Wings vs. BFR

[Dallas]

I always thought taking a wings seminar was a simple way to get your BFR
out of the way. After a little Internet research it seems they require
three hours of dual flight instruction to qualify as a BFR. Is that
correct?

It would be much easier and cheaper to just do the BFR.. I don't see the
incentive for the Wings Program as a substitute for a BFR. (Other than the
education... )


--
Dallas

[GeorgeC[_2_]]

If you are proficient, WINGS is quicker and cheaper. If you can do the maneuvers
to PTS standards the first time your done. No three hours.


On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:04:20 -0500, Dallas >
wrote:

>
>I always thought taking a wings seminar was a simple way to get your BFR
>out of the way. After a little Internet research it seems they require
>three hours of dual flight instruction to qualify as a BFR. Is that
>correct?
>
>It would be much easier and cheaper to just do the BFR.. I don't see the
>incentive for the Wings Program as a substitute for a BFR. (Other than the
>education... )

GeorgeC

[Dallas]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:40:50 -0500, GeorgeC wrote:

> No three hours.

"Each phase of the Wings program requires three hours of dual flight
instruction and attendance at an FAA-recognized seminar within a 12-month
period."
http://myflightreview.com/other_resources.html

(I went to the actual FAA Wings site but it was so convoluted I couldn't
find anything.)

--
Dallas

[Sylvain]

Dallas wrote:

> It would be much easier and cheaper to just do the BFR.. I don't see the
> incentive for the Wings Program as a substitute for a BFR. (Other than
> the education... )

You may want to look into it further (the three hours requirements have
changed a bit since the Wings program has been revamped, the problem -- I
did post something about it a wee while back -- is that the official doc --
i.e., AC 61-91H -- still describes the old system and has not been
superseeded yet... the new system is described at
http://www.faasafety.gov/ -- good luck making sense of it though, but it
no longer requires 3 hours, you can do it with less...)

In terms of costs, yep, you are right; a BFR will take less time and cost
you less. However, there are a couple of advantages with the Wings
program; for one thing, it is preferable for the CFI, for liability
reasons; when you sign somebody off in a BFR in a glider say, that person
is legal to go in any category and class for which this person is rated...
think about it for a second... and it is your backside on the line should
something happen to that dude during the next two years; no so much with
the Wings program; second, although not officially, I was told that the
FAA might look more favorably on a pilot who participates actively in the
Wings program in case you screw up at one point (up to a point that is,
but it might help).

...and then it can be fun; I mean, I end up flying more than three hours a
year with a CFI anyway (e.g., keeping IFR current, I know it doesn't have
to be a CFI, but that's how I do it; or just for the heck of it)

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Dallas wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:40:50 -0500, GeorgeC wrote:
>
>> No three hours.
>
> "Each phase of the Wings program requires three hours of dual flight
> instruction and attendance at an FAA-recognized seminar within a 12-month
> period."
> http://myflightreview.com/other_resources.html
>
> (I went to the actual FAA Wings site but it was so convoluted I couldn't
> find anything.)
>

What you refer to is the old system; still described in the official doc
(AC61-91H) but no longer in force; and you are right, the official Wings
site is utterly confusing, but GeorgeC is right.

--Sylvain

[RandyL[_3_]]

Hi Dallas,
All of the BFR's that I have taken consisted of one hour of classroom work,
and two hours of flight time.

Randy L.

--
Remember: Any landing that you can walk away from,
is a landing that you can be fined, sued, or prosecuted for.

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> I always thought taking a wings seminar was a simple way to get your BFR
> out of the way. After a little Internet research it seems they require
> three hours of dual flight instruction to qualify as a BFR. Is that
> correct?
>
> It would be much easier and cheaper to just do the BFR.. I don't see the
> incentive for the Wings Program as a substitute for a BFR. (Other than
> the
> education... )
>
>
> --
> Dallas

[GeorgeC[_2_]]

My CFII and his chief instructor pilot like WINGS' because the examinee is held
to PST standards. I think the real reason is because he doesn't have to teach
ground school (FAA takes care of that) just fly.

