• 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

gbflyer said:
IFR student/ticket candidate/whatever puts his/her faith in the DPE to abide by the requirements. After all the DPE is the FAA’s representative. So now the IFR student is responsible for the actions of the DPE? It’s crap.
Click to expand...

The DPE is “responsible”. Those requirements are really clear. What about the recommending CFI? You’re telling us THEY didn’t know this was going on? The recommending instructors did all the training approaches at TKA? If so, maybe THEY need to be re-examined? We’re any of these “wink, wink” checkrides? If so, you can bet the CFIs had a good idea of what was going on.

Point is there’s lots of blame to go round. The FAA promulgates rules. If YOU violate those rules, YOU are potentially going to have a problem. If not, why have rules? I sincerely hope that Mr. Lee has been having chats with the FAA as well. His DPE should be revoked. I’d even suggest he volunteer to pay for all the re-checks….it is his fault, after all.

We can make all the excuses in the world, but a DPE has the trust of the FAA, the Applicants, and the traveling public. A DPE who “cheats” on check rides, cheats ALL of us in aviation.

MTV
 
mvivion said:
The DPE is “responsible”. Those requirements are really clear. What about the recommending CFI? You’re telling us THEY didn’t know this was going on? The recommending instructors did all the training approaches at TKA? If so, maybe THEY need to be re-examined? We’re any of these “wink, wink” checkrides? If so, you can bet the CFIs had a good idea of what was going on.

Point is there’s lots of blame to go round. The FAA promulgates rules. If YOU violate those rules, YOU are potentially going to have a problem. If not, why have rules? I sincerely hope that Mr. Lee has been having chats with the FAA as well. His DPE should be revoked. I’d even suggest he volunteer to pay for all the re-checks….it is his fault, after all.

We can make all the excuses in the world, but a DPE has the trust of the FAA, the Applicants, and the traveling public. A DPE who “cheats” on check rides, cheats ALL of us in aviation.

MTV
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. My point is that the student is who suffers. Is the student now responsible for the examining the examiner’s credentials, currency? Medical? Did the examiner miss an hour of night x/c cross country back in 1976 when he was getting his commercial rendering his license worthless? The FAA says he’s good, right? Does the student question that now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gbflyer said:
Yes. I agree. My point is that the student is who suffers. Is the student now responsible for the examining the examiner’s credentials, currency? Medical? Did the examiner miss an hour of night x/c cross country back in 1976 when he was getting his commercial rendering his license worthless? The FAA says he’s good, right? Does the student question that now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So, what is YOUR solution? Forgive these? Then what happens the next time, when some DPE did REALLY egregious flight tests for PPL, like they weren’t tested on, say stalls? You say, well it wasn’t their fault, so let it go.

Then, one of them kills five people…….

Finally, if he fudged something as blatant as precision approach, what ELSE maybe was kinda slid through as okay? This is just the low hanging fruit that is easy to document.

This is really serious stuff!

MTV
 
mvivion said:
So, what is YOUR solution? Forgive these?
Click to expand...

If, as has been suggested, the only deficiency in the instrument rating tests was failure to demonstrate a precision approach then:

1. I would give all affected applicants 60 days to demonstrate a satisfactory precision approach to an approved DPE or FAA examiner. Only if the applicant failed to present for the test or failed to meet test standard for this single task should their certificate be revoked.

2. The DPE should have DPE privilege revoked if it is proven that they failed to test to the ACS.

Two points and worth a cent each.
 
The Talkeetna DPE must have had a special attraction for applicants. The nearest Precision Approach =< 300' HAT I found is Wasilla's RNAV (GPS) RWY 4-22 LPV south of Talkeetna. DA = 602' TDZE = 352' HAT = 250'. Getting there would have taken someone's time, but it could have been spent on other exam requirements. "...an LPV minima approach can be flown to demonstrate precision approach proficiency if the LPV DA is equal to or less than 300 feet HAT"

Gary
 
mvivion said:
So, what is YOUR solution? Forgive these? Then what happens the next time, when some DPE did REALLY egregious flight tests for PPL, like they weren’t tested on, say stalls? You say, well it wasn’t their fault, so let it go.

Then, one of them kills five people…….

Finally, if he fudged something as blatant as precision approach, what ELSE maybe was kinda slid through as okay? This is just the low hanging fruit that is easy to document.

This is really serious stuff!

MTV
Click to expand...

