Borella 2012

Page 1

U.S. Deparlment of Transporta tion Federal Aviation Administration tf)·'f 1 1 'Ltll 2 Mr. ~arry T. Borella

Dear Mr. Borella:

Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., SW.

Washington, DC 20591 This is in response to your request for interpretation of 14 C.F.R. § 61 .56 ( d) Flight review, with respect to whether a Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Annual Check Ride can be considered to satisfy the requirement for a bietmial flight review.

The text of§ 61.56(d) reads as follows:

(d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot ce11ificate, rating, or operating privilege need not accomplish the flight review required by this section.

The CAPF 5 annual check ride is not listed in the regulations as a permi ssible substitute for the bie1mial flight review. However, if the person conducting the CAPF 5 armual check ride is also a Certified Flight Instructor authorized to provide flight training in the aircraft used to conduct the CAPF 5 annual check ride, and is willing to accomplish all the items required by § 61.56(a)( I )(2) and§ 61 .56(c)(2), then there is nothing preventing a pilot who is completing either a biennial flight review or a CAPF 5 check ride from requesting that the examiner or check ainnan conduct a flight check that would satisfy the requirements of both checks.

We hope that this response has been helpful to you. If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact my staff at (202) 267-3073. This response was prepared by Neal O' Hara, an attorney in the Regulations Division of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and was coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Flight Standards Service.

Sincerely,

f~l--- -- /·£~VJ-.. I_../ ·77 ,...

Rebecca B. MacPherson Assis tant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200