I hope none of you were caught up in this.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-invalidates-140-checkrides-in-alaska/?fbclid=IwAR0dL0d7CuB88HlDQtlLSUyAwKgaV7ZOkwUNTZRNSA40Gd4bU8-zCIbuTH0

I didn't know him, but I have known DPEs who actually knew how to fly as well as mechanically go through the ACS numbers. Compliance, good to a point, has not improved fatality numbers. It has reduced incidents and accidents through avoidance of scenarios that require stick and rudder skills. We need to teach and evaluate stick and rudder skills for contact flying and scan of numbers skills for instrument flying. The art of the former can be taught and evaluated without the strict application of a specific V-speed for each task, skill, or technique. Instrument flying is a snap using specific V-speed numbers. Contact flying is flued enough that those very numbers can influence inefficient and dangerous technique.

Politics should not be a part of administrative law, but how we are perceived can influence the administrator.

contactflying wrote:I didn't know him, but I have known DPEs who actually knew how to fly as well as mechanically go through the ACS numbers. Compliance, good to a point, has not improved fatality numbers. It has reduced incidents and accidents through avoidance of scenarios that require stick and rudder skills. We need to teach and evaluate stick and rudder skills for contact flying and scan of numbers skills for instrument flying. The art of the former can be taught and evaluated without the strict application of a specific V-speed for each task, skill, or technique. Instrument flying is a snap using specific V-speed numbers. Contact flying is flued enough that those very numbers can influence inefficient and dangerous technique.

Politics should not be a part of administrative law, but how we are perceived can influence the administrator.

Valid points, Jim.....but...... Here's the problem: We MUST have a set of standards by which EVERY pilot is evaluated. Granted, these standards only evaluate to the minimum qualification, and we'd all much prefer to do better, but.

So, the ACS (which, by the way, in my opinion, is FAR superior to the old PTS in most ways) specifically spells out what TASKS MUST be completed, and to what standard. That's it. No more, no less.

But, what if an Examiner works in a place that doesn't have the EQUIPMENT to actually test to those standards? Is it okay for that DPE to just make up something that he feels is equivalent? That is the beginning of the wild west, and opens a massive can of worms. Why? Because that means if an Examiner can "modify" or ignore one task, then an Examiner can ignore ALL tasks. Hell, let's just Parker Pen all these check rides......save a lot of wear and tear on planes and gas.

That's what this is about. One particular Task was not completed, because the airport where those tests were done doesn't have the equipment required of that Task. Could have gone 50 miles to find that equipment, but....

You and I both have operated aircraft in excess of legal gross weight more than likely. I did so in "Public aircraft" where it was legal. But, as a flight instructor, would I conduct a Flight Review with a customer in a plane where we were over gross?? Hell no! If someone wants to operate outside the regulations on their own and not carry passengers, I don't generally care. But, no way I'm putting my signature in someone's logbook testifying that I violated the regulations. That's just dumb, and an open invitation to the FAA to come knocking.

I feel bad for the applicants who were screwed by this examiner. But, that's what happens when an examiner decides to make up his own ACS. The FAA didn't screw them, that Examiner did.

MTV

I'm curious what the investigation looks like that allows the FAA to determine the checkride was incomplete? Interviews with the DPE? Interviews with the certificated? Is it a matter of record keeping for each checkride?

Not enough info to really judge off the facts one way or another, not that proof of guilt is really needed with “administrative law”

The FAA does not have a good track record when it comes to actions against pilots, some of the people they go after, yet others they don’t care about, it’s a head scratcher

I have seen the FAA get all hot and bothered over things they are fully sound via the FAR, safe, and prudent, I have also seen the FAA not care at all for some pretty bad stuff, knew of a police department “flying” their new drone IMC close to a airport, roads, homes, FAA couldn’t care less

When I read these stories I just shrug, could be the DPE did something bad, could be he did nothing wrong, but with administrative law where you have to prove your innocence (proving a negative is odd) the house always wins

Still not much info though

I am curious too. Was there a series of instrument flying incidents or accidents ? Also did the CFIIs who endorsed their students for instrument checkrides have their students ratings invalidated. Be sort of strange endorsing a CFII student and then needing that instructor to endorse you for the same checkride. Either way - I feel bad for the number of airman effected. Hard work studying for a checkride not to mention the money involved. I would be pissed.



