Already PP fixed wing, & completed Sport Pilot, Rotorcraft, Gyroplane proficiency check. Is Flight Review required?
Votes
Joined 02/29/2020 - 3 Posts
Open
Proficiency check was completed April 2019. Do I still need to to complete a Flight Review based on two year fixed wing, or does the calendar clock restart last April?

Loving gyro flight!  
5 Replies
Votes
Joined 06/11/2017 - 699 Posts
Was the proficiency check conducted by "an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force"?  If so, it counts.  If not, it doesn't. 14 CFR 61.56(d)(1).  That's why 61.31 additional training endorsements given by CFI's don't automatically count for flight review purposes even though they confer an "operating privilege".
Votes
Joined 02/29/2020 - 3 Posts
The instructor is a DPE so looks like that counts, right? My CFI Refresher Course will satisfy ground training requirements?  
Votes
Joined 06/11/2017 - 699 Posts
Yes.  You completed a "pilot proficiency check" given by "an examiner" so it fills the 61.56(d)(1) square making a Flight Review unnecessary.  And technically, the ground portion which would be covered by your FIRC isn't required because you don't require a Flight Review.  Just make sure he signed your logbook with his DPE designation number.
Votes
Joined 02/29/2020 - 3 Posts
My DPE believes the cited FAR is only used when Part 135 and 122 proficiency rides are given. Since any class qualified CFI can give the Rotorcraft Gyroplane initial proficiency ride, he did sign-off as CFI, not DPE. He also got conflicting explanations from a couple FSDOs he works with as an airline check pilot.

Can you verify what isrequired here?
 
Votes
Joined 06/11/2017 - 699 Posts
I can't confirm the accuracy of what your DPE said because I'm not an official FAA source (and your DPE isn't, either).  If you need an official interpretation on this, contact an Aviation Safety Inspector at your local FSDO.  If they don't have official guidance on hand, they will obtain it from FAA HQ.

And I did check to see if there were any FAA legal interpretations on point, but could not find one.