FAA ends SPE

[Richman]

A lot of owner operators are pretty upset over this.

The SPEs have been around for like 40+ years. The FAA typically doesn’t make harsh certification decisions like this without some pretty substantial background. The Robinson and MU-2 SFARs took years to percolate up to the top, and that was with support of the manufacturers.

 

[T/O w/FSII]

A lot of owner operators are pretty upset over this.

The SPEs have been around for like 40+ years. The FAA typically doesn’t make harsh certification decisions like this without some pretty substantial background. The Robinson and MU-2 SFARs took years to percolate up to the top, and that was with support of the manufacturers.

As someone who use to professionally manage these owner operators in SoCal, I couldn’t be happier. None of them can afford the airplane as is, which was never good, and they would rarely listen to a professional.

These airplanes are dinosaurs. Time to put them down.

Also I’d argue that after finding out an illegal crew killed a famous nascar driver, that’s probably a substantial enough background.

 

[Roger Roger]

Reading the FAA letter, it looks like individual crashes are peripheral to the revocation. The main issue appears to be a whole lot of pencil whipping going on among the training providers and examiners involved in issuing these exemptions.

 

[CFI A&P]

Also I’d argue that after finding out an illegal crew killed a famous nascar driver, that’s probably a substantial enough background.

Reading the FAA letter, it looks like individual crashes are peripheral to the revocation. The main issue appears to be a whole lot of pencil whipping going on among the training providers and examiners involved in issuing these exemptions.

There's only one person I know that actually went to a 142 school for their SIC rating, and it was genius. They did it as a college student knowing the SPE is only valid domestically, and were frequently used as a contractor for trips OCONUS. It paid off in spades for them, and used it to network which secured them a full time job in larger jets by they time they graduated college.

 

[T/O w/FSII]

There's only one person I know that actually went to a 142 school for their SIC rating, and it was genius. They did it as a college student knowing the SPE is only valid domestically, and were frequently used as a contractor for trips OCONUS. It paid off in spades for them, and used it to network which secured them a full time job in larger jets by they time they graduated college.

Well as I mentioned earlier you don’t need to go to a school at all as most owners will let their chief/head pilot/CFI give you a 61.55 in the airplane, rubber stamp your logbook, show it to the local FSDO and boom you have a SIC type rating in the mail.

Also wait until you find out how many commandantes in Mexico have been known to look the other way or are just generally clueless about the SPE letter.

Fun fact, if you don’t carry the letter on you, it’s a two pilot airplane all of a sudden.

 

[DropTank]

There might be a bunch of CE-500s on the market if the owners didn't factor in 2 pilots. Does this take effect immediately?

2 pilots is very close in cost as single pilot once insurance is factored in

A lot of owner operators are pretty upset over this.

The SPEs have been around for like 40+ years. The FAA typically doesn’t make harsh certification decisions like this without some pretty substantial background. The Robinson and MU-2 SFARs took years to percolate up to the top, and that was with support of the manufacturers.

Widespread non-compliance and scufflaw activities was likely a major factor

 

[DE727UPS]

It was interesting that the FAA used poor training at 13 of the 14 schools that provided SPE training. A note from the FAA letter: "4 In response to the exemption review, the FAA took concurrent action against certain DPEs who administered checks for the non-compliant training providers. In the instances involving falsification of records, the FAA terminated the designee authority". I had some experiences at LOFT that were subpar. I guess I was used to 121 training but the DPE they had was doing 4 or 5 checkrides a day and had to be 80 years old. The other thing was they trained the checkride profile to the T. Everything at JFK just like the checkride was going to be and in order.

 

[CFI A&P]

Well as I mentioned earlier you don’t need to go to a school at all as most owners will let their chief/head pilot/CFI give you a 61.55 in the airplane, rubber stamp your logbook, show it to the local FSDO and boom you have a SIC type rating in the mail.

Oh I know, and get it. However, this person found a niche with owners (or insurance companies) that wanted 142 simulators.

 

[Richman]

Reading the FAA letter, it looks like individual crashes are peripheral to the revocation. The main issue appears to be a whole lot of pencil whipping going on among the training providers and examiners involved in issuing these exemptions.

I don’t like to cast asparagus with facts not in evidence, but going from the way it was handled, with practically no notice, it seemed wonky. I mean, they have planes stranded in some cases.

That said, it seemed like the whole thing leaned heavily on the Bro Code, the first rule of which is “Be cool, man”.

 

[Roger Roger]

I don’t like to cast asparagus with facts not in evidence, but going from the way it was handled, with practically no notice, it seemed wonky. I mean, they have planes stranded in some cases.

That said, it seemed like the whole thing leaned heavily on the Bro Code, the first rule of which is “Be cool, man”.

You can kill people for decades and the FAA might look the other way, but when they’re forced to take a look at the paperwork and they find people making • up the hammer comes down with catlike quickness. Just ask anyone who remembers LAB flying service.

 

[DropTank]

I don’t like to cast asparagus with facts not in evidence, but going from the way it was handled, with practically no notice, it seemed wonky. I mean, they have planes stranded in some cases.

That said, it seemed like the whole thing leaned heavily on the Bro Code, the first rule of which is “Be cool, man”.

It was a Load Bearing Bro Code

 

[Richman]

It was a Load Bearing Bro Code

Yea, violate a Bro Code that is load bearing, and there’ll be trouble for sure.

 

[tlove482]

A lot of owner operators are pretty upset over this.

The SPEs have been around for like 40+ years. The FAA typically doesn’t make harsh certification decisions like this without some pretty substantial background. The Robinson and MU-2 SFARs took years to percolate up to the top, and that was with support of the manufacturers.

I'm glad I never put in the effort to get the exemption. That would have been time and effort wasted.

 

[ahw01]

It was interesting that the FAA used poor training at 13 of the 14 schools that provided SPE training. A note from the FAA letter: "4 In response to the exemption review, the FAA took concurrent action against certain DPEs who administered checks for the non-compliant training providers. In the instances involving falsification of records, the FAA terminated the designee authority". I had some experiences at LOFT that were subpar. I guess I was used to 121 training but the DPE they had was doing 4 or 5 checkrides a day and had to be 80 years old. The other thing was they trained the checkride profile to the T. Everything at JFK just like the checkride was going to be and in order.

That’s gonna be a lot of 709 rides.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov