History of the BFR?

[Jay Honeck]

Mary is off doing her BFR as I write this, which got me to wondering about
the history of the biennial flight review.

As I understand it, BFRs were not required until fairly recently (like, in
the last 30 years?). Given the current uproar over the creation of
relatively simple new requirements (like foreign pilots having to register,
etc.), I can barely imagine the howls of protest that must have ensued
during and after the creation of a rule that required every pilot to "prove
himself" with a CFI every 2 years!

(Although, I suspect, CFIs at the time must have thought they had died and
gone to heaven! Talk about a guaranteed money-maker! :-)

Was there a rash of incidents caused by rusty pilots before this rule was
proposed? What happened to bring about such a radical change?

For those who were flying back then, can you give us a brief history of what
happened?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Don Tuite]

I logged my first biennial in 1981. That was just after I sold the
tail-less Stinson to an IA as a project (internal corrosion in the
horizontal stab.), and the previous flight in the logbook was in the
Stinson in '79. So the requirement came up circa 1980.

From the dejanews records on Google, it appears that net.aviation was
only chartered in late 1981, so there wasnt the same kind of forum for
flogging a topic like biennials that we have here -- just the letters
columns in the magazines.

My recollection was that pretty much everybody but dyed-in-the-wool
libertarians thought it was a pretty good idea.

Don

[Ross Richardson]

The requirement must have started sometime around 1972. I got my licnese in
1970, and shortly thereafter I had to go take the BFR. I still remember the
instructor that gave it to me. I do remember there was some outcry. Just about
the same time transponders were mandated.

Ross

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Mary is off doing her BFR as I write this, which got me to wondering about
> the history of the biennial flight review.
>
> As I understand it, BFRs were not required until fairly recently (like, in
> the last 30 years?). Given the current uproar over the creation of
> relatively simple new requirements (like foreign pilots having to register,
> etc.), I can barely imagine the howls of protest that must have ensued
> during and after the creation of a rule that required every pilot to "prove
> himself" with a CFI every 2 years!
>
> (Although, I suspect, CFIs at the time must have thought they had died and
> gone to heaven! Talk about a guaranteed money-maker! :-)
>
> Was there a rash of incidents caused by rusty pilots before this rule was
> proposed? What happened to bring about such a radical change?
>
> For those who were flying back then, can you give us a brief history of what
> happened?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Mary is off doing her BFR as I write this, which got me to wondering about
> the history of the biennial flight review.

The measure was put into place in the late 70s. The first issue of the advisory
circular (61-98A) was dated 1976. It was revised in 1987 and 1991.

> As I understand it, BFRs were not required until fairly recently (like, in
> the last 30 years?). Given the current uproar over the creation of
> relatively simple new requirements (like foreign pilots having to register,
> etc.), I can barely imagine the howls of protest that must have ensued
> during and after the creation of a rule that required every pilot to "prove
> himself" with a CFI every 2 years!

According to Bill Cox (writing for Plane&Pilot), "There was a certain contingent of
pilots who objected vehemently to the new requirement."

> (Although, I suspect, CFIs at the time must have thought they had died and
> gone to heaven! Talk about a guaranteed money-maker! :-)

According to Howard Fried, the FAA tried to sell it to CFIs on those grounds, but it
has not proven to be a big moneymaker.
>
> Was there a rash of incidents caused by rusty pilots before this rule was
> proposed? What happened to bring about such a radical change?

I haven't seen anything in print to indicate that, but Rod Machado states that the
FAA hasn’t been able to quantify any direct safety benefits from the BFR. There’s
been no dramatic reduction of accidents attributable to the flight reviews.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Ron Natalie]

Ross Richardson wrote:
> The requirement must have started sometime around 1972. I got my licnese in
> 1970, and shortly thereafter I had to go take the BFR. I still remember the
> instructor that gave it to me. I do remember there was some outcry. Just about
> the same time transponders were mandated.

There was also an attempt to make it annual for low experience pilots.
This came in with the addition of the Recreational Pilot certificate
as (oddly enough) a bone thrown to the flight instructor lobby over
the lost revenue. They kept rolling forward the effective date until
they finally ditched the concept in the 95 FAR rewrite.

[tom418]

BFRs came around in the 70's (~1975 I believe). I took my first BFR in
1976. The FAA re-wrote a lot of part 61 at that time. For example, prior
to 1974?, it was permissable to fly a twin without a multi rating, as long
as you were solo. It was also possible to get your Commercial certificate
before your Instrument rating . (I did mine that way, courtesy of SUNY
Farmingdale ). And, of course, ATPs were known as ATRs.
"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> >I can barely imagine the howls of protest that must have ensued
> >during and after the creation of a rule that required every pilot to
"prove
> >himself" with a CFI every 2 years!
>
> First there was major confusion. One early proposal was for
> a flight review yearly. Our club felt our instructors would
> spend most of their time giving flight reviews. I also
> remember the concerns over those who were thought they'd
> have to rent a glider, balloon, airplane and seaplane every
> year to keep the rating they'd already earned.
>
> >(Although, I suspect, CFIs at the time must have thought they had died
and
> >gone to heaven! Talk about a guaranteed money-maker! :-)
>
> No. I was a CFI then, and it seemed to have good and bad
> points. Then as now, we were paid peanuts, so maybe the FBO
> liked it more than we did. We'd all run into someone who
> hadn't flown in 10-20 years. They'd take a quick refresher
> flight, ignore all the regulatory and airspace changes and
> talk about buying an aircraft to fly with their family and
> friends. There was no way to stop them no matter how bad
> they seemed to fly.
>
> >Was there a rash of incidents caused by rusty pilots before this rule was
> >proposed? What happened to bring about such a radical change?
>
> I personally don't recall anything specific. Most of us
> didn't like it much, but recognized the reason for it. It
> was touted as something you couldn't "fail" since no logbook
> entry was made for failure. The shift to two years and the
> confirmation that a review in any cat/class was good for all
> made it easier to take.
>
>
> "It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge and
skill."
> Wilbur Wright

[tom418]

OOps.In my previous post change "possible to get Commercial without
Instrument rating" to "Possible to get CFI without Instrument rating". We
actually had a student at SUNY get his CFI before the IFR. The flight
lessons were free in those days, son if they offered you a rating you didn't
argue..........
"tom418" > wrote in message
news:MpVfd.12$ep3.7@lakeread02...
> BFRs came around in the 70's (~1975 I believe). I took my first BFR in
> 1976. The FAA re-wrote a lot of part 61 at that time. For example, prior
> to 1974?, it was permissable to fly a twin without a multi rating, as long
> as you were solo. It was also possible to get your Commercial certificate
> before your Instrument rating . (I did mine that way, courtesy of SUNY
> Farmingdale ). And, of course, ATPs were known as ATRs.
> "Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >
> > >I can barely imagine the howls of protest that must have ensued
> > >during and after the creation of a rule that required every pilot to
> "prove
> > >himself" with a CFI every 2 years!
> >
> > First there was major confusion. One early proposal was for
> > a flight review yearly. Our club felt our instructors would
> > spend most of their time giving flight reviews. I also
> > remember the concerns over those who were thought they'd
> > have to rent a glider, balloon, airplane and seaplane every
> > year to keep the rating they'd already earned.
> >
> > >(Although, I suspect, CFIs at the time must have thought they had died
> and
> > >gone to heaven! Talk about a guaranteed money-maker! :-)
> >
> > No. I was a CFI then, and it seemed to have good and bad
> > points. Then as now, we were paid peanuts, so maybe the FBO
> > liked it more than we did. We'd all run into someone who
> > hadn't flown in 10-20 years. They'd take a quick refresher
> > flight, ignore all the regulatory and airspace changes and
> > talk about buying an aircraft to fly with their family and
> > friends. There was no way to stop them no matter how bad
> > they seemed to fly.
> >
> > >Was there a rash of incidents caused by rusty pilots before this rule
was
> > >proposed? What happened to bring about such a radical change?
> >
> > I personally don't recall anything specific. Most of us
> > didn't like it much, but recognized the reason for it. It
> > was touted as something you couldn't "fail" since no logbook
> > entry was made for failure. The shift to two years and the
> > confirmation that a review in any cat/class was good for all
> > made it easier to take.
> >
> >
> > "It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge and
> skill."
> > Wilbur Wright
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> OOps.In my previous post change "possible to get Commercial without
> Instrument rating" to "Possible to get CFI without Instrument rating". We
> actually had a student at SUNY get his CFI before the IFR. The flight
> lessons were free in those days, son if they offered you a rating you
> didn't
> argue..........

"Flight lessons were free..."????

What paradise are you describing here?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[tom418]

Jay, they WERE free, as long as you were enrolled as a full time student and
were an Air Operations (Aviation) major. I paid a grand total of $600/
semester for this. You received around 1-2 hours each week,( in your choice
of Cessna 172, or Cherokee 140) per semester. SUNY students could also
participate in the "Air Meets", a flying competition activity . This was
back in 1974.

Today, there is a fee for flight training.
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:KTVfd.259368$wV.155655@attbi_s54...
> > OOps.In my previous post change "possible to get Commercial without
> > Instrument rating" to "Possible to get CFI without Instrument rating".
We
> > actually had a student at SUNY get his CFI before the IFR. The flight
> > lessons were free in those days, son if they offered you a rating you
> > didn't
> > argue..........
>
> "Flight lessons were free..."????
>
> What paradise are you describing here?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Rod Madsen]

I was a CFII circa 1970-1975 and I think it started in that time frame. I
never had a BFR before 1975 so maybe it was after 1973. I didn't fly from
1975 to 1998. Sold my Arrow and moved to Southern California. I don't
recall any rash of accidents calling for the change and there was no
significant improvement in accident rate after implementation.

Rod

"

[kage]

The BFR history is all in this advisory circular:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/acs/61-98a.txt

"Curator"
N185KG



"Rod Madsen" > wrote in message
...
>I was a CFII circa 1970-1975 and I think it started in that time frame. I
> never had a BFR before 1975 so maybe it was after 1973. I didn't fly from
> 1975 to 1998. Sold my Arrow and moved to Southern California. I don't
> recall any rash of accidents calling for the change and there was no
> significant improvement in accident rate after implementation.
>
> Rod
>
> "
>
>

[Joseph]

I got my certificate in 1978, and BFRs had just gotten started about
then. I was renting planes then, and it really wasn't much of a concern,
except for the time and expense, because the insurance companies
required renters to fly at least once a month or once every 3 months,
depending on the insurance company.

So, checkriding once every two years wasn't a big concern. Except,
again, that it was a needless expense for those who flew a lot. In fact,
our nickname for "BFR" was "Big F**king Ripoff."

But.... I also knew some people back then who owned their own planes,
and who would flew once a year or once every two years or so, and they
were as dangerous as a drunk driver on a freeway. If they returned in
one piece, it was out of sheer luck.

So, I support the BFR... as least, for everyone else except me. I, of
course, don't need it. ;)

Joe

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SendMoney + GetMoney
Instantly and easily send or receive money via email
www.PayToTheOrder.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



In article <MaPfd.16873$R05.14718@attbi_s53>,
says...
> Mary is off doing her BFR as I write this, which got me to wondering about
> the history of the biennial flight review.
>
> As I understand it, BFRs were not required until fairly recently (like, in
> the last 30 years?). Given the current uproar over the creation of
> relatively simple new requirements (like foreign pilots having to register,
> etc.), I can barely imagine the howls of protest that must have ensued
> during and after the creation of a rule that required every pilot to "prove
> himself" with a CFI every 2 years!
>
> (Although, I suspect, CFIs at the time must have thought they had died and
> gone to heaven! Talk about a guaranteed money-maker! :-)
>
> Was there a rash of incidents caused by rusty pilots before this rule was
> proposed? What happened to bring about such a radical change?
>
> For those who were flying back then, can you give us a brief history of what
> happened?
>

[BTIZ]

Jay.. I record my first BFR in 1976, having completed training in 1974

So.. it was around in the 70s, don't remember if it was on the written test
in 1974.

