CFI initial question

[jdlilfan]

I just scheduled another students CFI initial. Obviously of course through the local FSDO. This time though, the student wants to use two airplanes for the checkride. A C172R model and a PA28R-200 for the complex work. The PTS requires only the landings (short soft, 180 accuracy) and emergency procedure to be done in the complex right?

The FSDO examiner called the student and informed him that first of all, the checkride would consist of at least two days. He explained that this was due to two aircraft being used and the possibility of the oral lasting a whole day.

Second of all on the second or third day (depending on outcome), they would go up in the Arrow for some commercial manuevers including lazy 8's, steep spirals, chandelles, etc on top of the required landings and emergency procedures.

Can FSDO do this? For one making this into a two day checkride? But on top of that basically having two checkrides consisting of much of the same maneuvers in different planes?

I asked around at the FBO but no one seemed to have an explanation other than "well that's the FAA, what are you going to do about it"? Also, can they fail my student for doing something wrong in the Arrow when they did it correctly in the C172r? For instance, did a great lazy 8 in the C172 but the Arrow busted PTS? Even when the PTS wouldn't require them to do a lazy 8 in a complex aircraft? Could the FSDO inspector fail him or her for that?

I'm not looking forward to this examiner. He has quite a reputation. He fails guys for all kinds of stuff. Such as not knowing FAA form 337, not knowing the 8710 inside out, failing to brief the fire extinguisher in the plane, etc. His latest stunt for failing students is sliding off his seat belt during approach to landing. From what I understand it is not an obvious item, but he sneaks off the buckle and then hides the buckle with his hands in his lap. Btw, Do any other FSDO guys do this?

 

[germb747]

I just have to ask. Why does your student want to expose himself to double jeopardy by using two aircraft for the ride?

I'm not aware of any time limits to complete the evaluation, so I guess it's really up to the inspector. Yes, the inspector can fail the student for not meeting the PTS at any point.

 

[germb747]

...but man do I hear lots of horror stories about CFI initial checkrides. Mine was so simple and straightforward. About a 2 hour oral, then a 2 hour flight in a 172RG.

 

[Krieger]

...but man do I hear lots of horror stories about CFI initial checkrides. Mine was so simple and straightforward. About a 2 hour oral, then a 2 hour flight in a 172RG.

I think I got lucky also,

4 hour oral, 2 hour flight. MEI as my initial.

 

[Krieger]

I just scheduled another students CFI initial. Obviously of course through the local FSDO. This time though, the student wants to use two airplanes for the checkride. A C172R model and a PA28R-200 for the complex work. The PTS requires only the landings (short soft, 180 accuracy) and emergency procedure to be done in the complex right?

The FSDO examiner called the student and informed him that first of all, the checkride would consist of at least two days. He explained that this was due to two aircraft being used and the possibility of the oral lasting a whole day.

Second of all on the second or third day (depending on outcome), they would go up in the Arrow for some commercial manuevers including lazy 8's, steep spirals, chandelles, etc on top of the required landings and emergency procedures.

Can FSDO do this? For one making this into a two day checkride? But on top of that basically having two checkrides consisting of much of the same maneuvers in different planes?

I asked around at the FBO but no one seemed to have an explanation other than "well that's the FAA, what are you going to do about it"? Also, can they fail my student for doing something wrong in the Arrow when they did it correctly in the C172r? For instance, did a great lazy 8 in the C172 but the Arrow busted PTS? Even when the PTS wouldn't require them to do a lazy 8 in a complex aircraft? Could the FSDO inspector fail him or her for that?

I'm not looking forward to this examiner. He has quite a reputation. He fails guys for all kinds of stuff. Such as not knowing FAA form 337, not knowing the 8710 inside out, failing to brief the fire extinguisher in the plane, etc. His latest stunt for failing students is sliding off his seat belt during approach to landing. From what I understand it is not an obvious item, but he sneaks off the buckle and then hides the buckle with his hands in his lap. Btw, Do any other FSDO guys do this?

The seat belts are on the check list. All he has to do is ask "is your seat belt secure". It sounds like that is one of his pet peeves.

Tell your student to do the whole check ride in one airplane. This is no time to be concerned about saving some cash....

 

[The Gardener]

He is clearly trying to communicate to your student that he isn't impressed by his apparent inability to do commercial maneuvers in a complex aircraft.

Regarding the seat belt issue it could be solved by a preflight briefing and saying something along the lines of "I require you to wear your seat belt during all times on this flight so keep it secured." then just a quick "seat belts latched?" during the pre landing check.

If the student does all of these things and he still unlatches his belt, then I'd say he went against the orders of a flight crew. Throw him in the clink!