Some really good points Mike, but consider that the FAA has oversight responsibility of their DPE's, it is on them that they have not fixed this issue for how many years? If this was for the past year I would give them a bit more respect, but multiple years back? That is totally unfair to the pilots, IFR is perishable skills. It would mean a very expensive re-check for me if I was in this situation to get recurrent.


Instead of serious effort to improve training methods, we see changes to terms and names- ACS instead of practical test standards... yup, that improved safety.

Sorry, getting wide of the discussion here...

Tell me, why isn't the FAA getting in trouble for allowing YEARS of non-compliance? Time for them to actually do their job timely, making pilots pay for their inadequacy is not helping safety in any way.

Actually, the FAA should be paying for these students to get polished up and the check ride, after all, it is the FAA's problem, not the students.
 
Yeah, if what's alleged re the exams is true, then it's not the pilots' faults. Retest the precision approach. If the pilots can do all the other stuff, the precision approach should be a piece of cake. An ILS is possibly the easiest part of IFR flying.
 
frequent_flyer said:
If, as has been suggested, the only deficiency in the instrument rating tests was failure to demonstrate a precision approach then:

1. I would give all affected applicants 60 days to demonstrate a satisfactory precision approach to an approved DPE or FAA examiner. Only if the applicant failed to present for the test or failed to meet test standard for this single task should their certificate be revoked.

2. The DPE should have DPE privilege revoked if it is proven that they failed to test to the ACS.

Two points and worth a cent each.
Click to expand...
Agreed,
Seems to me that only a portion of these rides were incorrectly executed. Hence the check rides were simply 'incomplete' that scenario really isn't that uncommon, and a continuance should be the solution. Shoot the missing approach and pass or fail.
Don unfortunately made a poor choice. Losing the dpe will probably be a given, and a blessing at this point.

Take care, Rob
 
What Gordon said.

Cessna 172 six-pack ILS in 1977...at night a couple hrs into the 141 school's program I did the first one. LOC identified and down we went at about 1900 rpm and 90. Needles never moved so the CFI switched radios and tapped on the gauge to confirm. At mins we missed and repeated then flew to Merrill Field. None of the instructors ever said a word to me and later I passed the I ride. I thought that's just how it works in light winds. Now there's GPS and the whole deal of 3-D situational awareness is available.

How can you screw up after driving a cellular device since birth?

Gary
 
Rob said:
Agreed,
Seems to me that only a portion of these rides were incorrectly executed. Hence the check rides were simply 'incomplete' that scenario really isn't that uncommon, and a continuance should be the solution. Take care, Rob
Click to expand...

Okay, I’ll bite…..how do you know that? If a DPE will choose to modify or skip one required task, you’re suggesting there’s no way he’d do the same with other tasks? It is possible to actually verify after the fact that the precision approach task wasn’t completed….all approaches have to be logged. But, how does the FAA go back and prove that other tasks were actually completed to standards? The answer is there’s no way.

MTV
 
aktango58 said:
Some really good points Mike, but consider that the FAA has oversight responsibility of their DPE's, it is on them that they have not fixed this issue for how many years? If this was for the past year I would give them a bit more respect, but multiple years back? That is totally unfair to the pilots, IFR is perishable skills. It would mean a very expensive re-check for me if I was in this situation to get recurrent.


Instead of serious effort to improve training methods, we see changes to terms and names- ACS instead of practical test standards... yup, that improved safety.

Sorry, getting wide of the discussion here...

Tell me, why isn't the FAA getting in trouble for allowing YEARS of non-compliance? Time for them to actually do their job timely, making pilots pay for their inadequacy is not helping safety in any way.

Actually, the FAA should be paying for these students to get polished up and the check ride, after all, it is the FAA's problem, not the students.
Click to expand...

George,

I absolutely agree that the FAA has responsibility, and your point that the DPE is a representative of the FAA is right on. It’d be interesting to see what a court would conclude on that topic, but that’d likely cost more than an instrument rating, and take forever.

On the topic of the ACS, however, that was a major change and was driven by industry, not the FAA. The ACS isn’t perfect, but it’s way better than the old PTS.

MTV
 
mvivion said:
Okay, I’ll bite…..how do you know that? If a DPE will choose to modify or skip one required task, you’re suggesting there’s no way he’d do the same with other tasks? It is possible to actually verify after the fact that the precision approach task wasn’t completed….all approaches have to be logged. But, how does the FAA go back and prove that other tasks were actually completed to standards? The answer is there’s no way.

MTV
Click to expand...
By this metric, there is no way for you to prove you completed any of your tests to standards either. When are you scheduling your retest(s)?