Bill T

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:MaPfd.16873$R05.14718@attbi_s53...
> Mary is off doing her BFR as I write this, which got me to wondering about
> the history of the biennial flight review.
>
> As I understand it, BFRs were not required until fairly recently (like, in
> the last 30 years?). Given the current uproar over the creation of
> relatively simple new requirements (like foreign pilots having to
> register, etc.), I can barely imagine the howls of protest that must have
> ensued during and after the creation of a rule that required every pilot
> to "prove himself" with a CFI every 2 years!
>
> (Although, I suspect, CFIs at the time must have thought they had died and
> gone to heaven! Talk about a guaranteed money-maker! :-)
>
> Was there a rash of incidents caused by rusty pilots before this rule was
> proposed? What happened to bring about such a radical change?
>
> For those who were flying back then, can you give us a brief history of
> what happened?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, they WERE free, as long as you were enrolled as a full time student
> and
> were an Air Operations (Aviation) major. I paid a grand total of $600/
> semester for this. You received around 1-2 hours each week,( in your
> choice
> of Cessna 172, or Cherokee 140) per semester. SUNY students could also
> participate in the "Air Meets", a flying competition activity . This was
> back in 1974.

Dang. How was SUNY paying for this? It sure wasn't coming out of your
$600 bucks!

GI Bill?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> So, checkriding once every two years wasn't a big concern. Except,
> again, that it was a needless expense for those who flew a lot. In fact,
> our nickname for "BFR" was "Big F**king Ripoff."

Yeah, the fact that they don't take into account currency or number of hours
in the last 12 months is one aspect of BFRs that I resent somewhat.

I mean, we fly every couple of days. Mary needs a BFR like I need an enema.

Oh well. I, too, know pilots who hop in their plane every sixth month, and
fly off to Timbuktu without a second thought. It's good to have CFIs
keeping a closer eye on those folks, I guess... And it's always kinda fun
to go up and scare the new instructors!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:26:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:
>
>GI Bill?

Probably not, but that was the best thing ever to happen to general
aviation. Not that I got anything out of it directly, but it was the
lifelline for a zillion FBOs and it sold planes and got people into
the sky. It meant that when I started flying in '69 there were planes
on the line and healthy FBOs.

And outside of aviation, It got people into college and out into good
jobs. I was a snot-nosed kid out of highschool in '61, starting at
engineering school, but the ex-GIs, goddamn, they knew what they were
after and they worked their asses off and made us kids work or fall to
the tyranny of the curve.

Don

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:22:10 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>>GI Bill?
>
>Probably not, but that was the best thing ever to happen to general
>aviation.

Your remarks on the GI Bill are right on target. The U.S. is only now
ceasing to see the economic benefits of the GI Bill, passed I believe
in 1944! Indeed, the benefits may still be operative, as the
grandchildren of the WWII vets obtain an education that they might
never have aspired to, had not the old man gone to college on the GI
Bill.

Not only my university, but even my high school (Brewster Free
Academy, Wolfeboro, New Hampshire) was swollen to capacity by a
significant number of "vets". Indeed, the student body at the
University of New Hampshire actually shrank each year that I was
there, as the vets worked their way through the system and graduated.

Higher education was never the same again.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:08:26 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>"Flight lessons were free..."????
>
>What paradise are you describing here?

Evidently he is describing SUNY (State University of New York). Nice
work if you can get it!

The dumbest thing I ever did iwas not to take up flying when the
guvmint retroactively designated me a veteran in the 1970s. My
educational benefit had expired by the time I became interested
(obsessed?).


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Richard Russell]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:31:21 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> So, checkriding once every two years wasn't a big concern. Except,
>> again, that it was a needless expense for those who flew a lot. In fact,
>> our nickname for "BFR" was "Big F**king Ripoff."
>
>Yeah, the fact that they don't take into account currency or number of hours
>in the last 12 months is one aspect of BFRs that I resent somewhat.
>
>I mean, we fly every couple of days. Mary needs a BFR like I need an enema.
>
>Oh well. I, too, know pilots who hop in their plane every sixth month, and
>fly off to Timbuktu without a second thought. It's good to have CFIs
>keeping a closer eye on those folks, I guess... And it's always kinda fun
>to go up and scare the new instructors!
>
>;-)
I understand your resentment because I know from reading your posts
for a long time that you are a constantly thinking pilot that is
always looking for a way to improve. I commend you for that.
Unfortunately, currency does not equal proficiency and they cannot
have a "Honeck" exception to the BFR requirement. I know of several
old codgers that fly several times a week. While their stick and
rudder skills are good, they are a menace to the aviation community.
They do not keep aware of the constant changes that are taking place
in the flying environment. They think we're still in the Sky King
days. There are probably as many like them as there are like you.
Think about them when you have to suffer through a BFR that I agree
you probably do not need.
Rich Russell

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>So, checkriding once every two years wasn't a big concern. Except,
>>again, that it was a needless expense for those who flew a lot. In fact,
>>our nickname for "BFR" was "Big F**king Ripoff."
>
>
> Yeah, the fact that they don't take into account currency or number of hours
> in the last 12 months is one aspect of BFRs that I resent somewhat.
>
> I mean, we fly every couple of days. Mary needs a BFR like I need an enema.
>
You looked a bit constipated in the AOPA picture.

[Jose]

> Yeah, the fact that they don't take into account currency or number of hours
> in the last 12 months is one aspect of BFRs that I resent somewhat.
>
> I mean, we fly every couple of days. Mary needs a BFR like I need an enema.

