LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
The original reason for the BFR was to reduce accidents. Where is the data that shows that it has done that? It don’t exist.
It is nothing but a pain in the butt. It does nothing for safety. It’s like the helmet law for motorcycle riders. In California it was pushed through to save money because there were supposed to be less victims of motorcycle accidents, consequently less burden on the taxpayers to fix their cracked skulls. Where is the data that shows it did that? It don’t exist.
The BFR every two years only guarantees that a pilot fly every two years. That’s plain stupid. All a BFR does is add another government restriction. It does nothing.
The thinking behind it is that pilots forget how to fly. Well, if you don’t fly, then you will forget a lot of the details. It is sort of like the idea of recurrent training. “Wow, here I am flying almost every day, I think I’m forgetting how to fly this damn airplane, guess I’d better get me a CFI to re-teach me how to fly.” I assemble propeller hubs and make blades. I do this every day. Am I forgetting how to assemble hubs? Hell no, I’m getting better at it every day.
I am beginning to think that the people who run aviation — FAA, flight schools and all the aviation academia — don’t know the nitty gritty about flying.
KENT TARVER, via e-mail
Mack P. Kreizenbeck says
Appears Mr. Tarver failed his BFR!
I’ve been able to learn something new and/or different during each BFR.
It is beneficial to hire different instructor for each BFR so you don’t become complacent.