Should a BFR be a "Flight Test"?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Qld
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should a BFR be a "Flight Test"?
Following some dialogue between myself, colleagues and CASA regarding some unsatisfactory performances recently observed during the conduct of BFRs, I would like to stimulate some discussion on whether Flight Reviews ( either Aeroplane or Helicopter) should be regarded as a "Flight Test", and conducted in accordance with the appropriate standard required for the relevant licence; ie PPL CPL or ATPL..... .It would seem that in some quarters at CASA at least, there exists the view that by very definition of a flight review - ie. " a test of the aeronautical skills, etc......", that the "review" should be conducted as a "test" with a "pass" or "fail" assessment..... .Please don't be flinging dung at me for bringing this up, as my personal view is irrelevant. I do think however, that the original intent of the legislation was that the "review" was that it be just that - ie. a "review".....an opportunity for the pilot to be brought up to date and have his skills honed appropriately by an appropriate instructor - no pass or fail recorded.. .What does concern me now is that there is no protocol as to what the person conducting the review should do if someone were to "fail" the "test", as it were. Certainly, commonsense might dictate a certain course of action should a pilot display blatent and dangerous tendencies and be an obvious danger to us all, etc...however, I know I have often flown with people who have done things during the review which would have scored them an immediate fail on a licence test - sometimes there isn't the time, nor resources on the part of the "reviewee" to get themself adequate remedial training at that time; therefore, wot to do if you are the instructor??. .I understand that there is considerable discussion amongst the troops at CASA about this definition of the flight review, so what is ya'all's opinions out there?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an excellent question, with well presented thoughts from both sides OldH.
I agree with you that both options are good ideas. As a grade 1, who has done many BFRs I think it is both.
1. It is a training flight where you bring up to date the pubs, maps, thinking and the skills, but:
2. You are also assessing this person for the continued use of their relevant licence.
I see the main difference as, if it were a test and you had to make an input as a testing officer well the applicant has failed. So it is really both, but with a changing emphasis. At the beginning its assisting and training with an eventual change of emphasis to the assessment that the licence holder is at the required standard to safely fly the aircraft.
As an overall assessment of the question, I think the current arrangement is correct.
It is sometimes hard enough to get people to book and do the BFR, if we call it a test that will get harder. At least at the moment every two years we can get a look at people and have a chance to bring them back up or improve the standard.
A test would certainly ensure a standard and most probably improve the overall standard. But I don't think it will be well received by the average PPL.
Another thing that would be of benifit is a test form (assessment form) which would ensre all aspects of the flight are covered and an assessment standard is achieved. I think the current method is a bit too much left to the individual and I would think an improvment in this are is needed.
60/40 with the BFR (not test)in the lead.
I hope to see some other points of view as well.
[ 27 February 2002: Message edited by: AMRAAM ]
[ 27 February 2002: Message edited by: AMRAAM ]</p>
I agree with you that both options are good ideas. As a grade 1, who has done many BFRs I think it is both.
1. It is a training flight where you bring up to date the pubs, maps, thinking and the skills, but:
2. You are also assessing this person for the continued use of their relevant licence.
I see the main difference as, if it were a test and you had to make an input as a testing officer well the applicant has failed. So it is really both, but with a changing emphasis. At the beginning its assisting and training with an eventual change of emphasis to the assessment that the licence holder is at the required standard to safely fly the aircraft.
As an overall assessment of the question, I think the current arrangement is correct.
It is sometimes hard enough to get people to book and do the BFR, if we call it a test that will get harder. At least at the moment every two years we can get a look at people and have a chance to bring them back up or improve the standard.
A test would certainly ensure a standard and most probably improve the overall standard. But I don't think it will be well received by the average PPL.
Another thing that would be of benifit is a test form (assessment form) which would ensre all aspects of the flight are covered and an assessment standard is achieved. I think the current method is a bit too much left to the individual and I would think an improvment in this are is needed.
60/40 with the BFR (not test)in the lead.
I hope to see some other points of view as well.
