The Bfr

[runway16]

A question for pruners.

What grade instructor do you have to be to do BFRs?

Does an instructor have to do these in a flying school or can the instructor do a BFR outside a flying school, like for friends/fkying buddies?

RW.

[Arm out the window]

For helicopters it's Gr 1, fixed wing Gr 1 and also Gr 2 if he or she has 400 hrs instructing and CFI approval.
Look at CAO 40.1.7 (40.3.7 helos) for that stuff, privileges of each grade.
Reading those orders on their own you would think that an instructor of the appropriate grade could just go off and do flight reviews, but as I found out a while back when being quizzed by an examiner, there is a caveat on that.
If you look in CAR 1988 in part 5 where it talks about the different licences, each section refers to 'regular flight reviews required', and says who can do them.
Basically, one of the people who can is referred to as an 'authorised flight instructor', with the word 'authorised' being the catch. When you look that up in the definitions at the start, it says that an authorised flight instructor is someone of the appropriate grade who either has an AOC covering flying training, or is working under 'an arrangement' with someone who has. It doesn't specify what such an arrangement might be, but I understand that it can be just a simple handshake type thing with the CFI of a school, as long as it's been agreed. If you don't have an agreement or an AOC for training yourself, you can't do them.

[Avid Aviator]

Discussed this at length with my local FOI a few months back. The CAO and CAR basically contradict each other (how unusual). Won't detail the entire discussion here, but one implies you can, one suggests you can't. Main ambiguity is whether a BFR is "instructing"; just because you have to be a Grade 1 to do it, doesn't mean it's instructing!

Another issue is the BFR should be on aircraft the pilot usually flies; many such (rarer) aircraft do not appear on any flying school's AOC, so how can you possibly comply with this requirement?

FOI advised it was "being looked at", but no time frame was offered. In the mean time CASA won't give an official Yay or Nay on this, but won't be acting against those of us who do BFRs outside an AOC.

[Captain Nomad]

Spot on Arm out the Window! :ok:

Just waiting for the next question about 'what has to be done in a BFR?' There's a good point to argue on!

Runway 16 I don't know your situation so forgive me if I'm preaching to the converted but it's my observation that too many people who want a 'buddy' BFR miss out on valuable recurrency training. It should be taken as an opportunity to really refresh your skills particularly in the area of emergency procedures. If you approach it as just something else you have to shell out money for and you want to get back in the air by yourself ASAP by doing 'a few circuits' you may have to face the concequences later... :ugh:

[Captain Nomad]

Avid Aviator - I don't have the regs with me right now to quote but careful reading of them will tell you that it is NOT an unequivocal requirement that the BFR MUST be done in the aircraft that the individual has flown most over the last 10hrs or so. From memory there is some reference to category (eg plane, chopper, airship) that needs to be considered - there is room to move within those categories.

[NAMPS]

Just being pedantic - it's called an AFR (for aeroplanes) now isn't it?

[Arm out the window]

True NAMPS, and it's a HFR for those of the correct flying persuasion!
Capt. Nomad, I'd be interested in the 'what has to be done in the BFR?' question, as I've come from the military side of things not too long ago and haven't done a 'standalone' flight review as yet, just ratings and endorsements which have fulfilled the requirements of a review. Got a fair idea, I think, but I'd always be keen to hear the interpretations of those who've been there and done that, so to speak.
Cheers.

[Avid Aviator]

True, Capt Nomad ... I think it's something along the lines of "except in extenuating [exceptional?] circumstances...."

You could argue that if there's no Flying School AOC that includes your aircraft of choice, then that is exceptional and you can use something else.

Or you could argue that in this case you may do the BFR outside a Flying School (same as you can do endorsement training in certain circumstances...)

CASA won't arbitrate, so I guess no one can be certain which is definitely correct.

There is (was) some guidance material on what to cover - will post a link if I can find it. Personally, I would try and focus on what flying the candidate was planning in the next years, rather than what they'd done recently. I guess the trick is to send them away happy that they know more than when they arrived, but without making them feel inadequate or inferior at all during the process!

[Captain Nomad]

Good discussion! Avid Aviator, I think you are right on the guidance material but it I believe it was removed with changing regs sometime ago. Once again CASA won't stipulate here but common sense should play a part and insurance requirements could put more pressure on this area in the future also.

Arm out the window, with your background I'm sure you are used to an extensive process of performance reviews that keep people on top of their task no matter what it is. In GA I guess it is a bit of a sliding scale, and if you are a well qualified pilot then probably the CIR renewal is better than an AFR anyway (and it does count as a flight review of course) as it requires standards to be met with specific performance criteria. On the other end of the scale is the pilot who may just have a PPL and they are only required to fly with an instructor every two years for an AFR. The way it stands at the moment there are no standards with performance criteria that have to be met and no pass/fail. That itself is not necessarily a bad thing and the flexibility can be used to target whatever is desired or needed. The downside is that the AFR can become a joke if you get a cowboy turn up to do an AFR with his 'mate' who will go for a jolly with him and do a few things that don't really challange his skills or standards (which may be quite low) and then give him a stamp at the end of it.

Now another problem is a flying school may use this process to milk money from people and require them to spend lots of money and do some great big exercise that may not be really relevant anyway - this situation is not terribly common although I have seen it.

I agree with Avid Aviator that it should be conducted on an individual basis and should be used to prepare the person for what they are planning to do with their flying. Often people 'lapse' and they look in their logbook and see that the AFR is due and that inspires them to come back and 'get current again'. It is a good time for an instructor to sit down with them and go over changes in procedures (especially lately with all the NAS airspace stuff). If they have only been flying locally but want to do more navigation trips then you can revise navigation procedures (and related items that also may have changed like submission of flight plans). Emergency procedures I believe should be revised in any AFR as the average PPL holder rarely practices them after getting the qualification. Truthfully, there are so many things that could be covered but the important thing is for the instructor and student to agree on topics of relevance that should be covered and the candidate should feel free to ask questions and take it as an opportunity to learn and refresh. How much they get out of it will probably depend a lot on their attitude and approach to it. It is also really important for the instructor to be especially patient, friendly and supportive as some people use the AFR as a decision point to decide whether it really is worth continuing with the whole flying thing.

Goodness, what an essay! That's my two cents worth anyway! :)

[Arm out the window]

Thanks, Capt Nomad & Avid Aviator. The idea of ground discussions/briefings and an air exercise tailored to the needs of the individual and to what type of flying he or she is likely to do in the near future certainly sounds like the go, particularly if it includes some emergency procedure practice as well.

I've had a bit of a read of the proposal for CASR Part 61, which looks set to change the requirements for reviews somewhat, but I think the timeframe for its implementation is slipping significantly so it may not be in effect for some time...perhaps there are some in the know that could enlighten us more?:)