I didn't think of the liable angle, go point.

I check my logbook and the flight time for my last WINGS was 2.2 hours. I was
rusty.

George

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:10:49 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:

>Dallas wrote:
>
>> It would be much easier and cheaper to just do the BFR.. I don't see the
>> incentive for the Wings Program as a substitute for a BFR. (Other than
>> the education... )
>
>You may want to look into it further (the three hours requirements have
>changed a bit since the Wings program has been revamped, the problem -- I
>did post something about it a wee while back -- is that the official doc --
>i.e., AC 61-91H -- still describes the old system and has not been
>superseeded yet... the new system is described at
>http://www.faasafety.gov/ -- good luck making sense of it though, but it
>no longer requires 3 hours, you can do it with less...)
>
>In terms of costs, yep, you are right; a BFR will take less time and cost
>you less. However, there are a couple of advantages with the Wings
>program; for one thing, it is preferable for the CFI, for liability
>reasons; when you sign somebody off in a BFR in a glider say, that person
>is legal to go in any category and class for which this person is rated...
>think about it for a second... and it is your backside on the line should
>something happen to that dude during the next two years; no so much with
>the Wings program; second, although not officially, I was told that the
>FAA might look more favorably on a pilot who participates actively in the
>Wings program in case you screw up at one point (up to a point that is,
>but it might help).
>
>..and then it can be fun; I mean, I end up flying more than three hours a
>year with a CFI anyway (e.g., keeping IFR current, I know it doesn't have
>to be a CFI, but that's how I do it; or just for the heck of it)
>
>--Sylvain

GeorgeC

[Mike]

The purpose of the Wings program as it is today is not to make the BFR
easier or cheaper, but to encourage higher standards and ongoing proficiency
training. The local FAA Wings guy in my area described it as for people who
want to train to higher standards than the BFR requires and to make it more
of an ongoing thing rather than just one afternoon every 2 years. You also
have the option participating in the more advanced phases that exceed the
standards even more. Completing phase 3 doesn't get you anything that I
know about so yes there isn't much outside incentive. It would be nice if
it got you a discount on your insurance, but I don't know that any insurers
do.

I don't sign up for the program, but I do occassionally attend some of the
seminars and I have found them to be quite good. Sometimes the AOPA teams
up with Wings through their Air Safety Foundation.


"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> I always thought taking a wings seminar was a simple way to get your BFR
> out of the way. After a little Internet research it seems they require
> three hours of dual flight instruction to qualify as a BFR. Is that
> correct?
>
> It would be much easier and cheaper to just do the BFR.. I don't see the
> incentive for the Wings Program as a substitute for a BFR. (Other than
> the
> education... )
>
>
> --
> Dallas

[Sylvain]

Mike wrote:

> know about so yes there isn't much outside incentive. It would be nice if
> it got you a discount on your insurance, but I don't know that any
> insurers do.

I have a renter policy with Avemco and I believe they do give you a discount
for such recurrent training (not sure how much, but there is a little
incentive there)

--Sylvain

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Has a CFI ever been held responsable for the subsequent actions of a pilot
they have endorsed for a BFR ?

[Sylvain]

Maxwell wrote:

> Has a CFI ever been held responsable for the subsequent actions of a pilot
> they have endorsed for a BFR ?

I don't know; do you want to be the first?

--Sylvain

[Mike]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Has a CFI ever been held responsable for the subsequent actions of a
>> pilot
>> they have endorsed for a BFR ?
>
> I don't know; do you want to be the first?

Maxie would have to ride in a real airplane just to get his private. Forget
about CFI.

