• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Not sure what's behind this FAASTeam action

Another CFI was telling me about a DPE that was passing applicants without ever going flying. Didn't say where it happened, could be this guy.
 
From my understanding, he was modifying a GPS instrument approach for testing purposes. It was safe (as he was a safety pilot) and met the checkride eval criteria, but the FAA was not happy about it. Might be more, I don’t know.

Sucks for all the folks caught up in it. I was scheduled for a Instrument check ride with him, but he was booked fairly far out, so went with another DPE that got it done sooner.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Another CFI was telling me about a DPE that was passing applicants without ever going flying. Didn't say where it happened, could be this guy.
That was not the issue. Get the facts before you drag someone through the mud.
DENNY
 
Another CFI was telling me about a DPE that was passing applicants without ever going flying. Didn't say where it happened, could be this guy.
GreggB, There was a DPE who did this in our area long ago. More than 35 years ago. There were other complaints about him as well which I'll not elaborate upon.
 
That was not the issue. Get the facts before you drag someone through the mud.
DENNY
Reread my post. I wrote 'could be this guy.' A bunch of DPEs got canned recently but that doesn't usually rise to the level of reexamination for pilots. I hope all affected get over this hurdle with minimum hassle.
 
Well with the FAA if you forget to put a checkmark in a box or cross a "T" you are suddenly negligent, and guilty of crimes against humanity. This could be totally innocent and probably is.

Bill
 
Several years ago there was another incident like this in the southeast, I believe it was Florida. Periodically something like this pops up, fortunately for the system it is not often.
 
Wasn't there a mechanic testing place that had issues a couple years ago?

No idea what is behind this action, but would seem the number of people I see asking for check rides would indicate the FAA should be working as hard to get DPEs and streamline to make their lives easier; not visibly making lives more difficult.

Please don't mistake my comment for believing that check rides should be easy- far from it. But the amount of paperwork required by all to do a check ride is incredibly onerous, and it requires an IT guy to guide through the computer maze. Then the poor check airman has to deal with the 'new' standards and evaluate a student that may have never felt a full stall or buffet in their life!

This does look expensive for some folks. A shame all around.
 
Not really on point, but I no longer do instruction that would require me to endorse a student for a checkride. I am personally not smart enough to endure a six hour oral on anything, let alone aviation, and I really don't know what a stabilized approach is in a J3. So how could I teach a student to endure such things?

Back when exams were more reasonable, I got five type ratings, four degrees, two bar memberships, and an IA. Now I doubt I could pass a Sport oral - they start at six AM (not awake then) so they can finish by sundown!
 
Back when exams were more reasonable, I got five type ratings, four degrees, two bar memberships, and an IA. Now I doubt I could pass a Sport oral - they start at six AM (not awake then) so they can finish by sundown!

You would be just fine. Especially with this guy it seems :)
 
Long Island is about as far away from Alaska as one can get in the FAA world but almost the same exact thing is going on here right now. A really good pilot and DPE is about to give it up because of all the BS. It seems that some students can’t grasp the fact that they may not have completed the tasks satisfactorily and since it couldn’t possibly be their fault, they blame the DPE and complain to the FSDO. Then it starts.
 
Like BT, I don't do formal instruction anymore........maybe a few flight reviews or TW checkout. Don't know why I keep my FI cert anymore.......might be my last renewal.
Gleim renewals are really fun. I so enjoy the challenge of memorizing a gazillion acronyms.......FAA must have a plethora of full timers just to provide that bullshit.
Instead of focusing on actually learning anything my time is spent between 2 monitors that link the test question to the correct answer.......at least I can watch Hogan's Heros at the same time.