 

[Blackhawk]

Two day check rides for the initial CFI are the norm at my FSDO and in some ways it makes sense. Day one is the oral and is usually quite thorough. By the end the applicant is normally pretty well spent. Day two is then spent flying.
Having said that it sounds as if this examiner is a tool and is not doing check rides IAW the FAA. If he/she did something like this to one of my applicants (removing his seatbelt during landing), I would take it up with his supervisor.
FAA Order 8900-2-

Examiners must not use, or ask the applicant to use, procedures contrary to those specified by the AFM. Under no circumstances may an examiner intentionally allow an applicant to violate a regulation, fail to comply with an air traffic control (ATC) clearance, or create a potentially hazardous situation. Practical tests not conducted in accordance with the applicable PTS, regulations, and safe operating practices may be invalid and may be grounds for termination of the examiner's designation.

The inspector intentionally violated FAR 91.107 during the course of a check ride and created a potentially hazardous situation.​

 

[jdlilfan]

All of my CFI applicants have had easy rides so far with other FSDO guys. 3hr oral and 2hr flight. Everything done by lunch.
I have been prepping guys to use the checklist for everything and to even remind the passengers to fasten seat belts on the downwind doing the gumps check. I just wondered if any other FSDO inspectors did this sort of stuff?

The student had wanted to try to keep costs down and he practiced "back home" in a C172 all summer. I tried to persuade him to do everything in a complex.

 

[jdlilfan]

Two day check rides for the initial CFI are the norm at my FSDO and in some ways it makes sense. Day one is the oral and is usually quite thorough. By the end the applicant is normally pretty well spent. Day two is then spent flying.
Having said that it sounds as if this examiner is a tool and is not doing check rides IAW the FAA. If he/she did something like this to one of my applicants (removing his seatbelt during landing), I would take it up with his supervisor.
FAA Order 8900-2-

Examiners must not use, or ask the applicant to use, procedures contrary to those specified by the AFM. Under no circumstances may an examiner intentionally allow an applicant to violate a regulation, fail to comply with an air traffic control (ATC) clearance, or create a potentially hazardous situation. Practical tests not conducted in accordance with the applicable PTS, regulations, and safe operating practices may be invalid and may be grounds for termination of the examiner's designation.

The inspector intentionally violated FAR 91.107 during the course of a check ride and created a potentially hazardous situation.​

Ok, thanks! I had wondered if that stunt he does is legal? This would be my first applicant with this guy. He has quite a reputation though with the local schools.

I will definitely keep this in my back pocket if the need should arise.

 

[Blackhawk]

Ok, thanks! I had wondered if that stunt he does is legal? This would be my first applicant with this guy. He has quite a reputation though with the local schools.

I will definitely keep this in my back pocket if the need should arise.

Not only does this safety inspector risk termination by willfully violating an FARs he risks certification action. Safety inspectors are not above the law.

 

[Aviator1988]

I think I got lucky also,

4 hour oral, 2 hour flight. MEI as my initial.

Man.. must be nice . I had a 7.5 hour oral and a 2.3 flight for my initial. Did my CFII as the initial. was a real pain. This was with the Orlando FSDO though.

 

[Mike H]

Not only does this safety inspector risk termination by willfully violating an FARs he risks certification action. Safety inspectors are not above the law.

Any ASI who is this much of a horse's ass isn't likely to be any more popular with his co-workers and superiors as he is with the rest of the aviating public. A well founded, valid complaint to the FSDO manager may either reign the guy in, or get rid of him. Same goes for DPEs.

As far as doing the checkride in two airplanes: legal, but a really bad idea in my opinion. All your candidate is doing is setting himself up to fail.

It's perfectly fair for the examiner to require whatever work was done in the skyhawk to be repeated in the arrow. Bad idea for any CFI candidate to put himself in that position

 

[nosehair]

If he/she did something like this to one of my applicants (removing his seatbelt during landing), I would take it up with his supervisor.
FAA Order 8900-2-

Examiners must not use, or ask the applicant to use, procedures contrary to those specified by the AFM. Under no circumstances may an examiner intentionally allow an applicant to violate a regulation, fail to comply with an air traffic control (ATC) clearance, or create a potentially hazardous situation. Practical tests not conducted in accordance with the applicable PTS, regulations, and safe operating practices may be invalid and may be grounds for termination of the examiner's designation.

The inspector intentionally violated FAR 91.107 during the course of a check ride and created a potentially hazardous situation.​

His supervisor would actually have to know what part of 91.107 was violated. The regulation only says the pilot (which is the applicant, the PIC) must ensure that the passenger ( the Examiner) must be notified to fasten the seat belt.

The PTS (all of 'em) say, in the front, that the examiner is supposed to do things that distract or interrupt the applicant to test real life reactions.