FSDO routinely question CFIs regarding people they have signed off who
subsequently screwed up. If they find something amiss, they ain't gonna be
too happy. They can't easily pull the ratings of a CFI for the actions
pilot, but if they find deficient paperwork(which must be retained for 3
years by the CFI) they most certainly can. CFIs can also be sued by the
family members of the deceased, and yes these things do happen.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Has a CFI ever been held responsable for the subsequent actions of a
>> pilot
>> they have endorsed for a BFR ?
>
> I don't know; do you want to be the first?
>

No, actually the point is, will there ever be a first?

If a post incident flight review was made by the FAA, and they could cite
serious reasons to ground the subject pilot, they would have little to
actually complain about. If that were true, every time you file with a CFI
for any purpose, insurance check out, further skills development, tail time,
etc. - they would be responsible for you until they log dual time.

[Jim Logajan]

Sylvain > wrote:
> However, there are a couple of advantages with
> the Wings program; for one thing, it is preferable for the CFI, for
> liability reasons;

Setting aside the fact that in the U.S. anyone can sue anyone else for just
about any reason, I am unaware of any FAA regulation that would make a CFI
responsible for the actions of a pilot they had signed off on their BFR.

It would be helpful if you could cite case law or regulations that support
your claim.

[Mike]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Sylvain > wrote:
>> However, there are a couple of advantages with
>> the Wings program; for one thing, it is preferable for the CFI, for
>> liability reasons;
>
> Setting aside the fact that in the U.S. anyone can sue anyone else for
> just
> about any reason, I am unaware of any FAA regulation that would make a CFI
> responsible for the actions of a pilot they had signed off on their BFR.
>
> It would be helpful if you could cite case law or regulations that support
> your claim.

The CFI isn't responsible for the actions of a non-student pilot, however
they are responsible for fufilling all the requirements of the BFR and they
are responsible for accurate record keeping. So the applicable portion of
the FAR is 61.56 and 61.189.

It usually goes down something like this. A pilot does something stupid
like busts the class B or ADIZ and gets a free counseling session with the
FSDO. The FSDO guy looks at his logbook and says, "I see you got your last
BFR 3 weeks ago. Did your instructor say anything about airspace?"

To which the stupid pilot says, "No we really didn't talk at all. He just
looked at my logbook and we went flying."

"Hmmm, OK. I see the log entry says 0.9 hours. Is that how long you flew?"

"Oh yes, the FBO bills me for Hobbs time, so I'm sure that's correct."

So now the FSDO inspector has reason to believe the CFI didn't provide at
least 1 hour of ground training and 1 hour of flight training. Their next
call is to the CFI so he can get his free counseling session. The FSDO
reviews his records and sees that he logged 1.0 hours that day and that he
claims he provided 1 hour of ground training when clearly he did not. So
now the FSDO has him on 61.56, 61.189, and probably several other things
once they go over his records with a fine toothed comb and start talking to
other pilots he has signed off.

