Non-TW CFI cannot give Flight Review in TW

Looks like the FSDO just referenced and quoted Lynch.

Hilton


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:08:24 GMT, "Hilton"
wrote:

Hi,

John Lynch's latest FAQ (#19) says:


snip

I don't pretend to know the "correct" answer, but here are the words
of another "authority."

We took your question about the tailwheel BFR to the local FSDO, who
shot it up to the FAA Headquarters, who just came out with this
official stance:

Question: The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question
whether he can give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane and yet he
has not previously met the additional training requirements for
operating a tailwheel airplane [i.e., § 61.31(i)].

Answer: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2); § 61.56(c)(1); No, a flight instructor
cannot give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane unless he has
complied with § 61.31(i). Per § 61.56(c)(1), it states, in pertinent
part, ". . . by an authorized instructor . . . ." Per §
61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in pertinent part, ". . . in accordance
with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor
certificate . . . ." The flight instructor would not be considered an
"authorized instructor" for giving a flight review in a tailwheel
airplane.



Paul Berge
Brainteaser #66 Author
Editor, IFR Magazine

reference; http://www.avweb.com/news/avmail/184110-1.html

"Hilton" wrote
FWIW: After posting I thought I should have said: "I'm just the messenger
here."

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was taking issue with you. That was not
the intent. The problem is Lynch.

The FAQ is a great idea, if only 'they' could get it right... :|

That's a good general description of the FAA, not just that particular
FAQ. Usually, the FAA acts only when there is a real problem (some
call this regulation by body count...). It's pretty rare for the FAA
to do something for no reason at all.

However, when they do something they usually fail to fix the problem,
and only succeed in causing more problems.

Lynch's FAQ is a perfect example. Problem: The FAR's are complex and
difficult to understand. Many people (especially those who are not
lawyers) have a hard time interpreting them and determining if a given
operation is legal. A list of frequently asked questions and
AUTHORITATIVE answers is a great idea. Therefore, Lynch starts the
FAQ.

Unfortunately, it is neither authoritative nor correct. Therefore,
the problem is in no way diminished. What's worse, we now have
blatant misinterpretations floating around. Thus the situation is
made even worse than if Lynch had done nothing.

Michael

Non-TW CFI cannot give Flight Review in TW

wheres tw and why not