To take that into account would fail to take into account those who fly incorrectly every day, for which a BFR offers an opportunity to show the pilot their error before it becomes even more ingrained.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Gene Seibel]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<tC_fd.19613$R05.19233@attbi_s53>...
> > So, checkriding once every two years wasn't a big concern. Except,
> > again, that it was a needless expense for those who flew a lot. In fact,
> > our nickname for "BFR" was "Big F**king Ripoff."
>
> Yeah, the fact that they don't take into account currency or number of hours
> in the last 12 months is one aspect of BFRs that I resent somewhat.
>
> I mean, we fly every couple of days. Mary needs a BFR like I need an enema.

She needs one that bad? ;) ;)

I don't like to take them, but I figure they can't hurt. Even pilots
who fly a lot can sometimes pick up bad habits that a BFR might catch.
We who read these groups are constantly being reminded of things to
watch out for, but there are thousands out there who have little
contact with other pilots, instructors, or information of any kind
between their BFR's. It would be difficult to quantify how "isolated"
a pilot is.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[kage]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:26:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>>
>>GI Bill?
>
> Probably not, but that was the best thing ever to happen to general
> aviation.
>snip>
> Don

No lie. The GI bill was the ONLY reason the 200HP versions of the Cessna
Cardinal RG, Piper Arrow, and Beech Sierra were ever built. To satisfy the
training requirements of the GI bill.

Thousands were sold on that basis, mostly to unsuspecting leaseback owners.

However, very few of the GI bill students ever became professional pilots.
Most got their ratings and already had a "good" job. Look at the poor
suckers who went into the airlines for a "career." Have you EVER seen a
happy airline pilot?

Karl

[kage]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:tC_fd.19613$R05.19233@attbi_s53...
>
> Yeah, the fact that they don't take into account currency or number of
> hours in the last 12 months is one aspect of BFRs that I resent somewhat.
>
> I mean, we fly every couple of days. Mary needs a BFR like I need an
> enema.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


That is EXACTLY the attitude that points out your need for a BFR, at
MINIMUM. I recall so many dead pilots that remind me of you.
You just don't like spending the money.

Karl

[Bob Moore]

"kage" > wrote

> However, very few of the GI bill students ever became professional
> pilots. Most got their ratings and already had a "good" job. Look at
> the poor suckers who went into the airlines for a "career." Have you
> EVER seen a happy airline pilot?

YES!!! I was a VERY happy airline pilot at Pan American Airways.
Why would I not have been? A salary better than most of my college
classmates, worked only 12 days/month to earn it, travel free all
over the world and in the better days, a bunch of lovely young ladies
to party with. As a lifestyle, it sure beat anything that my neighbors
were doing.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[Michael]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> Oh well. I, too, know pilots who hop in their plane every sixth month, and
> fly off to Timbuktu without a second thought. It's good to have CFIs
> keeping a closer eye on those folks, I guess...

But are the CFI's actually keeping an eye on them?

The truth is, there are a lot of people out there who couldn't pass a
private checkride but are flying anyway. That's really pretty scary.
The private PTS is a VERY minimum standard. It's kept minimal so it
doesn't take forever before a pilot can be cut loose - to reduce costs
and frustration. We know a newly minted pilots is somewhat dangerous,
but it's assumed that he will keep developing his skills as he flies
and become safer.

In reality this rarely happens. In my experience, most pilots
backslide because they simply don't fly enough. There is simply no
way you're going to progress on 26 hours a year, and that's all the
average private airplane flies. The average private pilot flies less.

If the BFR really did what it's supposed to - grounded those pilots
who can no longer meet minimum standards until they COULD meet minimum
standards - I suspect there would be a massive reduction in accidents
per hour flown. However, it would also ground most private pilots,
and GA as an industry just can't afford that.

Michael

[Jay Honeck]

> YES!!! I was a VERY happy airline pilot at Pan American Airways.
> Why would I not have been? A salary better than most of my college
> classmates, worked only 12 days/month to earn it, travel free all
> over the world and in the better days, a bunch of lovely young ladies
> to party with. As a lifestyle, it sure beat anything that my neighbors
> were doing.

With a description like that, is it any wonder that those jobs -- and Pan Am
itself -- are only a distant memory?

I know you are aware that you were incredibly lucky to fly in the times you
did, because nowadays -- in an era where everyone can (and must be able to)
afford to fly commercially -- that job description would never happen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You looked a bit constipated in the AOPA picture.

Did you see the angle my legs were at? That wasn't a smile -- it was a
grimace!

Mike Fizer had me squat down a bit, so that I wouldn't tower over Mary too
much. After about 20 minutes, my legs were cramping up pretty good...

Meanwhile, Mary was relaxing in that big leather arm chair, wondering what I
was moaning and groaning about...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> That is EXACTLY the attitude that points out your need for a BFR, at
> MINIMUM. I recall so many dead pilots that remind me of you.
> You just don't like spending the money.

Actually, I ALWAYS have a great time on my BFRs, enjoy them thoroughly, and
always learn a thing or three while I'm at it. You have obviously taken my
quote out of context.

Shoot, I'm always looking for new ways to stretch my skills, and -- although
I don't like spending money -- I don't see BFRs as anything but good.

Which is different than acknowledging the fact that they are "unnecessary"
for people like Mary and me who fly twice a week, into all sorts of
airspace.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> There is simply no
> way you're going to progress on 26 hours a year, and that's all the
> average private airplane flies. The average private pilot flies less.

Wow -- where did you get that statistic?

That is shockingly low.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Which is different than acknowledging the fact that they are "unnecessary"
> for people like Mary and me who fly twice a week, into all sorts of
> airspace.

Careful Jay. The moment you think that you don't need a BFR is the moment you will spiral into the ground wondering what happened.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[John Galban]

Ron Natalie > wrote in message >...
>
> There was also an attempt to make it annual for low experience pilots.
> This came in with the addition of the Recreational Pilot certificate
> as (oddly enough) a bone thrown to the flight instructor lobby over
> the lost revenue. They kept rolling forward the effective date until
> they finally ditched the concept in the 95 FAR rewrite.