So the bottom line is if the CFI is doing everything he is required to do,
he has nothing to worry about if a pilot he gave a BFR screws up. However,
some CFIs that work for a FBO only get paid for flight time and not ground
training, so many of them have very little interest in doing something they
aren't getting paid for anyway. Also most CFIs I've met aren't the best
record keepers other than their own log. If the FSDO gets the impression a
CFI just pencil whipped a BFR, they aren't going to be too sympathetic
towards that CFI, and it's probably not going to be all that difficult to
find all the evidence they need to hang him. Even a minor violoation of
61.189 is enough to get a suspension and clearly willful violations can get
their CFI revoked indefinitely.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 2, 9:24*am, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
> > Sylvain > wrote:
> >> However, *there are a couple of advantages with
> >> the Wings program; *for one thing, *it is preferable for the CFI, *for
> >> liability reasons;
>
> > Setting aside the fact that in the U.S. anyone can sue anyone else for
> > just
> > about any reason, I am unaware of any FAA regulation that would make a CFI
> > responsible for the actions of a pilot they had signed off on their BFR..
>
> > It would be helpful if you could cite case law or regulations that support
> > your claim.
>
> The CFI isn't responsible for the actions of a non-student pilot, however
> they are responsible for fufilling all the requirements of the BFR and they
> are responsible for accurate record keeping. *So the applicable portion of
> the FAR is 61.56 and 61.189.
>
> It usually goes down something like this. *A pilot does something stupid
> like busts the class B or ADIZ and gets a free counseling session with the
> FSDO. *The FSDO guy looks at his logbook and says, "I see you got your last
> BFR 3 weeks ago. *Did your instructor say anything about airspace?"
>
> To which the stupid pilot says, "No we really didn't talk at all. *He just
> looked at my logbook and we went flying."
>
> "Hmmm, OK. *I see the log entry says 0.9 hours. *Is that how long you flew?"
>
> "Oh yes, the FBO bills me for Hobbs time, so I'm sure that's correct."
>
> So now the FSDO inspector has reason to believe the CFI didn't provide at
> least 1 hour of ground training and 1 hour of flight training. *Their next
> call is to the CFI so he can get his free counseling session. *The FSDO
> reviews his records and sees that he logged 1.0 hours that day and that he
> claims he provided 1 hour of ground training when clearly he did not. *So
> now the FSDO has him on 61.56, 61.189, and probably several other things
> once they go over his records with a fine toothed comb and start talking to
> other pilots he has signed off.
>
> So the bottom line is if the CFI is doing everything he is required to do,
> he has nothing to worry about if a pilot he gave a BFR screws up. *However,
> some CFIs that work for a FBO only get paid for flight time and not ground
> training, so many of them have very little interest in doing something they
> aren't getting paid for anyway. *Also most CFIs I've met aren't the best
> record keepers other than their own log. *If the FSDO gets the impression a
> CFI just pencil whipped a BFR, they aren't going to be too sympathetic
> towards that CFI, and it's probably not going to be all that difficult to
> find all the evidence they need to hang him. *Even a minor violoation of
> 61.189 is enough to get a suspension and clearly willful violations can get
> their CFI revoked indefinitely.

I can't speak for other pilots, but I want the ^%*% BFR to make me a
safer pilot, and if the CFI wasn't tough enough I'd fire his ass. I
and another pilot do safety checks on each other every half year or so
for exactly the same reason -- the only time my airplane gets close to
FAA limits on pitch and bank is when he say "It's your airplane' when
I'm under the hood doing unusual attitude recovery work. I want at
least that much work from a BFI.

The idea isn't to get a log book entry, folks, the idea is to
demonstrate you know what you're doing to an objective observer. Don't
waste the opportunity.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 2, 9:24 am, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>

-The idea isn't to get a log book entry, folks, the idea is to
-demonstrate you know what you're doing to an objective observer. Don't
-waste the opportunity.

But that's not really the point. If a CFI doesn't do he job, and it's
discovered by the FAA by any circumstances, they will pay a price.

But that is unrelated to a CFI being responsable for the later incidents of
a pilot who has satisfied even the minimun requirement for a BFR.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 2, 11:54*am, "Maxwell" <#@#.#> wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 2, 9:24 am, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> -The idea isn't to get a log book entry, folks, the idea is to
> -demonstrate you know what you're doing to an objective observer. Don't
> -waste the opportunity.
>
> But that's not really the point. If a CFI doesn't do he job, and it's
> discovered by the FAA by any circumstances, they will pay a price.
>
> But that is unrelated to a CFI being responsable for the later incidents of
> a pilot who has satisfied even the minimun requirement for a BFR.

There are several themes to this thread -- the OP was interested in
getting opinions re ways of satisfying BFRs. My point is that we as
pilots who are paying the CFI should demand we get value for that
money. If I spend 90 minutes aloft with a qualified CFI I want to
learn something other than just that I satisfy minimum BFR
requirements -- even if it's not part of the regs.

