Interesting, the way these threads go... I see some folks rightously
claiming the FAA didn't INTEND for this or that... The 'intent' of the
FAA is absolutely meaningless, and any trial court in the country will
tell you that... It is what the reg says that is legally binding - not
the intent of the FAA legal staff who signed off on the reg, many of
whom will not even be still employed there...
The intent of the Bienniel Flight Review (as revealed by the language)
is that each of us shall get one hour of flight instruction from a CFI
- period....
Presumably the FAA feels that will help with public safety, or maybe
not, but that gets us back into the quicksand of intent. In any case,
you do the 1 hour of flight review and if the CFI feels that you have
met the criteria HE has set (no slight implied Michelle), you get
signed off as meeting the regulation...

In my case I chose to improve my airplane handling by renewing my
acquaintance with cross wind landings in conventional gear aircraft
with right hand stick and left hand throttle..
In your case it might be best spent reviewing PAR approaches to
minimums -
In another case it might be best spent reviewing the proper way to
enter the traffic pattern (based on what I see some pilots do)
For others some intensive instruction on how NOT to use the radio
would be very useful!
For others a reintroduction to cross country navigation using only a
whisky compass and a chart would pay benefits... When is the last
time you plotted a cross country course including compass deviation
and variation and wind correction angle (remember those terms? can
you define them?) and then flew it...

In any case, if the CFI tells me he wants to see single engine cuts at
50 feet, he will remain unemployed by me...

cheers ... denny