That came about in '88 or '89. As I recall, the rule was that
pilots with less than 300 hrs. were required to have an Annual Flight
Review. I have 2 of those in my logbook. There was much confusion
about the effective dates (FAA would push the date at the last
minute), so I would get a BFR every year just to be on the safe side.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Galban]

Ross Richardson > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> I do remember there was some outcry. Just about
> the same time transponders were mandated.
>

Ross,

Where were transponders mandated in the 70's? I remember that the
expanded number of TCAs (Class B) and Mode/C requirements showed up in
the late 80's / early 90s as a result of the Cerritos mid-air crash in
'86. Before that, most planes that I flew weren't equipped with
transponders.

Just Curious.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[kage]

I don't think you'd like flying for PanAm today!

Karl
"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "kage" > wrote
>
>> However, very few of the GI bill students ever became professional
>> pilots. Most got their ratings and already had a "good" job. Look at
>> the poor suckers who went into the airlines for a "career." Have you
>> EVER seen a happy airline pilot?
>
> YES!!! I was a VERY happy airline pilot at Pan American Airways.
> Why would I not have been? A salary better than most of my college
> classmates, worked only 12 days/month to earn it, travel free all
> over the world and in the better days, a bunch of lovely young ladies
> to party with. As a lifestyle, it sure beat anything that my neighbors
> were doing.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-707 B-727
> PanAm (retired)

[Ron Natalie]

John Galban wrote:
> Ross Richardson > wrote in message >...
> <snip>
>
>>I do remember there was some outcry. Just about
>>the same time transponders were mandated.
>>
>
>
> Ross,
>
> Where were transponders mandated in the 70's? I remember that the
> expanded number of TCAs (Class B) and Mode/C requirements showed up in
> the late 80's / early 90s as a result of the Cerritos mid-air crash in
> '86. Before that, most planes that I flew weren't equipped with
> transponders.
>
> Just Curious.

Originally, there were Group I, Group II, and Group III TCA's (actually
they defined Group III, but there were no actual Group III TCA's established).
Group I required Mode C, Group II required just a transponder. I learned
outside of DEN, so we had transponders, but no mode C (Group II TCA) in
the late 70's/early eighties. Everything else was a TRSA and voluntary.

Cerritos was 1986, and of course the aircraft involved:
1. Was in the TCA illegally
2. The TCA bust was due to the pilot being incapacitated.

Of course, the FAA solution was to make the TCA's bigger and add ARSA's.
They also mandated mode C for many more locations (All TCA's, 30 miles
of TCA's, ARSA's, above 10,000 etc...)

[Jay Honeck]

>> Which is different than acknowledging the fact that they are
>> "unnecessary" for people like Mary and me who fly twice a week, into all
>> sorts of airspace.
>
> Careful Jay. The moment you think that you don't need a BFR is the moment
> you will spiral into the ground wondering what happened.

I understand your sentiment -- it's unwise to be over-confident -- but in
this case it's just plain silly.

A BFR isn't going to prevent me from spiraling into the ground anymore than
reading the FARs will. Both are good things to do, and both are especially
helpful if you're not current -- but neither will make me a better pilot
than flying 100 times per year will.

Which is what I'm currently doing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

>>Careful Jay. The moment you think that you don't need a BFR is the moment
>>> you will spiral into the ground wondering what happened.
>
> I understand your sentiment -- it's unwise to be over-confident -- but in
> this case it's just plain silly.
>
> A BFR isn't going to prevent me from spiraling into the ground anymore than
> reading the FARs will.

Of course you have no gaps in knowledge or skill you are aware of. Tell me, do you have any gaps you are UNaware of?

IF you say "no", you are a statistic waiting to happen, and you won't be waiting too long. If you say "probably", then you are a statisitic that is waiting to not happen, if you take the right action.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Jay Honeck]

> Of course you have no gaps in knowledge or skill you are aware of. Tell
> me, do you have any gaps you are UNaware of?
>
> IF you say "no", you are a statistic waiting to happen, and you won't be
> waiting too long. If you say "probably", then you are a statisitic that
> is waiting to not happen, if you take the right action.

Of course I have huge gaps in my knowledge. I have not flown at night in
IFR conditions. I have not flown in winds over 62 knots. I have never
flown with a cylinder that has blown off. I've never flown with an
in-flight fire...

And so on.

The problem, of course, is that I know in advance precisely what is covered
in the BFR, and practice it twice a week. This makes learning anything new
from a BFR problematic, although I do usually come away from a BFR with a
new thing or two. Which is why it's a good thing.

Which, again, is quite different from saying that a BFR is "necessary" for a
pilot who flies as often as Mary and I do. Quite frankly, it's not.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Which, again, is quite different from saying that a BFR is "necessary" for a
> pilot who flies as often as Mary and I do. Quite frankly, it's not.

When you say that, it tells me one thing. When somebody else says that (about you), it tells me another thing.

Are pilot certificates necessary? I sure don't need one.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Jay Honeck]

> When you say that, it tells me one thing. When somebody else says that
> (about you), it tells me another thing.
>
> Are pilot certificates necessary? I sure don't need one.

Obtuse, you are.

Argue more, I will not.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[zatatime]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:03:38 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>The problem, of course, is that I know in advance precisely what is covered
>in the BFR, and practice it twice a week. This makes learning anything new
>from a BFR problematic,


Sounds like getting an instructor who will challenge you instead of
telling you what you will have to do in advance / following the
Private PTS to the letter could resolve that fairly quickly.

z

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:54:10 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>I know you are aware that you were incredibly lucky to fly in the times you
>did,

This applies to a lot of what we experience in life. Shucks, most
people who got jobs in the 1950s, 1960s, and even 1970s were
incredibly lucky. Practically any salaried job had tenure! Employers
would carry a loyal employee to the grave. Amercans were "salarymen"
just like the Japanese, though in a more informal fashion.