Motorcycle cop;
Do you know why I pulled you over son?

Hotfoot;
Well sir, I did see your radar gun come up, so I'm guessing speeding?

Motorcop;
No sir, bank robbery, I did get you speeding but it was as you were passing the bank
How do I know you weren't fleeing the scene?
 
Mike the FAA gave him authorization to do check rides on their behalf. If they want all those folks he signed off to redo them, it’s on the FAA. Full stop. Their inspector this time, because who can trust a designee now?

Sorry, I need to use more CAPS.
 
Cameras in the cockpit next during checks? Eventually no one will want the liability of testing applicants. Bad all the way around.

Gary
 
If the feds are claiming that the ILS approaches were done incorrectly, it seems that that portion of the check ride should be done over (if claims were substantiated). In no other legal system would the entire test be required to be repeated for a single rule break. I.e., if the feds came after me for incorrect safety wire application, would they now want me to retake the tests for my airframe license?

U.S. legal approach has always been based on what is provable, not 'what if's'. If they have proof that the DPE did not fulfill the requirements of the ILS approaches, then go after THAT. How can you legally justify the idea of 'what if he failed to do another task correctly'? You can't punish someone because he MIGHT have broken a rule.

Just my opinion here.

Web
 
Guys,
I totally agree that the FAA SHOULD reimburse any costs incurred. Then they should take the DPE to court to recover those costs.

But this IS the FAA after all. Don’t look for that to happen.

MTV
 
I respect Mike’s opinion, but my impression of the ACS is a lot like my impression of the Citabria spar inspection - cannot be done properly in any reasonable amount of time.

I have forgotten the exact numbers, but I think it was one question every six seconds during a six hour oral exam with no pee breaks. I could not take an exam like that on any subject - let alone aviation. That is one reason I am cautious about primary instruction.
 
This is going to ruffle some feathers, but I gotta say it....

In the controlling document for DPE activity, does it state that the DPE must physically SEE those tasks performed, or does it say that the DPE must ensure that those tasks can be performed to X level? If there is no specifically mentioned requirement to physically endure the candidate performing the task, this DPE has done nothing wrong. If there is, well I can't imagine every DPE in the country covers every point. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that would be unreasonable. Someone less lazy than me could easily find federal regulations on reasonable and rational demands, I rather suspect that something like that exists within FAA's own documents.

For me, this is about the DPE's being a DPE. He was put in that position because the FAA thought he had the necessary skills and experience to evaluate Pilots. Let him do it! There are no pilots of a level of experience to attain DPE status who are not safety oriented. Let's face it folks, if you see someone do all those other tasks, you can tell by the time you get to the ILS whether they can do it. It's just doing something for the sake of checking a box. I think the FAA has dramatically overreacted. I think it's morally improper of them to require anything of the examined pilots. Those people were examined by an FAA Authorized DPE same as if it had been an FAA person. Those ratings are valid.




We have to remember that the FAA requires DPE's to lie and perform unethically on occasion. I am referring to the requirement that DPE's must fail a certain percentage of applicants - regardless of circumstance. If you have a few months where everyone you see is 100%, you have to fail some folks just to keep your DPE status. An agency that behaves in such a manner has giant steel cojones to react as they have in this case. I only mention this to point out the hypocrisy being shown by the FAA.

I know I'm going to get angry people telling me I want to kill grandma because I believe an experienced examiner ought to be accorded some leeway. Not the case at all - quite the contrary. I want people working towards safety - not checked boxes. People with judgment should be treated with respect and that judgement respected as well. Documents do not create safety. People do.


Please don't be angry. It's just my opinion and worth every penny you paid for it.
 
RedOwlAirfield said:
We have to remember that the FAA requires DPE's to lie and perform unethically on occasion. I am referring to the requirement that DPE's must fail a certain percentage of applicants - regardless of circumstance. If you have a few months where everyone you see is 100%, you have to fail some folks just to keep your DPE status.
Click to expand...
If you believe this, can you provide proof it is so? I used to be a DPE and I never was instructed in any form to fail a certain percentage of applicants. There was a procedure to be taken if an applicant failed, but never a mandate to fail some.
 
RedOwlAirfield said:
This is going to ruffle some feathers, but I gotta say it....

