Peter wrote:
But it is possible that the FAA takes the view that its DPEs are not FAA employees (which is true) and thus it cannot be responsible for them. This is like the current European system which uses both CAA employed examiners, and “industry” examiners.
That is true – but in my opinion not relevant in this specific case.
As far as I understand FAA doesn’t question in principle that Mr. Puehler was a legit DPE at the time in question. They actually assigned him for skill tests, accepted his paperwork and issued licenses based on this tests. Therefore they have assumed responsibility.
In the case of FAA medicals, I’ve had several in the US and several over here – all of them were done to the same standards (although the ones here, the medical examiner in each case said the FAA system was better than the EASA one, a lot less onerous, and just as effective).
In the case of this checkride invalidation, though, what is surprising is that ATPs don’t have any relief. Imagine you got your ATP from this guy in 2009 (perfectly legitimately), and you’re now working for an airline – you’ve been probably through a type rating or two (done to ATP standards), and multiple other sim sessions/checkrides over the years (you’ve probably upgraded to captain at some point). Now you’ve had your livelyhood just yanked away from you because it is now going to be months before you can re-take your ATP ride with the FSDO – surely all the stuff you’ve done with the airline should be sufficient to give relief? I also have to imagine it’s valid grounds to sue the FAA, too.
alioth wrote:
Now you’ve had your livelyhood just yanked away from you because it is now going to be months before you can re-take your ATP ride with the FSDO
I don’t think that it is the case: The FAA notice talks about reexamination but does not state that the licenses are revoked until this reexamination took place. So they can do their normal job and the “risk” of time delay is on side of the FAA.
It’s still that they have to learn for a full ATPL skill test and it’s pretty sure that the FAA will look very carefully on the standards how they are done this time…
Although re-doing the ATP skill test for an airline pilot probably isn’t as bad as re-doing your initial CFI, since active airline pilots tend to be used to them.
The initial CFI though is a real ballache. From memory (the Houston FSDO didn’t allow any inital CFI rides with a DPE, you had to do it with the FAA), this is what it was like in Houston:
- you had to show up with 2 planes – one with retract gear/CS prop, and another which was approved for intentional spins. (I suppose you could have turned up with an F33C, the aerobatic version of the Beech Debonair, but good luck finding one if you don’t already own it)
- the FSDO would send two airworthiness inspectors who would go over both planes with a fine tooth comb. It was quite common to have them grounded over trivial paperwork issues (which were generally easy to fix, but it made the plane owners very nervous).
- the oral test basically lasted a full day. Much harder than the multi-guess exams that are so favoured here.
I’m not sure how long the flight test for the initial CFI ran, but it was probably about 2 hrs of flight time (and half a day elapsed, once you got done with all the buggering about with doing it in 2 planes).
The oral was easy to fail and it took a LOT of preparation. Someone who got their CFI with this guy, say, 9 years ago now probably has several hundred hours of homework to swot up for the oral part of the test (the actual flying part is the easy bit!) If I were in that situation, and instructing more for the pleasure of it than the profit (and CFIs in the US get paid peanuts), I would just throw in the towel. There’s no way I’d want to go through all of that a second time.
The rumours I’ve seen so far about the subject of this thread are that the problems were found by the FAA with this examiner’s administration of initial CFI checkrides, but there’s really not much info.
Why two aircrafts ? You need 2 check flights to meet the whole CFI PTS ?
Peter wrote:
One issue is that the candidate has a reasonable expectation that the examiner is qualified, and has no way to due due diligence on that.
You can check a UK examiner’s qualifications here and the CAA regularly updates the list
Peter wrote:
But it is possible that the FAA takes the view that its DPEs are not FAA employees (which is true) and thus it cannot be responsible for them. This is like the current European system which uses both CAA employed examiners, and “industry” examiners. The latter are like the FAA DPEs, but – at least in the UK – the industry examiners pay hefty annual fees to the CAA, which makes the CAA responsible for them to some extent. AFAIK FAA DPEs don’t pay any annual fees to the FAA…
As it is the CAA — not the DPE — that makes the formal decision to issue a (permanent) license, the responsibility should rest with the CAA. That is certainly the case in the Swedish legal system and apparently in the German system as well.
alioth wrote:
In the case of this checkride invalidation, though, what is surprising is that ATPs don’t have any relief. Imagine you got your ATP from this guy in 2009 (perfectly legitimately), and you’re now working for an airline – you’ve been probably through a type rating or two (done to ATP standards), and multiple other sim sessions/checkrides over the years (you’ve probably upgraded to captain at some point). Now you’ve had your livelyhood just yanked away from you because it is now going to be months before you can re-take your ATP ride with the FSDO – surely all the stuff you’ve done with the airline should be sufficient to give relief? I also have to imagine it’s valid grounds to sue the FAA, too.
My interpretation of paragraph 8 in the document is that the FAA will arrange for a new checkride within 15 days and that your license remains valid during that period.
Jujupilote wrote:
Why two aircrafts ? You need 2 check flights to meet the whole CFI PTS ?
They want (wanted: this might have changed since) a demonstration of incipient spins and recovery, therefore it required a plane that was approved for intentional spins. The checkride also required a ‘complex’ (in the US sense: in other words, it has to have flaps, CS prop, and retractible gear) aircraft. The intersection between ‘complex’ and approved for intentional spins is very small, so for most people taking the initial CFI in Houston, they had to do it in 2 planes unless they had access to something like the aerobatic Debonair.
People doing the initial CFI in our flying club did most of it in the club’s Arrow and the incipient spin recovery demo in a Cessna 150 when I was there.
I resolved that were I ever to do the CFI, I’d turn up in a Pitts :-)
A Marchetti 260 would be my choice given the need for retractable gear and likely a certified plane. 
A Bölkow 209 with retractable nose gear would also do the job and has just one retractable leg to minimize complexity in doing so. Both were designed to cover all these requirements in one plane, but certainly not many GA trainers are.
A friend of mine took several check rides in his Luscombe including that for his initial Private certificate. There was a crosswind and the DPE said that she’d rarely seen a more competent tailwheel pilot. He’d done all his flying at an airport with a perpetual crosswind and probably had 100 hrs of solo touch and goes. It’s nice to be 17 with your own plane.
