot, just not for a certificate. And, just for your peace of mind, you could spend a little more time ground to make sure you are comfortable with his knowledge of both the awareness training and general operating rules.

 

61.57 (G) A student pilot need not accomplish the flight review required by this section provided the student pilot is undergoing training for a certificate and has a current solo flight endorsement as required under 61.87 of this section.

Edited by Helo-Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I would be inclined to ask the FSDO about how 61.57 (G) applies to this situation. It may be possible to give this guy an hour of instruction both on the ground and in-flight towards his Robbie endorsement. This would technically make him a student pilot, just not for a certificate. And, just for your peace of mind, you could spend a little more time ground to make sure you are comfortable with his knowledge of both the awareness training and general operating rules.

 

61.57 (G) A student pilot need not accomplish the flight review required by this section provided the student pilot is undergoing training for a certificate and has a current solo flight endorsement as required under 61.87 of this section.

 

That is quite a stretch. :blink: A commercially rated pilot can not denounce his certificate because he is undergoing training. He is simply a pilot in training. Now, until he has completed his BFR he can not exercise the privileges of that certificate. Putting the term "Student pilot" doesn't allow him to not take a Flight review, and the point would be mute in any case as he is not trying to remain a student, is he? I believe you could do a Flight review in the Robby, but, would it be prudent? Who knows, you might be surprised. I was with a 212 guy a few years ago, explaining that the hour/hour was a minimum, and not a guarantee. Frankly explaining to the guy that it wasn't likely that I would sign him off at the end of it and that he would more than likely need additional training. I was pleasantly surprised and happy to sign him off at the end of the session. Just be upfront with the guy, and if at the end of your conversation either of you are not comfortable, don't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to raise this point too...but had to go to work. Well, I'm at work now, so don't have my usual host of references to give but...

 

To the FAA the term 'Student Pilot' refers to someone who is unrated in terms of certificates and ratings...not how we think of a student (someone who is undergoing training).

 

This pilot is a rated pilot and so cannot be a student pilot again!

 

C of G, makes a good point, which I tried to stress as well (in bold at the end of my post), albeit in a overly conservative manner;

 

You have to make a judgement on the person.

 

You might be much happier doing the BFR in a Robbie with a 4000+hr pilot (who is flying daily) than with a 201hr pilot who flies once every 5 months. Or it could be the other way around.

 

That's the job of the CFI. That's a decision the FAA have entrusted you to make.

 

Joker

Edited by joker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100% with Joker's comments. It is legal to do a flight review in that instance.

 

Let me add that the pilot seeking the flight review is not the Pilot-In-Command simply by default of the FAR's. If someone's BFR has expired, then they cannot be PIC in any aircraft. It is still legal to give them a BFR.

 

I'm new to flying Robinsons, and I have to say that they don't deserve the stigma given to them. It's a good ship and has pros and cons like any other model.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really appreciate your guys responses. It just shows how confusing this stuff can be....

 

Well I called my local FSDO and got the answer and the back-up out of the FAR's.

 

It turns out that I was half right.... He can NOT get a BFR in a robbie.

 

Here is the section out of the FAR's referring to to why...

 

I highlighted the appropriate section and it clearly states that the pilot must complete the review in an aircraft for which the pilot is rated. Even though the pilot does have a rotorcraft rating, the SFAR is very clear on what is required to be rated in the Robbie. Without the awareness training and 10 hours of dual he is not considered "rated" in the Robbie. This seems to be an unintended consequence of the SFAR.

 

 

61.56

 

Flight review.

 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (B ) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The review must include:

(1) A review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 of this chapter; and

(2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.

(B ) Glider pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a glider, each of which includes a flight to traffic pattern altitude, in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required in paragraph (a) of this section.

© Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has--

(1) Accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor; and(2) A logbook endorsed from an authorized instructor who gave the review certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the review.

Edited by jtravis1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jtravis1,

 

Ha! Good job you rang the FSDO rather. Afterall, they are the ones that are going to put you in jail, not me!

 

I'd be interested to know which FSDO's interpretation that is.

 

I am struggling with their interpretation of the phrase, "for which that pilot is rated", but am unable to find anything contrary to that FSDO's interpretation.

 

So for the moment I'll stand down....further research required!

 

Thanks

 

Joker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joker,

 

I spoke with the Charlotte NC FSDO. Before I called them, I called a DPE that I know and he told me the same thing... I figured that I would call the FSDO just to be sure.

 

If you find out any different, I would love to get any info you find. Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jtravis1,

 

Interesting.

 

Like I said, its been two years since I looked at this stuff...seems I must look again!

 

I have heard both interpretations from FSDOs and DPEs.

 

The issue is that down to whether the words 'rating' and 'rated' refer to the same thing or not.

 

If so, then the SFAR endorsement does not constitute a 'rating' as per the definition in FAR 1.1 as it does not come up on the certificate (can't remember the exact wording) - indeed there is no 'rating' for an aircraft less than 12,500lbs...simply the additinonal training 61.31(h) I think. In otherwords, the pilot is essentially still rated for that aircraft, just hasn't completed the extra training required.