College teachers were fortunate like airline pilots. Now the
first-timers work three jobs to get by.

But as a society, who wanted to go back to the 1950s or even the
1960s? We are at least twice as wealthy now.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Jay Honeck]

> But as a society, who wanted to go back to the 1950s or even the
> 1960s? We are at least twice as wealthy now.

True.

After the Great Depression, my father's generation valued job *stability*
above all else. I personally think that is why businesses and employees
were so loyal to one another -- those guys had seen what a complete economic
melt-down looked like, and they never wanted to repeat it.

My generation has always gone for the "big money" -- meaning that we change
jobs like my father changed socks. Combined with world competition, this
has meant that nobody even talks about "job loyalty" anymore.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael]

Jose > wrote
> Of course you have no gaps in knowledge or skill you are aware of. Tell me, do you have any gaps you are UNaware of?
>
> IF you say "no", you are a statistic waiting to happen, and you won't be waiting too long. If you say "probably", then you are a statisitic that is waiting to not happen, if you take the right action.

Tell me, how many BFR's have you administered to pilots who fly over
100 hours a year?

I've administered at least a dozen like that, and I am 100% in
agreement with Jay - for a pilot who flies that much, especially in a
simple docile airplane, the typical BFR is an absolutely pointless
formality of no safety value. In fact, I would go so far as to say
that it would make MUCH more sense to have a recency of experience
requirement substitute for a BFR than for an IPC - and yet a recency
of experience requirement does subsitute for an IPC but not a BFR.
Just one more area where the FAA really got it wrong.

The idea that you somehow magically develop bad habits while flying
100+ hours a year on your own, and that an hour with a typical
instructor will somehow fix this is, in my experience, nonsense. It's
no wonder the FAA has never been able to establish a quantitative
safety benefit from the BFR. I don't see how there could be one.

That's because the BFR as currently practiced is really geared to the
pilot who flies less than 25 hours a year. Flying that little, skills
tend to deteriorate (and the less total experience, the more they
deteriorate) and the BFR is used to brush them up. For that pilot,
the BFR is recurrent training. Here's a good working definition of
recurrent training - it's periodic training designed to compensate for
atrophying skill, and you know it's working when you're sharper after
you finish the recurrent training cycle than you were going in.
That's probably the case for most renter pilots, since few of them fly
enough.

For a pilot who flies 100+ hours a year in a simple docile aircraft,
the BFR is not recurrent training. It's an exercise where he
demonstrates his skills to an instructor, the instructor nods
approvingly and notes that the pilot is clearly flying at or above the
minimum standards required to pass the private checkride (which is not
actually necessary to 'pass' a BFR), signs off the logbook,
congratulates the pilot, collects his money, and moves on. He's not
likely to be able to offer any real instruction because he probably
can't do a better (or even as good) job of flying that aircraft than
his 'student.'

The reality is that the 100+ hour a year pilot is way safer and more
proficient without a BFR than the 25 hours a year pilot is with the
BFR.

That's not to say that a pilot who flies 100+ hours a year can't
benefit from recurrent training - he certainly can. I fly 200+ hours
a year and never go a year without recurrent training. But a standard
BFR from your typical instructor won't do it. For a pilot who flies
100+ hours a year in his own airplane, you need something different.
You need either someone who is an expert on his particular make and
model who can really show him how to push it to the limits, or you
need to completely take him out of his comfort zone by doing something
else (acro, tailwheel, glider - whatever).

Michael

[Michael]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> > There is simply no
> > way you're going to progress on 26 hours a year, and that's all the
> > average private airplane flies. The average private pilot flies less.
>
> Wow -- where did you get that statistic?
>
> That is shockingly low.

First, I got it from Avemco - but I believe it may be an FAA estimate.
Second, it's not shockingly low - remember, it includes all those
planes that move twice a year. In fact, it's pretty consistent with
my experience.

HF says most of the planes he annuals get about 15 hours a year.

Michael

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> My generation has always gone for the "big money" -- meaning that we change
> jobs like my father changed socks. Combined with world competition, this
> has meant that nobody even talks about "job loyalty" anymore.

Scott Adams put it something like this. Employment used to be like the Christian
religion. You work at a job all your life so that you can have a nice "afterlife"
when you retire. Now it's more like reincarnation. You work at one job for a few
years hoping to do better in your next one.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Gig Giacona]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> > There is simply no
>> > way you're going to progress on 26 hours a year, and that's all the
>> > average private airplane flies. The average private pilot flies less.
>>
>> Wow -- where did you get that statistic?
>>
>> That is shockingly low.
>
> First, I got it from Avemco - but I believe it may be an FAA estimate.
> Second, it's not shockingly low - remember, it includes all those
> planes that move twice a year. In fact, it's pretty consistent with
> my experience.
>
> HF says most of the planes he annuals get about 15 hours a year.
>
> Michael

Also keep in mind that there are just a metric butt load of provate pilots
that fly ZERO hours per year. That would drop the average somewhat.

GigG

[Jose]

I agree that BFRs probably don't accomplish what they ostensibly set out to do. I also agree that a pilot with more experience and more recent experience has generally less to gain from the seal of approval the BFR grants.

Where I have the problem is when a pilot says "I fly so well I don't need it, but other people probably do", which is not so far off of the way Jay's statement comes off (to me). It's a red flag - it's like saying "watch this!" before an entry in
the Darwin book. That is what concerns me. I fly about 100 hours a year myself and participate in the Wings program (in lieu of BFR). I would also like to see some evidence that the (BFR or Wings) program works. We are given an unparalleled
amount of latitude in flying to determine for ourselves whether or not we are fit to fly; that is not to be taken lightly. Perhaps you are right, BFRs should be required only for low time (or low recent time) pilots. I don't know. But I do know
that once somebody says "these rules shouldn't apply to me..." that's probably when they most apply.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Jim Weir]

Well, Jay, then let's sweeten the pot for those folks who stop by your place on
their way to Oshkosh. Here's what I'll do for you...

