Flying without a BFR

[AussieNick]

So, i've been having a discussion at work about flying without a BFR.

Example: 2 pilots, one without a current BFR is sitting in the LHS on a single pilot aircraft with a current pilot in the RHS seat. The guy in the LHS has a current medical.

IT is my understanding that the guy in the RHS is PIC, as the flight manual doesn't stipulate the PIC must be in the LHS. The LHS guy can fly and manipulate the controls as he is suitable qualified to operate the aircraft but he cannot log time as PIC. I also assume that he cannot log time as dual either as I read it that to log time as dual the PIC must either be an instructor, ATO or authorised by CASA eg a chief pilot.

I've read through the CAR's and CAO's but can't decypher a straight answer. I'd tempted to say, the non bfr guy can fly, but cannot log anytime correct?

Also, i've heard the term safety pilot thrown around a bit, but cannot find any legal reference to it, can someone enlighten me?

[thorn bird]

The answer mate is????
"Whatever the FOI of the day who ramps you thinks"...

If he's after another notch on his gun...your in trouble....if his missus knocked him back last night ....your in trouble....if he just dosnt like the look of you....your in trouble...
Your damned if you do and damned if you dont, always remember "Safety" has nothing to do with it.

[tmpffisch]

5.81 Private (aeroplane) pilot: regular flight reviews required

(1) A private (aeroplane) pilot must not fly an aeroplane as pilot in command if the pilot has not, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.

I'd feel it comes down to the manipulating controls if qualified....no current flight review....not qualified.

[AussieNick]

Yeah, thats where I get confused, because in my question, the guy in the LHS is not PIC, the RHS is.....

[Ixixly]

But when you look at the options he is either:
A. PIC
B. ICUS
C. Dual

A is not possible as stated becaues of 5.81, but B. ICUS is "In COMMAND Under Supervision" so he is still in Command and as such with the wording "(1) A private (aeroplane) pilot must not fly an aeroplane as pilot in COMMAND" it therefore precludes this option and of course if its C then he is with an Instructor and you might as well do the flight as a BFR!!

So sure he could fly and not log the time, but lookout if CASA got wind of it (Ie, theres an incident, you got ramped or another pilot doesn't particular like either of you) and felt like making an example. Its only Illegal if you get caught of course!

[AussieNick]

Ixixly, thanks mate, I actually and quite stupidly, hadn't thought about that. Makes a whole lot of sense now.

[VH-XXX]

LHS "pilot" can't manipulate the controls unless he is current or if he is with a flying instructor.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

It doesn't matter which side the PIC is on so long as s/he occupies a control seat. Flying instructors are PIC and traditionally sit on the right. It's just to do with where the instruments are.
No AFR, no currency, no insurance.

[LeadSled]

ICUS is "In COMMAND Under Supervision" so he is still in Command and as such with the wording

IXIXLY,
Quite wrong, "ICUS" is a log book entry for (you guessed it) In Command Under Supervision ---- WHICH IS NOT ---- in command.

I simply have no idea why this simple concept is so consistently misrepresented/misinterpreted/misunderstood in Australia. The whole subject has been done to death on other pprune threads, ICAO Annex 1 is clear, Australia's non-compliance with Annex 1 is clear, the requirements under which ICUS can be logged in Australia are silly, but reasonably clear.

Bottom line, ICUS is ICUS, nothing more, nothing less, and never the same as in command.

Elsewhere, the rule have words to the effect there can only be one pilot in command, etc.

tmpffish (have I got that right) is on the money, without a current BFR, the intent of our so badly worded rules are that said pilot can only manipulate the controls when a suitable rated pilot is the PIC.

Don't forget there are a number of ways of satisfying a AFR/BFR requirement, not just "doing a AFR/BFR".

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

And something completely lost on many is a BFR is NOT an exam, it's a REVIEW that should remedy bad habits picked up in the previous two years.

You can't fail a BFR, you can, at worst, be found not up to the task and the instructor won't sign your log book.

In that case either lift your game or find a more friendly instructor. A lot of this is determined of course by whether or not you are using the instructor's aircraft and more than likely is on a VDO switch. (Oh yes, this happens).

I must qualify this by saying I have been ripped off by instructors who own flying organisations who having seen my turbo engine experience had me do a 10 minute run down and mag checks in an O-320 engine.

However one day in the cold high "boonies", I had a mag failure, (enroute I would say), and I shut down without doing same.

The result was a large cost to get a LAME to and from the scene of my perceiveed incompetence.

What did I learn?

Quick mag check and don't go near the snow in winter.

The moral. You have to do one, so learn from it, that's what it was designed for.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

In that case either lift your game or find a more friendly instructor. A lot of this is determined of course by whether or not you are using the instructor's aircraft and more than likely is on a VDO switch. (Oh yes, this happens).

Don't like them, don't use them again, but I'm extremely dubious about the "find someone easier" connotation here. Can understand a pedantic instructor being an aversion, but I've also had way too many comments about, "Well my last AFR was only three circuits, why does this take so long?"

I have been contacted by CASA to verify an AFR was conducted correctly after a checked pilot (who should've known better) departed with insufficient fuel. (Didn't want to wait for a refuelled fuel depot to settle.) Think I would be working in this industry if I'd done a "quickie"?

Instructors, your signature is saying this person is competent for the next two years. You are resposible.

Do support Frank's description of how to think about the AFR. It is to get your skills up to a level where the approved person is satisfied you will be able to competently use your license for the next two years.

ICUS,
You must hold a CPL, be endorsed on type and hold any required ratings. You must be able to act and make all the decisions as if you were PIC.
1) PPL holders cannot legally log ICUS, &
2) How can you act as if you were PIC if you don't have a current review?

[Hasselhof]

Instructors, your signature is saying this person is competent for the next two years. You are resposible.

That is just not true. Your signature states that given the evidence available to you at the time, the pilot whose proficiency you were checking was of a sufficient standard, at the time, to execute the privileges and limitations of their license.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Yeah?
And what if you didn't do that review adequetely and that person killed themselves because of a basic skill you omitted? You don't think someone's coming after either your license, your finances or both?

As I said, I have been approached by CASA to verify the component the person stuffed up (two weeks after the review, mind you...:ugh::mad:) had been covered. In my case, yes I had and could present signed proof.

You will be approached in the event of a fatality to give evidence if your name is in their logbook. If you weren't happy that person was competent until their next review, why are you putting your name in there?

This game is one big arse covering exercise, people.
No-one is reponsible for themselves anymore.