[ 27 February 2002: Message edited by: AMRAAM ]
[ 27 February 2002: Message edited by: AMRAAM ]</p>
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some kind of 'protocol' for the conduct of the BFR. The then Department of Transport Australia produced a ' Guide for the conduct of the Flight Reviews - Aeroplanes' in February 1982. To my knowledge there is nothing that supersedes that. CAR 5.81 gives some indication as to what aircraft must be used, it also states what happens on successful completion. It does not mention a not successfull completion. I presume because because there is no fail.My opinion is that there is no fail or pass as in a test. If you are competend you get your stamp in the logbook, if not we need to do some more work to get you competend. If time allowes, that can be done on this flight, if not, come back some other time.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a good question!. .In a nutshell; the answer lies in the title of the said procedure - the Biennial Flight REVIEW. The intent of the BFR is to offer the pilot who has not been subject to any formal scrutiny in the past two years an opportunity to REVIEW procedures and practices. If it were to be called a Biennial Flight TEST, then other aspects would come into the equation such as the present arrangement that only ATO's can conduct flight tests (excepting certain cases) and naturally, one could pass or fail the sequence. Naturally, this would also add to the cost of the BF(T) as most ATO's usually charge a test fee on top of the hire charges.. .I personally feel to make the BFR a test with a pass or fail assessment could be counter-productive; I think for the most part the present arrangement works well when applied appropriately. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with AMRAAM.
IMHO, the current system is self-policing. What I mean by that is that very few reviewers would ever sign off anyone they believed was not competent enough to exercise the priveleges of their licence.
From personal experience, anyone I reviewed that didn't quite come up to scratch in a particular competency would always (without complaint)come back for further work.
IMHO, the current system is self-policing. What I mean by that is that very few reviewers would ever sign off anyone they believed was not competent enough to exercise the priveleges of their licence.
From personal experience, anyone I reviewed that didn't quite come up to scratch in a particular competency would always (without complaint)come back for further work.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all can we delete the reference to "BFR" or "Biennial Flight Review". The two REVIEWS are "Helicopter Flight Review" and "Aeroplane Flight Review".
A Test is a "trial determining a thing's standard" where a review is "revision of a subject"
So it is not a test but a review of a persond knowledge and flying ability.
As to the standard that meets a "satisfactorily completed", there appears to be none.
I have had it put to me that the holder of a PPL would need to be able to "satisfactorily complete" to the standard for a PPL licence test.
So if the person undegoing the review only operated his/her C150 or R22 out the back of Bourke, does he/she have to conduct part of the review in a radar envoriment?
To get some standard, most of the flying schools I know off, which conduct flight reviews, have forms (one for PPL and one for CPL) covering the items/sequences to be covered during the review.
Both the pilot under review and the person conducting the review have to sign the form. Protects both parties.
Has anyone still got a copy of the "Guide to the Conduct of Flight Reviews"?
A Test is a "trial determining a thing's standard" where a review is "revision of a subject"
So it is not a test but a review of a persond knowledge and flying ability.
As to the standard that meets a "satisfactorily completed", there appears to be none.
I have had it put to me that the holder of a PPL would need to be able to "satisfactorily complete" to the standard for a PPL licence test.
So if the person undegoing the review only operated his/her C150 or R22 out the back of Bourke, does he/she have to conduct part of the review in a radar envoriment?
To get some standard, most of the flying schools I know off, which conduct flight reviews, have forms (one for PPL and one for CPL) covering the items/sequences to be covered during the review.
Both the pilot under review and the person conducting the review have to sign the form. Protects both parties.
Has anyone still got a copy of the "Guide to the Conduct of Flight Reviews"?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Qld
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all for the comments so far...none the wiser but, are we?. .Sorry for the reference to "BFR" or "Bienniel", ozoilfield,; I am well aware these terms appear no where in the CAR - however, every one knows what they mean, nevertheless (just like another colloquialism I hate such as "low flying endorsement"). .All I am trying to do is draw your collective attention to the fact that the subject is under heavy discussion in the regulator's crew rooms in various offices and further, that they are hanging their hats on the "definition" of the appropriate Review in CAR 2, which includes the word "test". The implication that I understand is being made is that they regard it as a "test" and is therefore subject to a pass or fail assessment. I'm personally not sure that the word "test" in this context, necessarily requires this decision....eg. when you have your eyes tested, it maybe for the purpose of meeting a certain standard (licence?) or it may simply be to see if your glasses need upgrading?. .Anyway, all I am suggesting is that all those who conduct reviews may be out on a limb in the absence of any protocols as to what we do with the guy who "fails"..at the moment, if he has a mind to the guy can simply say "thanks for nothing, pal" and get back in his aircraft to go on with maybe being a danger to himself and all who sail with him (and yes, I am mindful of the fact that he may not then have a current review status stamped in his log book and that remains his problem)
It is a review!