By the grace of God, I'll have my on-line oral part of the BFR done by June of
next year...

And if the pilot shows up with my online oral grade sheet with a score of 100
(*)...

And if the weather is VFR the Sunday before we all leave for Oshkosh on
Monday...

And if the pilot in question has logged 50+ hours in the previous 12 calendar
months...

And if the pilot's aircraft is something I'm legal in (no twins or floats)...

....then I'll do a BFR for a donation of the pilot's choice and conscience to the
Young Eagles program while (s)he is at Oshkosh.

I reserve the right to give the last BFR so that it ends at sunset so that I can
at least have ONE beer that day afterwards.


Howzat?


Jim

(*) If that online oral doesn't get done, we'll do a "cluster-oral" of everybody
that wants a BFR later that night after the flying gets done. Nowhere in the
rules does it say that I have to do the oral one at a time.


"Jay Honeck" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->>
->Which is different than acknowledging the fact that they are "unnecessary"
->for people like Mary and me who fly twice a week, into all sorts of
->airspace.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Well, Jay, then let's sweeten the pot for those folks who stop by your
> place on
> their way to Oshkosh. Here's what I'll do for you...

Wow! That's a lot of "ifs" -- but it sounds like a great way to spend an
afternoon.

And there will be more than one beer thereafter, of this I am sure...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Cub Driver]

>For a pilot who flies 100+ hours a year in a simple docile aircraft,
>the BFR is not recurrent training.

I began flying after the BFR came in, so it seems perfectly natural to
me. Perhaps it's my instructor who makes the difference, but I get a
lot more out of the effort that you seem to.

I fly the same type of aircraft almost always, and most of the time it
is the identical aircraft. It's very easy to fall into shortcut
routines, and something like the BFR is valuable for making you extend
your horizons a bit.

To be sure, I don't fly 100 hours a year, more like half that. The Cub
isn't particularly docile, however, especially upon landing :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

I don't find 26 hours a year "shockingly low". I have both the money
and the schedule to fly as much as I want to, and I am acutely aware
that I lose my edge if I haven't flown in two or especially three
weeks. I really watch the Weather Underground for clear days, and if
the Cub is available I try to book it for two or three hours so I can
go somewhere. Yet I find it very difficult to average 50 hours a year.
Part of this is the New Hampshire winter, part of it is the
desirability of the Cub I want to fly, part of it may simply be that
this has been a rainy year altogether. And part of it of course is
that I have other demands on my time, though I don't have to punch a
time clock.

If I did have a job, I'm sure that I would have been one of those
26-hour pilots, and I probably would have given up altogether. Perhaps
my piloting was acquired too late in life, or perhaps the Cub is
particularly unforgiving of rusty pilots.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Jay Honeck]

> Part of this is the New Hampshire winter, part of it is the
> desirability of the Cub I want to fly,

Flying a Cub in a New Hampshire winter sounds, well, painful!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:02:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Flying a Cub in a New Hampshire winter sounds, well, painful!

Not really. For openers, after a couple of bad experiences with
engines cutting out (we were on mogas at the time, though Cub Builders
List will fight to the death against any suggestion that fuel was the
cause) we are forbidden to fly the Cubs when the temp is below 20F. A
roll of duct tape, fleece-lined jeans, and a lot of polyster keeps it
quite comfortable in the back seat.

I actually started flight training in January :)

The upside is the beauty of the countryside, and the chance to land at
Alton Bay, which I understand is the nation's only seaplane base that
is a recognized ice runway in the winter.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Jay Honeck]

> Not really. For openers, after a couple of bad experiences with
> engines cutting out (we were on mogas at the time, though Cub Builders
> List will fight to the death against any suggestion that fuel was the
> cause)

There is no way mogas would cause such a thing. I've run over 4,500
gallons through our plane since 2002, and the previous owner ran it on mogas
for 10 years, in Iowa winters, with no such problem.

Coldest I've flown it is at -12 degrees Fahrenheit. (Hey, there is one
good thing about reading about that stupid propaganda movie "Fahrenheit 451"
all the time -- I can once again spell "Fahrenheit" without using the spell
checker! ;-)

> The upside is the beauty of the countryside, and the chance to land at
> Alton Bay, which I understand is the nation's only seaplane base that
> is a recognized ice runway in the winter.

Winter does indeed have its own beauty. Flying over a winter landscape is
awe-inspiring, and seeing things like Lake Michigan frozen to the horizon,
or the mighty Mississippi frozen full-length, makes me especially appreciate
Mr. Piper's incredibly reliable Cherokee series.

And the wonderful heater he put in them!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ZW5hd.338078$MQ5.57790@attbi_s52...
> > Not really. For openers, after a couple of bad experiences with
> > engines cutting out (we were on mogas at the time, though Cub Builders
> > List will fight to the death against any suggestion that fuel was the
> > cause)
>
> There is no way mogas would cause such a thing. I've run over 4,500
> gallons through our plane since 2002, and the previous owner ran it on
mogas
> for 10 years, in Iowa winters, with no such problem.
>
> Coldest I've flown it is at -12 degrees Fahrenheit. (Hey, there is one
> good thing about reading about that stupid propaganda movie "Fahrenheit
451"
> all the time -- I can once again spell "Fahrenheit" without using the
spell
> checker! ;-)
>
> > The upside is the beauty of the countryside, and the chance to land at
> > Alton Bay, which I understand is the nation's only seaplane base that
> > is a recognized ice runway in the winter.
>
> Winter does indeed have its own beauty. Flying over a winter landscape is
> awe-inspiring, and seeing things like Lake Michigan frozen to the horizon,
> or the mighty Mississippi frozen full-length, makes me especially
appreciate
> Mr. Piper's incredibly reliable Cherokee series.
>
> And the wonderful heater he put in them!

