This question came into the PIC recently, and the answer is generally yes, but with a few caveats.
The member had an expired flight review and called to ask if taking a flight test would renew him for another 24 months, just as if he took a flight test with a current flight review; assuming he passed, of course!
From just a flight review regulatory standpoint, yes it would. However, he could not serve as PIC for the flight test and it is highly likely the examiner would call him out on that point. According to 61.47(b), the examiner is not the PIC during a flight test, so the applicant must be. Examiners can agree to act in that capacity, but they are neither required nor obligated to do so. In any case, this issue is best addressed before one shows up for the flight test.
Also, for a student pilot taking a sport, recreational, or private flight test, this actually does not apply as student pilots are exempt from the flight review requirement, per 61.56(g).
The AOPA PIC stands ready to assist you with any regulatory question you may have. Contact us at 800-872-2672, option 1, then 2, or firstname.lastname@example.org
While correct as far as taking the practical test is concerned, the pilot could not make it to the test (for other than Commercial or for any airship rating) without having accomplished some solo flight time. As Ron noted in an earlier post, the applicant could not perform the solo time without having a valid flight review. This is outlined in the Beard 2015 legal interpretation.
Since the pilot would need to have a current flight review in order to perform the solo time requirement, the question of a flight review for the test would be moot (unless his flight review were valid for the solo flights and ran out prior to the test).
For some reason, when I try to include the link to the interpretation, your system attempts to load the content and it shows up as blank. The text from the interpretation follows:
“Finally, you have also asked whether a person operating in solo flight under a § 61.31(d) endorsement must comply with the flight review requirements in § 61.56(c). With a few listed exceptions, no person make act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless within the previous 24 calendar months that person completed a flight review with an authorized instructor. 14 C.F.R. § 61.56(c). Section 61.56(g) provides an exception for student pilots provided the student pilot is undergoing training for a certificate and has a current solo flight endorsement as required under § 61.87. Because this exception applies to student pilots, a pilot who holds a higher level pilot certificate and has an endorsement for solo flight under § 61.31(d) must comply with the flight review requirements in § 61.56 before acting as pilot in command of any aircraft.”
While correct as far as taking the practical test is concerned, the pilot could not make it to the test (for other than Commercial or for any airship rating) without having accomplished some solo flight time.
….unless it's for an additional class rating, like adding AMEL or AMES to an existing ASEL. No solo requirements for additional Airplane class ratings. Same for an added Instrument rating.
I've had instrument trainees show up with expired/expiring flight reviews or missing HP/complex endorsement. Fortunately, the IR course is all dual, and we get the missing qualification done in the course of the training. But DPE's have told me of applicants arriving with missing or expired PIC requirements and calling the recommending instructor to come get their trainee.