Not sure what's behind this FAASTeam action

[mvivion]

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.

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

[mam90]

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.

[RaisedByWolves]

Cameras in the cockpit next during checks? Eventually no one will want the liability of testing applicants. Bad all the way around.

Gary

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

[aktango58]

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?

[frequent_flyer]

deleted by author

[mam90]

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.

[Avion]

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.

[BatPacer]

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!

[RedOwlAirfield]

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.

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.

[skywagon8a]

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.

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?

[bob turner]

I had one guy flunk because I had not taught him a stabilized approach - in a J3. If the examiner had simply asked for a 60 mph power on approach he could have easily done it.
I still don't know what a stabilized approach is in a Cub. Is there magic at 60 mph?

Right now we are trying to figure out what a "short approach" is - the local schools are asking for them, then going a mile beyond the threshold for base leg.

[frequent_flyer]

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.

Don't forget that the aircraft used for this "check ride" must be capable of LPV guidance and annunciation. There are many IFR approach approved GPS receivers that are not LPV capable. You can't simply fly an RNAV approved GPS to LPV minima and meet standard.

[aktango58]

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.

I did my CFI renewal with the FAA in 2020, and they told me that we could "suspend the check ride" if I asked the "continue the check ride" if I was having an issue and needed to clear something up or get some extra training. So there is allowances for a check ride to be incomplete for at least a short time.

Much rather be discussing this stuff this way than because of a crash or two.

[mam90]

I did my CFI renewal with the FAA in 2020, and they told me that we could "suspend the check ride" if I asked the "continue the check ride" if I was having an issue and needed to clear something up or get some extra training. So there is allowances for a check ride to be incomplete for at least a short time.

Much rather be discussing this stuff this way than because of a crash or two.

I believe that may fall under the letter of discontinuance.

[RedOwlAirfield]

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?

Two different FSDO's - and those four statements were spread between 1978 and 2021.

I am glad to hear that you did not experience this. Gives me hope that someday I can respect the FAA again. And maybe I just ran into the only four folks to ever have experienced this, but it doesn't seem likely. I am hopeful though... always hopeful.

[skywagon8a]

Two different FSDO's - and those four statements were spread between 1978 and 2021.

I am glad to hear that you did not experience this. Gives me hope that someday I can respect the FAA again. And maybe I just ran into the only four folks to ever have experienced this, but it doesn't seem likely. I am hopeful though... always hopeful.

I can tell you that a lot of what happens within a certain FSDO is up to the one individual who has been placed in charge of the DPE program. A lot of it operates on the buddy system. I know it's not supposed to, but it does.

[BC12D-4-85]

Some people live in a balanced or symmetric world. Where there is good flying technique demonstrated there has to be some not as much. It's just a matter of sourcing them and taking prompt corrective action. Not my belief, but...

Gary

[mvivion]

I can tell you that a lot of what happens within a certain FSDO is up to the one individual who has been placed in charge of the DPE program. A lot of it operates on the buddy system. I know it's not supposed to, but it does.

These days, I compare the FAA's structure to that of the Taliban: Lots of little Fiefdoms, supposedly all responsible to the same entity, but all sorta interpreting the "rules" in their own way.

MTV

[wireweinie]

These days, I compare the FAA's structure to that of the Taliban: Lots of little Fiefdoms, supposedly all responsible to the same entity, but all sorta interpreting the "rules" in their own way.

MTV

I've dealt with both. The Taliban's rules/enforcement are much more consistent.

Web

[mvivion]

I've dealt with both. The Taliban's rules/enforcement are much more consistent.

Web

Yeah, sorry, I didn’t mean to embarrass the Taliban.

MTV

[skywagon8a]

These days, I compare the FAA's structure to that of the Taliban: Lots of little Fiefdoms, supposedly all responsible to the same entity, but all sorta interpreting the "rules" in their own way.

MTV

Mike, I don't believe that just applies to "these days". That has been my observation since the days of GADOs. Remember them? Back when they used to have an office at a nearby airport, when you could walk in at any time to talk to anyone. When their personnel stayed long enough to know who they were. They would even answer the phone when you called. They didn't use answering machines which never called back.

[bob turner]

Martha Lunken said "half as many of us and five times as many of them." No wonder they cannot return our calls and e-mails - they are too busy avoiding tripping over each other!

No, that's not true. After Covid, and probably after 9/11, they work behind locked doors. Our property manager says she rarely sees more than one or two folks in there. I think there are ten or so offices and conference rooms - a really impressive, empty complex.

[skywagon8a]

Martha Lunken said "half as many of us and five times as many of them." No wonder they cannot return our calls and e-mails - they are too busy avoiding tripping over each other!

No, that's not true. After Covid, and probably after 9/11, they work behind locked doors. Our property manager says she rarely sees more than one or two folks in there. I think there are ten or so offices and conference rooms - a really impressive, empty complex.

Bob, This started prior to the Covid "work from home" era. Al least in this district it did. Covid was just an excuse to expand the procedure.

[RedOwlAirfield]

I can tell you that a lot of what happens within a certain FSDO is up to the one individual who has been placed in charge of the DPE program. A lot of it operates on the buddy system. I know it's not supposed to, but it does.

Well it's marginally better than a systemic ethical insufficiency, but only just.

[aktango58]

Yeah, sorry, I didn’t mean to embarrass the Taliban.

MTV

It will take a few days to get all the soda spray off my screen after reading that. Darn funny Mike!