In the controlling document for DPE activity, does it state that the DPE must physically SEE those tasks performed, or does it say that the DPE must ensure that those tasks can be performed to X level? If there is no specifically mentioned requirement to physically endure the candidate performing the task, this DPE has done nothing wrong. If there is, well I can't imagine every DPE in the country covers every point. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that would be unreasonable. Someone less lazy than me could easily find federal regulations on reasonable and rational demands, I rather suspect that something like that exists within FAA's own documents.

For me, this is about the DPE's being a DPE. He was put in that position because the FAA thought he had the necessary skills and experience to evaluate Pilots. Let him do it! There are no pilots of a level of experience to attain DPE status who are not safety oriented. Let's face it folks, if you see someone do all those other tasks, you can tell by the time you get to the ILS whether they can do it. It's just doing something for the sake of checking a box. I think the FAA has dramatically overreacted. I think it's morally improper of them to require anything of the examined pilots. Those people were examined by an FAA Authorized DPE same as if it had been an FAA person. Those ratings are valid.




We have to remember that the FAA requires DPE's to lie and perform unethically on occasion. I am referring to the requirement that DPE's must fail a certain percentage of applicants - regardless of circumstance. If you have a few months where everyone you see is 100%, you have to fail some folks just to keep your DPE status. An agency that behaves in such a manner has giant steel cojones to react as they have in this case. I only mention this to point out the hypocrisy being shown by the FAA.

I know I'm going to get angry people telling me I want to kill grandma because I believe an experienced examiner ought to be accorded some leeway. Not the case at all - quite the contrary. I want people working towards safety - not checked boxes. People with judgment should be treated with respect and that judgement respected as well. Documents do not create safety. People do.


Please don't be angry. It's just my opinion and worth every penny you paid for it.
Click to expand...

All the required tasks for the Instrument Rating can easily be evaluated and completed in a reasonable period of time, assuming the DPE is organized and has a plan, and they should be. When I was an Evaluator (the Part 141 equivalent of DPE) at the University, Instrument rides, from start to finish (oral and flight) rarely took more than three to four hours, and we had to go at least thirty miles to a precision approach. In fact, I always took them further than that, with different airports for each required approach.

Hell, the two DPEs in Fairbanks used to require four plus hours to complete a Private Pilot Single Engine Sea add on (oral and flight), which I thought was crazy. That said, both those examiners asked a lot of good questions, they took the rating seriously, and any applicant who was adequately prepared passed. I told my applicants they were just getting their money's worth.

MTV
 
The ACS addresses most of what has been discussed here.. there is a section that defines terms, like shall, must and may relative to the practical test. For instance, applicant must perform 2 non precision approaches, applicant must perform 1 precision approach. I dealt with the FAA and FAA documents for 40 years and there are plenty of times I made a case, and prevailed, concerning wording in documents relative to the issuance of approvals, etc.. This does not appear to be one I could make an argument for interpretation. The whole thing sucks for those involved, and the examiner should have known better. As said above, just my opinion.
 
BC12D-4-85 said:
Cameras in the cockpit next during checks? Eventually no one will want the liability of testing applicants. Bad all the way around.

Gary
Click to expand...

They tried that during Covid but needed you to email the entire ride, un cut. That didn’t work out too well. That was for a dpe to do his ride with the feds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Next question then for you experienced guys. I have been the observed check ride for company Check Airman in 135 world a couple times. I distinctly recall the FAA inspector, (one I highly respected) tell my boss that a 'check ride' is not required to be a single flight ride. If a pilot has demonstrated to the check airman's satisfaction that he can perform a maneuver, that satisfies the requirement within the check ride parameters.

An example: we do a training flight, me and the check airman, and it is windy as all get out. During that flight I do cross wind landings, and due to gusts I go around a couple times also. Two days later we go out to do the check ride and the air is calm as can be- no crosswind landings are going to happen, and we don't do a go-around. Because I had demonstrated my ability to make crosswind landings to the check airman two days prior, and go-arounds, I satisfied the requirement.

If a DPE acts as an instructor on a flight, and sees a student do a precision approach into Wasilla within standards, then two days later does a 'check ride' with that student, does he need to see that precision approach again?

In my case I had so much gusty wind for my check ride I refused to do pattern work on the runway, and halted the observed check ride. Because I had demonstrated all the required maneuvers to the Check Airman previously, and my judgement was applauded for the safe call, I was signed off.

Bottom line, my impression is that check rides are not required to be done in a single flight or day. We often do for convenience, but I don't think it is required.

DPE guys-What say you?
 
135.293 checks are different than a test for certificate or rating. I think once a test for certificate or rating starts, it can only end with a pass, fail or letter of discontinuance. The 135 check provides the evaluator a great deal of latitude. Two different animals.
 