Josh

I agree Mike. I expected you would know the particulars. When we came back from Vietnam, we Army tactical instrument pilots needed to go through the Standard Instrument Program and learn VOR and ILS. I understand strict legal numbers with instrument flying and have no problem with students meeting the minimum numbers of VFR ACS. Openly teaching better should be encouraged rather than labelled taboo as is maneuvering flight. It should also be pointed out in the ACS that "Vx or Vy as appropriate" doesn't mean either is usually appropriate. How many students think they should always climb at Vy unless Vx is more appropriate? That kind of stuff is dangerously misleading. Standardization does not have to eliminate consideration for the various fluid situations that come up in contact flying. Even the elimination of the phrase "contact flying," common to us older pilots, is misleading. "Integrated instrument" can be dangerously misleading. As instructors we need to know why we teach what we teach and just passing the test is a weak reason.

NineThreeKilo if I were as squared away as MTV, I would not have as much personal experience with the administrative law you mention. Anyway a little Medieval History helps to understand the system. In trial by oath the certification of the witness is more important than first hand knowledge of that witness. If a Bishop says a Parish Priest did it, he did it. But if a Cardinal says the Bishop is wrong, that is what stands as truth. Some of what I (a Com. CFII) was pretty sure was legal (an emergency landing) was witnessed by an ATP. He said it was careless and reckless. I was suspended six months for landing at an inappropriate site and for careless and reckless operation. Unfortunately it was in my Champ and not a Pawnee. Those, they didn't even come out to make a report.

Administrators, who generally have more political and less practical experience, wisely pass some authority to lowers. When they are not familiar with an operation, say airlines or crop dusting, they wisely accept the experience and council of those operators. When the operators are greedy or just sloppy, the FAA will rightly get nailed for inadequate oversight. Workarounds work well when all are honorable.

contactflying wrote:NineThreeKilo if I were as squared away as MTV, I would not have as much personal experience with the administrative law you mention. Anyway a little Medieval History helps to understand the system. In trial by oath the certification of the witness is more important than first hand knowledge of that witness. If a Bishop says a Parish Priest did it, he did it. But if a Cardinal says the Bishop is wrong, that is what stands as truth. Some of what I (a Com. CFII) was pretty sure was legal (an emergency landing) was witnessed by an ATP. He said it was careless and reckless. I was suspended six months for landing at an inappropriate site and for careless and reckless operation. Unfortunately it was in my Champ and not a Pawnee. Those, they didn't even come out to make a report.

Administrators, who generally have more political and less practical experience, wisely pass some authority to lowers. When they are not familiar with an operation, say airlines or crop dusting, they wisely accept the experience and council of those operators. When the operators are greedy or just sloppy, the FAA will rightly get nailed for inadequate oversight. Workarounds work well when all are honorable.

Yeah, funny the standards they hold themselves to vs us to







So basically below the mins of a regional airline FO or most 135s or private 91 companies….minus you could have crashed 2 airplanes in the last 5yrs…and only need a CPL and class 2


When I got my CFI at the FSDO as a younger lad, I thought all the old curmudgeons were full of BS with their distain for the FAA

Fast forward a decade and a half, yeah, old people know what’s up

I have quite a few stories of FAA incompetence, dereliction, laziness, and just being a dick

DPEs and Checkairman, got a few that were less than awesome, but nothing really that major


Its also not as much as squared away as how broad one’s experience is, working for .gov you’ll be fine with .gov

Have a wide career outside of .gov in the real world private sectors and one’s opinion of the FAA will be different

I have moderately intimate knowledge of the situation and this was bound to happen. The guy with basically a guaranteed pass rate gets pinned for nonconforming checkrides? No surprise there.

He’s a great person and an experienced pilot but he was playing it loose. Instructors smarter than me stopped sending students to him a couple years ago for fear of this type of action, I should’ve listened to them.

asa wrote:I have moderately intimate knowledge of the situation and this was bound to happen. The guy with basically a guaranteed pass rate gets pinned for nonconforming checkrides? No surprise there.

He’s a great person and an experienced pilot but he was playing it loose. Instructors smarter than me stopped sending students to him a couple years ago for fear of this type of action, I should’ve listened to them.

Does he do his own check rides? I thought he just ran his flight school and have always assumed the students had to find a Examiner to fly with when ready.
I have been on the books to fly with him/them on several occasions but could never make it happen.
Greg

roamak wrote:

asa wrote:I have moderately intimate knowledge of the situation and this was bound to happen. The guy with basically a guaranteed pass rate gets pinned for nonconforming checkrides? No surprise there.