Maybe the guy is a tool - maybe not, but no one can tell from this little distraction.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Man.. must be nice . I had a 7.5 hour oral and a 2.3 flight for my initial. Did my CFII as the initial. was a real pain. This was with the Orlando FSDO though.

Wow, that's really long. I did the CFII initial with Orlando, and had a 3.5 hour oral and a 1.3 flight.

 

[Blackhawk]

His supervisor would actually have to know what part of 91.107 was violated. The regulation only says the pilot (which is the applicant, the PIC) must ensure that the passenger ( the Examiner) must be notified to fasten the seat belt.

The PTS (all of 'em) say, in the front, that the examiner is supposed to do things that distract or interrupt the applicant to test real life reactions.

Maybe the guy is a tool - maybe not, but no one can tell from this little distraction.

Inspector is not a passanger if he is logging flight time.

From 91.107, my emphasis:
(1) No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person's safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness.
(2) No pilot may cause to be moved on the surface, take off, or land a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board has been notified to fasten his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder harness.
(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:

If the applicant instructed in the inspector on how to use his seat belt he fufilled the requirements of 91.107. If the inspector, a crewmember of the airplane, intentionally removed his seat belt prior to landing he violated 91.107 and, it could be argued, 91.3 for violating the instructions of the PIC of the airplane.
In addition, the inspector would be violating FAA Order 8900 which prohibits creating a potentially hazardous situation by the removal of his seatbelt. If there were a landing accident- not unheard of- the survival of the inspector would be doubtful without a seat belt. Definately a inentionally created hazardous situation.

 

[nosehair]

Inspector is not a passanger if he is logging flight time.

Inspector is not logging time, except maybe when he is the sole manipulator.

If the applicant instructed in the inspector on how to use his seat belt he fufilled the requirements of 91.107. If the inspector, a crewmember of the airplane, intentionally removed his seat belt prior to landing he violated 91.107 and, it could be argued, 91.3 for violating the instructions of the PIC of the airplane.
In addition, the inspector would be violating FAA Order 8900 which prohibits creating a potentially hazardous situation by the removal of his seatbelt. If there were a landing accident- not unheard of- the survival of the inspector would be doubtful without a seat belt. Definately a inentionally created hazardous situation.

IF, ..if there were a landing accident, as a result of the 'seatbelt trick', or any other distraction designed to test the applicant's awareness and ability, you are right, IF the cause was the examiner's overexposure to undue hazard,...but, it is also very important for examiners to test applicants with reality.

Did you ever have an unruly student?

 

[Guy]

ICan FSDO do this?

Yes.

 

[Blackhawk]

Inspector is not logging time, except maybe when he is the sole manipulator.


Did you ever have an unruly student?

??? Never met an inspector who was not logging time while evaluating. He is certainly NOT a passenger. Even when sitting in a jumpseat an inspector is considered a crewmember.

 

[cadbury]

Also, can they fail my student for doing something wrong in the Arrow when they did it correctly in the C172r?

Yes! Inspector/Examiner can do that.

For instance, did a great lazy 8 in the C172 but the Arrow busted PTS? Even when the PTS wouldn't require them to do a lazy 8 in a complex aircraft? Could the FSDO inspector fail him or her for that?

Yes! Inspector has the right ("authority") to ask the student to do any maneuver in any aircraft!

I'm not looking forward to this examiner. He has quite a reputation. He fails guys for all kinds of stuff. Such as not knowing FAA form 337, not knowing the 8710 inside out, failing to brief the fire extinguisher in the plane, etc. His latest stunt for failing students is sliding off his seat belt during approach to landing. From what I understand it is not an obvious item, but he sneaks off the buckle and then hides the buckle with his hands in his lap. Btw, Do any other FSDO guys do this?

To answer you question, "Yes"! I have heard from my own ears!

Not only FSDO guys do that but also DPE!

 

[cadbury]

...but man do I hear lots of horror stories about CFI initial checkrides. Mine was so simple and straightforward. About a 2 hour oral, then a 2 hour flight in a 172RG.

I think I got lucky also, 4 hour oral, 2 hour flight. MEI as my initial.

Wow, that's really long. I did the CFII initial with Orlando, and had a 3.5 hour oral and a 1.3 flight.

You guys (germb747, Krieger, KSCessnaDriver) were damn lucky and easy to get away with! :bandit:

Man.. must be nice . I had a 7.5 hour oral and a 2.3 flight for my initial. Did my CFII as the initial. was a real pain. This was with the Orlando FSDO though.

I have 7 hours of oral and 3.5 hrs of flight! [read post here]. Done with Minneapolis FSDO!