Notwithstanding there are no LPV lines of minima published for PATK RNAV approaches, AC 90-107 is a good read.

My understanding is that a RNAV (GPS) Approach flown to a LPV line of minima can substitute for an ILS during a checkride.

(Similarly, a RNAV (GPS) Approach flown to LNAV or LP lines of minima can substitute for a non-precision approach during a checkride).


The LPV satellite generated electronic glideslope is a FAA Approved Vertical Guidance down to minimums as low as 200 ft. ceiling and ½ mile visibility. Similar to a CAT I ILS, with identical sensitivities at similar distances.

For Air Carrier Operators (Part 135, 121, 91K, etc.), if RNAV approaches are already integrated into a current training program, operators are not required to have a separate program to incorporate LPV and LP-specific training.

AC 90-107
9. b.
NOTE:
In line with the Instrument Practical Test Standards pilots may, for the purpose of training, testing, checking and logging pilot experience, fly approaches to LPV lines of minima and qualify for precision approach credit.


NOTE:
In line with the Instrument Practical Test Standards pilots may, for the purpose of training, testing, checking and logging pilot experience, fly approaches to LNAV and LP lines of minima and qualify for non-precision approach credit.

* * *
Separately, many years ago I flew with D.L. on his tailwheel with big-low-pressure-tires, as well as his straight floats airplanes. This was by far my best and most memorable flying experience. And D.L. is certainly one of the best, if not the best, and most professional --and kind instructor I have ever met.
 
Last edited:
Avion just nailed it. After receiving my Letter and having a subsequent discussion with the FSDO, I can confirm 100% that the distinction between LPV and LNAV/VNAV is what is at issue. LPV with a decision altitude 300' or less height above touchdown can be used as a "Precision Approach" for examination purposes. The RNAV 1 (LNAV/VNAV) at Talkeetna has a DA of 559 feet HAT and does not meet the substitution criteria of AC 90-107. Again....hand of god...I had no idea of this at the time I did my checkride. I had never read AC 90-107 (or even knew it existed) and was just told that the RNAV1 approach was OK and believed it. What I did on my checkride was get established on the glideslope for RWY1 at 2900 feet, made my simulated radio call, followed the needles, and then was "instructed" we had the runway environment in sight (somewhere very near pattern altitude) and then from there it was a circling approach to RWY19 which was the favoring wind.

My discussion with the FSDO was polite and productive. They are going to be a lot more relaxed about this than either the Notice or the Letter would indicate. I.E. They are willing to work with us on the scheduling...so no 15 day requirement to complete. Furthermore, they were very clear to me that the strong focus of the re-examination is demonstrated performance of a Precision Approach which includes the LPV at Wasilla per AC 90-107. I am both somewhat relieved (since I don't feel this is going to be another complete Instrument Rating checkride but also a bit more frustrated as the LPV vs LNAV/VNAV substitution seems a lot like splitting hairs and not worth making 140 Airmen retest over. I don't know how much of an oral exam there will be. Presumably if there is one, it will include explaining the differences between approaches that have vertical guidance. Believe me....I'll have that answer dialed!
 
skywagon8a said:
If you believe this, can you provide proof it is so? I used to be a DPE and I never was instructed in any form to fail a certain percentage of applicants. There was a procedure to be taken if an applicant failed, but never a mandate to fail some.
Click to expand...

I have been told this by four different people, two of whom quit being DPE's because of it. So I don't have a written policy I can refer to, but I have heard the same complaint enough and from quality principled people - to believe it.
 
RedOwlAirfield said:
I have been told this by four different people, two of whom quit being DPE's because of it. So I don't have a written policy I can refer to, but I have heard the same complaint enough and from quality principled people - to believe it.
Click to expand...
Long ago before I was a DPE I had heard talk of that. But never was there any indication of any type that I should follow that procedure. Perhaps that was a particular FSDO's policy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Penguin
Rudder Failure - NTSB Notice 2252
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
akwing
A
B
Continental 220 Radial duplex oil pump?
Replies
4
Views
578
Steve Pierce
Steve Pierce
B
AOPA NATIONAL PILOT ALERT
Replies
4
Views
6K
bob turner
B
Steve Pierce
Possible Rudder Airworthiness Directive
4 5 6
Replies
159
Views
21K
Steve Pierce
Steve Pierce
jetdoc
What mod would you throw at me???
Replies
15
Views
4K
jetdoc
jetdoc
Back
Top