He’s a great person and an experienced pilot but he was playing it loose. Instructors smarter than me stopped sending students to him a couple years ago for fear of this type of action, I should’ve listened to them.

Does he do his own check rides? I thought he just ran his flight school and have always assumed the students had to find a Examiner to fly with when ready.
I have been on the books to fly with him/them on several occasions but could never make it happen.
Greg

He is (was?) a full fledged DPE in addition to owning Alaska Floats and Skis. I believe he sold the business to his daughter in the past year or two in anticipation of retiring. Historically he did all the schools checkrides (possible because he’s not the one instructing) in addition to other non-school checkrides. The school uses other DPEs as well when he’s not available. It’s a cool business and I hope his daughter missy continues it. How many float operations have a huge pizza oven on the patio??

Billy Howell didn't have his own examiner, but the examiner we used at Ag Flight was an ex crop duster. He gave a fair numbers oriented evaluation as per ACS, but also evaluated weather the student could actually fly and perhaps might live as an Ag pilot. My students didn't fail because they could actually turn the airplane properly. If you have ever looked at the Operations Manual (I think that is what it is called for 141) for an Ag school, you would think it was for an air taxi operation. Other than the emergency dump, it is almost identical to air taxi. Again, the reason is that more administrative types have familiarity with air taxi and do not have familiarity with Ag.

I hope Rob will chime in and update my very old data. I would expect in the modern Ag world there might have been an ex Ag guy (no longer crop duster) who might educate the highers on what it takes to stay alive down in the chemicals and dirt even in a jet.

My understanding of the situation was that Instrument flight tests were completed and signed off by the DPE, with the flights having been completed, and presumably the required instrument approaches logged solely at Talkeetna.

There are no “precision approaches” at TKA, that meet the requirements.

And, take all of the above as hearsay…..this is just what I have been told, and not by the FAA. But, if true, it’s pretty straightforward…..I’d put my tinfoil hats away. There are lots of valid criticisms of the FAA, but this doesn’t appear to be one.

MTV

Oh. I am talking about PPL and CPL. There is no flight test to be an Ag pilot. You only need a Commercial and Rob's or some chief pilot's sign off. Actually makes perfect sense. It is one of those honorable work arounds.

When I flew for Billy years back we would take the students to Quincy Florida for their rides, the DPE I don’t recall having a background in AG, lots of jet time and also he obviously had tailwheel time, back then the PPL ride was in one of the citabrias, CPL ride was in a PA24, and no one got their instrument ticket, just CFI sign off and the DPE tested to PTS, he knew they all were going AG and could have been easier on their with some instrument stuff maybe, but we occasionally had someone bust the ride, wasn’t common but it did happen


If the guy in AK was actually doing instrument rides with no precision approach, that’s not a good look

asa wrote: It’s a cool business and I hope his daughter missy continues it. How many float operations have a huge pizza oven on the patio??

It's a really fun operation that I enjoyed a few summers ago for my ASES. I hope they don't start revoking those. Luckily no precision approach required to pass.

I enjoyed my time chatting with Don on the ground.

contactflying wrote:I hope Rob will chime in and update my very old data. I would expect in the modern Ag world there might have been an ex Ag guy (no longer crop duster) who might educate the highers on what it takes to stay alive down in the chemicals and dirt even in a jet.

You're data may be very old, but it's really not 'out of date' which can be good or bad.


I've often surmised that I could put anyone in the front seat of my cub for 5 minutes and tell you if they are 'cub people' or not, likewise the same 5 minutes in the front seat of a Two hole Ag plane, I could tell you whether that deal is for them or perhaps they'd do both their wives and their customers a service by looking elsewhere for flying employment.

Having said all that, that doesn't make it a viable path for licensure. Don's problem is really not that hard to understand. I see a parallel with new employers and their employees all the time. He made some business decisions with his heart instead of his business sense. I'm sure he was just trying to create a viable solution to get 'close enough' common sense wise and make this thing doable. I'm also sure at his level in the game he could tell if he had a good candidate in the airplane before they had the first approach planned.

Anyways I wish him the best of luck, running down the home stretch to retirement is no time to need fight battles and shell out lawyer money.


Take care, Rob