In flying as in life, it's a lot better to learn from other people's
mistakes.

[Mike]

"a" > wrote in message
...

> I can't speak for other pilots, but I want the ^%*% BFR to make me a
> safer pilot, and if the CFI wasn't tough enough I'd fire his ass. I
> and another pilot do safety checks on each other every half year or so
> for exactly the same reason -- the only time my airplane gets close to
> FAA limits on pitch and bank is when he say "It's your airplane' when
> I'm under the hood doing unusual attitude recovery work. I want at
> least that much work from a BFI.
>
> The idea isn't to get a log book entry, folks, the idea is to
> demonstrate you know what you're doing to an objective observer. Don't
> waste the opportunity.

You have the right idea that the FAA minimum requirements doesn't mean
you're a safe pilot. Personally I'm also doing a lot more than the 6
approaches every 6 months to keep myself IFR current also. But not all
pilots have that attitude. Many see the BFR as nothing more than a log book
entry, and there are CFIs out there who are more than willing to give a
drive by BFR.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 2, 12:56*pm, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I *can't speak for other pilots, but I want the ^%*% BFR to make me a
> > safer pilot, and if the CFI wasn't tough enough I'd fire his ass. *I
> > and another pilot do safety checks on each other every half year or so
> > for exactly the same reason -- the only time my airplane gets close to
> > FAA limits on pitch and bank is when he say "It's your airplane' when
> > I'm under the hood doing unusual attitude recovery work. *I want at
> > least that much work from a BFI.
>
> > The idea isn't to get a log book entry, folks, the idea is to
> > demonstrate you know what you're doing to an objective observer. Don't
> > waste the opportunity.
>
> You have the right idea that the FAA minimum requirements doesn't mean
> you're a safe pilot. *Personally I'm also doing a lot more than the 6
> approaches every 6 months to keep myself IFR current also. *But not all
> pilots have that attitude. *Many see the BFR as nothing more than a log book
> entry, and there are CFIs out there who are more than willing to give a
> drive by BFR.

Nothing is a sure thing, but these kinds of reviews can be used to
change the odds a little bit in your favor. I'm getting old: one CFI
with a fresh outlook told me, since I fly a reasonable amount of long
XC at night, usually at 11,000 feet eastbound, it would be wise to use
oxygen at altitude even though it's not required. He got a gold star
for reminding me of something I'd forgotten about night vision. He's
the same guy who made some wise, off the books, suggestions about
pattern flying at non-controlled airports (low winged guys should be
at pattern altitude way out on the entry leg, "Where are your clearing
turns in entry, dammit!", fly a bit faster and a bit lower -- low
wing airplane, vis is better upward -- if there's no one ahead of you
all the way to late on final, less chance of someone marring your
paint job -- those kinds of things.

A couple of hours with someone like that, who makes a study of
airmanship, even though he had a thousand hours less than I did, is
both instructive and humbling!

The least important part of that BFR was his signoff -- I'm sorry he's
moved away.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 2, 9:24 am, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:

>The idea isn't to get a log book entry, folks, the idea is to
>demonstrate you know what you're doing to an objective observer. Don't
>waste the opportunity.

Exactly! I always take any pressure off my instructor by mentioning
right at the start that I don't care how long the process takes (air or
ground). I also always insist on hood time.

Vaughn

[Jim Logajan]

"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Sylvain > wrote:
>>> However, there are a couple of advantages with
>>> the Wings program; for one thing, it is preferable for the CFI,
>>> for liability reasons;
>>
>> Setting aside the fact that in the U.S. anyone can sue anyone else
>> for just
>> about any reason, I am unaware of any FAA regulation that would make
>> a CFI responsible for the actions of a pilot they had signed off on
>> their BFR.
>>
>> It would be helpful if you could cite case law or regulations that
>> support your claim.
>
> The CFI isn't responsible for the actions of a non-student pilot,

The post by Sylvain appears to have claimed otherwise.

