Flight ReviewEdit
Flight Review is a periodic safeguard in United States civil aviation that helps ensure pilots remain proficient and current enough to operate an aircraft as pilot in command. Grounded in a long-standing culture of personal responsibility and professional standards, the review is designed to keep knowledge fresh, reinforce good habits, and reduce in-flight risk. The framework is established by the regulations and administered by the Federal Aviation Administration under 14 CFR 61.56. It is a practical expression of ongoing competence rather than a one-time credential.
In everyday practice, a flight review is something a wide range of pilots undergo to continue to act as PIC, including those holding a Private pilot certificate or a Sport pilot certificate. The review is conducted by a certificated flight instructor Certificated Flight Instructor and typically combines a ground briefing with a short flight. The goal is not to award a new certification but to re-affirm a pilot’s ability to handle normal and anticipated abnormal situations in a given aircraft category.
The structure of the flight review reflects a broader philosophy in general aviation: safety, accountability, and the stubborn persistence of skilled, self-reliant pilots. It sits alongside other milestones in aviation education and certification, such as the initial training process and later evaluations like the Checkride. The review does not replace medical standards or the broader regulatory framework but complements them by focusing on current practice and decision making in the cockpit.
Overview
What it is: a mandated, recurring evaluation to act as PIC. It is not a full certification or a new rating, but a reaffirmation of the pilot’s ongoing ability to operate safely. See pilot in command for the exact scope of responsibility that accompanies PIC status.
Who must have one: essentially any person who wants to act as PIC in an aircraft after the preceding 24 calendar months. The rule applies across typical categories of flight operations, including those governed by the Private pilot certificate and Sport pilot regimes, among others.
What it covers: a combination of ground instruction and flight training focused on current regulations, flight operations, weather awareness, aeronautical decision making, and emergency procedures. The emphasis is on practical proficiency and safe decision making in the cockpit, rather than classroom theory alone. For regulatory framing, see 14 CFR 61.56.
How long it lasts: once completed, the flight review remains valid for the next 24 calendar months, after which another review is required to maintain PIC privileges. The sign-off is recorded by the administering instructor and is generally portable across aircraft types within the scope of the pilot’s certificate.
Where it happens: typically at a flight school, a fixed-base operation, or with an individual Certificated Flight Instructor who is authorized to administer flight reviews. The instructor uses the opportunity to tailor the content to the pilot’s recent experience and local airspace realities.
Process and content
The ground portion covers current rules, airspace considerations, weather interpretation, aeronautical decision making, risk management, and standard operating practices. The ground instruction is delivered by a Certificated Flight Instructor who can tailor topics to the pilot’s experience and the specific aircraft category.
The flight portion provides an opportunity to demonstrate currency in handling the aircraft, basic maneuvers, and the ability to recognize and respond to common in-flight contingencies. A typical session lasts at least one hour of flight time.
The result is a signed-off record indicating the pilot has met the standards of the flight review. This does not create a new license or rating; it simply reaffirms the pilot’s ongoing entitlement to act as PIC so long as the review remains current.
The review can be completed in various contexts, including cross-country preparation or routine refresher maneuvers. See General aviation for how this practice fits into everyday flight operations and the broader ecosystem of aviation training.
Controversies and debates
Safety versus regulatory burden: Supporters of the flight review view it as a prudent safeguard that reinforces safety through professional standards and regular refreshers. They argue that a brief, focused session with an instructor helps prevent complacency and keeps pilots aligned with current procedures and airspace rules. Critics, however, contend that mandatory reviews add cost and time without a clear, measurable safety dividend for every pilot, especially those with extensive recent flight experience. From a practical, market-minded perspective, the value is in maintaining high safety standards without stifling entry or innovation in general aviation.
Access and cost: The requirement relies on access to qualified instructors and affordable training options. In communities with limited flight schools or instructors, the process can be burdensome, delaying flying or driving pilots to seek cheaper, less supervised alternatives. Proponents argue that competitive, private training and the voluntary adoption of higher personal standards can offset some of these concerns, while critics warn that any friction in the training ecosystem can reduce participation in general aviation.
Online versus in-person ground instruction: Advances in technology have enabled more online and blended approaches to ground training. In practice, the flight review requires direct instruction from an eligible instructor, but pilots and schools discuss whether online components can fulfill portions of the ground content or support ongoing education between in-person reviews. The right balance emphasizes maintaining core safety standards while leveraging modern educational tools to reduce unnecessary friction.
Role of market incentives: A right-leaning view often emphasizes that a robust safety culture in aviation benefits from voluntary stewardship, price competition, and the alignment of training with real-world risk rather than bureaucratic boilerplate. Advocates argue that high-quality training, honest self-regulation, and market-driven safety improvements can achieve equal or better outcomes with fewer barriers to entry. Critics worry that excessive regulation or a one-size-fits-all approach may dampen enthusiasm for flight and limit the growth of general aviation.
Compatibility with technological progress: With modern avionics, automation, and decision-support tools, some observers question whether a uniform two-year cadence remains the best fit for all pilots and aircraft. The conservative case emphasizes consistent grounding in fundamentals and situational awareness, while opponents of rigidity point to opportunities for segmenting currency requirements by aircraft type, equipment, or mission profile, provided safety remains paramount.