Perhaps many of you, like myself, remember the days when no recurrent training was required by the FAA. You obtained your certificate and/or rating and kept up with three takeoffs and landings every 90 days, night requirements and instrument currency, but there was no regulation for a biennial flight review (BFR). But in 1974, government pressures led to imposition of a BFR for all pilots. It was a simple and uncomplicated rule that merely required a logbook sign-off from a certificated instructor, indicating you had demonstrated competency relative to your certificate and ratings. The FAA stated that a BFR was to determine a pilot's general overall piloting ability and thus would vary from pilot to pilot. When the BFR was adopted, if you were like me, it didn't take much to comply because most of us had already established some sort of recurrent check ride with an instructor. In the early 1980s, when I finally graduated to light twins, my personal training minimum was a flight every 90 days with an instrument instructor. It was easy to convert this into satisfying the BFR requirement.
In 1989, however, never content to leave us alone and, as usual, trying to fix something that wasn't broken, the FAA proposed rules that discriminated against new pilots and set expensive and unneeded regulations on current pilots. First, when the recreational pilot final rule was published, much to AOPA's surprise, it included a requirement that all "rec" pilots and non-instrument-rated private pilots with fewer than 400 flight hours complete an annual flight review (AFR). Second, in another rulemaking effort, the FAA proposed that a BFR be completed in every category and class of airplane a pilot operates.
AOPA opposed both of these requirements. In the first case — the recreational pilot rule — we viewed the AFR requirement as discriminatory and unjustified based on the accident statistics offered by the FAA and validated by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation's database. In addition, the inclusion of any category of private pilots in this rule was improper, not to mention the pattern that often develops of introducing a rule that applies to one category and then rapidly expanding it to all pilots. This could have led to an AFR for us all. It was clear from the fatal-accident data that pilots with fewer than 400 hours had the same accident profile as all other pilots. In others words, it was not a unique group that required special attention. From the nonfatal profile, it was apparent that, for both under-400-hour pilots and all other pilots, the cause factors were in identical patterns: approach and landing incidents for the low-time group and improper preparation or planning for the more experienced pilots. The data actually concluded that pilots with fewer than 500 hours have a percentage of both fatal and nonfatal accidents far lower than would be expected by the number of hours they fly. AOPA petitioned the FAA for recision of the AFR requirement for both recreational and private pilots.
In the second case — requiring pilots to take a BFR in every category and class aircraft they fly — AOPA pointed out that no evidence suggested this would solve any problem. It was a clear case of the FAA regulating by intuition. The cost of a BFR would rise from an average of $75 to $250 to more than $1,200 if the pilot was rated in several categories. We readily agreed that a pilot should be encouraged to accomplish a BFR in the most complex class of aircraft for which a pilot is rated. AOPA stressed the point that pilots, in general, will assure they are current and capable to fly aircraft in which they are rated. The existing currency regulations, insurance companies, FBOs who rent airplanes, and owners themselves are currently imposing their own requirements that are adequately addressing the safety issue. Currently, a pilot and instructor may together determine the objectives of a BFR, based upon the type of flying a pilot does. In the FAA proposal, the original flexibility built into the rule would have been diminished, and specific maneuvers and procedures would have been required.
As a consequence of our petition and comments to the regulatory review, AOPA met with FAA officials to discuss a solution to both proposals that would satisfy you, as members, and result in an acceptable rule. We conducted an informal survey of pilots and flight instructors who indicated that the average length of a BFR is two hours, usually including about one hour of ground and one hour of flight instruction. We proposed this idea at one of the FAA meetings, and I'm now quite pleased to let you know that it was accepted.
On July 22 of this year, a notice of proposed rulemaking was issued that rescinds the AFR requirement and enhances the BFR by only requiring one hour of ground and one hour of flight instruction. None of the other proposed costly and time-consuming measures was included. Your association considers this a real victory for all pilots who are concerned about safety but who don't feel the necessity for mountains of regulations. Other enhancements in the proposed rulemaking include the FAA placing more emphasis on the Wings Program and on its accident prevention managers. The advisory circular discussing BFRs will also be updated to more clearly explain what a BFR should accomplish.
The general aviation accident record has been constantly improving; therefore, AOPA is pleased to have guided an action that results in leaving the rules pretty much as they have been, enabling the pilot community to continue the positive safety progress on its own.
Related Articles