The remainder of your post deals with the responsibility of a CFI with
respect to the CFI's actions - not the actions of another person. That was
a given - at least for me.

> So the bottom line is if the CFI is doing everything he is required to
> do, he has nothing to worry about if a pilot he gave a BFR screws up.

Quite. My point of objection to Sylvain's post is that rumors and
assertions have a habit of becoming "fact". If CFIs started believing that
the FAA could hold them responsible for the actions of pilots who they
passed on BFRs, I have no doubt it could seriously impact aviation.

[Mike]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Sylvain > wrote:
>>>> However, there are a couple of advantages with
>>>> the Wings program; for one thing, it is preferable for the CFI,
>>>> for liability reasons;
>>>
>>> Setting aside the fact that in the U.S. anyone can sue anyone else
>>> for just
>>> about any reason, I am unaware of any FAA regulation that would make
>>> a CFI responsible for the actions of a pilot they had signed off on
>>> their BFR.
>>>
>>> It would be helpful if you could cite case law or regulations that
>>> support your claim.
>>
>> The CFI isn't responsible for the actions of a non-student pilot,
>
> The post by Sylvain appears to have claimed otherwise.
>
> The remainder of your post deals with the responsibility of a CFI with
> respect to the CFI's actions - not the actions of another person. That was
> a given - at least for me.

I believe the word was "liability" and not "responsibility", and this is
more or less correct. For each and every pilot a CFI provides a BFR, that
CFI can be subject to being called on the carpet by FSDO, and such things do
happen. In other words, his backside could very much be on the line. That
doesn't mean he's responsible for each and everything that pilot does for
the next 2 years, it just means it is a potential liability. And while yes,
the CFI is only responsible for his own actions in regards to the BFR, I
don't know of any CFIs who are so sure of themselves and their record
keeping abilities that they wouldn't be worried about the experience. It's
kinda like getting audited by the IRS. It's not something you look forward
to even if you have never cheated on your taxes.

>> So the bottom line is if the CFI is doing everything he is required to
>> do, he has nothing to worry about if a pilot he gave a BFR screws up.
>
> Quite. My point of objection to Sylvain's post is that rumors and
> assertions have a habit of becoming "fact". If CFIs started believing that
> the FAA could hold them responsible for the actions of pilots who they
> passed on BFRs, I have no doubt it could seriously impact aviation.

I can't really see that happening even on the extremely outside chance that
a usenet post could possibly start some sort of wildfire rumor across the
aviation community. There's no shortage of CFIs, and a good number of the
ones who are out there are already willing to work for slave wages, and many
of them don't seem to be too concerned about liability. Case in point,
let's say a CFI gives someone instruction in their own aircraft and both of
them manage to turn the airplane into scrap. The insurance company can very
well say that since the CFI was performing professional services in the
aircraft, it was being used for commercial purposes and therefore they
aren't going to pay. How many CFIs do you know carry personal liability
insurance for just such instances? I know a lot of CFIs and I don't know of
any that do.

Every CFI that signs off on a BFR should be worried about it coming back to
haunt them. That exactly why they should be doing at least the minimum
required by the FARs, if not far exceeding them, and documenting all of
their actions.

[Dallas]

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:33:25 GMT, Mike wrote:

> How many CFIs do you know carry personal liability
> insurance for just such instances?

At a theoretical $80.00 per BFR, the CFI could loose money every year on
liability insurance.

In reality, my six CFIs were all young and basically had no assets, which
could be considered pretty good protection against being sued.


--
Dallas

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:33:25 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>> How many CFIs do you know carry personal liability
>> insurance for just such instances?
>
> At a theoretical $80.00 per BFR, the CFI could loose money every year on
> liability insurance.
>
> In reality, my six CFIs were all young and basically had no assets, which
> could be considered pretty good protection against being sued.
>

It doesn't matter, it doesn't happen.