P.S. I had to edit. sj won't let me say ****
 
I just renewed my CFI and also found the program to be a joke. There are several pages of Acronyms. The program is written by clowns, also I found that the sentence structure was from people that English wasn’t there first language. The verb placement wasn’t what we do in our country. There was very little to be learned in the program, felt like there acronyms were designed to confuse anyone not in there secret decoder ring club. My 2C
 
the northeast lost two DPE's recently. I heard one they did the oral and the weather turned to crap, came back and passed the ride, except his sign off expired
Remember the faa isnt happy till youre not happy
 
I had some feedback today. Only a small piece of a larger puzzle. Appears he didn't have the applicants do an approved Precision ILS approach which is required during the exams. There isn't one close to TKA" (Talkeetna). Got to go south to Wasilla or Anchorage for that I assume. A LPV approach was substituted (my interpretation of what occurred) but may not have been to the same standards or certification as a local Precision (PA) ILS would. An LPV currently does not meet the ICAO Annex 10 precision approach standard or the FAA's. Close but no cigar. Not my conflict just what I was informed.

Gary
 
ILS is not the only way to get the PA for training. LPV can be used for the PA requirement in checkrides and IPCs.

Talkeetna only has LNAV/VNAV, so from what I understand, he was modifying those with a lower DA as if it was an LPV. As far as the pilot under the hood is concerned, they do the exact same thing on both, but the LPV has a lower DA (like 250ft AGL). So it accomplishes the same ability check, it’s just as safe, and pilots didn’t have to spend an hour to fly to Wasilla or Anchorage to fly one approach because those are the closest LPVs/ILS.

That’s only what I heard, take it with a grain of salt. Could be more, could be less, I dunno.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Last edited:
Well whatever indigestion occurred DL got flagged and his applicants will undergo rigorous reevaluations for their ratings. "approved" has meaning. "DA" has meaning. Not my problem. But my link says LPV is not approved "precision", do you disagree?. Please inform as that's not what I was told by someone that does 135 rides for a living. If it's not in ACS then it's not.

Edit: There was a time I did ILS to 50 or less if lights available at night. So maybe the regs need to be more acceptable to RNAV/GPS/WAAS. If it's a reg issue then evolve.

Merry Christmas from cold Fairbanks.

Gary
 
Last edited:
Caveat this with I’m not a DPE or CFII, someone correct me if I’m wrong. **edited to remove outdated info**

And Merry Christmas as well. I’ll take the cold up there over the terrible roads down here any day.




Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Last edited:
Edit: There was a time I did ILS to 50 or less if lights available at night. So maybe the regs need to be more acceptable to RNAV/GPS/WAAS. If it's a reg issue then evolve.
You should try it for real sometime when the only thing you can see is one runway centerline light after you touchdown. Then as you declare "clear of the runway" the tower comes out with the new weather "zero- zero" :smile:
 
the northeast lost two DPE's recently. I heard one they did the oral and the weather turned to crap, came back and passed the ride, except his sign off expired
Remember the faa isnt happy till youre not happy

They are about to lose more, one resignation today. Another two moving to other places. One not even in the USA.
 
I just renewed my CFI and also found the program to be a joke. There are several pages of Acronyms. The program is written by clowns, also I found that the sentence structure was from people that English wasn’t there first language. The verb placement wasn’t what we do in our country. There was very little to be learned in the program, felt like there acronyms were designed to confuse anyone not in there secret decoder ring club. My 2C

Which program? Most of the CFI renewal (on-line) are third party providers.

sj
 
Caveat this with I’m not a DPE or CFII, someone correct me if I’m wrong. LPV is not a precision approach to be used when a precision approach is necessary, i.e., as a 600ft ceiling alternate. It can, however, be used in training as a substitute for a PA.

I am a CFII and I learned something from the link in post 19. Since I earned my instrument rating I have believed that a precision approach is defined as an approach procedure which includes vertical guidance. I'm a pack rat and I happen to have a 2000 ASA FAR AIM book. In the book Part 1.1 definitions includes the following:

"Precision approach procedure means a standard instrument approach procedure in which an electronic glide slope is provided, such as ILS and PAR".

I did my initial airplane flight training at MCAS Yuma and flew PAR before I earned my private rating.

Fast forward to 2022. A search for the current definition of precision approach finds that it has not been changed!

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/section-1.1

There is no doubt in my mind that LPV meets the 14 CFR 1.1 definition of a precision approach.