Mr. Cessna should have hired Mr. Piper's heater engineer.

>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:40:09 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Not really. For openers, after a couple of bad experiences with
>> engines cutting out (we were on mogas at the time, though Cub Builders
>> List will fight to the death against any suggestion that fuel was the
>> cause)
>
>There is no way mogas would cause such a thing. I've run over 4,500
>gallons through our plane since 2002, and the previous owner ran it on mogas
>for 10 years, in Iowa winters, with no such problem.

There is a mogas clique at the airport that suspects the real reason
the Cubs got de-STC'ed is that the instructors couldn't stand the
smell of the mogas.

But it is the case that we had some hairy moments with Zero Six
Hotel's engine quitting during the year and a half it was on mogas,
and that the problem went away when we went to 100LL.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[[email protected]]

Got a 172M running on mostly Mogas for 15 years now with no detectable
problems. Were you getting some country corn liquor mixed in with it
unbeknownst? Are Cub Mogas STCs being revoked?

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:


>
> Mr. Cessna should have hired Mr. Piper's heater engineer.

No way. I can't go more than 5 minutes at full heat in my 182 before
having to turn it down.

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Mr. Cessna should have hired Mr. Piper's heater engineer.
>
> No way. I can't go more than 5 minutes at full heat in my 182 before
> having to turn it down.

Mr. Cessna was long gone by the time the 182 came out. Mr. Wallace was
responsible for the engineer that designed your heater.

[B. Jensen]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>The problem, of course, is that I know in advance precisely what is covered
>in the BFR, and practice it twice a week. This makes learning anything new
>from a BFR problematic, although I do usually come away from a BFR with a
>new thing or two. Which is why it's a good thing.
>
>Which, again, is quite different from saying that a BFR is "necessary" for a
>pilot who flies as often as Mary and I do. Quite frankly, it's not.
>

Hi Jay!

Nice pic and article in AOPA Mag!

Just a small point about your above comment. Many times the more we
fly, the "more" we start to practice things wrong. A BFR is a great way
to have a "second opinion" take a look at our habits to make sure they
are still good ones and that nothing bad has "crept" in that might start
to become a problem.

I have flown for 20 years with a major airline (27 years total) and also
do a fair share of GA flying...including competition aerobatics. I rack
up around 700 flying hours per year doing both. I'd like to add some
points to your premise that pilots' who fly often don't need BFR's.

1. The requirement to take a BFR forces everyone to crack a book every
24 months and "learn and relearn" important items and procedures that
otherwise would fall by the wayside. Call it ego, laziness,
complacency....(or just being a pilot)

2. A BFR will "hopefully" uncover bad habits and procedures that are
being done incorrectly and correct them before they get worse. Flying a
lot but doing something potentially dangerous that we don't recognize
ourselves, only reinforces the bad habit further and makes it harder to
correct...or worse yet, breeds another bad habit. :-(

3. As a past check airman for my airline, I witnessed many bad habits
that had crept into an otherwise very proficient pilot's procedures
despite flying a the very regimented environment of a major airline day
in and day out. Flying without very specific procedures can lead to even
further deviations over time...such as the GA environment.

4. As you pointed out, 99% of the time something new and helpful is
learned during a BFR, and this new knowledge or skill can make a
difference. The goal is to constantly learn more, and if we can learn
from others knowledge (experience / mistakes) all the better for us.
I'd rather learn from someone else's experience / mistakes vs. making
them myself.

Having said the above, I still find it quite interesting that medical
doctors never have to take "checkrides" to prove their competency in the
hospital (as a doctor) once their diploma is hanging on their wall. ;-)

Take care,

BJ

[Morgans]

"B. Jensen" > wrote

> Having said the above, I still find it quite interesting that medical
> doctors never have to take "checkrides" to prove their competency in the
> hospital (as a doctor) once their diploma is hanging on their wall. ;-)
>
> Take care,
>
> BJ

Oh, but they do, at least to stay members of their specialty organizations,
or maybe for any area. They have to take a certain number of continuing
education classes (or meetings) per renewal cycle, to stay in good standing.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/28/2004

[B. Jensen]

Morgans wrote:

>"B. Jensen" > wrote
>
>
>
>>Having said the above, I still find it quite interesting that medical
>>doctors never have to take "checkrides" to prove their competency in the
>>hospital (as a doctor) once their diploma is hanging on their wall. ;-)
>>
>>Take care,
>>
>>BJ
>>
>>
>
>Oh, but they do, at least to stay members of their specialty organizations,
>or maybe for any area. They have to take a certain number of continuing
>education classes (or meetings) per renewal cycle, to stay in good standing.
>

Jim,

Actually we are talking two different things here. The continuing
education classes that medical doctors take involve "logging" a certain
number of events per renewal cycle....HOWEVER, they are NOT tested on
this material. All they have to do is ATTEND the classes and sign the
roll call sheet for credit. (Heck, I've seen some sign the sheet and
then leave.) This is sort of like attending a certain number of FAA
sponsored "Wings" programs to attain your Wings...no test is required or
proof of competency, just prove you attended the meeting.

With a BFR, a pilot must demonstrate competency either via a written and
/ or oral test AND they must pass a practical test. This is quite
different than simply attending continuing education class and not being
required to show mastery of the knowledge.

BJ

[Jose]

> Actually we are talking two different things here. The continuing education
> classes that medical doctors take involve "logging" a certain number of
> events per renewal cycle....HOWEVER, they are NOT tested on this material.

Kind of like the FAA Wings program, as you pointed out, and participation in Wings acts as a BFR.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Michael]

Cub Driver > wrote
> Perhaps it's my instructor who makes the difference, but I get a
> lot more out of the effort that you seem to.

An instructor can make all the difference in the world, and the kind
of instructor who is qualified (really qualified, not simply FAA
qualified, meaning as a minimum insurable at a reasonable rate) to
instruct in a Cub is a different breed from most.

Michael