It is not a test and anyone saying it should be does not obviously know the history behind its introduction. Or they have other motives for wanting it so ($$ ?).
The problem is that in many cases the instructors doing such reviews do not have the people skills necessary to let someone know that he is not up to scratch and then do something about it and/or the guts to refuse to put the stamp in the log book.
If this is being discussed in the CASA FOI crew rooms then it shows how out of touch those FOIs are. It is not the private pilot that should be in their sights, but the instructors that conduct the reviews and what standards they expect.
Certainly it seems again that the only power to ensure that tests are conducted and to an appropriate standard is the insurance industry. The non completion of an AFR is grounds I understand for not paying a claim.
As said in a previous post, if the person under review does not meet the required standard then the instructor should indicate in the log book that an incomplete review has been carried out. Until the standard is there, no formal stamp should be signed indicating that the AFR has been "completed".
The standards of pilots is the responsibility of instructors and flying schools. If they met this responsibility then the standards would be higher and their business would be better. Trouble is that many instructors are just there on the way to something better and dont seem to give 2cents for PPL standards. Yet, when they get into a regional airline they are the first to complain when some GA pilot does not do the right thing!
(I wonder if some of these FOIs are the ones that are making it very difficult or impossible in some areas for a PPL to obtain a Private Instrument Rating?)
It is not a test and anyone saying it should be does not obviously know the history behind its introduction. Or they have other motives for wanting it so ($$ ?).
The problem is that in many cases the instructors doing such reviews do not have the people skills necessary to let someone know that he is not up to scratch and then do something about it and/or the guts to refuse to put the stamp in the log book.
If this is being discussed in the CASA FOI crew rooms then it shows how out of touch those FOIs are. It is not the private pilot that should be in their sights, but the instructors that conduct the reviews and what standards they expect.
Certainly it seems again that the only power to ensure that tests are conducted and to an appropriate standard is the insurance industry. The non completion of an AFR is grounds I understand for not paying a claim.
As said in a previous post, if the person under review does not meet the required standard then the instructor should indicate in the log book that an incomplete review has been carried out. Until the standard is there, no formal stamp should be signed indicating that the AFR has been "completed".
The standards of pilots is the responsibility of instructors and flying schools. If they met this responsibility then the standards would be higher and their business would be better. Trouble is that many instructors are just there on the way to something better and dont seem to give 2cents for PPL standards. Yet, when they get into a regional airline they are the first to complain when some GA pilot does not do the right thing!
(I wonder if some of these FOIs are the ones that are making it very difficult or impossible in some areas for a PPL to obtain a Private Instrument Rating?)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The absence of a logbook stamp will all come down to whether he ever gets ramped (by CASA) or not.
When I was doing BFR's there was nothing more required than a stamp in the logbook. However, if the BFR required paperwork to be sent in to CASA, then the "fail" would hopefully result in follow-up action by the regulator.....
But I reiterate that most private pilots would take the BFR seriously enough to accept the assessment and any remedials required.
When I was doing BFR's there was nothing more required than a stamp in the logbook. However, if the BFR required paperwork to be sent in to CASA, then the "fail" would hopefully result in follow-up action by the regulator.....
But I reiterate that most private pilots would take the BFR seriously enough to accept the assessment and any remedials required.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what is the problem? Eiher the BFR person is able and capable of flying in the same airspace as yourself or they are not.. .If your not happy they fail to complete the BFR or they get signed off.. .Come on...give us the NAMES of the casa bods you have been speaking with.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: BrisVegas
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey, I am contemplating the possibility of me sounding like a DUNCE here, but what is the basic BFR rule. I have a CPL, MECIR and will hopefully have a job very soon. Sorry for hijacking the thread, hopefully it will only be a short diversion oldrotor. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Do I need to do one...??
Sorry if I am silly for not knowing. Thanks for replies.
Do I need to do one...??
Sorry if I am silly for not knowing. Thanks for replies.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't looked at the regs on this one radar but it's my understanding that you need a check every 2 years ie the BFR, but if you have done a flight test or rating within the past two years that counts as a Flight review.