The Instrument ACS defines the testing requirements -

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...esting/acs/instrument_rating_acs_change_1.pdf

VI Instrument Approach Procedures, Task B Precision approach links to this reference -

"Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV Minimums) Localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) minimums with a decision altitude (DA) greater than 300 feet height above touchdown (HAT) may be used as a nonprecision approach; however, due to the precision of its glidepath and localizer-like lateral navigation characteristics, an LPV minimums approach can be used to demonstrate precision approach proficiency if the DA is equal to or less than 300 feet HAT"

Therefore I conclude that flying an LPV approach with published minimum lower than 300 ft HAT meets the requirements of the ACS and is valid for issuance of an instrument rating.
 
I'd put good money on the fact that they used his ads-B track for one of his checkrides as proof against him.
 
Therefore I conclude that flying an LPV approach with published minimum lower than 300 ft HAT meets the requirements of the ACS and is valid for issuance of an instrument rating.


I am so far out of instrument currency, and I learned when ILS was still the king, so much of my knowledge is outdated; please take my thoughts with that in mind. Also, I am in no way in the 'know' on any of this particular situation. I am however often dealing with government and people for different reasons.

Frequent: Thank you for pulling up the regulations. my Talkeetna charts are a bit outdated, but I see the minimums are 600 and 700 feet AGL there; Your quote from the ACS is specific in the wording to say minimums'. You conclude that if minimums are published at or below- Talkeetna is not.

IF this is really the situation, a DPE making adjustments to adapt to his location and help students- making his own approach minimums for a check ride approach to satisfy 'precision' requirement- this approach to flying was once the standard of how DPE's worked. They required you to know how to fly the plane, made sure you understood that, and most were quick to know if you were capable and would adjust check rides to keep you sweating even if it was easy for you.

In today's world we have an industry operated by bean counters and overseen by attorneys. Most of the FAA today is former military- and the attorneys running the show I doubt are pilots. The boots on the ground are given pre-filled out letters with websites that have boxes to check. The only memory item is the login and password. There is not much room for adjusting to real world, in fact the FAA in the big city down south believes Alaska should be the same as everywhere in all rules.

I can imagine a situation in which a FSDO inspector is talking to a long time pilot about something like this and the discussion going off the rails. FSDO folks are people, with personalities. When things start sideways they have the mass of attorneys and pre-approved forms to make all kinds of bad stuff happen to you. Even if a pilot is in the right, make the safest call you can, the FAA has more money to fight you and make your life miserable. Sometimes it is best to just nod and listen- and do it their way for any check ride to get the job done. They have a job to do also even if they don't like the decision given to them.

The sad part is that no matter what, it is general aviation that will suffer the most. A bunch of pilots need to go spend time and money to get their check rides re-done, and one less DPE available; how many pilots will now shy away from the DPE work because of this?

My scenario is speculation through what other's have said. My personal experience with the FAA reminds me that they are people with personalities, we must treat them as such if we wish to move forward without lots of friction.
 
Frequent: Thank you for pulling up the regulations. my Talkeetna charts are a bit outdated, but I see the minimums are 600 and 700 feet AGL there; Your quote from the ACS is specific in the wording to say minimums'. You conclude that if minimums are published at or below- Talkeetna is not.

My 2 cents worth related to acceptability of LPV approach to meet the precision approach task of the ACS. I have carefully not commented on what any DPE was doing.

There is no doubt in my mind that using an approach which had published minima above 300 ft HAT, whether LPV, RNAV/VNAV, or plain RNAV would not meet the ACS precision approach task requirement.

I'm sure many CFII have "made up" approaches or modified approaches for training. I flew VOR approaches to dirt strips and unlandable disused AUX airports when I was an instrument student. I made up some as a CFII. All of these were for VFR training purposes only.

Out of curiousity I checked some local approach plates. The 2 LPV approaches at my base airport KDVT would not be acceptable for the check ride. However KCGZ does have an an acceptable LPV RWY 05. The difference is likely that KCGZ 05 has an approach light system but neither runway at KDVT has ALS. I do use KDVT approaches for instrument currency as it's a lot quicker than flying down to TFD.
 
Back
Top