But let’s be clear, the FAA gives the CFI total control to decide the flight review content and required duration; everything is on the table. The FAA required-minimum of an hour flight and an hour of ground study on part 91 is just as suspect as the 3SM day viz; a bare minimum. (And the multi-engine ATP who flies a flight review in a Champ is legal for 24 months in everything else!) Ultimately, we need to appeal to every pilot’s better angels here and inspire a personal desire for greater proficiency and safety we cannot legislate this. Clearly, bending planes and bleeding out really sucks. An hour flight may scrape off some of the serious rust and discover and correct some bad habits, but we can’t assure consistency and actual skill in an hour. And we never get beyond basics to what I call “the killers” (important safety items) in an hour. So let’s default to three hours and work plus or minus from that more realistic baseline.
AC 61.98E the FAA reminds flight instructors that a flight review may require more than 1 hour of ground training and 1 hour of flight training. Since satisfactory completion of a flight review is based on pilot proficiency, it is up to the instructional service provider to determine what type of instruction is required and how much additional training time, if any, is required to ensure that the pilot has the necessary knowledge and skills to conduct safe flight operations… it is the flight instructor that ultimately determines the total training time required for a flight review.

The excellent FAA document on flight reviews suggests, that controlling the expectations starts with the initial interview. It is critical for the CFI to “sell” the safety advantages of greater proficiency so we can get to the real “pilot killer” phases of flight. The FAA WINGS program was originally developed around this focus on these specific “pilot risk factors.” And participants in FAA WINGS are statistically correlated with safer flying. But unfortunately in most safety seminars we are “preaching to the choir” how do we reach further?
Every flight is different … but GA accidents follow well-worn patterns. Whether heedless, hapless, or simply clueless, pilots keep falling into the same traps that have snared others before them. It happens every year all across the country.
The learner involvement and imaginative scenarios of the Focused Flight Review provide a great advantage for the aviation educator. It is otherwise too easy for all of us to fall back into the “initial training rut” and just review ACS airwork – thereby missing the important “added value” items that should be included in a good flight review. The opportunity of a more extensive – exceed the minimums – review allows a good CFI to go beyond basic proficiency and cover “the killers” that are often never trained.
Here is a YouTube of a “normal flight review” which a creative CFI leveraged to provide some tools once it was obvious “the basics” were proficient. Here they took some hoodwork into a “call for help” and a simulated instrument approach – to prevent the (too common and 95% fatal) VFR into IMC situation. This is “added value” that may save a life!
Complacency is a huge contributing factor in many aviation accidents; we all mask risk because of familiarity. Try surprising your client by popping open a