A good BFR brings you back into a training environment to bring you up to speed on any changes in regulation or procedures in the last 2 years, and a 1 hour or so flight to check for bad habits and make sure you aren't dangerous and good chance to practice forced landings or stall's with an instructor at your side, which you may or may not have done since your last BFR or flight test.
It doesn't need to be a test but in some cases where the pilot is over a certain age or hasn't flown for a long time perhaps a retest or multiple inflight exercises might be the safe way to go.
[ 28 February 2002: Message edited by: Throttlemonkey ]</p>
A good BFR brings you back into a training environment to bring you up to speed on any changes in regulation or procedures in the last 2 years, and a 1 hour or so flight to check for bad habits and make sure you aren't dangerous and good chance to practice forced landings or stall's with an instructor at your side, which you may or may not have done since your last BFR or flight test.
It doesn't need to be a test but in some cases where the pilot is over a certain age or hasn't flown for a long time perhaps a retest or multiple inflight exercises might be the safe way to go.
[ 28 February 2002: Message edited by: Throttlemonkey ]</p>
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar,
If you are maintaining your IF rating, then the renewal will be done every 12 months. Hence no requirement for BFR.
Cheers
If you are maintaining your IF rating, then the renewal will be done every 12 months. Hence no requirement for BFR.
Cheers
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well shoot me down and call me shirley, but if you were all so keen on keeping up with the regs you would all know (some better than others) that we all now have to sit for an AFR ..........or was it just me that did it?. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Not absolutely sure of the latest changes Islander jock, but even if you did a CIR renewal, you still need to have the AFR/HFR signed and stamped in your logbook, the concession being that you can use the CIR flight (and a type endorsement) as a BFR flight, but it still must be by an approved AFR/BFR instructor before it can be so used.
To the original Q, I agree with cogwheel and others above, that the review is a review not a test, but that this premise relies entirely upon the standards of the instructor signing it up. Therefore, if any CASA focus is brought to bear here, it should be by ensuring flight instructional standards are clearly defined and achieveable (why do I dream?), not by requiring another test and more paperwork.
IMHO, if commonsense were applied by EVERY AFR/HFR conducting officer, then CASA would not need to review the issue at all.
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">
To the original Q, I agree with cogwheel and others above, that the review is a review not a test, but that this premise relies entirely upon the standards of the instructor signing it up. Therefore, if any CASA focus is brought to bear here, it should be by ensuring flight instructional standards are clearly defined and achieveable (why do I dream?), not by requiring another test and more paperwork.
IMHO, if commonsense were applied by EVERY AFR/HFR conducting officer, then CASA would not need to review the issue at all.
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An excellent topic and a hobby horse of mine,
As was stated in an earlier post the guidelines for a BFR or more appropriately AFR/HFR laid down by CASA in a former life are no longer available, however, are still quite appropriate. The reason CASA no longer promotes them is unknown. Sadly, there are many within the training ranks who pay scant heed to the guidelines or the intent of the AFR, and a few circuits seem to foot the bill.
How many "flight reviewers" review the abilities of NVFR pilots on basic IF/limited panel techniques or go outside the well lit GAAP airports to test a pilots NVFR skills, notwithstanding the fact that the rating was only originally designed as a get home after dark rating.
Importantly with the much debated PPIR the scary thing is that the AFR is the only review a pilot needs to maintain the rating. CIR pilots who in most instances will be more current and proficient are required to be tested every year.
I have no problems with the awarding of a PPIR as the same competency standards are required as for the CIR, my only concern is that the on going management is reliant in the biannual AFR which on many occasions already does not fully review a pilots current ratings or endorsements.
Another concern that is expressed by many flying schools is the varying standard of AFR, and there are many instances of pilots refusing to do an AFR with a particular reviewer once a briefing of the intended AFR is known, instead opting to "go down the road where the review is "easier".
I am aware that the Aviation Safety Foundation Australia (ASFA) is currently undertaking to issue an updated set of guidelines including some work done previously by GAPAN but taking into account the PPIR. It is proposed these guidelines will be recognised by the aircraft insurers for the purposes of any future risk assessments of both aircraft owners and aircraft hiring facilities.
As was stated in an earlier post the guidelines for a BFR or more appropriately AFR/HFR laid down by CASA in a former life are no longer available, however, are still quite appropriate. The reason CASA no longer promotes them is unknown. Sadly, there are many within the training ranks who pay scant heed to the guidelines or the intent of the AFR, and a few circuits seem to foot the bill.