 

However, I can't seem to find anything on the contrary of what you found, yet. So, I am inclined now to believe my memory backed the wrong horse!

 

In fact, when I think to this phrase as used in other FARs (tailwheel aircraft, safety pilot, etc...etc..) , the FSDO's interpretation does make more sense.

 

So let's go with that interpretation until we find something better.

 

Joker

Edited by joker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jtravis1,

 

Ha! Good job you rang the FSDO rather. Afterall, they are the ones that are going to put you in jail, not me!

 

I'd be interested to know which FSDO's interpretation that is.

 

I am struggling with their interpretation of the phrase, "for which that pilot is rated", but am unable to find anything contrary to that FSDO's interpretation.

 

So for the moment I'll stand down....further research required!

 

Thanks

 

Joker

 

Joker,

 

I have to agree with you, "for which a pilot is rated," is the crux of the interpretation. I am a rated helicopter pilot, so should I not be able to do a BFR in any helicopter under 12,500 MTOW. After I retired from the Air Force Reserves, I did a BFR in a Bell 47, a model that I had not flown before with no concern about whether it was legal or not. SFAR 73 is an endorsement, not a rating, so if the person is a rated helicopter pilot, then why could a person not do it in an R22 if they had not flown one previously. Would one need just the awareness training and the logbook endorsement? Would one need the 10 hours of dual before they could do a BFR in an R22? At what point is a rated helicopter pilot "Rated" in the R22 such that they can legally do a BFR in one? In all the times I've read SFAR 73, I've never seen anything listed for hours required prior to accomplishing a BFR in one. Seems that someone forgot to cover this situation when writing SFAR 73....Frank, are you listening?

 

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no rating for Robinson helicopters, only an endorsement. This should be nothing new to the FSDO. With airplanes, there is the complex endorsement and the high-performance endorsement and the tailwheel endorsement. It has been interpreted by the AOPA in concurrence with the FAA that a pilot seeking one of these endorsements may log PIC time because that pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls for which he or she is rated (assuming the pilot holds the appropriate category and class ratings), and that these instructor endorsements do not constitue an additional rating. However, without the endorsement the pilot may not act as PIC, there being a distinct difference between being PIC and logging PIC.

 

The same logic applies to ratings vs. endorsements when it comes to SFAR 73. FAR Part 61 (somewhere in the beginning of Subpart A) explicitly lists all the category and class ratings available for a pilot certificate. Nowhere is R-22 or R-44 listed. If a pilot is rated in ROTORCRAFT-HELICOPTER, then that pilot may log PIC time while training for a SFAR 73 sign-off.

 

So if we can establish through other interpretations that R-22/44 is not a rating, then as long as a pilot holds a helicopter class rating, that pilot may legally have a flight review in an R-22/44 because that BFR is conducted in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated.

 

I'm not sure why an FAA inspector (generally speaking) cannot look at the FAR's and make an intelligent interpretation. I don't even care to guess. But from experience, I can tell you that my local FSDO, and perhaps others, likes to misinterpret and even manufacture rules and regulations. If you ask them to show you where they get their information, they usually cannot substantiate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same situation, can a airplane pilot take a BFR in a complex or high performance aircraft if they don't have the endorsement to act as PIC?

 

Search the AOPA archives or John Lynch's Pt.61 FAQ for that if you can't find the exact R22 answer.

 

BTW, any helicopter pilot is RATED to fly an R22 or R44 under pt. 61, but they are not all ENDORSED to under SFAR73 of pt. 61.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jtravis,

 

As you can see, there is a little difficulty with this one.

 

You were right to talk to the FSDO. As I said before, they are the ones have the authority...not us here.

 

However, that doesn't make their interpretation necessarily right! They are just simple people like you and me interpreting the regulations in their weird and wonderful ways...like you and me. So for that reason, I usually like to get something down on paper, or at least in an email, when seeking an interpretation from them which I am going to act on.

 

DPEs are a breed in their own right. - Non-FAA 'civilians', equally as expert as the next Joe Bloggs!....it does not surprise me that a DPE in the jurisdiction of the XYZ FSDO arrives at the same interpretation as the FSDO does.

 

What I am saying is that in situations like this, cover your ass - do what you have been told to by the authority (i.e. FSDO), but bear in mind that each FSDO may interpret the rules in their own way.

 

The only interpretation that would stand the test of the law, is funnily enough - a legal interpretiation (an interpretation from a real case!)

 

-------------------------

 

A number of others here, have agreed that the R22 sign-off is not a rating as such, and so that phrase in 61.56 (may / probably) does not apply. That would make my initial assertion that the BFR can be done (one the awareness training is done.)

 

Being 10,000 miles away, I have done what I can, but it is pretty difficult for me to do the 'research' that I need to do. I was rather hopin that someone else could make a few calls, scour the AOPA archives, and Lynch's Part 61 FAQ - to try to get to the bottom of this.

 

I look forward to hearing any further discoveries.

 

Joker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...