Commercial Check Ride Fail.

J

JSA736

Well-Known Member
Here's a story I found on the inter webs, what do you guys think?

Legit fail or total BS?

Story to go along with picture:

"Went to take my commercial checkride on Friday. Examiner mentioned that these seatbelts were missing "a grommet" that would keep the shoulder harness secured, and promptly failed me for "preflight procedures." I didn't know the part existed, as the POH and weight and balance only mention seat belts and shoulder harnesses, and not every individual component of the assemblies. Just a heads up, I guess these are considered an airworthiness item..."

http://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/2ieru5/psa_this_rubber_bushing_failed_my_commercial/

JbwQe5f.jpg
 
Technically legit fail. Everything on an aircraft needs to work unless it is (a) Part of MEL or (b) follows the 91.213(d) analysis. Perhaps a little overboard in practice, although, if you are familiar with the system (which is pretty common in a wide range of pre-mid-90's piston singles) the absence of that grommet usually results in the shoulder belt being almost useless because it comes off unless very tight.
 
That was an obscure AD that came out a long time ago. Do you own the aircraft or rent? If it was a rental then the flight school and mechanics bare some responsibility. If you've owned if for 10 years then it's more on you. Is it legit? My opinion is it's BS and the FAA should work with people rather than fail them over something like this. Same if it's a DPE. I'm sure you could go over any 40 year old airplane and find something wrong with it physically or in it's paperwork. But this is the FAA that allows night cargo airlines to ignore the Part 117 fatigue regs, so nothing really surprises me.
 
It could depend on how it went down, but I'm my opinion that is total BS. If I was in that situation or with a student taking a ride myself, I would be very angry.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Technically legit fail. Everything on an aircraft needs to work unless it is (a) Part of MEL or (b) follows the 91.213(d) analysis. Perhaps a little overboard in practice, although, if you are familiar with the system (which is pretty common in a wide range of pre-mid-90's piston singles) the absence of that grommet usually results in the shoulder belt being almost useless because it comes off unless very tight.
Click to expand...
I don't think I have ever seen the grommet installed and working...
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I don't think I have ever seen the grommet installed and working...
Click to expand...
I had never encountered a working bushing in the entirety of my training, which is why I never thought it was strange. The argument that the AD had been complied with is moot, if it was logged in the logbooks as complied, then how am I supposed to identify the part without some kind of diagram? (it's also a service bulletin,not an AD, so the legality of that enforcement is still being debated from what I've read) I don't have access to a repair manual. To the best of my knowledge, the aircraft was airworthy.
 
bimmerphile said:
I had never encountered a working bushing in the entirety of my training, which is why I never thought it was strange. The argument that the AD had been complied with is moot, if it was logged in the logbooks as complied, then how am I supposed to identify the part without some kind of diagram?
Click to expand...
The question I have is whether the failure was for the missing grommet or because the shoulder belts would not stay latched? That's been what I've noticed - whether they stay latched while a little loose. The ones that don't don't work.
 
I didnt have a problem with mine, and the examiner never attempted to secure his. It's like he was looking for this detail before trying to buckle it
 
If it's such an issue then he should haven given you a letter of discontinuance, not a failure. That is BS. You should wraggle the FAA to get the first "failure" off your record.
 
Reminds me of a story of my grandpa taking his driving test with the California DMV to reinstate his driver's license. His steering wheel was at just the right spot that the blinker switch wouldn't stay on and so it kept turning off... The guy was lazy and just didn't want to give the test, and he said the turn signal was broken and told him to come back when his car was fixed.... Just a total line of BS....

I could see a letter of discontinuance, but a check ride failure really?? What if I hopped in a plane with the examiner, and his seat belt didn't click in... It broke... Would I be failed for something I didn't know about that we just discovered that's not on the preflight checklist? IMHO if when discovered that the seatbelt would not stay latched properly, and the pilot chose to discontinue the flight, that IMO would show good decision making and warrant a letter of discontinuance not a check ride failure... Should we now be checking all the seat belts to be used to make sure they click in before hand so we're not failing check-rides? That's really absurd...
 
Last edited:
JustinS said:
Reminds me of a story of my grandpa taking his driving test with the California DMV to reinstate his driver's license. His steering wheel was at just the right spot that the blinker switch wouldn't stay on and so it kept turning off... The guy was lazy and just didn't want to give the test, and he said the turn signal was broken and told him to come back when his car was fixed.... Just a total line of BS....

I could see a letter of discontinuance, but a check ride failure really?? What if I hopped in a plane with the examiner, and his seat belt didn't click in... It broke... Would I be failed for something I didn't know about that we just discovered that's not on the preflight checklist? IMHO if when discovered that the seatbelt would not stay latched properly, and the pilot chose to discontinue the flight, that IMO would show good decision making and warrant a letter of discontinuance not a check ride failure... Should we now be checking all the seat belts to be used to make sure they click in before hand so we're not failing check-rides? That's really absurd...
Click to expand...
That was my reasoning as well. I had the logbooks with me, I called a maintenance shop on the field and had the part installed and notated within 30 minutes. Examiner had already left the airport.
 
Many DPE's perform their duty as a full time job. Their income can seriously get hurt along with their reputation. Not saying DPE's should ignore safety issues or concerns. But enough Student Pilots/Pilots/CFI/Flight Schools refuse to use them, their source of income can seriously get hurt.

Some highly competitve locations I've heard DPE's count strongly on School/CFI referal and RECOMMENDATiON.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top