How many "flight reviewers" review the abilities of NVFR pilots on basic IF/limited panel techniques or go outside the well lit GAAP airports to test a pilots NVFR skills, notwithstanding the fact that the rating was only originally designed as a get home after dark rating.
Importantly with the much debated PPIR the scary thing is that the AFR is the only review a pilot needs to maintain the rating. CIR pilots who in most instances will be more current and proficient are required to be tested every year.
I have no problems with the awarding of a PPIR as the same competency standards are required as for the CIR, my only concern is that the on going management is reliant in the biannual AFR which on many occasions already does not fully review a pilots current ratings or endorsements.
Another concern that is expressed by many flying schools is the varying standard of AFR, and there are many instances of pilots refusing to do an AFR with a particular reviewer once a briefing of the intended AFR is known, instead opting to "go down the road where the review is "easier".
I am aware that the Aviation Safety Foundation Australia (ASFA) is currently undertaking to issue an updated set of guidelines including some work done previously by GAPAN but taking into account the PPIR. It is proposed these guidelines will be recognised by the aircraft insurers for the purposes of any future risk assessments of both aircraft owners and aircraft hiring facilities.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ozoilfield, yes I have some. e-mail me if you need a copy.. .cogwheel, CAR 5.81 or 5.108 does not provide for certifying of incomplete BFR/AFRs. CAO 40.1.7 states as to what is required of the instructor.. .radar o'reilly, No. CAR 5.108 states at the end of subparagraph 5 "is taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane review".. .If Woomera indulges me I could post the 'Guide for the conduct of flight review - aeroplane'.It's 8 pages.
For what its worth, I believe it essential that some level of standard be applied; perhaps based on a 'demonstration of competency in prescribed actions' basis.
I am aware of one PPL who had not flown for 20 years being signed out after a single 1 1/2 hour flight with an instructor in 1999.
He had no idea of contemporary radio and airway procedures and had only dropped in to the school with the vague thought of taking it up again. (He had just passed his medical with the same thought in mind.)
He was not aware he was doing a review until after the event and even then had to have the rule explained to him.
While he walked away from his landings and they could (just) use the aircraft again, the thought of being legally allowed to carry passengers scared him sh*tless and he dropped out again. He was not competent and he knew it.
His comments on his perception of the drop in safety standards from the time he learnt to fly are unprintable - even on JB.
I am aware of one PPL who had not flown for 20 years being signed out after a single 1 1/2 hour flight with an instructor in 1999.
He had no idea of contemporary radio and airway procedures and had only dropped in to the school with the vague thought of taking it up again. (He had just passed his medical with the same thought in mind.)
He was not aware he was doing a review until after the event and even then had to have the rule explained to him.
While he walked away from his landings and they could (just) use the aircraft again, the thought of being legally allowed to carry passengers scared him sh*tless and he dropped out again. He was not competent and he knew it.
His comments on his perception of the drop in safety standards from the time he learnt to fly are unprintable - even on JB.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it, there is only one issue here and that is that every pilot no matter who you are shouldn't be worried if it is a test OR a review. Either you are up to standard or you shouldn't be in an aircraft without an instructor until your are.
Not being up to speed with all the Civie regulations, and not knowing whether there are or are not guidelines, then I guess as someone who is reviewing another pilot you could use the....'Would I be happy to let this pilot take my family and loved ones flying?' Why let someone fly around who could quite possibly be in the same piece of airspace as yourself one day. Wouldn't you rather he know what he/she is doing.
As a pilot who is up for a review, then who are you trying to kid if are not up to speed. Go and fly with a instructor until you are. Why be dangerous? It should be in your own interest to be the best pilot you can be. Otherwise you may not be flying for much longer anyway.
TW.
Not being up to speed with all the Civie regulations, and not knowing whether there are or are not guidelines, then I guess as someone who is reviewing another pilot you could use the....'Would I be happy to let this pilot take my family and loved ones flying?' Why let someone fly around who could quite possibly be in the same piece of airspace as yourself one day. Wouldn't you rather he know what he/she is doing.
As a pilot who is up for a review, then who are you trying to kid if are not up to speed. Go and fly with a instructor until you are. Why be dangerous? It should be in your own interest to be the best pilot you can be. Otherwise you may not be flying for much longer anyway.
TW.